Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evolution. Show all posts

Friday, November 23, 2012

In a wingnutshell

"An Inconvenient Truth" is an apt description of a huge part of reality as perceived by Republicans:

What was Mr. Rubio’s complaint about science teaching? That it might undermine children’s faith in what their parents told them to believe. And right there you have the modern G.O.P.’s attitude, not just toward biology, but toward everything: If evidence seems to contradict faith, suppress the evidence.
Over and over and over again, Republicans rely on propaganda to overcome falsehood. They know they can't win on the empirical truth, so they try to win on bullshit, repetition, and disproven received authority from traditional sources.

As usual, Paul Krugman is right on. Read the whole thing.

Sunday, July 1, 2012

Being ignernt was good enough for my daddy

It shouldn't be a surprise that Texas Teapublicans (i.e. the entire Republican Party) prefer ignorance - they've given us Duhbya and Rick Perry, not to mention a host of dismal ignoramus dinosaurs. From their state party platform (PDF):

American Identity Patriotism and Loyalty – We believe the current teaching of a multicultural curriculum is divisive. We favor strengthening our common American identity and loyalty instead of political correctness that nurtures alienation among racial and ethnic groups.
Only white conservatives are allowed to nurture racial and ethnic alienation.
Controversial Theories – We support objective teaching and equal treatment of all sides of scientific theories. We believe theories such as life origins and environmental change should be taught as challengeable scientific theories subject to change as new data is produced. 
We all know their standard is not the truth but the bible and the oil industry.
Early Childhood Development – We believe that parents are best suited to train their children in their early development and oppose mandatory pre-school and Kindergarten. We urge Congress to repeal government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development.
That last sentence is the repeal of Head Start. They believe their faith-based constituents need more time to turn their children into credulous followers.
Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.
They're not interested in a populace that can think, hell no. Too much ridiculous bullshit in their platform to subject it to the scrutiny of critical thinking.

It's an extremist document, and not just on education. In 22 pages, there are possibly four things I agree with, other than a few completely mom-and-apple-pie items.

(h/t Education Week)

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Cassandra had it easy

Our species has had wild success in the natural world, to such a degree that much of the world draws its nature from our designs. Most of that success has come in the past few tens of thousands of years. Often, we self-flatteringly credit our intelligence for this result - when we're not claiming even more self-flatteringly that god made us special.

We have souls, fer chrissakes. That makes us and us alone eligible for eternal paradise. God made us in his own image, so we're like so goddamn good-looking that it's a wonder satan doesn't hit on us. (Oh, right, he does. Yeah, in your hairy butt cleavage dreams.)

So we have to be the most intelligent species that ever could exist. We have to believe in human exceptionalism. We can't admit that eating and breathing and fucking and shitting and dying make us pretty much exactly like every other mammal, reptile, or amphibian that ever lived. Where's the wanking self-flattery in that!

In thirty years, we Americans have gone backward on accepting the plain truth that humans have existed longer than 10,000 years:

[T]he ”prevalence of this creationist view” has remained essentially unchanged since 1982.
The underlying Gallup poll shows that both religiosity and Republicanism damage American reason, but the damage doesn't stop there by any means. Four in ten Democrats believe god spat in a handful of dust and made Adam, navel-free and special. Never mind anything we might have learned since a bunch of scientifically illiterate Jews found their promised messiah. Never mind that Genesis is so filled with errors of fact that Bible literalism is falsified.

One thing that has changed in the past three decades: The profusion of fools in media has increased the ability of fools to assert they know things that just ain't so. Their tribe tells them to know nothing, and they do, not quietly, not ashamed of their ignorance, but ardently asserting it. They aren't stupid. But they willfully deny confirmed truth. They choose to bear the tribal markers of that chosen ignorance with pride.

It's not our intelligence that has made us successful, not in the sense of our ability to do science. Science is extremely recent, too recent to have been the evolutionary goal of our intelligence. Not many people can do it - or even understand it.

The big brains that permit us the pre-scientific intelligence to dominate the world, to proliferate across it, to alter the landscape and the atmosphere, evolved because social cooperation was so important to a weak and slow primate - perhaps the least physically imposing large primate. Weapons were (and are) important, but we needed language most of all. No one of us could bring down a mammoth. We needed a tribe. It took a village.

Tribalism has been very successful, and conservatives try to sneak it back in even when we've excluded it:
 In 1990 a colleague at the College of Charleston, where I was a math professor, pointed out that the South Carolina Constitution prohibited atheists from becoming governor.
Since the U.S. Constitution bars religious tests for public office, I asked a local ACLU lawyer how this obviously unconstitutional provision could be removed.
South Carolina's wackaloon voters were not going to elect an open atheist anyway. It's doubtful they would even consider someone who professed evolution guided by god. But it was tribal to continue the plainly illegal prohibition, the treatment of a group of citizens as second class, as outside the tribe:
I assumed, in my political naïveté, that state officials would consent to bring South Carolina into compliance with federal law. They didn’t. Governor Carroll Campbell said, “The South Carolina Constitution was fine as it was because this country was founded on Godly principles.”
When a social scientist tells you that conservatives are loyal and value authority, that sounds positive. But it isn't. Loyalty to the tribe can destroy ardor for the truth. Valuing authority to the exclusion of all else inevitably puts shameless shamans and charlatans in charge. Or royalty, if there's any difference.

In the immortal words of Kay:
A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.
I've been expecting too much rationality from our society and our politics. Most humans just aren't built to examine their cherished beliefs. They're built to rationalize in order to stay right with the tribe.

Cassandra had it easy.

Monday, October 17, 2011

Yet it moves

Life will be synthesized from plainly inorganic compounds. Soon.

The genetic material is the harder problem; the chemistry is just more complicated. The puzzle has been understanding how a molecule like RNA can get replicated before there were enzymes and all this fancy biological stuff, protein machinery, that we have now in our cells.
What will the anti-Enlightenment fundamentalists say then? They'll be in denial. Maybe they'll even be in a political position to suppress expression of the truth. But not the truth itself.

Monday, September 5, 2011

Free market wanking

In the U.S., a fertility clinic may use a single donor's sperm to fertilize a large number of eggs in vitro:

Today there are 150 children, all conceived with sperm from one donor, in this group of half siblings, and more are on the way.
Mel Brooks, please make a new movie, "High Motility." Yet another chance to use the line, "Great knockers." (Yes, I know that was in "Frankenstein.")

Imagine, though, the strange inner life of the donor. He's as reproductively fit as kings and khans of old - with no commitment beyond, presumably, pornography. Does the clinic call him and plead for more whenever they have a tough case of infertility?

There's a product here, there's unrestricted economic activity, many people are happy. But... there is no conceivable and credible just-so story by which the free market can definitively solve the problem of potential incest. A free market requires full information, exactly what is not available in this market for semen.

Regulate or risk half-sisters marrying half-brothers?

Saturday, November 27, 2010

Just say no

Click image for full Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal cartoon.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Thesis, antithesis, non sequitur

Y'know those ichthyus stick-ons that out Christians use to recognize each other?

O.k., even people who are out as Christians (most Americans) don't have the problems their forebears had in Rome, when they had to have secret ways of showing they weren't the dominant pagans. In those days, one Christian who might have actually been persecuted would draw an arc in the dust, innocent enough, and another might finish the fish in reference to the themes of fishing that run through the New Testament, notably but not only the miracle of the fish. (My favorite: "Become fishers of men.")

Of course, you've seen the evolutionist rejoinder, a fish with feet.

What I saw today: A shark with "Linux" written in the place of "Jesus" or "Darwin". Cracked me up.

Obviously, I had a lot of time to think while commuting to off-site training. Hard to believe that people make hour-plus commutes every day. What crazy things are they seeing?

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Today's oxymoron

"Advanced Creationist Studies."

Doesn't exist. Creationism is about holding back learning and advancement in the belief that a book transcribed from oral culture a few thousand years ago and perfectly matching the conventional ignorance of the day is literally inerrant, perfect, and god-given.

Look, most of the Old Testament is not only completely devoid of science, most of it is awful morality, again perfectly illustrating the first halting steps out of the violent, tribal state of nature in which it was written.

Saturday, February 14, 2009

Know nothings

It's an article of faith in modern journalism that the reporter is not allowed to know anything. No, that's not quite right. The modern reporter is allowed to know what the conventional wisdom is.

Everything other than the conventional wisdom is controversial.

Take evolution. (Please!) Anyone who is willing to engage with the evidence knows that the Genesis accounts of creation are not natural history - or, if they are, they're dead and provably wrong. Young earth creationism is farcically laughable and a lie.

So-called intelligent design is not far behind. It's not a research program; it's a polemic.

Mass media, though, has to have bullshit balance between reality and fantasy. Wouldn't want to alienate the idiot demographic. After all, they'll buy things from the advertisers.

Update: ... which is why only 39% of Americans believing in evolution is a great advancement.

Monday, December 1, 2008

No enemies to the right

One reason the frothing lunatic wingnuts believe there's a liberal media is that they are so far to the right that anything even in the conservative part of the mainstream looks liberal to them. Here's a comment on a story in the Knoxville News-Sentinel that dares to acknowledge the geological age of the earth:

One more example of the anti-God, extreme liberal bias at KNS.
It's really no surprise that this fundie has the handle GWB4Ever.

The KNS, by the way, is a completely Republican newspaper, though it remains lightly tethered to reality.

(h/t smalc on KnoxViews)

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Confession

Normally, I hate stories like this. They're trying to poll what reality is. They purport to tell us what we should be able to see and judge ourselves. The non-rational truth is that many people are influenced by social consensus to believe things they didn't actually conclude themselves. (See Cialdini, Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.) In evolutionary terms, this is adaptive for social species (humans, ants, etc.), but I digress.

In politics, the usual rule is that perception is reality, but I obstinately resist the claim that anything besides reality is actually reality. Yeah, I'm old fashioned that way. My blog-friend Winston Smith at Philosoraptor (we've exchanged links, but it doesn't mean we're married) may be relieved to hear that I believe this, despite my occasional hedged defense of the phrase 'socially constructed'.

Still, the CNN polling story does show at least that people are seeing through the bullshit that we call our mass media. But, sure, I agree that Obama's more compassionate, better at the economy, smarter, a better leader, etc., so of course I like it.

Everybody rationalizes. Why shouldn't I?

Update: Ditto this story about the debate.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Interview someone sane

Does Mark Preston ever talk to a Democrat? Or even a sane Republican?

Ben Stein thinks:

  • Karl Rove is the answer.
  • Phil Gramm had the psychological recession right.
  • Obama's ability to draw a crowd is anti-democratic.
  • Evolution is wrong, even though he doesn't understand anything else about it.
Preston thinks Stein is well informed, on the basis of speech-writing for Nixon and Ford thirty-five years ago. In fairness, Stein does notice that McCain is running a "pathetic" campaign, but you'd have to be stone dead or Tucker Bounds not to notice that.

Update: For snark, please try "Seeing blue". For something much more serious, try "Killing liberals".

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Fuzzy logic

Click image for full Darby Conley cartoon.

This cartoon makes the perfect argument: It only works against those who need it to work against them.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Loonier even than usual

This creationist is way loonier than even the usual run of creationist, and that's saying something. Even so, his buddies among the Christian fundamentalist martyr-wannabes defend him.

Update: Finally the story reaches CNN.

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Consider the source

Oddly, this item, which is full of evidence of ignoramuses, probably represents progress. After all, there's this:

The panel includes the word “evolution” in state science standards for the first time
So, even if the willful idiots from the Christian fundies won 4-3, at least kids will learn the ideas of evolution (hopefully well beyond the groundbreaking but now dated work of Darwin), and those ideas have the power to convince the open-minded.

Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Texans determined to remain stupid

Can creationists really teach science that they actively disbelieve despite the evidence? Of course not, but they fervently want to get their fundie soldiers into position to poison the minds of children against reality.

For cryin' out loud, the ICR is a young earth creationist outfit. They've been purveying captious lies for more than thirty years in my own experience. They not only disbelieve biology, paleontology, and geology but also physics, cosmology, and astronomy. Maybe they believe chemistry. Maybe. They are lunatics.

(Not all Texans, mind you, just the ones in charge. Y'know, Duhbya's successors.)

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

LDS history

Mitt Romney's speech, which I didn't bother to watch, has opened the floodgates for the journalistic deconstruction of Mormonism. Everyone who had an article in development is trying to get it published before Mitt vanishes after Iowa and New Hampshire choose Huckabee and who-the-hell-knows-who.

This piece makes the LDS (say "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and you'll know why the abbreviation is popular) sound similar to Scientology when someone crosses over the line into saying what really happened with Joseph Smith/L. Ron Hubbard. Sure, LDS is not as imperialistic with nonbelievers, nor as likely to sue, but both want to keep the curtain closed on the Wizard.

I would really like to read a secular explanation of how a cult grows large enough to graduate to mainstream religion. Paul had something really powerful going on inside him. What was it? How did he pull in other people as fervent believers? The official line of the Catholic Church and indeed of its Protestant sects is that Christianity is the one true religion. That's explanatory for a believer but loses its probative power in light of all the other cases from other religions. What did Muhammad have that Mitt Romney would love to have a little of?

What gives a person the charisma to attract disciples, not just fellows? Sure, most people have a desire to believe, and many of them want to retreat to childhood's refuge in a dominating parent, but this is not just a few quirky personalities. This is practically everyone, leaving unbelievers like me to be the quirky ones.

I'd really like for some astute psycho-socio-histo-genius to explain it to me because I haven't met an explanation that satisfies me. Of course, I'm not going to become the genius's disciple; I just don't have the personality for that.

What struck me most about the article was way down in p. 3:

But these books and articles also worried conservatives within the church. In 1981, Mormon apostle Boyd K. Packer, a leading conservative, famously cautioned: "Some things that are true are not very useful." Mormon historians who do their work "regardless of how they may injure the Church or destroy the faith of those not ready for 'advanced history,' " he said, may find themselves in "great spiritual jeopardy."
There's a critical conflict inherent in this that I've noticed for a long time, though I'm just recently beginning to appreciate its central importance.

When my sixth grade teacher, a sweet pious woman no bigger than I even though I was just eleven, said to me, "You can believe evolution if you want, but I just don't think it's nice," I didn't understand at all what nice had to do with anything. Yet here a Mormon elder is dressing up essentially the same ordering of the universe, albeit in more threatening terms.

For me, what's actually true about the world takes precedence over what I want to be true about the world. The fact that one girl or another didn't actually love me mattered much more than my fervent crushes on them. Even if I would be happier as a Christian, I can't believe myths about the universe to sustain the faith. It's not just ridiculous Genesis-literal creationism I can't believe. The myth of Jesus's uniqueness in the vastness of the visible heavens is too much to swallow, too, now that we know what the firmament of stars really is.

I was thinking along these lines recently about the First Amendment, which guarantees our free exercise of religion and our free speech. These two rights can coexist only if those who freely exercise their faiths do not as part of that exercise arrogate the right to suppress speech on the ground that their religion is more important. To say the least, their coexistence has been uneasy.

Of course, Boyd Packer is not bound by the First Amendment inside LDS. But I have to wonder just how eternal a religion can be if it requires suppression of the unkempt and inconvenient truth. Aren't we adults? Shouldn't the first assumption in all cases be that we can handle the truth?

That's what I think even on the face of it. Never mind that the consistent pattern throughout history has been that the suppression of evidence is a matter of self-interest, often lamely rationalized as the common good, but nonetheless dressed up in a raiment of lies. What I want to know is how the charismatics get away with it.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

Why not rationalize?

Everyone else does, now including capuchin monkeys. Rationalization of individual choices is not, I think, the interesting case, nor the source need of the behavior. Rationalization is essential to belonging to the in-group, so all social animals with significantly complex brains need it, since they gain great survival advantages by membership.

Take a look at human society. There's no end of truly weird things people can believe in order to belong. There are even a few people who still believe in Duhbya.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

Me or your lyin' eyes

A phrase I like:

Concluding that something science proves is wrong because it conflicts with the Bible is like looking at a mountain, looking at a map, and deciding the mountain is wrong because the map doesn't mention it.

Saturday, October 20, 2007

God's punishment or obvious evolution

Methicillin-resistant staph is killing people. Fundamentalists are in the brain-blowing position of having to assert that their God is taking lives randomly to send us a vague message of ... what exactly? Is that moral? Wouldn't they be better off blaming this on evolution and the effects of antibiotic abuse? Then God could still be a good guy.

But they don't actually want that. They want, in best Old Testament fashion, to have the biggest, baddest tribe-defending fearsome God in greater Palestine.