Shermer on Skepticality

I just listened to the Skepticality podcast that was on the topic of Expelled (it's from a few weeks ago). There were interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shemer, who were both able to see the the film at an advanced screening. The Dawkins interview was pretty unremarkable, but I really liked what Shermer had to say. He is very genuine and open minded and makes some very good points. You can download it for free on iTunes or listen to it on RichardDawkins.net.

Expelled is out today....

So Expelled comes out today. I actually forgot that it was out, until I googled it to see if Expelled Exposed has overtaken it in the search results yet. It hasn't, but it has moved from the second to the first page. Anyway, it's playing in the movie theater near me. The masochistic part of me wants to see it, but I will absolutely not pay to do so. Another part of me wants to stand outside of the movie theater handing out informational packets about evolution, with the URL of Expelled Exposed or something. But I have 2 exams and an essay to worry about so I don't have the time to create these packets and stand outside of the theater distributing them. I also don't live in an area where too many people will buy into the message of the movie. Hopefully.

If you are as depressed about the whole Expelled thing as I am, this may cheer you up (From RichardDawkins.net):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ThQQuHtzHM

Expelled Exposed

So I've been quite busy lately, and haven't had time to update. But I have been instructed by the "CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE EVOLUTIONARY APPARATUS DIRECTIVE" to drop in and post this link: Expelled

Oh and you all should do it too!

Mooney and Nisbet at Princeton

On Monday I attended Chris Mooney and Matt Nisbet's talk entitled "Framing Science: Journalism and Science Debates" at Princeton University. I intended to write about it much sooner, but I really haven't stopped moving/working since then. And now it seems like there isn't much point in doing so. Mooney has been posting a series on framing on The Intersection, which basically discusses everything that was said at the lecture, plus more. I commented on this post, stating the main problem I had with the premises he was proposing:

I think I understand what you are advocating and I think it will work for specific issues. I also don't think it should be dismissed or derided, as many have been doing as of late. It is essential to consider our strategy when addressing the public, and you have starting an important conversation. However, I think that instead of focusing our efforts on convincing the public to see it our way on each specific issue, we should work on trying to change number three in your premises. I don't think getting people to accept scientific truths for the wrong reasons should be what we are aiming for. I understand that it is important to push some issues, like global warming, because it is an urgent problem. But for issues such as evolution, in which convincing the general public is not QUITE as urgent, we should aim to get them to accept it for the same reasons that the science community does: because all the evidence is there. I know this is not currently how most Americans decide what to believe, but that is what we should be trying to change. We shouldn't be telling people: "this scientific theory doesn't conflict with your belief system, so don't worry your pretty little heads about it and just take our word for it." Instead we should try to promote critical thought and rational inquiry, and hopefully people will be able to come to the right decisions on their own.

Maybe this is too idealistic...but personally I think that accepting a beautiful theory like evolution for the wrong reasons is just as bad as not accepting it all all. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you premises, and if I am, please correct me.

James Hrynyshyn at Island of Doubt has posted his own critique of framing, which I also agree with for the most part. I may have more to say on the subject after there has been a bit more conversation about it on The Intersection, but that's it for now.

On Blogging as a Student

I have been wanting to start a blog for the past 2 years...ever since I started reading ScienceBlogs actually. However, I have been hesitant about actually going through with it, mainly because I'm only 18 (19 in 2 days!). I am still constantly changing my opinions on almost everything. I only became and atheist and skeptic 2 years ago, although I have been interested in science for as long as I can remember. And I very often say things that I realize later are just plain wrong. Every journal I have ever kept has been a good source of mocking laughter a year or two later.

There are a few reasons I finally decided to do this thing. First of all, I need to improve my writing. I have never been much of a writer, but I discovered that I actually do enjoy writing about science. I'm hoping that I can develop that ability in this blog, so please try to bear with any incoherency as I do so.

The second reason is, despite the fact that they do change, I have some very strong opinions. And as I wrote in my first post, I need somewhere besides my facebook to rant about them.

And lastly, even though I still do change my mind about many things, I think that I am finally becoming the person that I am likely to remain for the rest of my life. And hopefully, as I embark on this strange journey through college and into adulthood, this blog will help me sort things out.

That being said, I am only a college freshman and I don't know much. So please, please point out when I'm wrong (and if you could do it nicely, that would be appreciated). And even though I may not agree with you, I will definitely take your comments with an open mind!

Ummm...what?

PZ Myers has just written this post about Suzan Mazur, whom I have actually seen before but wasn't aware if it until now. Myers's post is about her article on the Theory of Form, but there is also a link to her article: Richard Dawkins Renounces Darwinism As Religion. It is hard for me to believe that someone would ever write this, especially since I was at both of the events she mentions. Right at the beginning of the article she says:

Atheist evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins spoke to a packed auditorium at Manhattan's Ethical Culture Society Saturday night about his best-selling book, The God Delusion , admitting in a Q&A that followed being "guilty" of viewing Darwinism as a kind of religion and vowing to "reform"

I can only assume she is referring to one of the questioners, who mentioned that referring to someone as a "Darwinist" is strange since we don't refer to people who believe in relativity as "Einsteinists," etc. This wasn't actually how he phrased the question, but I think I've captured the general idea. Regardless, there was no mention of Darwinism as a religion, and Dawkins certainly did NOT renounce it as one. He merely conceded that the questioner made a good point and "raised his consciousness" to this oddity, and that he will try to avoid using the term Darwinism in the future.

Next, she recounts her own question to Dawkins at Barnes and Noble in Tribeca, the night before. She asked him about the Altenburg Evolution Summit. She recounts the conversation rather faithfully, as far as I can remember, except for this:

Suzan Mazur: You might have a look at the story I put up.

Richard Dawkins: No. I'm sorry I've got to answer the question now.

Dawkins wasn't saying no to her request that he read the article. The moderator of the event tried to move on from the Mazur's question, because it was turning into more of a dialogue, and Dawkins was actually saying he must answer Mazur's question. It's not really that important and I don't know if Mazur left that out purposely, but I just figured I'd point it out. Anyway, the key point is this what Dawkins says about the Theory of Form:

I see a lot of value in that kind of approach. It is something we can't as biologists afford to neglect. However, it absolutely neglects the question where does the illusion of design come from? Where do animals and plants get this powerful impression that they have been brilliantly designed for a purpose? Where does that come from?

That does not come from the laws of physics on their own. That cannot come from anything that has so far been suggested by anybody other than natural selection. So I don't see any conflict at all between the theory of natural selection -- the gene-centered theory of natural selection, I should say -- and the theory of form. We need both. We need both. And it is disingenuous to present the one as antagonistic to the other.

I find it amusing the Mazur chose to interpret the combination of these two responses from Dawkins as him renouncing Darwinism and embracing the theory of form, because there is no way a vaguely intelligent human being who actually heard what Dawkins said at both these events would come to this conclusion. I have no clue what her objective is, but she just comes off as completely nuts.

**EDIT**

In the comments section of Myers's original post, H.H. recalled the "Darwinism" question and Dawkins's response much better than I did:

During the Q&A session one young man stood up and asked Dawkins why he used the term Darwinism when referring to the theory of evolution. While noting that it is still common to do so in England, most American scientists eschew the term because of the manner in which it plays into the hands of creationists. We don't speak of Newtonism or Einsteinism, the young man pointed out, and referring to the theory of evolution as "Darwinism" might give some the mistaken view that evolution is nothing more than a religion or cult of personality.

Now here's the really amazing thing: despite being about 30 years the young man's senior, Dawkins thoughtfully assented. He agreed that the young questioner had a point, one which he hadn't fully considered before. Perhaps "Darwinian" has it's place, but maybe "Darwinism" should be retired as too likely to be misconstrued. We in the audience saw a respected writer and science advocate who was willing to reevaluate himself and his choice of expression, and we all loudly applauded Dawkins' open-mindedness and willingness to change. It was a great moment.

Well, Now That I'm Back...

I may as well stay for a while. It's a good diversion from the paper I should be writing. So in the last 48 hours:

• The whole Expelled thing has died down a bit. However, as New Humanist points out, PZ's original post on his expulsion was fourth most popular in the world. Hopefully the hypocrisy of the makers of Expelled was exposed, but I'm still skeptical of whether it came to the attention of many people who didn't already have their minds made up.
  
• Mark Chu-Carroll at Good Math, Bad Math has an excellent post up about the framing issue. I agree with him completely.
• Mooney and Nisbet Are going to be giving a talk at Princeton on March 31 about Framing Science. I'm pretty sure that I'm going to go. I'll come back here write about how it goes.
  

Pulled Out a of Long Hiatus By the ID vs Evolution Turned Political Framers vs Vocal Critics "Controversy"

So I've been gone for a while, not that anyone noticed because I hadn't been blogging for long enough to gain any readers. However, with the recent Expelled fiasco, I felt the need to come back here and get my opinion out. This is as much of an exercise in me figuring out exactly what I think about the whole ordeal as it is in me communicating my insignificant opinion to whoever happens to be reading this.

First of all, if you are unfamiliar with the incident (which I can't imagine, because it seems like it is what everyone in the science blogosphere is talking about) Greg Laden has summarized what happened, and provided links to many of the news sources and blogs that discuss it. That entry alone can provide you with some idea of how the issue has been completely blown out of proportion. I had a good chuckle to myself on the night of the event, after reading PZ Myers's first post about being Expelled from Expelled. However, since then, the discussion has taken a large turn from the jovial tone of Myers first post. Chris Mooney thinks that the "hoopla" surrounded PZ's expulsion will actually help Expelled in the long run. His fellow framer, Matt Nisbet, also weighed in, and said some things that many, including PZ, were not happy about.

Since then, the atmosphere on quite a few of the ScienceBlogs has become reminiscent of a middle school cafeteria.

This controversy has brought the whole issue of framing to my attention. I have only recently been exposed to this idea and hadn't given it that much thought. I'm still trying to formulate my opinion on the issue - I have always been rather vocal (not publicly since I'm a student and have no forum for doing so, but in my conversations) about the fact that I don't think religion and science are really compatible. However, I don't find it astonishing that going around, declaring this to the world, may not be the best tactical approach. As a young idealist who believes that science should be about what is true, and not about what you want to hear, I am not immediately sympathetic to the idea of being so political when communicating science. But if it is something that would be for the greater good in the long run, I can see where Mooney and Nisbet are coming from (although I'm not convinced they are approaching it the right way).

Regardless, I think Mooney and Nisbet are completely wrong about this particular situation. Frankly, what Dawkins and Myers have said and done so far with this issue probably won't make much difference at all, for better or for worse. Sure, it's had some coverage in the NY Times....in the science section... The people who read that section almost certainly already have their minds made up on the issue of Evolution vs ID. Other than that, it has been covered by a few Christian news sources, a couple of local papers, and blogs. It's not exactly the news that everyone is talking about (besides the science bloggers). I actually think it would be better if this was brought to wider attention, the hypocrisy is obvious to anyone that is not a complete IDiot.

But, really, the science community needs to stop fighting among themselves about this. There have been a few voices of reason who have expressed themselves much more eloquently on the subject than I could ever hope to. So I will direct you to Dr. Free Ride, and Sean Carroll
(from whom I stole part of the title of this post) who analyze the sitution logically, and probably convey what I think better than I did in this post.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Point of Inquiry

Neil deGrasse Tyson is the guest of this week's episode of Point of Inquiry. Overall it's a great interview about communicating science to the public, which was also the topic of the panel that Tyson was on at the CFI conference. The part that I found particularly interesting was Tyson's account of a question he once posed to Francis Collins. He asked him what he would say if, in the future, it was shown that religiosity and the ability to believe in something for which there is no evidence was purely electrochemical activity in a part of the brain, that is active more in some people than in others. Collins's answer, which Tyson was appropriately disappointed with, was that he doesn't think religious belief is as simple as that, and he thinks that there is something much deeper that connects us.

This statement, by the head of the National Human Genome Research Institute, plainly shows the inherent conflict between religion and science. A scientist, to be intellectually consistent, needs to believe that science has the capacity to explain all natural phenomena. And the second a scientist says "No, that is out of the domain of science" he is closing himself off to future discoveries in that field. A scientist who is religious is far more likely to do this than a scientist who is not because the religious scientists believes there are somethings that a supernatural power is responsible for. For all practical purposes, this is not such a huge problem, since there are plenty of nonreligious scientists who will keep asking the important questions. Nevertheless, I cannot buy into the NOMA theory, of anything of the sort, simply because science has to keep pushing the boundaries of what we can understand, and something like NOMA would prevent that.

Expelled? No, but perhaps it should be.

So I've just watched the extended trailer for Expelled, Ben Stein's "documentary" about science's discrimination against intelligent design. It was shown at the voters value summit, and Ben Stein addressed the summit after the trailer. It took me a while to get through the whole thing - I had to keep pausing it and giving myself a chance to calm the mounting exasperation. I'm not sure how this "documentary" can be taken seriously, but I have no doubt that it will be. It would take forever to address every point that was made in the trailer and speech, so I'm just going to bring up a few that particularly got on my nerves.

Probably the most annoying part to me was that Ben Stein makes straw men the entire way through. Life is mud animated by lightening? Who claims that? That's certainly not a theory for the origin of life that I've ever heard. Perhaps he is talking about the clay theory? Regardless, he is completely misrepresenting the opponent. He does this again when he says that it is some sort of intellectual taboo to question the origin of life. Really? Then how come there are currently scientists researching this very question? Why is there a multitude of theories out there attempting to provide answers? He probably means that it is intellectual taboo to suggest that life originated through a supernatural being: god. First of all, I don't think that is true. I have yet to hear of a scientist that was out of a job for believing in god. In fact, even proponents of intelligent design still have positions teaching science at accredited universities. Take a look at Michael Behe! He continues to be a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, even though he is an intelligent design proponent on the basis of his belief in irreducible complexity. To quote Richard Dawkins (which perhaps I shouldn't, but I don't think anyone reads this anyway):

"What he has done is to take a standard argument which dates back to the 19th century, the argument of irreducible complexity, the argument that there are certain organs, certain systems in which all the bits have to be there together or the whole system won't work...like the eye. Darwin answered (this)...point by point, piece by piece. But maybe he shouldn't have bothered. Maybe what he should have said is...maybe you're too thick to think of a reason why the eye could have come about by gradual steps, but perhaps you should go away and think a bit harder."

Now the point of that wasn't to personally attack Michael Behe on his intellectual convinctions, however misdirected they may be. The point is to illustrate that intelligent design is in NO WAY science. It is unscientific to say that just because you cannot think of a way that some complex form could have come about, it must have been god. Ben Stein claims that free inquiry is being attacked by science, but its the opposite! Science is all about inquiry. Positing God as an answer to the big questions, such as the origin of life, is what limits inquiry. So if scientists do lose some credibility for believing in a god (which, in most situations I don't think they do), it's for a decent reason.

Stein also keeps bringing up Galileo, Newton, and Einstein. I'm not going to discuss Einstein right now. It is too big of a topic that I would like to address some other time when I can devote a whole entry to it. However, I do want to point the idiocy of Ben Stein's statement that, in his time, Galileo wasn't persecuted for believing in a god. Um...yeah, he wasn't persecuted for his religion, he was persecuted BY his religion. I wonder Stein realized the irony if his statement. Is he seriously suggesting we should regress back a few hundred years to a time of greater acceptence?

Between the trailer and speech there are a ton of other points I'd like to address...however, if I attempted to address all of those points I'd be here all night. I really hope people don't buy into this BS (but of course they will).

Short Summary of CFI Conference Day 2

This second day of the convention was excellent. First was a panel with Rebecca Goldstein, Jennifer Michael Hecht, and Susan Jacoby about secularism through history. Topics of discussion were the enlightenment, Spinoza, the difference of "scientism" vs science. Jennifer Michael Hecht said something about not believing in science, and Rebecca Goldstein retorted science isn't something you believe in - it is based on empirical observations. What Hecht was saying reminded me of the whole postmodernist idea of all knowledge being relative. I found myself agreeing with almost everything that Goldstein said.

Next, there was a panel about science and the public, with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Ann Druyan, Victor Stenger, and Richard Dawkins. Although it was interesting, I have to say there wasn't much that was new to me. Ann Druyan yelled at Dawkins for interrupting her, which was funny. And I agreed with Tyson's comment to Stenger that we don't always have to have answers to all the questions that the religious ask of us. The great thing about science is it isn't so presumptuous to say that it does have the answers to everything already. We can say "we don't know yet, but we are working on it" rather than making up some story to provide an answer to a deep question that we can't explain. And I find that so much more satisfying.

Then there was a panel about Religion and Politics with Michelle Goldberg, Wendy Kaminer, Damon Linker, and Edward Tabash. They mostly discussed the threat of the religious right to the secular society and what we can do about it. It was interesting and frightening at the same time.

After the lunch break, there was the video appearance by Christopher Hitchens. However the sound quality was horrible, so I could hardly hear anything he was saying. However it didn't seem to be much different than the majority of interviews with him.

Next Paul Kurtz, Derek Araujo, Austin Dacey and DJ Grothe talked about the CFI and how they needed money to get a location in NYC.

Then Peter Singer talked about morals without religion, and how scripture has been used as justification for the maltreatment of animals. I now feel intensely guilty about the fact that I eat meat.

Finally, DJ Grothe hosted an interview with Richard Dawkins, which will eventually be on Point of Inquiry. Again, I've heard so many interviews with Dawkins, so it really wasn't anything new, but he sounded intelligent and eloquent as usual. Afterwards I was third on line to get my book signed by him, but I managed not to say anything intelligent while he signed it. I think I mumbled something about loving the God Delusion, and Unweaving the Rainbow.

Overall, the convention was very thought provoking and a lot of fun. I'm able to attend more, similar events in the future. I'll make sure I register for AAI in time next year!

The Secular Society and It's Enemies

So last night and today I attended the Center for Inquiry's conference about the Secular Society and It's Enemies. The third part is tomorrow, but I think I'm going to have to pass that part up because I have a ton of homework left. However, most of the talks that I was looking forward to were last night and today anyway.

Last night, before the awards presentation and talks, there was a cocktail reception. It was cool seeing the people that I have read and watched for so long. It was especially exciting to see Richard Dawkins there, since he has been one of my intellectual heroes since my junior year in high school. Unfortunately, there were always people around him, and I'm extremely shy, so I didn't end up getting to talk to him there.

Afterwards, we all went into the auditorium, where Ann Druyan and Neil De Grasse Tyson gave a birthday tribute to Carl Sagan. It was very touching...Tyson told us an anecdote about Sagan's kindness to him when he was considering Cornell. Ann Druyan talked about Sagan's devotion to spreading the wonder of science and played us a very touching clip from Cosmos.

Then we heard from Matthew LaClair, who recieved an award for his efforts in upholding church and state separation in his high school in Kearny, NJ (which is only about 40 minutes away from me!). He was an excellent speaker, especially given that he is 17 or 18, and he really seemed to grasp the issues at hand.

After the awards presentation, Edward Tabash talked about "The Threat of the Religious Right to our Modern Freedoms." The title of the presentation was quite to the point, and it is exactly what he talked about. He stressed the importance of this election, because the next president will most likely be able to choose the justice that will replace John Paul Stevens. And if Rudy Giuliani is elected, this could be a disaster, especially given that he has attained the support of Pat Robertson by promising to appoint justices that are sympathetic to the religious right.

Today, there was a series of panels and speakers, but I think that at 12:40 am I will not be able to do them justice, so I will have to continue after getting some sleep.

Secular Society Conference

This weekend I am home from college, and I'm going to be attending the Secular Society convention in New York City. I'm looking forward to it even though it doesn't look like it will be as fun as the AAI conference in DC would have been (I missed out on going because I waited too long to purchase my ticket). However Dawkins, who I've been dying to meet, will be there, along with some other pretty interesting people (there is a list of speakers on the site). Unfortunately, Hitchens won't be able to make it because of a last minute assignment in South America, but he did record an interview that will be shown at the convention...which brings me to a point that I'm pretty pissed about. I registered for the convention about a month ago, as a student, since there was a discounted price. However, I was never told that paying the student price automatically places you in the overflow room, from which you receive a live video feed. If I had been told this ahead of time I would have easily payed full price, but I didn't find out until it was too late to upgrade my ticket. So now I'm stuck watching a video feed in a room across from where all the action is.

Oh well, I guess it's better than not being there at all. And apparently there will be book signings and such, so hopefully I'll be able to get a word in with Dawkins at some point. I'll write updates after each day of the convention.

So I've finally done it...

For about a month now I've been considering starting a blog for various reasons, but I have been procrastinating it because I had other things I needed to be doing. But it finally got to the point where I was posting articles and commentaries on my facebook that were much better suited to a blog. So I've done it...I've entered the blogosphere. I doubt that many people will actually read any of what I'm writing here, but at least I'll have the illusion of getting my opinions out there without constantly showing up on my friends' facebook newsfeeds. And hopefully in the process I will become more articulate in my opinions.

As far as content goes - it will vary, but common topics will probably be science, skepticism, religion (or lack thereof) and politics. I do not claim to be an expert of any of these subjects, so forgive me my ignorance and feel free to comment to tell me how very wrong I am.