A question for monotheists

Check out this video challenge to followers of Christianity, Judiasm, Islam, the Bahá'í faith and other monotheistic religions.

What do you think about non-believers asking religious individuals to justify their religious beliefs?

BCA Drops Libel Case Against Singh!!

Update:  According to Ben Goldacre, Singh may go after the BCA to recover his legal costs. You can read more on the case and the remaining need for British libel reform in Goldacre's article in the Guardian.

The British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has dropped is libel case against science journalist Simon Sigh following the recent ruling that Singh could appeal an earlier verdict against him.  Details can be found on the BCA's website here (PDF) via the Sense About Science site here or at the Libel Reform Campaign website here.

BCA V SIMON SINGH - PRESS STATEMENT – 15th APRIL 2010

Having carefully considered its position in the light of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (1st April 2010), the British Chiropractic Association (BCA) has decided to discontinue its libel action against Simon Singh.
...
The BCA takes seriously its duty and responsibilities to members and to chiropractic patients. The BCA has considered seeking leave to take this matter to the Supreme Court and has been advised there are strong grounds for appeal against the Court of Appeal judgment. However, while it was right to bring this claim at the outset, the BCA now feels that the time is right for the matter to draw to a close.

Despite this big victory for Singh, it's only a non-loss for free speech.  Libel laws in the UK still need reform to protect free speech and promote open dialog -- and not just in the UK, but world-wide.

I would have preferred the outcome where Simon won his case on appeal, setting legal grounds for future libel cases against journalists. To learn more about libel law reform in the UK, visit the Sense About Science and The Libel Reform Campaign websites.

Small free speech victory: Singh wins right to appeal!

For details, jump on over to this BBC article. While you're there, definitely watch the video and listen to what Singh has to say on the need to reform libel laws in the U.K.

I couldn't find a way to embed that video here, but here's a little more from him after the ruling...

To learn more about what you can do to help reform libel laws in the U.K., visit the Sense About Science and The Libel Reform Campaign websites.

---

Update:

More from the BBC...

Behold... the human brain!

"...one of science's final frontiers ... the human brain."

Tonight, while sharing a late night bowl of ice cream, my wife and I happened upon the fourth episode of the Brain Series by Charlie Rose. It pretty much poked all my science-dork buttons, so I of course had to run right over to the computer and put up a post telling you to watch the series - it's cool stuff!!

You can see all available episodes of the series here. The discussions cover some interesting and important topics. I'm already excited for next episode on brain development and child learning.

I haven't watched them all yet, but the series seems to touch on a variety of topics related to what our brains do and how they do it. The format is the usual scene: a table full of experts moderated by Charlie Rose. If anything, it's a great chance to hear a handful of experts discussing some of the latest insights into common brain disorders like autism/ASD, schizophrenia, and depression. There is also a fair bit of discussion related to brain development during the first few years of life, which should be of interest to parents.

For more info, check the links above and your local PBS listings.

A racist judge on why he's not racist.

You've likely heard of Louisiana Judge Keith Bardwell, who recently refused to issue a marriage license to a couple because the groom is black, and the bride white. Understandably, lots of people want him fired.

His overt racism aside, Louisiana judges should be further embarrassed to call this guy one of their own on account of his failure to use basic logic...

That's right, when asked how he would respond to someone asking him if he was racist, he replied

Aboslutely not... My definition of a racist is to hate black people, or treat black people different than anybody else.

Surely denying someone a marriage license based on their race doesn't fit either of those definitions, right?

How does U.S. healthcare compare with other countries?

Many have already seen this nice article by T. R. Reid in the Washington Post, but it's such a worthwhile read I thought I'd give it some mention here.  The short answer to the question in the title above is summed up nicely near the end of the article:

In many ways, foreign health-care models are not really "foreign" to America, because our crazy-quilt health-care system uses elements of all of them. For Native Americans or veterans, we're Britain: The government provides health care, funding it through general taxes, and patients get no bills. For people who get insurance through their jobs, we're Germany: Premiums are split between workers and employers, and private insurance plans pay private doctors and hospitals. For people over 65, we're Canada: Everyone pays premiums for an insurance plan run by the government, and the public plan pays private doctors and hospitals according to a set fee schedule. And for the tens of millions without insurance coverage, we're Burundi or Burma: In the world's poor nations, sick people pay out of pocket for medical care; those who can't pay stay sick or die.

More details on the proposed U.S. healthcare system changes - and the many myths and outright lies about those those changes - at:

• The White House - Health Care Reform
  
• 10 Health Care Reform Myths - CBS News
  
• Factcheck.org - search for "health care" and "3200"
  

Secret "UFO Files" released by British government

No, seriously - I'm not kidding.



Fortunately, this isn't just the British government waiving it's arms around about alien invasions or attempted kidnappings (although it does have that feel in places).

Instead, it appears to be a collection of reports about UFOs that does a decent job pointing out that Unidentified Flying Objects are exactly that, unidentified. While they don't go as far as explaining why that doesn't at all suggest aliens are the culprits, they do at least avoid fanning the flames. Anyway, as far as UFOs go, it appears that whenever they actually do get identified - well lets just say that so far, no extraterrestrials...

As it turns out, I myself once witnessed some UFOs back in Colorado during the summer of 1997 (give or take a year). I was driving up to the mountains one evening to visit friends, and off to the west, I could see 2 hovering bright balls of light, way up in the sky. These were much, much larger than any start or comet and looking perfectly motionless other than a sort of eerie shimmer to their bright glowing light. As I watched, to my amazement a third then a fourth appeared out of nowhere, forming a line with the other lights... mind you, I didn't (and still don't) believe there are alien visitors cruising around our atmosphere, but I was a little freaked out by what I'd seen. I just couldn't come up with any better explanation!

As it turns out, my UFOs - like so many others - became "IFOs"... they were identified (following other reports) as aireal flares that dropped during training exercises out of the nearby Ft. Carson military base. I've since had closer views of such flares dropped during training exercises, which appeared exactly like what I had seen that night out in the prairies as I drove up into the foothills.

Anyway, getting back to the British UFO files, one Dr. David Clarke and his books are rather prominent on the site. His take on all this talk about UFOs and aliens?

To my way of thinking, the cultural factors which influence people to 'believe' and to 'see' UFOs, and how those stories are then passed on by word of mouth, the media and the internet, leading to more belief, is the most fascinating aspect of the subject. UFOs, in my view, tell us more about ourselves than they do about 'alien visitors.'

Have fun browsing the archives, checking out the highlights, and (if anything) learning about the human mind as its great capacity to misinterpret and fear the unknown. I guess you might even let it serve a bit of a warning about the importance keeping your B.S. detectors honed and ready to counter your most persuasive of foes - your own mind.

"Creation Astronomy" by Dr. Jason Lisle

When I heard there was going to be someone speaking about "Creation Astronomy" during my upcoming trip (in a couple of hours, actually!) to the famed Creation "Museum", I snooped around for a preview of what I was in for. Here's a taste...



Before I get into some of what he says in this talk (see the rough transcripts I've included below), lets take a moment and have a look at Jason Lisle.

While some might roll their eyes at the notion of "Creation Astronomy," Jason Lisle is no hobby-astronomer-turned-evangelist... According to his biography at Answers in Genesis he seems to know his stuff way better than the average Joe when it comes to Astronomy:

Dr. Lisle graduated summa cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he double-majored in physics and astronomy, and minored in mathematics. He did graduate work at the University of Colorado where he earned a Master’s degree and a Ph.D. in Astrophysics. While there, Dr. Lisle used the SOHO spacecraft to investigate motions on the surface of the sun as well as solar magnetism and subsurface weather. His thesis was entitled “Probing the Dynamics of Solar Supergranulation and its Interaction with Magnetism.” He has also authored a number of papers in both secular and creation literature.

For another look into Jason Lisle's take on "Creation Astronomy" check out this critique (or this one) of his "What Does the Bible Say About Astronomy?" which contains many of the points made in the video above (and much of what I expect to hear this Friday during his talk.)

IMHO, he seems like a pretty darn smart guy who's just stuck bending the facts so that they fit his world view. Anyway, on to the video above...

According to Lisle (in the talk above, starting around 12:00) "the Bible is not an astronomy text book, but when it touches upon astronomy, it's right." What follows are some vague quotes from the Bible that in a sense (in most cases, a very loose sense) are consistent with what we know about planets, stars, and the like. This is a classic case of handpicking where the Bible gets a few things "not wrong" and jumping to the conclusion made above: "when it touches upon astronomy, it's right."

For example, the Bible allegedly gets it right that the earth is a sphere. In the video he presents that there are...

some statements the Bible makes that are sort of astrophysical in nature, they're not intended to be, you know, for, necessarily for Ph.D. scientists, they're just statements that God has made that are true, and we would all agree are true today, even though the science of the times didn't necessarily agree with these statements.

For example, the Bible talks about the earth being round in Isaiah 40:22 [760-698 B.C.], it says ... it talks about the circle of the earth [God sits `upon the circle of the earth...']. And there's some other passages in scripture as well, like in Job 26 ["Job 26:10 (-2000 B.C.)"] where it talks about the line between light and darkness being described by a circle ['He drew a circular horizon on the face of the waters, At the boundary of light and darkness.'].

Slam dunk, right? Earth clearly indicated as a sphere, yeah? Er, no.

First, these quotes are super vague. They just as well assert that the Earth is a circle as it is a sphere... it could be a circle in a plane or a disk-like cylinder as far I as can tell. Heck, it could even just as well refer to God sitting on the moon (I could see a poetic association between the moon and "the circle of the earth", can't you?) - it's all a matter of interpretation.

When the Biblical quotes get really iffy, he's careful with his wording. He doesn't call such statements vague or difficult, he calls them...

some beautiful poetic statements like God 'hangs the earth upon nothing.' [Job 26:7 (200-1800 BC)] which seems like a description of the earth floating there in space. And I grant you it's kind of a poetic statement, and it's made by Job not God, so we have to be a little bit careful, but it does sound like these ancient peoples new something about astronomy.

Yes, "a little bit careful" indeed. But, while these ancient peoples did know a thing or two about Astronomy, they got a few things wrong. Most notably, that the sun, moon and stars don't all revolve around a stationary Earth.

This little fact was left out of Jason's talk: the well known and very obvious fact that the Bible consistently talks about "the Heavens" in accordance with a geocentric view of astronomy.

So at this point, I'm starting to get the feeling that one could make at least as strong an argument that when creationists mention astronomy, they mostly get it wrong.

Anyway, it just keeps on going... again, quoting the video above:

The universe is expanding. God 'stretches out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.' [Isaiah 40:22 (760-698 BC)] the Bible says many many times that the universe is being expanded. And it's interesting because it wasn't until the 1920s that the secular science, um, kind of caught up with that and realized that indeed the universe is being stretched out.... Really amazing. You know, this is a little more abstract, but I do believe the Bible teaches the conservation principle. That is the Conservation of Mass: the amount of stuff that is in the universe is constant. Because, we know that God - all things were made by God - furthermore God stopped making things at the end of the creation week. According to Genesis 2:2, God finished his work of creation. [All things were made by Him... John 1:3, and 'And on the seventh day God ended his work...' Genesis 2:2]. So we would not expect anything new to come into existence, you see. And, furthermore we would not expect anything to cease to exist, because God upholds all things, and by him all things consist. [God 'is upholding all things...' Hebrews 1:3, and '... by him all things consist.' Colossians 1:17]. We now call that the conservation of mass, or the conservation of energy. Einstein tells us that mass and energy are the same, really. So it wasn't really until the 1800s that was codified in terms of science, but the Bible got it right.

It seriously pains me to listen to these shaky rationalizations! Are we really to believe that from statements like "on the seventh day God ended his work", "[God] is upholding all things", and "by him all things consist" we get the conservation of mass? Seriously?

It just keeps coming...

This one again is a bit abstract: Entropy is a complicated term, sort of a measure of messed-up-ness, if you will, and, um, the Bible talks about the Universe, heaven and earth shall wax old like a garment. They're aging, they're running down - wearing out. I would say that's a consequence of the second law of thermo dynamics, unrestrained (and I'll qualify that in a minute). [The universe (heaven and earth) 'shall wax old like a garment' -No reference given.]

But, it's interesting because you could say "well it's pretty obvious that things wear out, that's not very profound." And I would say that it's obvious ON EARTH, that things wear out and run down, but is it obvious that the universe is running down? If you go out and look at the night sky tonight, or tomorrow night or whatever, it's going to look about the same. I don't think it's obvious that the universe ages. And, of course, the universe was indeed thought to be eternal and unchanging until about the time of Tycho [Tycho Brahe, astronomer 1546-1601]. So - But the Bible got it right from the beginning.

See, we now understand from the laws of physics that even if we can't see the slow decay of the universe it must be decaying. The amount of usable energy in the universe is running out. Now, I do want to make a comment on the second law of thermodynamics because there's been some misunderstanding here. It is not a consequence of the fall of man. No, the second law of thermodynamics must have existed from the beginning of creation, because we're designed around that principle.

Ok, life requires the second law of thermodynamics to function. When you digest food, that's the second law of thermodynamics, helping you out. But apparently, originally, this tendency to decay must have been balanced by God's organizing power so that ther was no net decay before sin. And we've seen examples of that in scripture where God's presence is a sustaining presence. Like in the Israelites in the wilderness, their clothes ... didn't even wear out. So apparently at the time of the fall, God removed some of that sustaining power allowing the universe to decay beyond it's original design. And now all creation suffers under that bondage of corruption and one day the universe will be restored. There will still be a second law of thermodynamics, presumably, just that God's presence is a restoring presence.

Now it's interesting because, of course, today, all scientists would agree that the Earth is spherical, and it floats in space, and that there's a conservation of mass and energy and the like, but that hasn't always been believed by secular science. But the Bible got it right you see.

Just out of plain 'ol curiousity, I searched an online Bible for words like stars, moon, heavens and other astronomical terms, just to see what else was in there that Lisle didn't mention. Fortunately for "creationist astronomers", most all of these references appear to be "poetic" enough that they're hardly capable of being disproven, and nothing so blatantly wrong that it can't just be ignored:

• According to Job 22:12 there are a finite number of stars. (Whew! I always wondered.)
  
• According to Nehemiah 9:23 there were at one point as many male Israelites as stars. Furthermore, there should be no fewer humans with Abram as an ancestor than stars: "He took [Abram] outside and said, 'Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them.' Then he said to him, 'So shall your offspring be.'" - Genesis 15:5. (Er, maybe they meant "visible" stars... yeah, they must have! Otherwise it wouldn't make sense! Right?)
  
• According to Isiah 34 and Jesus himself in Mathew 24, come judgment day "the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken... At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn..." This asserts that the earth will survive having all of the stars crash into it, unless when they "dissolve" (Isaiah 13) they are reduced enough in mass for this to occur and leave survivors? Either way, it should no doubt be quite a sight for any astronomers still around to see it.
  
• Ecclesiastes 12:2 says "... [B]efore the sun and the light and the moon and the stars grow dark..." and, like Jeremiah 31:35, is the norm in getting light emission from the sun and stars wrong: "This is what the LORD says, he who appoints the sun to shine by day, who decrees the moon and stars to shine by night...".
• In Joshua 10:13 "On the day the LORD gave the Amorites over to Israel, Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: 'O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.' So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies, as it is written in the Book of Jashar. The sun stopped in the middle of the sky and delayed going down about a full day." Hold on, hold on - so IF they stopped as requested, since these two locales are only about 10 miles apart, shouldn't there have been an eclipse? Furthermore, if the earth suddenly stopped, wouldn't there be horrible earthquakes and crazy weather? Wouldn't it get unusually hot?
  

In the end, Lisle does ask a good question (although I don't think he was aiming for the answer I'd give):

"So have we learned the lessons of history? Have we learned that when the science of the day disagrees with the Bible, it's not the Bible that needs to be modified. Have we learned that lesson?

Indeed we have - perhaps it's not the Bible that needs to be modified, just how we decide to interpret it?

(Oh, by the way, if you enjoy this kind of irony, wait and see how long it takes Jason Lisle to tell us about all the logical fallacies creationists make in talks like this!)

God exists - Q.E.D.

Back in April, I made a post entitled "Can you recognize a flawed argument when you hear one?", and today, I came across yet another opportunity to ponder another bad argument (again, from the blog Sandwalk).

So here's the example that prompted this post (and another couple of essays to hopefully balance things out - whether you believe in God or not). First, check out Proof that God Exists and see if you can nail down where their argument gets shaky, what additional assumptions are implicitly made, etc.

At the other end of the spectrum, a good many atheists are pretty well convinced that "there is not God." So here's another line of arguments to try and pick apart. See what you come up with from the essays entitled "God Doesn’t Exist, Part II - Arguments against the Existence of Gods" and if you'd like, "God Doesn't Exist, Part I - Proofs of the Existence of a God."

Whatever your beliefs, keeping your B.S. detector sharp is a good idea. If someone comes up to you and says "I can prove that 2+3=4!" you might be inclined to entertain them (and yourself) and hear out their argument. Still, you're pretty sure they're about to utter some particular flavor of bad arithmetic, and no doubt you'll be extra alert just waiting to pounce on their seemingly inevitable mistake(s). As any good elementary school math teacher would agree - it isn't always important whether or not they get the right answer, but often it's whether or not they know how to get the right answer. Which is good enough reason for me to try and exercise my logic muscles a little bit from time to time. ;)

So imagine someone comes up to you and says "I can prove that 2+3=5!"? You might think, "well, yeah - me too!" and not even bother to hear their proof. After all, you're darn well sure that they're right! Even if you do give their argument a listen, are you as eagerly listening for mistakes or are you perhaps a bit tuned out and just going along for what you expect to be a straightforward argument? Maybe arguments for what we already believe to be true don't quite get the proper level of criticism they might deserve? (Gasp!)

This is presumably a pretty well known behavior (I'm almost certain that philosophers and/or psychologists have a name for it?). Still, it's worth remembering if we're going to try and keep from getting duped or from becoming overly certain of our own unfounded beliefs - be they on one side of the fence or the other.

How open-minded are you?

Note: Another long-lost draft that was saved and forgotten a few months ago, only to have been recently rediscovered and deemed worthy of posting. 

Have you ever been accused of not being "open-minded", or questioned someone else's open-mindedness?  Here's a superb video I've seen a few other places on what it means to be open-minded.





The source of this video is the YouTube channel "QualiaSoup" - I highly recommend taking a look around! The channel contains a variety of other well made videos, including this one.