Hey Look! Another Link

From David Perlman:

In the Afar language of Ethiopia, he's called Kadanuumuu, and to the Ethiopia-born anthropologist who found his bones, he could be called "Big Man," or even "Big Guy."

But to everyone else interested in the discovery of new fossil evidence for the ancestry of the human lineage, he'll be known as "Lucy's great-grandfather."

A team of noted fossil hunters reports this week the discovery of a creature in the same species as Lucy, but at least 400,000 years older than that famed female whose discovery in 1974 was hailed as a major step in piecing together the story of human evolution.

From the newfound fossils, their leading discoverer says scientists have determined that the creature - nicknamed Kadanuumuu, but known scientifically as Australopithecus afarensis - walked upright on two feet. It means that bipedalism was fully established as a normal way of life in human ancestry at least 3.58 million years ago, when this remote forebear lived.

The finding is reported in the current issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Yohannes Haile-Selassie, director of anthropology at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History who earned his doctorate at UC Berkeley, led the international team of fossil hunters in Ethiopia's arid Afar Desert that discovered evidence of the creature in 2005. They first found its single lower arm bone and kept digging for five more years before they assembled enough bones to identify it.

Its nickname, Kadanuumuu, is Afar for big and male.

In all, the scientists unearthed a left leg, a shoulder, a collarbone, a pelvis and parts of the rib cage - altogether about 40 percent of the entire skeleton, Haile-Selassie said.

Donald Johanson, Lucy's discoverer and now founding director of the Institute for Human Origins at Arizona State University in Tempe, called the "grandfather" report intriguing and, recalling the many recent discoveries of Lucy's fossil relatives, said: "This is really a remarkable time in the history of paleoanthropology."

Johanson noted that although Lucy was tiny - about 3 1/2 feet tall - Kadanuumuu was much larger - about 5 or 5 1/2 feet tall.

The size difference between Lucy, who lived 3.2 million years ago, and her "great-grandfather," is known as sexual dimorphism and is true for humans today, although the wide divergence in size of the two fossils is typical of those early creatures that still bore more traces of their descent from the ape lineage, Johanson said.

"The pelvis in both creatures is very advanced," said Owen Lovejoy, a co-author of the report by Haile-Selassie's group and one of the world's foremost experts on fossil anatomy. "There's a deep groove that shows they were pretty good runners. They had clearly evolved to walk very much as humans do, and to run fast without pulling a hamstring muscle."

Lovejoy also analyzed the bones of Lucy and "Ardi," the much earlier creature who lived some 4.2 million years ago - much closer to the unknown time in evolution when the lineages of humans and apes split from a "last common ancestor."

Ardi - Ardipithecus ramidus - was reported only last year by a team headed by Tim D. White of UC Berkeley who worked with Johanson on the discovery of Lucy more than 35 years ago. Ardi, who lived 4.4 million years ago, walked on two feet, but also climbed trees and was a much earlier arrival on the winding evolutionary pathways that led to all the hominids before us, Homo sapiens.

Evil: It's a Problem (Update)

Update: After the talk Durston offered me to contact him to start off a dialogue on the problem of evil. I must say that even though I strongly disagree with some of the positions he holds that he is a friendly man. This type of dialogue should be encouraged more often.

A few weeks back Kirk Durston gave a talk on the problem of evil at the University of Waterloo. I'll start by giving a point summary of the arguments that I stood out as being noteworthy. This will be followed by my thoughts on the arguments

Durston's position can be summarized as followed:
-God defined as perfectly good, all knowing
-Brings up the sceptical theism argument
-Takes a Dawkins quote to argue that there is no biological explanation for our morality (i.e. innate morality)
-Argues that moral law originates from a mind that transcends time-must be perfectly good
-Argues existence of evil entails existence of moral law, therefore God
-Gives an example of the birth of Churchill, low odds of that event, Churchill's decision saved millions in WWII
-Says that the rape and murder of a five-year old girl could be justified based on the idea of final judgement for the criminal

My thoughts to the arguments:

Sceptical theism can be summarized as " probability of a perfect God’s existence isn’t at all reduced by our failure to see how such a God could allow the horrific suffering that occurs in our world. Given our finite grasp of the realm of value, skeptical theists argue, it shouldn’t surprise us that we fail to see the reasons that justify God in allowing such suffering, and thus our failure to see those reasons is no evidence against God’s existence or perfection." (http://www.springerlink.com/content/u5781uq2439m8214/) In other words, God works in mysterious ways and we can't fully understand his intentions. We'll see how holding this position poses a problem for one of the arguments Durston makes later on.

The Dawkins quote I referred to, I can't recall the exact words, is from the 1970s. Anyone with a basic understand of science should have an alarm bell going off right about now. Science is changing and you can't use a scientific position from 40 years ago to prove a point, especially when that point is wrong. Aside: I can't help but laugh at what Dawkins would think of a theist using a quote of his to back up a theist argument. Advances in our understanding of human evolution have come up with explanations for innate morality. Consider that sociopaths have clear differences in their brain patterns. Here it must be assume that either Durston simply has not kept up on the scientific news or his being willfully deceitful to back up his view.

The Churchill example seems to miss the point that this argument can also be applied to Hitler. Surely his odds of being born were just as low as Churchill's. Hitler went on to lead a genocide and start a devastating war. So shouldn't we say that God had his hand in this terrible atrocity. Who's side is God on? I'm sure Durston would say that, God works in mysterious ways, though not in those words.

Finally, we get to the point that had me smacking my notebook into my face. Durston gives the scenario of the rape and murder of a five-year-old girl. Essentially, he says that because of the final judgement the criminal will get what he deserves. I can't recall if he mentioned this but I'm assuming the little girl goes to heaven. Given Durston's sceptical theism, we can't fully understand God, position I have a hard time understanding how he could justify certainty in the idea of final judgement. Whereas we can debate the origins of morality through studies based on actual evidence, the idea of final judgement is one based purely on faith.

The danger of sceptical theism is that it leads to moral nihilism. We can't really know God's intent so how are we to know that the evils of the world are really evil? Most of us would recoil and horror at the rape and murder of anyone of any age. Sceptical theists would say, well in the end it won't be bad but, let's not do anything to prevent it now because for all we know it's all part of the intent of a perfectly good being.

It is my hope that most people have a clear idea of that is good and evil. There are clear ideas of things you should not do and should prevent others from doing them as well. If you see evil don't stand around thinking, "we'll maybe there is some purpose to this evil". Stop it.

No, Not Likely

From Karen Gross:

No, this controversy will never end, because it is a battle between people who have very strong convictions about what they believe.

Creationists cannot accept the theory of evolution because to do so would contradict the Bible. Some Christians have tried to make compromising theories, such as theistic evolution, which proposes the idea that God used the process of evolution.

This theory is unacceptable to fundamental Christians, who believe that the Biblical account of creation in the book of Genesis is meant to be taken literally.

Another theory similar to theistic evolution is the gap theory. Those who promote this compromise say that they believe in the Biblical record as is, but they believe that there was a gap of an unknown number of years, possibly several million years, between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

Proponents of this theory believe that they are keeping the “scientifically proven” facts of evolution intact, such as the age of the Earth and the rest of the universe, dinosaurs, fossils, ice cores, ice ages, and geological formations; while allowing a literal belief in the Biblical account.

Neither of these compromise theories is actually true to the Biblical record. They only address the question of how God created the world. The Bible goes on to say that there was no death in the Garden of Eden. This includes animals.

Before the fall of man, God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground – everything that has the breath of life in it – I give every green plant for food.” (Genesis 1:29-30)

Theistic evolution and the gap theory, as well as a theory that the days of Genesis don’t necessary stand for 24 hour days – all include the death of creatures.

In order for fossils to have formed and for carnivorous animals to eat, there had to have been death. But the Bible record shows that both man and animals ate only vegetation until at least after the fall of man.

The first time that God is recorded as saying that animals could be eaten if after the flood. In Geneses 9 God told Noah, “Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.” (Genesis 9:3)

There is nothing said about people or animals being carnivorous or omnivorous


between the fall and the flood, although it does mention that some people kept animals. For example, Adam’s son Abel kept sheep and he offered a lamb to God.

Evolutionists cannot accept the Biblical account of creation because to do so they would have to accept the God of the Bible.

Thomas Woodward, in “Doubts about Darwin” quotes New York Times science writer James Glanz, “Supporters of Darwin see intelligent design as more insidious than creationism, especially given that many of its advocates have mainstream scientific credentials, which creationists often lack.”

Dr. Eugenie Scott (executive director of the National Center for Science Education and a leading critic of young earth creationism) has said “The most striking thing about the intelligent design folks is their potential to really make anti-evolutionism intellectually respectable.”

So we have two sides – Creationists and Evolutionists – that are not likely to agree on how we got here, at least not in this life. There are compromising theories in both camps, but the purists at both ends of the spectrum are far from meeting in the middle.

Thomas Woodward, in “Doubts about Darwin” quotes New York Times science writer James Glanz, “Supporters of Darwin see intelligent design as more insidious than creationism, especially given that many of its advocates have mainstream scientific credentials, which creationists often lack.”

Dr. Eugenie Scott (executive director of the National Center for Science Education and a leading critic of young earth creationism) has said “The most striking thing about the intelligent design folks is their potential to really make anti-evolutionism intellectually respectable.”

So we have two sides – Creationists and Evolutionists – that are not likely to agree on how we got here, at least not in this life. There are compromising theories in both camps, but the purists at both ends of the spectrum are far from meeting in the middle.




Intelligent design is a relatively new theory which is a compromise by scientific minds that look at the fossil record and the complexity of the earth’s plants and animals and conclude that this complexity must be the work of an intelligent designer.

Nor should we make any attempts to meet in the middle with those who insist on using some ancient book to support a view on how we came to be. The Bible is no more valid than any other work of fiction in explaining our origins.

There is No Debate Now Sit Down and Shut the Fuck Up

From Justin Gillis:

Many debates about global warming seem to boil down to appeals to authority, with one side or the other citing some famous scientist, or group of them, to buttress a particular argument. The tone is often, “My expert is better than yours!”

Against this backdrop, some analysts have been trying for several years to get a firm handle on where climate researchers come down, as a group, on the central issues in the global-warming debate: Is the earth warming up, and if so, are humans largely responsible?

Now comes another entry in this developing literature. William R.L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, and his fellow authors compiled a database of 1,372 climate researchers. They then focused on scientists who had published at least 20 papers on climate, as a way to concentrate on those most active in the field. That produced a list of 908 researchers whose work was subjected to close scrutiny.

The authors then classified those researchers as convinced or unconvinced by the evidence for human-induced climate change, based on such factors as whether they have signed public statements endorsing or dissenting from the big United Nations reports raising alarm about the issue. Then the authors analyzed how often each scientist had been published in the climate-science literature, as well as how often each had been cited in other papers. (The latter is a standard measure of scientific credibility and influence.)

The results are pretty conclusive. The new research supports the idea that the vast majority of the world’s active climate scientists accept the evidence for global warming as well as the case that human activities are the principal cause of it.

For example, of the top 50 climate researchers identified by the study (as ranked by the number of papers they had published), only 2 percent fell into the camp of climate dissenters. Of the top 200 researchers, only 2.5 percent fell into the dissenter camp. That is consistent with past work, including opinion polls, suggesting that 97 to 98 percent of working climate scientists accept the evidence for human-induced climate change.

The study demonstrates that most of the scientists who have been publicly identified as climate skeptics are not actively publishing in the field. And the handful who are tend to have a slim track record, with about half as many papers published as the scientists who accept the mainstream view. The skeptics are also less influential, as judged by how often their scientific papers are cited in the work of other climate scientists.

“We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence” of human-induced climate change “vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians,” Mr. Anderegg and the other authors write in their paper.

Climate-change skeptics will most likely find fault with this research, as they have with similar efforts in the past. For starters, Mr. Anderegg’s dissertation advisers are Christopher Field and Stephen H. Schneider, two of the most prominent advocates of the mainstream view of climate change; Dr. Schneider is a co-author of the new paper.

The climate dissenters have long complained that global-warming science is an echo chamber in which, they contend, it is hard to get published if one does not accept the conventional wisdom that humans are heating up the planet. So they argue that it is circular reasoning to claim a broad scientific consensus based on publication track records. The mainstream researchers reject that charge, contending that global warming skeptics do not get published for the simple reason that their work is weak.

In this long-running battle over scientific credibility and how to measure it, the Anderegg paper analyzes a particularly large database of climate researchers, and therefore goes farther than any previous effort in attaching hard numbers to the discussion.

Not that I actually expect the denialists to go away. They are, as the article points out, likely to find "flaws". Regardless, hopefully those who still had doubts on the consensus will be convinced.

Let's Laugh at Jesus

From American Atheists:

Religious Right Coalition Trying to Deny Americans The Freedom to Choose.

Comedy Central has announced plans to develop a new show, “J.C.” that takes a lighthearted look at Jesus, God and other mysteries of the universe — and that’s just fine with a national organization of Atheists.

Christian and Jewish groups are objecting, though, and have launched a campaign to pressure VIACOM, the parent company of the network, to end production. This comes just weeks after an Islamic group made threats over the “Draw Muhammad Day,” once again raising the specter of blasphemy legislation, and intimidation of those who poke fun — or possibly even just question — organized religion.

“They just don’t get it,” said Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists. “The religious conservatives like the Catholic League are behaving like Islamist fundamentalists in trying to censor what Americans want to read, see, or say about religion. They may be using slightly different tactics, but it amounts to the same thing — censorship.”

“The freedom to satirize any idea or belief is crucial to true liberty,” added Buckner. “As Thomas Jefferson is reputed to have said, ‘The remedy for bad speech is more speech, not less,’ and that goes for all other forms of religious and political expression. No group should be able to protect its ideas through intimidation. Only weak ideas or beliefs need or want the protection of so-called ‘blasphemy’ laws.”

“There should be no special rights or privileges for religion. Comedy Central should not have caved in to pressure from Islamic extremists in the past and should not now cave in to Christian bullies.” (Buckner pointed out that an episode of “South Park” was recently “bleeped” for its depiction of Muhammad.)

Dave Silverman, Communications Director and Vice President of American Atheists, said that if they wanted to distinguish their religions from that of authoritarian Islamists, Christian and Jewish groups should be defending the program, not trying to censor it. “They might actually benefit from standing up on behalf of freedom of choice in the marketplace, and taking a stand against censorship by either corporate interests or the government,” said Mr. Silverman. “And remember — the next step is trying to pass restrictive laws that forbid ‘blasphemy’ or anything else that mocks or questions religion. That’s dangerous social policy, it violates the Bill of Rights and our Constitution, and it’s un-American.”

When people asked why we were so involved with Draw Muhammad Day, I said specifically that the censorship of Muhammad was only the beginning, and that this would lead to more squelching and further reduction in freedom of the press and speech, let alone religion.

Here we go. Now, the Christians and Jews are climbing on board. They don’t want to be joked about either! It doesn’t matter that they’ve never seen the show, they just want the same protections from Comedy Central that were afforded the Muslims.

They should, in fact, be granted that, but that doesn’t mean all religions should be protected against criticism – it means NONE of them should be protected. It means everyone (atheists certainly included) should be aware that anyone can say anything about them, and that comedy and satire are market driven, not law (or terrorism) driven.

If they fear criticism or satire, it just shows you how weak their position (“there’s an invisible magic man in the sky”) is.

This does not end here. THERE WILL BE MORE. Coming next will be more small but significant steps toward the complete protection of mythology from ridicule, to the complete detriment of our Constitutional rights.

I'll often hear Christians say, "well at least we aren't like those Muslims going crazy over their prophet". I guess they forgot that when they started their own efforts to censor a cartoon about Jesus. Oh the irony.

Bus Campaign in Chicago

From Manya A. Brachear:

When the Indiana Atheist Bus Campaign and American Humanist Association wanted to spark a public conversation last spring about the origin of religion, they plastered Chicago's buses with a provocative twist on Genesis: "In the beginning, man created God."

When the Chicago Coalition of Reason wanted to proclaim that no one needs God to be good, they posted a billboard a few months later above a LaSalle Street sandwich shop in Chicago's Loop.

So when the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation took its controversial slogan touting the benefits of sleeping in on Sundays to honor the day of rest, they came to Chicago first, a city where they knew they would be welcome.

"There are more freethinkers in Chicago than we have in our membership," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, which rolled out a series of ads on Chicago buses this month. Freethinkers argue that beliefs should be based on rationality, not on religious tradition or dogma.

"We have to reach them, provide an alternative to religion and let them know we're here. Many of us reject the idea of blind faith," Gaylor said.

Historically scorned and forced to live in silence for decades, atheists, agnostics and self-described freethinkers are basking in the glow of a renaissance, spreading their gospel of reason in lieu of religion with billboards, bus placards and celebrity endorsements. Advocates have found particularly fertile ground in the diverse religious landscape of Chicago, where the American rationalist movement took root at the turn of the 20th century.

Their messages vary. While some secularists want to promote an ethic of goodwill toward men and women and show like-minded people that they aren't alone, others want to dish out what they have been taking all these years.

"This is a reaction to the newly emergent political power of Christians," said Phil Zuckerman, professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., referring to the religious right movement of the past 30 years. "I think secular people feel they need to respond if they want to shape their own world and society."

The campaigns also signal a demographic shift, said Ariela Keysar, associate director for the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

"They have a growing audience," she said. "They have people who can not only pay attention but sympathize with that message."

The most recent American Religious Identification Survey, conducted in 2008, found that the "no religion" category was the only group to have grown in the continental United States since the previous poll in 1990.

Nationally, the "nones," as they have been dubbed, nearly doubled, from 8 percent to 15 percent. In Illinois, the "none" population grew from 8 percent to 13 percent. Experts say those numbers don't account for the atheists and agnostics who still stay mum about religion.

In fact, nonbelievers have felt alienated for decades, said Hemant Mehta, coordinator of the Chicago Coalition of Reason, the group that sponsored a billboard last fall that asked passers-by: "Are you good without God? Millions are."

"Our goal was to say 'Hey, atheists out there already, we're here. If you agree with us, come check us out,'" Mehta said. "Meeting people who are like-minded can be really tough for atheists."

Matt Lowry, 37, a science teacher in Vernon Hills and the organizer of the North Suburban Chicago Freethinkers, said he never wore his beliefs, or lack thereof, on his sleeve. But the more it came up in conversation, the more he realized how the collective silence has caused atheists and agnostics to be misunderstood.

"Just because you're a nonbeliever does not mean you're kicking little old ladies down the stairs or eating babies," Lowry said. "There's this common misperception. For too long, the nonbelieving community in this country has basically allowed religious fundamentalists to define them that way."

Though nonbelievers generally eschew dogma, they do abide by a moral code much like the world's major religions. Zuckerman said the golden rule — Do unto others as you would have them do unto you — is the "sum total of atheist morality."

Nonbelievers also generally value independent thinking, freedom of thought, freedom of speech and equality, he said.

It's hard to know if the confrontational way these groups present their message is healthy for the body politic, said the Rev. Paul Rutgers, co-executive director of the Council of Religious Leaders of Metropolitan Chicago.

"Quite obviously a significant portion of the religious community is going to be upset," Rutgers said. "We'll probably do several things, including be angry and deeply offended. Perhaps also some will give more serious thought to their own faith commitments. The fact of the matter is we're living in a culture that in many ways beyond this challenges our faith commitments. So in that regard it's a reminder that in many respects this is not a friendly environment."

Bring it on, Teabaggers

From Jennifer Hancock:

On Saturday June 19th, The Atheists of Florida hosted a “Meet the Atheists” event at the Pinellas Park library. 29 people attended this event, 17 of which self identified as atheists. Included in the group were two women who appeared to be affiliated with the tea party as their van had “Pinellas Patriots” written on the windows in pink liquid-chalk.

Aside from the two “Patriot” women, most of the participants were friendly and stuck to the requested format of asking questions of the panel, which included Rob Curry - Executive Director for the Atheists of Florida, Ed Golly – Chair, Tracy Thomas – Secretary, Ellenbeth Wachs – Director Lakeland chapter, and Gina Harvey – President of the USF atheist student alliance.

The two tea party “patriots” were described as confrontational and had to repeatedly be reminded that they were supposed to be asking questions and not just making assertions and belligerent statements.

Eventually Ellenbeth Wachs, who is known to get a bit testy when her patriotism is questioned, had had enough. In response to a barrage of questions along the lines of “why can’t you people be more tolerant?” And “would you be tolerant of a historical prayer in city council as an invocation?” Ellenbeth responded with a very loud “NO!!!” She then went on to point out that just because anti-Semitism was a tradition didn’t mean it was ok when Germany established itself as a Christian nation and wrote anti-Semitism into it’s 25 point charter.

The tea party lady said she thought the comparison of wanting to have a city council say a “traditional Christian prayer” with what happened in Nazi Germany was silly. What is silly is the fact this very same women doesn’t seem to realize that her own hate against people named Juan as evidenced by the “Hate Juan” slogan written on her van is the same sort of hate that led to the slaughter of the Jews by Hitler. Or that her hate is justified by the same adherence to a very angry and exclusive form of Christianity as practiced by the Nazi party in Germany.

Angry form of Christianity? You mean like the style practiced by many teabaggers?

What We've Learned Since Lucy

"Whatever we’ve been saying about afarensis based on Lucy was mostly wrong."

Much like the revolution of modern astronomy in the late 1400s and early 1500s dissolved the notion that the Sun revolved around the Earth, a renaissance in paleontology is dissolving virtually any doubt that remained about man's origins. Another new discovery has just been completed, the latest of several high profile publications over only the last year.

The new skeleton is a male Australopithecus afarensis, which has been discovered in Ethiopia’s Afar region. The skeleton joins the celebrated "Lucy" skeleton, unearthed by paleoanthropologists in 1974, and a child skeleton unearthed last year.

The ancient male, an ancestor of modern man, lived approximately 3.6 million years ago in the plains of Eastern Africa, according to several dating techniques. Yohannes Haile-Selassie of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, who led the team, says the skeleton offers some major new insights into the species.

The skeleton has been nicknamed "Big Man" as it towers at 5 to 5½ feet tall over the much shorter 3½-foot-tall Lucy, who lived 3.2 million years ago. That large height deviation raises questions over which of the specimen is the norm in terms of height. The new skeleton was unearthed between 2005 and 2008 at a dig site only 48 km from where Lucy was found.

The skeleton also reveals new insights into the bone structure of the species. Big Man's 32 discovered bones reveal long legs, a narrow chest, and a inwardly curving back. All of these indicate that he walked much like a human and enjoyed a ground-based lifestyle. This is very different from the awkward gait that Lucy was thought to have. Lucy also had been thought to climb trees a great deal.

The shoulder blade of Big Man is quite different from chimpanzees or gorillas. And the ribs also appear human-like. All of these factors indicate a far different chest shape than the chimplike, funnel-shaped chest that reconstructions of the Lucy skeleton indicated.

While confusing perhaps in context with Lucy, the conclusion that ancient hominids were not chimplike is consistent with the analysis of the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus ramidus hominid that was conducted last year.

Professor Haile-Selassie states, "Whatever we’ve been saying about afarensis based on Lucy was mostly wrong. The skeletal framework to enable efficient two-legged walking was established by the time her species had evolved."

Carol Ward of the University of Missouri in Columbia seems to agree with these conclusions, stating, "This beautiful afarensis specimen confirms the unique skeletal shape of this species at a larger size than Lucy, in what appears to be a male."

While the discovery may have cleared up debate about whether Lucy was more chimplike or humanlike, the debate about gait is sure to continue. Harvard University anthropologist Daniel Lieberman states, "There’s nothing special I can see on this new find that will change anyone’s opinion."

Anthropologist Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University, however, believes that the discovery shows Big Man to be a good runner, which could have made the 3.6-million-year-old footprints found more than 30 years ago at Laetoli, Tanzania. Among the evidence supporting this hypothesis are Big Man's pelvis supported humanlike hamstring muscles and human-like arched feet.

The full study on the Big Man discovery is published here in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A separate 3.3 million year old skeleton of a 3-year-old baby female A. afarensis was presented four years ago. Nicknamed "Selam" (the word for "peace" in several African languages), the near-complete skeleton was found in 2000 south of the Awash river by a team led by Zeresenay Alemseged of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The paper on that discovery was published in a 2006 edition of Nature and can be found here.

These discoveries add to the aforementioned recent discovery of "Ardi", the discovery of Australopithecus sediba, and the completion of an early draft of the Neanderthal genome. All of these wonderful discoveries have helped to blow away the fog of uncertainty surrounding human evolution and offered a much clearer picture of how man arrived at its current form after a slow process of evolution that took millions of years.

Fundamentalists? No

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/15844

A pastor is trying to frame atheists as fundamentalists:

Wrote Pastor Prather: “Atheists remain a tiny minority, but they’re far more vocal and combative than they used to be, an approach advocated by [Richard] Dawkins and others. They have every right to state their views. The irony is that this current brand of aggressive atheism is just another form of fundamentalism. These particular atheists are zealots on the subject of faith who see no shadings of gray, only black and white. They’re dead-set against religion but weirdly obsessed with it.”

What Prather has done here, as theists often do, is confuse fundamentalism with passion. While I'm not going to argue on whether Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris/Dennet's everything about religion is bad view is right, I will say that calling them fundamentalists is off the mark.

A fundamentalist applies to those of faith you hold views that contradict all known evidence and reason. I am strongly passionate and vocal about my atheism but the moment there is evidence to prove god I am going to be a theist. On the other side though you have theists who would likely still believe in god even if we could manage to disprove his existence.

Replacing Religion

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201006/why-atheism-will-replace-religion-ii

From Nigel Barber:

Thanks to the many people who responded to my previous post. Some comment writers put words into my mouth by suggesting that this would happen "soon." Others claimed I said that religion would disappear completely. Let me clarify these and other issues.

Worldwide, disbelief in God is around a tenth of the population according to surveys conducted around 2004 for 137 countries that remains the best estimate. Even if it were true that the other nine tenths will eventually lose their faith in God, this would take a long time.

How long? The world population continues to grow and much of the growth is in religious countries where women have larger families. Religion is thus unlikely to decline appreciably for several decades, after world population begins to decline.

In writing about atheism (strictly disbelief in God) replacing religion, I meant two things. First, at some distant point in the future, the number of believers will decline as the number of non believers increases. How far can this process go? Based on what has already happened in a handful of developed countries, mostly in Europe, it is clear that disbelief in God can become a majority opinion. So disbelief in God may replace religion as the majority view which would be a remarkable transition from the 99% of believers in underdeveloped countries.

Of course, any predictions concerning the future of belief in God are predicated on our notions of economic development. I happen to believe that economic development will continue throughout the world and that increasing prosperity will bring down birth rates of poorer countries, just as happened for developed nations.

It is not hard to imagine scenarios where this does not happen from rogue asteroids to radical global warming, and the emergence of epidemic diseases like bubonic plague, any of which that could arrest economic development and secularization.

If the world economy does continue to grow and lifts currently poor nations into prosperity, how sure can one be that the improved confidence of survival and better living conditions (i.e., existential security) will translate into higher levels of disbelief in God? My statistical analysis of this problem finds that as much as three-quarters of the country differences in disbelief are explainable in terms of existential security and control variables. This means that as such matters go we can be very sure indeed (less than one chance in 10,000 of being wrong).

To summarize, if economic development is inevitable so are increasing levels of religious disbelief.

Much is made of the U.S. as a bastion of religion but this is exaggerated. Some 13% of American adults reported in 2008 that they had no religion which is above average for the world and a further 3.5 million (or 1.5% of adults) self describe as atheist or agnostic. Another 5% of people refuse to answer the question which is three times as many as refused 20 years ago. Religious practice is also in decline based on attendance data (Norris & Inglehart, 2004, p.92) a fact is sometimes missed due to poor wording of survey questions by Gallup and others.

Some readers were offended by the notion that religion serves as a security blanket but that is seemingly more a matter of semantics and rhetoric than a real issue. After all, most religions, including Christianity promise peace of mind and it is not something to be scoffed at either considering the health impact of psychological stress.

Others contented themselves with arguing that religion is always more than just coping with uncertainty and distress. I can certainly appreciate that there are other aspects to religion including rituals, rules of conduct, ethical implications, and so forth. Yet, the moral high ground claimed by religious people is an illusion as I pointed out in detail in three previous posts.

Creationism in Russia

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/russian-creationism-sound_b_610266.html

From Michael Zimmerman:

Religious fundamentalists have begun promoting creationism in Russia -- and they are doing so using many of the same strategies and buzzwords adopted by fellow extremists in the United States.

According to a news story released by Reuters, Archbishop Hilarion Alfeyev of the Russian Orthodox Church recently called for Russian schools to begin teaching "religious explanations of creation ... alongside evolution." The Archbishop wants to end what he called "the monopoly of Darwinism."

Archbishop Hilarion went even further, noting that "Darwin's theory remains a theory. This means it should be taught to children as one of several theories, but children should know of other theories too."

He made it clear that this attack on evolution was part of a broader mission claiming that he "was dedicated to fighting 'fanatical secularism' of liberals hostile to religion."

All of this is painfully similar to the rhetoric being promoted by the religious right in the United States. Archbishop Hilarion's "fanatical secularism" sounds just like the Discovery Institute's call for the "overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies" and its related cry for a new type of science: "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

Creationists have long argued that evolution is "only a theory," purposefully ignoring the meaning of theory within the scientific community. Simply put, within science there isn't anything better than theory. An idea is elevated to the status of theory only after many multiple studies have provided data consistent with predictions and when the idea has been shown to make useful predictions about the future while comprehensively explaining the past. Evolution does this as well as, if not better than, every other scientific theory across all fields of science.

And the Archbishop's implication that evolution and religion are in direct conflict also mirrors the endless messages spewed forth by creationist organizations in the United States. Take, for example, a couple of the ridiculous comments made by Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, the folks who brought us the $27-million creationist museum-cum-theme-park where we can view humans and dinosaurs cavorting together in amazingly realistic dioramas.

In a podcast with the intriguing title "Darwinism -- It Can Lead to Satanism," Ham asserts, "I've always said that evolution is an anti-God religion and that the more people believe it and act consistent with it, the more anti-God they'll become."

Similarly, in an article explaining the need for his theme park, Ham argued, "When visiting many secular museums around the world, I've watched thousands of children gaze with wonder at evolutionary displays which were, sadly, indoctrinating them in humanistic, anti-God thinking."

Although the narrative that evolution is anti-God is popular within creationist circles in the States and, apparently, around the world, there's simply nothing to support it -- and there's plenty to argue against it.

In Science, Evolution, and Creationism, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) addresses this issue head on.

Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.
Additionally, the Clergy Letter Project was founded to dispel the myth that evolution is anti-God. More than 13,000 clergy members in the United States have signed the Christian Clergy Letter, the Letter from American Rabbis, or the Unitarian Universalist Clergy Letter. Each of these Letters makes it clear that evolution is fully consistent with the religious belief of the thousands of clergy members who have added their endorsements, and each makes it clear that evolutionary theory, and only evolutionary theory, should be taught in public school science classrooms and laboratories.

The creationists believe that if you repeat a message often enough and loudly enough, people will begin to accept it as accurate, regardless of the truth of the matter. Archbishop Hilarion has either adopted their strategy of vocal dissemination of disinformation, or he has been fooled into accepting this anti-intellectual nonsense. Either way, the world is a poorer place because of his actions, and many more people will be suckered into accepting the false premise that they must choose between religion and science.

Help combat the spread of this disease by joining forces with those clergy members and scientists who understand that science does not attempt to disprove the existence of a deity; indeed, as the NAS has made clear, science does not possess the tools to undertake such an endeavor.

And share with me the outrageous belief that if we repeat the truth often enough it will make a difference in public understanding and in public policy.

"Science Will Win Because it Works"

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20006990-71.html

From Chris Matyszczyk:

There were some techies Monday who believed they experienced a sighting of God somewhere in San Francisco.

Those people might care to hark at deeply relevant news. God will be defeated by science. No, not by faltering Wi-Fi systems at a conference. And, no, these are not my words. This is the considered opinion of someone sometimes referred to as the cleverest man in the world, Stephen Hawking.

In an interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer, due to air Monday evening, Hawking expounded upon the largest questions, those that transcend iPhones and androids: Can science and God live happily ever after?

According to ABC News, Hawking first tried to define God in a way that he, as a scientist, might feel comfortable: "What could define God (is thinking of God) as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," he said.

Indeed, he expressed disappointment at how humans have thought of deity.

"They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible," he said.

Perhaps there will be some who might conceive that stranger things have happened. Others will nod sagely, while still secretly hoping there is another life after this one. However, couldn't one imagine a point at which science and religion somehow meet, shake hands and positions and agree on a concord?

Hawking, who has already recommended that we should steer clear of aliens, suggested to Sawyer that this was somewhat less likely than North Korea winning the World Cup: "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, (and) science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."

I wish I could live in and with such certainty. Somehow, the more we know, the further away we are from something that feels real.

I cannot help thinking of baseball players, filled to their hat peaks with science's latest creations: HGH, steroids, and all sorts of female hormones. They smite the ball into the nearest river.

Yet, as they stomp on to home plate, what do they do? They look up at the sky and cross themselves. Perhaps they get their HGH from aliens. Perhaps, though, there is still some way to go before we can be sure that science will prove absolutely everything about our weird and occasionally wonderful universe.

I mean, can science really explain the deity that is Justin Bieber?

The True Goals of the ID Movement

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/charles-darwin-and-adolf_b_601718.html

(And why you can't blame evolution for the Holocaust)

From Michael Ruse:

You could make a good case for saying that Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) started two and a half thousand years ago with Socrates, because it was he who first thought up the Argument from Design to prove the existence of God. The world is too complex and functional to be the product of blind, unguided laws of nature, the argument goes. Hence there must be another reason, an intelligence that we can call "God." The modern form of IDT started in 1991 with Darwin on Trial by now-retired law professor Phillip Johnson. This was followed later in the decade by Darwin's Black Box, by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, and then by The Design Inference by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. It was argued that certain aspects of the world, the world of organisms particularly, exhibit an "irreducible complexity" -- the flagellum of bacteria was a favorite example -- that and the only satisfactory explanation is a guiding, intervening intelligence. This argument asserts that the Darwinian theory of evolution through natural selection is just wrong.

IDT is not straightforwardly a variant of traditional American creationism. For a start, although Young Earth Creationists represent supporters of IDT who believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old, other IDT proponents, notably Behe, are very comfortable with the generally accepted ages of 15 billion years for the universe and about 4.5 billion for the Earth. However, there are links between IDT and creationism to the extent that some (myself included) refer to it as "Creationism Lite." In a devastating critique, Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, philosopher Barbara Forrest and scientist Paul Gross showed just how deeply IDT is entwined with an evangelical Christian agenda. Moreover, IDT is pushed as a front for a very conservative social program -- anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-capital punishment, and anti-feminism. (I used to wonder why Phillip Johnson was so obsessed with cross-dressing. I really don't think that Richard Dawkins goes home and slips into a bra and panties. Then someone pointed out to me that the real target is stroppy broads in pant suits -- think Hilary Clinton meeting world leaders.)

IDT has had a somewhat mixed second decade. In the first part of the 1990s it did really well, aided especially by the support of the conservative Discovery Institute, a think tank in Seattle. But then the forces of science started to fight back seriously. First-class books refuting IDT were published, notably Brown University biologist Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God, which shows just how threadbare are the scientific pretensions of IDT, and Michigan State University philosopher Robert Pennock's The Tower of Babel, which did the same on the philosophical front. As is well know, in 2005 the school board in Dover, Pennsylvania wanted IDT introduced as part of the biology curriculum in their schools; after a much-publicized trial the judge, a conservative Christian appointed by George W. Bush, wrote a scathing condemnation of the board's actions.

However, it would be silly to think that IDT has just curled up and died or gone away. It is still cherished in the hearts of many American evangelicals, and recently it has even been making inroads in the most respectable of circles. For instance, in my own field of philosophy the leading philosopher of religion, just-retired Alvin Plantinga, has long been sympathetic to its claims. (Even though he worked at Notre Dame University he is a Calvinist, which makes his sympathy for IDT all the more surprising given Calvin's insistence on the rule of law down here in God's creation). Now, the no-less-leading social philosopher from New York University, Thomas Nagel, has come out in favor of teaching IDT in schools. He has endorsed a recent book by Discovery Institute associate Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, naming it in the Times Literary Supplement as one of the top books of 2009.

I don't here want to go back over the criticisms of IDT as science. I really just don't see anything new that needs saying on that front. And in an earlier blog I drew attention to what seem to be grave theological problems with IDT. Namely, if you get God involved on an ongoing basis in the creative process, then although He deserves praise for the good things, He also walks right into criticism for the horrendously bad things, like deleterious mutations that cause lifelong suffering and pain. However, I do want to draw attention to a different tactic that is now employed by IDT supporters: trying to tar Darwinian natural selection theory with the sins of National Socialism. There is a direct line, so we learn, from Charles Darwin to Adolf Hitler. As some have tried to pin the blame on Martin Luther, so now the blame is being pinned on the author of the Origin of Species. From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany, by Discovery Institute associate Richard Weikart, is a prime example, although if you go to Amazon.com you will see that there are others. In like vein, the movie Expelled, featuring former New York Times columnist Ben Stein, made the connection a major story theme.

Prima facie, you might think that there is something to all of this. If you look at Charles Darwin's Descent of Man, published in 1871, you will find some pretty conventional Victorian ideas about the races. At the other end, if you look at Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, you will find some passages that do seem to draw on Darwinian theory: "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."

Now, let me say, speaking now as a historian of ideas, I don't think you can or should say definitively that there are no links. Apart from anything else, something had to lead to Hitler and the Nazis, and if you eliminate Luther and eliminate Darwin and eliminate -- well, you know the tune -- then you end up with no causes at all leading to the horrendous movement that overtook Germany in the 1930s. I would be very surprised if the anti-Semitism of Christianity and the racism of the nineteenth century had no causal role. However, before you rush to conclude that the IDT crew is correct and that significant links can be found between Darwin himself and Hitler, there are a number of points that should be considered.

First, the members of the Darwin family were fanatical anti-slavery campaigners. In the early part of the nineteenth century, when the young Darwin was growing up, this was the family obsession. And it rubbed off on him. On the voyage of the Beagle, he had a horrendous row with his captain, Robert Fitzroy, over slavery in South America. And during the American Civil War he was a strong supporter of the North, precisely because of the slavery issue (many Brits supported the South because of the links with the cotton trade). Descent of Man, for all that it did reflect the concerns of a middle-class Victorian gentleman, was no clarion call to racial superiority. Darwin was explicit that when the races met and (as so often was the case) the non-Europeans suffered, it came not from intellectual or social superiority but because non-Europeans caught the strangers' diseases and suffered and died.

Second, while it is true that many used Darwin's ideas to promote specific social policies, and that some used them to promote aggression -- the pre-World War One German general Count Friedrich von Bernhardi argued strongly for the moral imperative of Germany fighting and destroying competitors -- there were others who promoted very different ideas. The co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace, was an ardent socialist and feminist in the name of Darwinism. The Russian Prince Peter Kropotkin argued for anarchy in the name of Darwin. And Vernon Kellogg, associate of then future president Herbert Hoover, argued for pacifism on Darwinian lines. Wars kill the best and brightest and that is biologically stupid.

So you can argue that Darwinism, a bit like Christianity, supported a plethora of quite contradictory positions. This being so then, a bit like Christianity, one might ask just how genuine and important was the support being offered. There was a propaganda value, true. But genuine links are another matter. (I should say that since I am criticizing the IDT folk for thus tying Darwin to Hitler, I am no less critical of Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion tying Jesus to Hitler. The truth, as always, is much more complex than it appears in such simplistic analyses.)

Finally, when you turn to Hitler himself, the story is murky. To put the matter politely, he was not a well-educated man. There is no evidence he studied Darwin's writings or much about them. At most, he was picking stuff up off the street or from the barroom or from the doss house where he lived in Vienna before the War. And when you look at Mein Kampf in more detail, the story seems less straightforward. Just before the apparently Darwinian sentiments quoted above, he wrote: "All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning." What he is really on about is the Jews. Darwin would have been appalled at such a connection.

So take my advice. Reject IDT as bad theology, bad philosophy, and bad science. And while you are at it, reject it as bad history. Charles Darwin was not to blame for Adolf Hitler.

Trying to link atheism and Asperger's syndrome

http://www.examiner.com/x-21239-Oakland-Skepticism-Examiner~y2010m6d3-What-atheism-and-Aspergers-syndrome-share-in-common-and-a-look-at-purpose-driven-answers

From Examiner:

"A recent post over at the Scientific American Mind and Brain blog has been getting a lot of attention in the past few days and not without reason. According to the column's author a graduate student from Belfast has found a correlation between those diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, a high-functioning form of Autism known for poor sociality and narrow interests, and Atheism.

Specifically, this researcher asked participants to given open answers to questions regarding significant events in their lives and both groups - the atheists and those with Asperger's - ranked high in non-teleological answers. What this suggests on the surface is a similarity in thinking, some sort of shared cognitive process. I for one, have my doubts.

First, definitions.

Teleology is the study of purpose, from the Greek telos. If I were to show you long handled object with a blunt head and two rounded hooks protruding from the tip and ask you what it did, you would probably infer that it was meant to hammer nails - this is teleology, deciphering purpose.

When anthropologists attempt to determine whether a stone they found is a Oldowan stone-axe or a irregularly shaped rock, they must engage in teleological reasoning to reach an informed conclusion. At the same time when you ask a child "Why are rocks pointy?" their answer will invariably be along the lines of "so they can cut things."

Where things get interesting in psychology is where the developmental line between "Rocks are pointy so they can cut things" and "Rocks are pointy because, as mineral formations, they fracture along sharp divides, forming narrow ridges and points." Generally speaking, children are more likely to give a teleological answer to a question than an adult.

Where this is not true or at least not as true is areas of personal experience or importance. Ask an adult why they were the sole survivor of that car accident and you will rarely find someone who says it was luck, or gives some other "mundane" answer. More often you'll find them searching for purpose - telos. They were thrown clear of that accident because God has a plan for them, or they were supposed to survive because they had something left to accomplish, etc.

What this means for the study.

First of all, a warning: I write this based off my reading of a blog post which in turn was based off the memory of a talk delivered at a conference. Parity is not going to be high here. Hopefully we get some juicier details from the authors themselves in the near future, but in the meantime...

Finding that Asperger's patients engage in far less teleological reasoning than their "neurotypical" counterparts is very interesting. Drawing the connection from that to Atheism is a stretch. While true that both groups responded to questions in similarly non-purpose driven manners, one detail shears this tenuous connection.

The atheists, as expected, often invoked anti-teleological responses such as “there is no reason why; things just happen.” The people with Asperger’s were significantly less likely to offer such anti-teleological explanations than the atheists, indicating they were not engaged in teleological thinking at all. (The atheists, in contrast, revealed themselves to be reasoning teleologically, but then they rejected those thoughts.) [Emphasis mine]

Those with Asperger's may in some way simply not be conceiving of things teleologically (and a study between adult Asperger's and children Asperger's against neurotypical peers would be great to investigate this further) the Atheists in the study clearly do possess that function. Rather, they have made a conscious choice to disregard it in favor of more mechanical or naturalistic explanations.

To illustrate this with real events, consider two situations. Several months ago I was having a conversation with my sister while walking to the store. Just as we reach the corner of the street we need to cross, the light turned green and the walk sign lit up. Turning to me she said "Don't you just love that? I always feel like the light turns green just for me when that happens."

As a matter of fact I do love that, and I have often felt the same way. Now of course it isn't true, the light simply happened to turn green at that moment. In some deep recess in our minds however, we both saw an action - the light changing color - and derived a purpose - it wanted to, so we wouldn't have to slow our step. Not being idiots and having a basic understanding of how our local traffic lights work, we didn't believe this teleological answer and instead favored the mechanical explanation. We're traffic-light atheists you might say.

Religious people, along with other forms of magical thinking, are more often the ones who really do believe the traffic light changed for them - though not with quite such mundane events. (Which is why, I'm sure, the study this is all about asked people about significant events in their lives.)

Since we covered atheism with a real world example, we have another real world event that demonstrates precisely the opposite. In one of my earliest articles, Imagining Divinity, we looked at two very different cultures worlds apart, where two religious groups came to supernatural conclusions about the purpose of two natural events.

At the time the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) was struggling with whether or not to allow homosexual men to serve as pastors in their churches. During one of the days this debate was being had a tornado swept through the town damaging several buildings - including the conference center hosting the ELCA. One conservative pastor was quoted saying "The tornado in Minneapolis was a gentle but firm warning to the ELCA and all of us: Turn from the approval of sin. Turn from the promotion of behaviors that lead to destruction."

In other words the purpose of the tornado of the tornado was to send a warning. Examples of this can be found everywhere in religion, so it comes as absolutely no surprise that those who consciously reject religion also consciously reject the forms of thinking religion exemplifies - with the vast majority of the worlds population some manner of theist, the average "amount" of teleological thinking is going to be skewed in that direction.

Another way to look at it is, perhaps I'm putting the cart before the horse. Perhaps I should be saying the "amount" of teleological thinking is responsible for the high percentage of religious persons.

Either way, atheism and Asperger's may share an affinity for the mechanical and naturalistic, but an affinity is all it probably is."

Why Do Atheists Exist?

http://www.truthout.org/why-did-god-create-atheists60189

Greta Christina asks, "Why Did God Create Atheist"?

Why did God create atheists?

This is a question I always want to ask religious believers. (One of many questions, actually. "What evidence do you have that God is real?" and "Why are religious beliefs so different and so contradictory?" are also high on the list.)

If God is real, and religious believers are perceiving a real entity... why is anyone an atheist? Why don't we all perceive him? If God is powerful enough to reach out to believers just by sending out his thoughts or love or whatever... why isn't he powerful enough to reach all of us? Why is there anyone who doesn't believe in him?

It seems to be a question that troubles many believers as well. At least, it troubles them enough that they feel compelled to respond. And as atheism becomes more common and more vocal, this compulsion to respond seems to be getting more common and more vocal as well.

I've seen a couple of religious responses to this question. Neither of which is very satisfactory. But they keep coming up... so today, I want to take them on.

Open Your Heart To Me, Baby

For more traditional believers, the answer to why atheists exist is simple: Atheists have closed our hearts to God. God has reached out to atheists -- but we don't want to believe. We want to pursue a selfish and sybaritic life, and don't want to obey God's laws (so say the real hard-liners)... or we've been hurt by life or by religion, and we're rejecting God out of anger (so say the marginally more compassionate believers). But it's important that we have free will -- so we have to be free to reject God as well as to accept him. God can't force us to believe. That would be cheating.

Uh huh.

See, here's the problem with that.

Or rather, here's a whole set of problems.

For starters: This idea is totally unfalsifiable. There's no way to prove that you honestly gave religion a chance. Until we develop the technology to accurately record the inside of somebody's head and play it back in somebody else's, there's no way to prove that atheists are sincerely open-minded and willing to consider religion.

Atheists can say a hundred times, "Really, I'm telling you, I've looked at this carefully, I've meditated on it, I've examined the evidence, I've studied lots of different religions... and I just don't find any of it convincing." We can ask believers to give us good evidence or arguments for God. We can point out the pain and distress many of us went through when we let go of our beliefs -- pain and distress that this "You've just closed your heart to God" trope seriously trivializes. We can even go out on a limb and point to the kinds of evidence that would convince us we were mistaken (something just about no religious believers are willing to do). But since we can't demonstrate the state of our minds and hearts, believers can always say, "You aren't sincere. Your mind and heart are closed."

There's no way to prove that they're wrong. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Which makes it an entirely useless one. If there's no possible way to show that your hypothesis is false, there's no way to know whether it's true.

What's more, the "You've hardened your heart against God" trope is a perfect example of moving the goalposts. No matter how many times we gave God the old college try... we clearly haven't tried hard enough. I mean -- we don't believe! If we'd tried hard enough, then obviously we'd believe! The fact that we don't believe is proof that we haven't tried hard enough. Q.E.D. (It's a fairly entertaining logical fallacy, actually: a unique blend of moving goalposts and circular reasoning. I'm kind of impressed.)

And then, of course, we have the niggling little problem of self-deception and rationalization.

The human mind is very prone to believing what it already believes. It's very prone to believing what it's been prompted to believe. And it's very prone to believing what it wants to believe. Rationalization is a deeply hard-wired part of how the human mind works, and while it's a surprisingly important part -- among other things, it enables us to get on with our lives without being totally paralyzed -- it's something we always need to keep in mind when we're deciding if the things we believe are really true.

So if the only way to believe something is to try really, really hard? If what it takes to believe something is to "open your heart" -- i.e., to put yourself in a state of suggestibility and wishful thinking?

That's not a very good sign that this something is true.

Quite the contrary.

If we care about whether the things we believe are true -- if we want to be sure that we're not just fooling ourselves into believing what we already believe or what we want to believe -- then the times we're trying really hard to convince ourselves of something? Those are exactly the times we should be most skeptical. That's not when we should be opening our hearts. That's when we should be on our guard.

The reality for me, and the reality for a whole lot of atheists? I am open to my mind being changed. Heck, I used to be a believer. I used to be more than just open to the idea of God -- I used to believe in God. (Or something that I was willing to call God.) In fact, it was my willingness to change my mind, my openness to reconsidering new possibilities, that led me to let go of my religious beliefs in the first place. And if someone can give me some really good reasons to change my mind back again, I will.

But "You just have to open your heart" is not a good reason. It's an unfalsifiable argument -- nothing I do can prove that I'm sincerely open to the God hypothesis. Its goalposts can be moved forever -- no matter how carefully I've considered religion, people can argue that I need to consider it just a little more. And it's basically a defense of wishful thinking as some sort of positive virtue. (Besides, nobody's ever given me a good reason why I should open my heart to their particular god: why I should open my heart to Jesus instead of to Allah, or Ganesh, or the Goddess, or that blue peacock god some people worship in northern Iraq.)

"You just haven't opened your heart" is clearly a terrible explanation for why God would allow atheists to exist.

Are there any better ones?

I Love You Just The Way You Are

There is another religious response to the puzzling question of why there are atheists. And unlike the unfalsifiable, goalpost-moving, "let's treat people like pariahs for wanting to be careful that the things they believe are true" hostility of "You haven't opened your hearts," it's a response that typically comes from more progressive, tolerant, pluralistic believers.

It's this: "God doesn't care if you're an atheist."

"As long as you're a good person," this idea goes, "as long as you love other people and try to do right by them, God's fine with you. God doesn't need your worship or your praise, or even your faith. God loves atheists, too. He doesn't care whether you believe in him."

Yeah. See, here's the problem with that.

God may not care whether I believe in him.

But I do.

I want to understand the world. I care about reality, more than I care about just about anything. If there really is a God who created everything, who guided the universe and the process of evolution so conscious life could come into being, who animates all life with his spirit -- I bloody well want to know about it. I don't want to be flatly wrong about one of the hugest questions humanity is faced with. In my years as an atheist writer, I keep asking believers again and again, "Do you have some evidence for your belief? If you do, please tell me about it. I want to see it." And I'm not being snarky, or baiting them into a debate I know they can't win. (Well... not mostly.) If I'm wrong about this, I sincerely want to know.

Why does God deny me that knowledge? Why does he give it to some people, and not others?

And maybe more to the point:

If there really were a loving creator of the universe who animates all life including my own, and from whom all that is good and valuable about the world emanates, I wouldn't want to be alienated from him. I'd want to be connected with him. (Her. It. Them. Whatever.) Especially the touchy-feely God that the progressive, tolerant, pluralistic believers believe in. There are certainly plenty of gods I wouldn't worship even if I thought they were real -- the God of fundamentalist Christianity is a sadistic nutjob, and even if he existed I wouldn't give him the time of day. But the warm, gentle, "source of all life/ force of goodness and love in the universe" God that progressive believers believe in? Sure, I'd want to know him. I'd have some serious questions for him -- why is there suffering, why is there evil, why can't the Cubs win a goddamn pennant to save their lives -- but I'd happily have a beer with the guy. We could be friends. I mean, he's the source of all life, the force of goodness and love in the universe. Of course I'd want that in my life. Why on earth wouldn't I?

If God exists... then why isn't he reaching out to me? Isn't it cruel of him to reach out to some people but not to others? (Not to mention the manipulative game-playing he seems to be doing, where he reveals himself in wildly different and even contradictory ways to different people, and then sits back while they duke it out over which one is right.) Why does he manifest in some people's hearts, but not in others? Why is he being such a passive-aggressive jerk?

Let me be very clear about this: I am entirely happy to be an atheist. I'm not one of these whiny, moody, "I wish I could believe" atheists that so many believers think is the only valid kind of atheism. I am tickled pink to be an atheist. I won't pretend that I didn't lose a form of comfort when I left my beliefs -- but I gained so much in return that the loss is a clear bargain. And the comforts I have now are far more comforting... since they're built on a foundation of reality. I don't have the constant nagging feeling in the back of my head that my beliefs are just wishful thinking, and that I've built my philosophy on a foundation of sand. I'm persuaded that God does not exist, and that's just ducky with me.

But I'm happy with my atheism because I'm persuaded that it's correct. I'm happy not feeling God in my life because I'm persuaded that God doesn't exist.

If God really existed, I sure as heck would want to know about it.

So why don't I?

If God really exists -- why don't I know about it?

As an atheist, I have some really good answers for why people believe in God even though he doesn't exist. The human mind is prone to numerous cognitive errors -- and many of those cognitive errors make people susceptible to religion. We tend to see intention, even where no intention exists. We tend to see patterns, even where no pattern exists. We give excessive weight to personal emotional experience, and aren't good at applying critical thought to those experiences. We don't have a good intuitive understanding of probability, and tend to think events are more improbable than they really are. We tend to believe what authority figures tell us. We tend to believe what we're taught as children. We tend to believe what people we know and trust tell us. We're reluctant to question the things that everyone else in our social group believes. Etc., etc., etc. People believe all sort of things that aren't true... and from an atheist/ materialist viewpoint, that makes perfect sense. Atheism is not even a little inconsistent with the belief in gods who don't exist.

But the belief in God is very much inconsistent with the existence of atheists. I have yet to see a religious believer give a good answer for why God exists -- but not everyone experiences him or believes in him. I have yet to see a good answer for why God bestows the experience of his existence (however inconsistently and contradictorily) onto some people -- but not onto others. I have yet to see a good answer for why God is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good -- or even anything close to all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good -- and still isn't perceived by everybody.

Material for Evolution

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/06/02/jumpinggenes-provide-extensive-raw-material-forevolution.html

Jumping genes provide extensive 'raw material' for evolution, an American study has shown.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine found that any two peoples' genomes differ at roughly 285 sites out of the 1139 sites studied.


These results were found by scanning the genomes of 25 individuals, 15 of which were unrelated.

Jumping genes - also called transposons - are sequences of DNA that move to different areas of the genome within the same cell.

Study co-author Haig Kazazian, Seymour Gray Professor of Molecular Medicine, in the Penn Department of Genetics, said:

"The significance of this work is that there is much more diversity in our genome due to insertions by this family of transposons than previously thought.

"This movement of genetic material provides the raw material of genetic evolution, and it doesn't take into account the insertions that we believe occur outside of the sperm and egg cells studied in this project."

Transposons are a source of diversity within a species' gene pool, with implications on many levels.

For example, slight changes in genes help organisms adapt and survive in new environments, and populations with genetic diversity are less vulnerable to disease and problems with reproduction.

Insertions into certain spots in the genome can also cause cell function to go awry, so understanding their placement and variation in the human genome is important for a fundamental understanding of disease.

Insertions can cause many genetic diseases, such as hemophilia and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and may play a role in the development of cancer.

Retrotransposons are the major class of jumping genes, with the L1 family the most abundant type of retrotransposon in the human genome.

L1s comprise about 17 percent of the human genome.

Eventually, continuous jumping by retrotransposons expands the size of the human genome and may cause shuffling of genetic content.

For example, when retrotransposons jump, they may take portions of nearby gene sequences with them, inserting these where they land, and thereby allowing for the creation of new genes.

Even otherwise unremarkable insertions of L1s may cause significant effects on nearby genes, such as lowering their expression.

Retrotransposons move by having their DNA sequence transcribed or copied to RNA, and then instead of the genetic code being translated directly into a protein sequence, the RNA is copied back to DNA by the retrotransposon's own enzyme called reverse transcriptase.

This new DNA is then inserted back into the genome.

The process of copying is similar to that of retroviruses, such as HIV, leading scientists to speculate that retroviruses were derived from retrotransposons.

The team also found that on average 1 in 140 individuals have obtained a new L1 insertion from their parents.

When all retrotransposon insertions, including L1 and others, are considered about 1 in 40 individuals have received a new insertion from their parents.

The current study counted insertions in the heritable germ cell line, that is in egg and sperm cells.

Kazazian said: "The real elephant in the room is the question of the incidence of somatic insertions, insertions in cells that aren't eggs or sperm.

"We don't yet know the incidence of those somatic insertions."

The findings of the study appear online in Genome Research. (ANI)

Bad News from Queensland

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/creationism-to-be-taught-in-queensland-classrooms/story-e6frf7l6-1225873019548

I feel bad for the children. They are going to be taught that the crackpot idea of creationism as a "controversy". Right, that controversy that doesn't exist in the scientific world. To be fair this isn't being taught in science class but framing it is a controversy is the wrong way to go.

Creationism Where it Doesn't Belong

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism

"Northern Ireland's born-again Christian culture minister has called on the Ulster Museum to put on exhibits reflecting the view that the world was made by God only several thousand years ago.

Nelson McCausland, who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel, has written to the museum's board of trustees urging them to reflect creationist and intelligent design theories of the universe's origins.

The Democratic Unionist minister said the inclusion of anti-Darwinian theories in the museum was "a human rights issue".

McCausland defended a letter he wrote to the trustees calling for anti-evolution exhibitions at the museum. He claimed that around one third of Northern Ireland's population believed either in intelligent design or the creationist view that the universe was created about 6,000 years ago."

"Anti-Evolution" he sure doesn't mince with words. How about, anti-intellectual, irrational, dead-brain, idiotic?

""I have had more letters from the public on this issue than any other issue," he said.

The minister said he wrote a "very balanced letter" to the museum because he wanted to "reflect the views of all the people in Northern Ireland in all its richness and diversity".

Earlier in his letter to the museum's trustees McCausland said he had "a common desire to ensure that museums are reflective of the views, beliefs and cultural traditions that make up society in Northern Ireland".

His call was condemned by the evolutionary biologist Professor Richard Dawkins, who said: "If the museum was to go down that road then perhaps they should bring in the stork theory of where babies come from. Or perhaps the museum should introduce the flat earth theory."

Dawkins said it was irrelevant if a large number of people in Northern Ireland refused to believe in evolution. "Scientific evidence can't be democratically decided," Dawkins said.

McCausland's party colleague and North Antrim assembly member Mervyn Storey has been at the forefront of a campaign to force museums in Northern Ireland to promote anti-Darwinian theories.

Storey, who has chaired the Northern Ireland assembly's education committee, has denied that man descended from apes. He believes in the theory that the world was created several thousand years ago, even though the most famous tourist attraction in his own constituency – the Giant's Causeway on the North Antrim coast – is according to all the geological evidence millions of years old."

Faith: causing humans to deny the obvious.

"Last year Storey raised objections to notices at the Giant's Causeway informing the public that the unique rock formation was about 550m years old. Storey believes in the literal truth of the Bible and that the earth was created only several thousand years before Christ's birth.

This latest row over Darwin versus creationism in Northern Ireland comes at a delicate time for the Ulster Museum. Earlier this month it was shortlisted for the UK's largest single arts prize. The Art Fund Prize annually awards £100,000 to a museum or gallery for a project completed in the last year.

The belief that the Earth was divinely created in 4004 BC originates with the writings of another Ulster-based Protestant, Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher, in 1654. Ussher calculated the date based on textual clues in the Old Testament, even settling on a date and time for the moment of creation: in the early hours of 23 October."

The Vatican Is Taking All Challengers (See Below for Exceptions)

http://www.examiner.com/x-2044-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m5d31-Vatican-excludes-Richard-Dawkins-and-Christopher-Hitchens-from-atheist-debate-guest-list

The Vatican is ready to have people challenge its' ideas. Or is it?

"In an effort to improve relations between non-believers and the Catholic Church, the Vatican has decided to host a series of debates in Paris. The pope ordered that a foundation be established to facilitate open dialogue between atheists and agnostics and top Catholic theologians.

The foundation, Courtyard of Gentiles, which was set up by the Pontifical Council for Culture, hopes to host the debates next year. Even though the church is opening its doors to atheists, they are being selective about which atheists will be allowed to participate. According to a report on The Independent Web site, "militant" atheists, especially those who have "high public profiles such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will not be invited."

The president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, told the National Catholic Register earlier this month that they were prepared to host non-believers who were of the "noble atheism or agnosticism" persuasion. He said that "polemic" non-believers like Piergiorgio Odifreddi, Michel Onfray, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens would not be invited. He added that those kind of atheists meet the truth with "irony and sarcasm."

I know plenty of atheists who dismiss "the truth" with "irony and sarcasm". I wouldn't call them high profile either. The Vatican is really limiting its' choices here. Perhaps they are afraid of being owned by the atheists?

Dan's the Man

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/letters/2010-06-01-letters01_ST2_N.htm

Daniel Dennet responding to criticism of the New Atheists:

"Commentary writer Karl Giberson apparently is so rattled by the New Atheism that he cannot quote accurately ("Atheists, play well with others," On Religion, May 24).
In the Forum piece, he says of me: "Tufts University philosopher and leading atheist Daniel Dennett no doubt finds all this mystifying, since he thinks seminary education should ultimately terminate one's faith: 'Anybody who goes through seminary and comes out believing in God hasn't been paying attention,' he told The Boston Globe." As the Globe article made clear, I was quoting a joke made by a pastor. If this were an isolated incident, I wouldn't bother responding, but faith fibbers like Giberson are polluting the media with their misrepresentations of the New Atheism.

We New Atheists don't need to tell lies to get our points across; the truth is damning enough. Our critics seem to have decided that telling the truth is just not a strong enough weapon to ward off the threat they see us posing. They should reflect that their willful misrepresentations dishonor the faiths they are defending.

Daniel Dennett; North Andover, Mass."