An intro to the neutral theory of evolution

Jen McCreight, the Blag Hag, is doing her annual Blogathon to raise money for the Secular Students of America (SSA). In her posts was a terrific one on the Neutral Theory of Evolution.

In places like Topix and other places where we comment on science -- we frequently have to remind anti-science proponents that Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection isn't the only method by which evolution occurs. The amazing Jen did up a nice post, An intro to the neutral theory of evolution, is a short synopsis in layman's terms. It's well worth reading. I am posting it here for two reasons, one to show some support, but more importantly for me to be able to find the link to her post whenever I need it. I have a feeling I will be posting the link to it often.

If you like it, you might think about a donation to the SSA. If nothing else you might wander her site. Unlike my blog, which tends to be about one topic, Jen's covers a great many things. Plus anyone who describes herself as "is a liberal, geeky, nerdy, scientific, perverted feminist atheist" is certainly worth a small investment in time!

Thanks Jen!

So there is nothing religious about ID? Part V

I just love listening to the words posted by the Discovery Institute and then watching their actions. Several times (parts 1, 2, 3, and 4) I've posted a bit about how the Discovery Institute CLAIMS that there is nothing religious about Intelligent Design and yet when it comes to their actions, it's all centered around religion. Well, they are at it again: "Darwin v. Design Conference Coming to Oklahoma to Address Debate Over Science and God"

Sure, Intelligent Design is science, so why are they holding a 'conference' the address the Science and God debate? Just how stupid do they think we are? Apparently they feel the folks in Oklahoma aren't too bright because that's where this particular Revival Meeting is going to be held. I think it's time they just stop calling these things 'conferences', it's nothing more than a Come-To-Jesus Evangelical Revival where they can bring together as many people who already support their ideas, say a few prayers, whine how unfair the rest of the world is, and pat each other on the back -- and there will be a alot of patting each other on the back.

Now remember this is the SAME group who was whining because the Vatican didn't invite them to a conference on evolution because . . . ID is science!

Apparently NO ONE seems to believe that Intelligent Design is science. Not even the folks over at the Discovery Institute. Oh they will continue to spout the party line, but they know it's not science. Look at the announcement for this particular revival meeting. It mentions Atheists and Atheism 7 times and only mentions Science 4 times. Its very title tells a story that the DI has been trying to deny for years. Look at the location, it's buried in the image logo in the top right corner of the article "Crossings Community Church". Sure, there is nothing religious about intelligent design. Keep selling that snake oil!

As for the revival meeting itself, look at the presenters, Oh that's right, the article, written by Dr. John G. West, calls them "four national experts ": Michael Behe, Jay Richards, Casey Luskin, and West himself. These are not 4 national experts on the subject of Science and God, they are 4 fellows from the Discovery Institute. See, the Revival Meeting idea gets more credence the more you learn about this meeting.

Wouldn't you expect a conference to have invited major representatives of Science? How about major Theologians? No, you get four Discovery Institute mouthpieces: a biochemist, a philosopher, a lawyer, and a political scientist. Not a dissenting voice in the house, certainly not a group that will represent either side of this debate fairly. They should invite Ken Miller, Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Eugenie Scott to this discussion. Invite Lauri Lebo to cover it for the press and Jen McCreight for the blogsphere. Now that might make it worth buying a ticket.

In all honesty, the last thing anyone with a working brain really wants to watch is 4 guys pat themselves on the back while complaining about how the rest of the world is a big-mean bully because no one outside of their little, tiny clique of friends takes them seriously. Actually three of them would be patting themselves on the back. The fourth will be doing nothing but patting the others, does anyone ever pat little casey on the back? In my opinion he's more of a 'good-boy' pat-on-the-head type. Think about it, in all their postings has anyone every referenced one of casey's ramblings the same way he does all of the others? Not that I have seen.

What would be really interesting is if the people in Oklahoma realized how foolish this 'conference' is and gave it the interest it deserves -- which is none at all. It would be hilarious to hear the DI spin after having to cancel their 'conference' because of a lack of interest! I am sure 'atheist conspiracy' would be mentioned in there somewhere!

More to Kentuckians, you are certainly betting on the wrong horse!

Just caught this from Jen McCreight over on Blag Hag,"What exactly is Christian about being gay?" Apparently two guys attempted to attend 'Date Night' at the Creation Museum. It's not what you might think, the girl friends of two of the guys had to cancel out. I guess this led to a mistake and a couple of security guards refused admittance. In the words of one of the guards "How exactly is it Christian to be gay?" An attempt was made to explain, but I guess once the idea of 'gay' sank in, the guards were taking no chances.

Does any of this surprise you? I mean Creation Museum and kennie ham . . . homophobia? (Remember the letter sent to PZ Myers before the Aug 2009 visit from him and members of the SSA? Specifically called out as a no-no was . . . you guessed it, homosexual behavior.) So this really isn't much of a stretch, more business as usual.

However, this is the Creation Museum who apparently welcome . . . well here, read it for yourself:

"Anyway, the great irony is that while two men were not allowed to attend the Creation Museum last night, guess who they are welcoming with open arms today? None other than Jeffrey Bornhoeft, a lovely fellow making his first trip out of Ohio since the time that he shot his ex-wife's husband three times in the head 11 years ago. Jeffrey is OK though, because he's totally not into dudes." (No same sex couples allowed at the Creation Museum Date Night (UPDATE))

So, Kentucky Christians, you can go to the Creation 'Museum' and soon its other new ministry, Ark Encounters, and you can rest assured that you won't see any gay couples; however, you can run into a guy -- who was found not guilty by reason of insanity after shooting his ex's husband three times -- on his first out-of-state visit in 11 years. Does that make you feel better?

OMG, Astrology is Science -- well in India at least

I caught this gem from Jen McCreight, who calls her blog 'Blag Hag'. She posted "India: Astrology as Science" and at first I thought it was a joke, like something from The Onion. I mean it certainly sounded like something they would publish. Alas, I'm wrong, now I am reduced to simply hoping it is a joke, but I'm afraid it's not. According to the Bombay High Court in re-affirming a 2004 Supreme Court ruling that Astrology is science and the Supreme Court ruling also directed the universities to consider if astrology science can be added to the syllabus.

What's worse is that the laws in place to protect consumers by prohibiting misleading advertisements relating to drugs and magic remedies does not apply because Astrology, and related things like Palmistry, are sciences, therefore not magic and the laws do not apply. Poor India!

To echo Jen's final comment:

"And I thought it was just the creationists who used this tactic . . ."

Labels, labels, and more labels

Just recently there seems to be a spate of blog posts about labeling, particularly those who oppose religion dressed up in a lab coat. Accomodationalists, confrontationalists, diplomats, firebrands . . . the list seems to be endless. What I was wondering about is where did I fall?

Here, you go. Check out these articles:

• The always delightful Blag Hag, Jen McCreight, Firebrands, Comfrontationalists, Accommodationists, oh my! Who created an interesting graphic that started my musing.
  
• PZ Myers and his Pharyngula blog, another frequent reference, Confrontation all the way
• And on Thoughts from Kansas, Joshua Rosenua, A Prak-tical guide to confrontationalism and accommodationism
• And the Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta ,How Pushy Should Atheists Be?

So there I was, or was I . . . hey, hey I mean in the terms of the subject I write about. Don't get sidetracked :-)

Am I trying to be diplomatic and accommodating, or do I lean more toward confrontation. In all honestly, I don't know. You might be able to tell me more than I can see it for myself. In trying to figure this minor puzzle I read back through many of my posts and the one subject I really don't discuss all that often is religion. Mostly I seem to let people believe what they wish.

So rather than apply an existing, or even a new label, here is where I think I fit in.

I am for science and against religion abuse.

Because when I see the tactics and comments of people and groups like little kennie ham, the whole crowd at the Discovery Institute, dembski's uncommon descent commentary (it's not a blog), ICR, ARN, and the like what I see is a group using religion for their own gain. I don't care what they claim, they are abusing the idea of a religion!

These people have a set of beliefs . . . so what. I really don't care what they want to believe in. That's a personal decision and it should remain so. No one in the world is ever going to be able to prove one religion's position in regard to another. It's never going to happen! However what they want is for me to believe the same thing -- and they are willing to lie to me, spend other peoples' money in order to convince me, and suborn politicians and school board members for their own belief system. That is an abuse!

When you abuse it, I am going to point that out to you and anyone who wants to read this blog. When you lie, misrepresent, or try and 're-interpret' science in the name of your religious beliefs, I, and many others, are going to point it out. When you BS some pandering politician, I plan on being there to help shed light on your behavior. You may see it as confrontational, especially ID'iots like luskin and ham, others may think I should be more accommodating. Maybe I should, but my issue is science and science education and the protection of such. If I discuss religion it will more than likely be in identifying yet another abuse in the name of someone else's religious belief!

As long as religion stays out of science class, that works for me. it might be a bit more focused than some, but to each their own. I might change my mind as I get to know more and more incredibly close-minded theists -- but right now they tend to be entertaining.