An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Dr. Dawkins,


So this happened, and as of this writing, you haven't offered any apology. I don't know what will happen, but Rebecca Watson has been nothing but perfectly reasonable throughout this.


You are, at times, an effective speaker, an eloquent writer, and this is why many people are, I think, so surprised by your reaction to Watson's original issue.


So I hope you'll apologize and mean it, and not do this again, and perhaps think about what you write a little more before writing it. But if you're thinking you're not actually deeply in the wrong here, and do not intend to apologize, or actually intend to entrench into the posture you've assumed for yourself, you should know something.


You've often defended feminism against religion's more odious transgressions, but you are now well on your way to not only diminishing what you've done, but undoing it completely.  People don't like being told their problems are tiny compared to the problems of the world. Relatively speaking, every problem, big and small, is tiny when compared to something larger.


When you deflect the concerns of someone who has had their tea poisoned by ironically suggesting that this is as large or larger an issue than a thousand people dying of drought, it raises legitimate doubts about your previous work.


And you need to understand this, in order to be effective and trustworthy on this matter in the future.


I'm actually going to close with a piece of Biblical advice, one which I often endorse to creationists who dismiss the knowledge and expertise of scientists, because it now applies to you:

Luke 16:10-12, KJV:  "10He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much.

11If therefore ye have not been faithful in the unrighteous mammon, who will commit to your trust the true riches?

12And if ye have not been faithful in that which is another man's, who shall give you that which is your own?"

(And here's the New Living Translation: 

¹⁰ “If you are faithful in little things, you will be faithful in large ones. But if you are dishonest in little things, you won’t be honest with greater responsibilities. ¹¹ And if you are untrustworthy about worldly wealth, who will trust you with the true riches of heaven? ¹² And if you are not faithful with other people’s things, why should you be trusted with things of your own?")

Yours in all sincerity, S.E.

No Goals in Evolution

Jim Manzi likes to type a lot (and now so do I), so when he wrote this, he makes some curious statements and mistakes.

"No matter how far science advances, an explanation of ultimate origins seems always to remain a non-scientific question."

Does it? I notice science keeps pushing it back, further and further into the realm of the unknowable. This leaves those who would invoke god as an explanation less and less to do. Might it be conceivable they then eventually be left with nothing to do after all? (At least as far as explaining the natural world is concerned.)


"Evolution in nature is more complicated — but the complications don’t mean that the process is goalless, just that determining this goal would be so incomprehensibly hard that in practice it falls into the realm of philosophy rather than science."

Or this is wrong, and evolution in nature is, in fact, goalless.


"The combination of a constantly changing fitness landscape and an extraordinarily large number of possible genomes means that scientists appropriately proceed as if evolution were goalless, but from a philosophical perspective a goal may remain present in principle."

Possibly. But why burden an explanation with unnecessary multiplicity?

"Science can not tell us whether or not evolution through natural selection has some final cause or not; if we believe, for some non-scientific reason, that evolution has a goal, then science can not, as of now, tell what that goal might be."

If you posit the existence of goals--of the existence of something which science can't disprove exists--then why submit that they exist at all, especially if they are completely superfluous?

We can imagine goals because we see primarily the successes of evolution (even extinct organisms are, for their time, outrageously successful), we don't see the failures, and yet there were always far far far more failures than successes. If we saw both in volume and proportion, would designists still suggest evolution had goals after all? Possibly they might, but would it still seem reasonable to do so?


"The theory of evolution, then, has not eliminated the problems of ultimate origins and ultimate purpose with respect to the development of organisms; it has ignored them."

Inasmuch as there is nothing to ignore (Evolution does not, for instance, strictly address abiogenesis. That's still a different department, and it makes no sense to fault evolution for not addressing it), but this, too, is wrong. Goals were often suggested as evidence for the reproductive success for some lineages over others by plenty of early workers and naturalists. It took time to dispense with this imaginary baggage, because it gradually became apparent that success was not a target of natural selection, but a result; one where indifference rules. Goals can still be imagined, but this is only possible by ignoring all of the failures, something science is certainly not doing.


"These problems are defined as non-scientific questions, not because we don’t care about the answers, but because attempting to solve them would impede practical progress."


Practicality doesn't prevent physical cosmologists from working on problems. And can Manzi really say no progress has been made? Practicality also poses no obstacle to mathematics (even before when practical uses for crypto were found last century).


"Accepting evolution, therefore, requires neither the denial of a Creator nor the loss of the idea of ultimate purpose. It resolves neither issue for us one way or the other. The field of philosophical speculation that does not contradict any valid scientific findings is much wider open to Wright than Coyne is willing to accept."

I think it's interesting that Manzi is constrained by his argument within the limits of the physical world and the information it generates, things which we only know about and benefit from by way of science, rather than any other kind of philosophy.

But he's not wrong. I do think his conclusion is correct (even if the reasoning behind it is plain wrong); science cannot address the existence or nonexistence of God; both views are therefore compatible (so long as religious philosophy chooses to not contradict reality).

Of the Folly of Fools

An evil man seeketh only rebellion: therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.
--Proverbs 17:11


Recently I was involved in yet another discussion with a creationist (this time online). Unfortunately the entirety of the conversation was deleted. So I can't point it out. I don't think I need to speculate why creationsts excise threads on their own blogs where their opinions have gone awry.

However, before that, I had planned and written a final response to a link he provided to the Institute of Creation Research, which I've adapted and expanded here:

There is a passage in the Bible when light is created (Genesis 1:3). Not the Sun, but light (the Sun is created on the fourth day). The ancient Hebrews apparently regarded the light of the sky as something separate from the light of the sun, hence the apparent redundancy.

But the failing of light in the evening does not define a day--the rotation of the Earth does (and this defines the days in the calendar year, which must be occasionally corrected to accommodate the actual length of a solar year, otherwise planting seasons will fall out of sync). But since such was unknown at the time the original Hebrew was set down, it might make sense back then to regard the light of the sky as the definition of day--but carrying this notion forward as a literal interpretation means all science about the roundness of the Earth and where our light comes from--the basis of the calendar year and its subsequent and necessary modifications--must be rejected.

In order to regard the Bible as literal and inerrant, it is now therefore better than all of observed reality, without any regard to how Creation itself is observed--if God made the universe, and the Bible contradicts what God has made, then what we can see of Creation must be discarded in favor of the human-made text. All of geology, astronomy, cosmology, biology--boom. Overturned. Done with. It doesn't matter how useful they are or how correct they are--it is now "wrong." The consequences could be staggering and devastating to civilization, but who cares?--We're putting the human interpretation of the text above reality. The hermeneutic Literal and Inerrant makes a liar of Creation.

But all of this awkwardness goes away once Literal and Inerrant is rejected in favor of parable, story, and metaphor. Make no mistake: the choice of interpretation of these writings is ultimately a purely human decision (and is not rooted in the word of God).

Since theology is about (in part) the relationship humanity has with its creator, I have to ask what sort of theology it is that permits Jesus to use parables, but such things aren't tolerated elsewhere in the same text? If Scripture is inspired by God, if not outright literally represented as the word of God, then could any theology be more awkward than one which actually disallows God from communicating in a method that would be remembered, recorded, and passed on, rather than a literal scientifically-accurate description of how the universe came to be?

Theology shouldn't be troubled by the material, but some religious believers have willfully and rigidly set their philosophies so that it is just that. Why does a minority of Christianity allow itself to be troubled by evolution? Because their chosen philosophy demands that any perceived conflict with the material universe (i.e., Creation) be dealt with by rejecting evidence, rebelling against science, and idolizing the authority that obliges them to do both.

So when any religious group goes up against science, it has absolutely nothing to do with God (and everything to do with rebellion).

Not when so many fail to quote accurately from the science itself, which is nothing short of deceit. (A distortion is deceit. A quote mine transfigures and edits text from the source in order to make it reflect a very different agenda--and it is nothing less than deception.) And how many refuse to stop parroting the "evolution is impossible because it is statistically improbable" argument, when, to anyone who actually knows anything about mathematics or statistics, it is wrong (and trivially easy to refute (see item No. 10))? Could it be that this argument is not aimed at those who are familiar with these subjects, but, in fact, those who are ignorant of them--who have neither education nor knowledge otherwise? (Do Christians who do this sort thing think there's a clause or loophole in the ten commandments that permits this dishonest behavior? What on earth makes them believe they do?)

Not when so many make use of the most poisonous rhetoric to describe evolutionary biology and those who use it in their work (cf. comparison to Nazism etc.).

Not when they fail to uphold their own standards (or what should be their own standards) when it comes to representing science. Arrogance combined with ignorance is so typical of virtually every creationist I've talked with--in person or online--that it has actually become a legitimate stereotype. (Behold the behavior of those who supplant science with their own religious viewpoints. They plaint that science rejects their ideas, but since they rejected science first, why should anyone sympathize with them?)

When every "creation research" organization I've ever seen without fail commits these acts of deception, disrespect, and hubris, what basis is there for their existence? The fact that they advance outright garbage as science is almost completely beside the point. Any organization or individual who behaves in this manner will simply not be seen as trustworthy. And why should they be? If they sacrifice the smaller morals, how can the larger ones have any meaning?

What research program do any of these "research" organizations really offer? What have they published--not self-published, but really, actually published in the scientific literature? If the answer to that is "nothing," (and it is) then these organizations--some of which subsist largely on enough donations that would embarrass in their riches many legitimate scientific labs worldwide--are nothing but parasites.

And for what? So they can keep up the pretense of belief in God merely because they crave an unassailable authority that allows them to do so?

Is that what faith is supposed to be about? Can it truly be faith if it is crucially dependent upon something as hollow as human authority?

Decadent is a word which often goes with decay, and on that note, does any word better fit the moral landscape presented by the political movement of fundamentalist creationism? Most professional creationism is already perfectly synonymous with dishonesty--and scientists and informed laypersons alike both know it.

Fact is, many Christians find their faith isn't challenged by science. Millions of them worldwide simply take science in stride--and it affects their religious beliefs not a bit. If you're a Christian who believes the Earth is young and that evolution is a lie, maybe you should ask yourself what they are doing right, and figure out what you are doing wrong.

It is up to you to adopt a theology which, as the very keystone of its existence, doesn't oblige the most egregious illiteracy (historic, scientific, and theologic) and therefore doesn't fly in the face of reality.

I want to close this with a bit of a confession: I don't really like the role of the cruel messenger. I find I am ill-suited for it and would much rather spend time with those who do know what they are talking about, who actually practice science--a process of knowing and understanding which is unequivocally unrivaled in its results. From them, I can and have learned much about science and the universe.

In contrast, what creationists have taught me is that they are often untrustworthy, arrogant, and difficult to deal with. I sometimes resent the time it takes responding to them because honestly, cruelty is not all it's cracked up to be, and my patience for dealing with arrogance and dishonesty is becoming shorter the longer I do it.

But I suppose so long as the cult of rebellion against science exists, I'd best get used to it.

Very Interesting!

Just a little article I found. Go and read.

Creationism Defined

This question popped up over at Skepchick, and I thought it might be useful to know what my operating definitions were whenever I use these terms.

Here they are:

What is creationism?

Creationism is a related set of ideas concerning the origins of the universe, and humanity's place in it, and humanity's relationship with its creator. Creationism has two very distinct usages stemming from this definition: the political (using the capacity of the state to coerce curricula) and the theological (emphasizing the relationship humanity has with a creator). The theological is the less common in usage, especially in debate with regards to science and the incursions science has made in resolving (literally interpreted) mythical matters on the origins of the universe.

What is intelligent design?

Intelligent design is a creationist pseudoscientific political movement which seeks to displace actual science from western culture (per the Wedge Strategy). It has no other coherent definition.

What is theistic evolution?

A type of creationism that is largely apolitical; recognizing that theology is an inadequate tool for exploring the universe, it instead focuses on theologic aspects of humanity, religion, and the relationship humanity has with its creator. Though there are many variations within this category, the basis remains the same: teleological explanations are only acceptable where they do not conflict with science itself (and some would say, therefore, with creation itself).

It is perhaps not surprising that many scientists who are religious subscribe to this variant. It is also probable that it is, in fact, the most common variant (at least in the US.)

Another Nail in the Anti-Semitic Coffin

Perhaps because I apparently don't feel the subject has been hashed to death yet (and I wonder if it ever will be, given the blatant mendacity of creationists), I found this. Once again, Prof. Steve Dutch outmatches my pathetic rhetorical skills, since I was planning a post on precisely this same topic.

Someday, Professor Dutch! (Someday!)

The Defense of the Intangible

At times like these, I wish I were a better writer, it might help get those ideas-which-are-clear-to-me-anyway get out there. (Edit: man, especially when my friend Tony reminds me that judging evil requires knowing intent. Which is really less than possible regarding those wacky, unknowable entities. Really, it is like two imaginary archetypes battling it out for imaginary supremacy. And mine isn't better than the other because...?)

Like: you can't use science to examine the unknowable (which god by all accounts is). It seems so obvious, axiomatic even, but I sense a tremendous amount of resistance to it (up to and including not being able to grasp the point, no matter how many different ways I state it).

But if someone does know a way how to directly examine the unknowable, I'd love to know how specific ancestor taxa could be deduced. (But I'm not terribly hopeful on that point.) I'd be vastly more interested in that than learning for sure whether there's a god or not.

Hey. I have priorities.

Hitler Was Inspired by Christianity?

There's a lot of talk on blogs about this, but I find it surprising that no one has seen the direct connection one can make from Hitler's attitudes towards the Jews and Martin Luther, the person who inspired the Protestant Reformation.

It is quite explicit, clear-cut, and obvious. Christians who pretend Hitler had no religious influence are little more than pretend Christians.