Rocket Propelled Peacocks

2011-11-23T23:22:00.001-08:00

When people think of San Francisco and diversity, they probably think of something like this:

Often overlooked is different kind of San Francisco diversity: that of the of flora and fauna found in the city's parks. Even within an urban area, life can thrive in many forms. For as long as I can remember, I've been learning about this kind of life, at first by helping, or at least, attempting to help, my father in our backyard, then by exploring parks with my dog, and, most recently, by learning as much biology as my brain can hold from classes and books. Needless to say, the latter is not quite as enjoyable. For that reason, I've given myself a challenge intended to combine textbook botany with real life exploration: to identify and photograph every species of native plant in the city, to do a bit research into the story of each plant, and to post both photos and stories on a new blog, http://sfbiodiversity.blogspot.com/. I'll try not to let this get in the way of my incredibly infrequent posting here.

Oh, Chemistry Puns

2011-08-29T23:19:00.000-07:00

Can We Separate Knowledge and Belief?

2011-08-09T02:06:00.000-07:00

The National Science Board, which governs the National Science Foundation (NSF) and publishes Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial survey of national and international science literacy, is revising some of its questions in an attempt to separate students' scientific knowledge from their religiously motivated beliefs. Specifically, the two true/false questions, "The universe began with a huge explosion," and "Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals," have been modified to include the qualifying statements, "According to astronomers..." and "According to evolutionary theory..."

Is this a sad example of science bowing to superstition or a necessary move in our struggle to understand—and to fix—the gaps in our education system? One thing is certain: this isn't a problem we should have to deal with. What chemistry teacher has ever had to worry whether or not her students accept atomic theory? What physics teacher has had to ask his students for their personal opinions on gravity? Evolutionary theory is arguably as important to biology as atomic theory is to chemistry, so why should students be given the option to doubt it for entirely nonscientific reasons?

Alas, we are stuck with the country we are stuck with. Indicators serves as a test of science education, and teachers can—and should—only go so far to change students' beliefs. Perhaps we must sacrifice our ideals in order to get a more accurate view of what Americans actually know, in order to improve teaching (or at least to gasp in horror—and feel smug about our superior knowledge—as we see the shockingly low scores.) As, in my opinion, slightly biased as I have never believed in any form of creationism, it is very nearly impossible to fully understand evolution and still reject it, perhaps NSF members should perhaps focus on crafting a survey which tests for an understanding of evolutionary theory deeper than, "Oh, yeah, humans come from monkeys, right?" (No, we don't!) Adding an, "according to evolutionary theory," to more advanced questions which truly test Americans' understanding of evolution is a necessary evil if we want to see how much people really know rather than what they arbitrarily choose to believe. That said, after each sugarcoated, "according to scientists," type question, survey participants should be asked whether or not they personally agree with the statements, as is planned for the 2012 issue of Indicators, due out next January. It would certainly be interesting to see how much people can learn about evolution while still refusing to believe it.

When asking questions about the big bang, perhaps adding an, "according to astronomers," is entirely appropriate, given that your average nonscientist does not have the mathematical or physical knowledge to independently evaluate the theory, and really does have to trust the astronomers.* Considering most layman's discussions of astrophysics denigrate into philosophical debate without the slightest regard to science, it would be interesting to see a study testing whether those who believe in the big bang actually know anything about its scientific merits. Again, more difficult questions are needed to test our actual knowledge of astrophysics rather than what we believe either for philosophical reasons or because we "trust the scientists," and if a qualifier such as, "according to astronomers," is necessary to accomplish that, then it is better to sacrifice a few of our rigid ideals rather than to sacrifice science itself.

*Myself regrettably included, though that should change this school year. But, despite having Algebra II as my highest math and not a single physics class, I have *technically* finished my state's graduation requirements for math and science in my first two years of high school. The California education system isn't at all biased towards the humanities at all, is it?

Sources:

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2011). New nsf survey tries to separate knowledge and belief. Science, 333(6041), Retrieved from http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/394.summary doi: 10.1126

Lamarck Vindicated

2011-08-02T13:39:00.000-07:00

While the very mention of inheritance of acquired characteristics, commonly termed Lamarkism, after Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, is considered heresy by many orthodox neo-Darwinists, the fact is, inheritance does not depend upon genes alone, and, in some cases, traits acquired during an organism's lifetime may be passed onto its offspring through various genetic and nongenetic mechanisms, providing a new source of variation for natural selection to act upon. This is not to say that amputee mice will have tailless descendants, or that those famous giraffes which appear whenever Lamark is given his two seconds of fame in a biology class will get anywhere with their neck stretching.

No, I'm not saying this works.

I do not support "Lamarck's Lamarckism" any more than any modern biologist supports "Darwin's Darwinism;" science has come to far in the past 200+ years for us to accurately name theories after 19th century biologists, however, we are stuck with the terms we are stuck with. First, then, let's do away with the historical reasons for the divide between "Darwinian" and "Lamarckian" evolution by mentioning the generally forgotten fact that that Darwin would be considered a Lamarckist by modern standards, in that he makes many references to evolution by use and disuse, and believed inheritance to occur by a complex and utterly unevidenced process somewhat akin to photocopying parents, acquired characteristics and all, to create offspring. Darwin (and Wallace!) were only original in that he believed natural selection to be the primary means through which evolution occurs.

Now, onto the real science. While the mantra "ontogeny reflects phylogeny" usually refers to the study of comparative embryology, it could perhaps just as easily describe the relationship of epigenetics, or the study of regulation, activation, and deactivation of genes, both during development and across generations, to evolutionary biology. While epigenetic mechanisms are better known for their role in development, epigenetic changes (epimutations) provide yet another source of variation for natural selection to act on, and this variation can be produced within an individuals lifetime, as well as as a directed response to stressful or changed conditions. This occurs through various means which I will discuss shortly, some of which may not count as orthodox epigenetics, but nevertheless illustrate my point that variations acquired during an organism's lifetime can be inherited and selected among.

Inheritance of Self-Sustaining Feedback Loops

A parent cell will pass on patterns of gene activity daughter cells when said patterns are controlled by self-sustaining feedback loops. In a simple a self-sustaining feedback loop, once a gene is turned on, the presence of the gene's products sustain the gene's activity.

The general form of an inherited positive feedback loop

(source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28289/)

The fungus Candida albicans, a human pathogen, has two genetically forms, white and opaque. Cells in the white form are nearly spherical, form white, dome shaped colonies when grown on agar, and are suited to bloodstream infections, whereas cells in the opaque form are larger, more elongated, form darker, flatter, colonies, and are suited to skin infections. White cells generally remain in the white form and produce white offspring, however, approximately one every 10,000 generations, a white cell will spontaneously switch to the opaque form, and will produce opaque offspring for many generations before switching back. Switching between forms is regulated by the gene WOR1, whose product, the protein Wor1, is present in very low levels in white cells. In opaque cells, Wor1 is present in large quantities, and binds to its own promoter, leading to the production or more Wor1. In other words, little or no Wor1 leads to more little or no Wor1, and white cells, while high levels of Wor1 leads to sustained high levels of Wor1, and opaque cells. (Zordan et. al., 2006) Stressful conditions which restrict cell growth lead to increased switching to the opaque form, which is better able to reproduce. (Alby and Bennet, 2008)

Now, what does any of this have to do with evolution? Aside from the fact that C. albicans most likely evolved such a system to quickly adapt to changing conditions, quite a lot. First of all, it shows that a trait, acquired during an organism's lifetime as an adaptation to environmental characteristics can be passed on to its descendants. While this feedback loop has only two states, and so does not have the potential for much evolutionary change, all cells have many self-sustaining feedback loops, and the millions combinations of these loops present a source of variation which natural selection can act upon.

Chromatin Marking Systems

Transcriptional regulation, that is, the processes by which cells "choose" which sequences to transcribe, is the best known epigenetic process. While it occurs through various means, understanding any kind of transcriptional regulation requires understanding the way in which DNA is packed into chromosomes. A human cell contains about two meters of DNA, without a very tight packing system, such a long molecule would obviously not fit inside such a small space. This system is better illustrated than described:

DNA packing

In DNA methylation, the best understood form of chromatin marking, a methyl (CH3) group is added onto the base cytosine, which does not change the meaning of the DNA sequence, but makes it much less likely to be transcribed. Patterns of methylation are copied as DNA is copied and always transmitted from mother to daughter cells. Patterns of methylation can be changed during a cell's lifetime, and changes in methylation are absolutely necessary for the normal development of a eukaryotic organism.

Inheritance of methylation patterns.

It is easy to see how methylation can affect evolution in unicellular, asexual organisms, since offspring are clones of their parents, methylation and all. Natural selection can act on changes in DNA methylation just as it acts on changes in DNA, and, since changes in methylation are produced faster and more often in relation to chances in the environment than changes in DNA, this allows unicellular organisms to evolve faster through epigenetic mutation than they could through genetic mutation alone, which may have medically significant consequences when we consider the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, etc.

While there are several other mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance which may play an important role in evolution, this post is getting way too long. For anyone interested, RNA interference, other sorts of chromatin marking, and prions provide some more examples of non-genetic inheritance systems, and yellow mice (sorry, I can't find anything beyond the abstract+references), local hypermutation, and the effect of environmental conditions on recombination in the oh-so-well studied fruit fly, provide examples of semi-Lamacrkian evolution in real life. (Yes, my sources range from wikipedia to fairly technical journal articles. Either I was being lazy or striving to include something for everyone; you choose which to believe.)

None of this is to say that we should throw out the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology, or to say that natural selection is not the main driving force of evolution, only that we need to keep in mind that genetic mutation is not the sole source of variation which plays a role in evolution. Many of the sources of variation described here are only applicable to unicellular, asexual organisms, and a major criticism of the ideas presented here lies in the Weismann barier, which prevents genetic information from flowing from the soma (body) cells to the germ line (reproductive) cells, but which may not be utterly impermeable. As we learn more about genetics, epigenetics, and evolutionary theory, the interactions between these factors will become clearer.

Finally, I can't help but recommend the book Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life, by Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb, from which many of the ideas and examples in this post were taken, for anyone with even a small amount of biological knowledge and interest. It contains the best history of evolutionary biology I have found, combined with groundbreaking research, and is for the most part written at a popular level, which is to say that with a recent college-level introductory biology course, I was wishing the authors would hurry up a bit during the technical chapters, but enjoyed them nonetheless.

2011-05-13T17:14:00.000-07:00

Religious Sites Made From Guns and Ammunition

An interesting artistic look at the relationship between violence and religion.

Drifting Away from Active Atheism

2011-04-05T23:37:00.000-07:00

Over the two-plus years that I've been away from the church, atheism has gradually lost its importance in my life; what was once an Earth-shattering idea becoming an ordinary part of my identity. Having gained the perspective of an outsider, I see most Christian beliefs as completely and utterly ridiculous, too insane to merit any effort at disproof, making me wonder what led me to accept them in the first place. Perhaps this means I need to blog more, since I certainly shouldn't allow myself become to complacent in my unbelief, but for the moment, I just don't have anything to say that can't be much better said by someone else. While that may have been true before, as I have no background whatsoever in philosophy, I previously had my own personal experience, the tangle of emotions I felt as I pulled myself out of religion, to bring to the discussion. Now, those thoughts and feelings lie lost in the past, and without them, I've lost much of my motivation to blog.

I suppose this it a good thing. In becoming more comfortable with my religious beliefs, I've gotten more comfortable with myself. I no longer wish there was a god, or any sort of spiritual world out there; I love this messed up, godless world with all my heart. I believe in science, and nothing beyond, but this no longer troubles me whatsoever.

If we allow logic to break down to make way for the supernatural in some places, there is nothing to keep reason alive in the rest of our thoughts. There can be no God of the Gaps, because science, progressing at an ever-faster rate, fills new gaps every day. While our scientific understanding of the world is far from complete—if it was, all scientists would be out of a job—it is constantly improving, squeezing out the supernatural as it goes along. Lack of a scientific explanation can never be used as evidence for a supernatural one, it can only mean that we have more work to do!

This is not to say that science disproves the idea of God—it doesn't. If there is a God, science says that he must work from behind the scenes, allowing the world that He has created to run itself for the most part, perhaps intervening from behind a cloak of chance. I wouldn't mind believing in this sort of God, but there is no logical reason to believe in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Of course, many believers, when faced with this argument, will respond with a lecture about faith. Again, if we are to say that, in some areas of thought, logic does not apply, and faith is required, nothing tells us where this does and does not apply. Just open a newspaper, and you will find countless examples of how blind faith is dangerous, as it can lead a person to do utterly anything. So, for anyone trying to lead me back to the flock, no, I do not have faith, and I do not see this as a problem. Perhaps I am too closed-minded, and will be sent to Hell for it? Oh well, that's a risk I'm willing to take. Any God worthy of worship should have the good sense not to penalize people for following the wrong logic: surely, under any sound morality, our eternal fate won't be decided by our intelligence. So I fear no consequence for my unbelief, have no desire to change my mind so as to increase my capacity for blind faith, as I once did, and have no qualms about defending myself against those who try to convert me.

I'm glad I've gotten away from obsessing over religion, but I do miss the intellectual community I've found on the internet. Quite a few ex-believers whom I've met online have gone through much the same thing, with their blogs slowing down as they grow into their beliefs. So, the reason I've moved away from blogging is plain and simple: I've lost interest in the issues which initially led me to start this blog. This doesn't give me an excuse not to write posts about other topics, so for the lack of those, I will use the tried-and-true excuse of schoolwork! Fact is, I now care much more about a getting a 4.0 then about discussing 40 days in the desert. I'll be attending a political convention this weekend, perhaps I'll find some material there, and I still owe Sabio a post on how Asperger's syndrome has affected my life. Currently, I'm about 200 pages into The Origin Of Species. When I finish the remaining 400, you can expect a post (or perhaps a series!) on how our view of evolution has changed in the past 150 years.

2010-10-19T22:45:00.000-07:00

Houston, We Have a Problem

2010-08-13T19:25:00.000-07:00

When more people research superstition than science, we know something is wrong with our society. Happy Friday the 13th!

5 Reasons Not to Believe: Part 2

2010-05-10T20:04:00.000-07:00

Reason 2: Science Does Not Observe Evolution Happening Today

While this is arguably the best argument presented, in that it is philosophically valid, if scientifically flawed, a total of two and a half pages are devoted to the topic. Nevertheless, as it is a more interesting topic than the others presented, I will give it more time than Morris does.

Section 1: Experimental Science

This part is pretty much a cut-and-dried explanation of the scientific method and the level of observable evidence and rigorous testing needed in both the pure and applied sciences. It touches briefly on the ideas of falsifiability and proof.

Section 2: Adaptive or Directed Change Is Not Evolution

I don't quite understand what this section is trying to say. His main point here seems to be that, since scientists have never been able to, "transform a 'lower' form of life into a 'higher' one," in a laboratory, evolution does not occur. This is flawed in two respects. First of all, the terms 'higher' and 'lower' are deceptive when we are talking about organisms and species. We may define higher as "more humanoid," "more intelligent," "more complex," "better suited to its environment (more fit)," or as a number of other things, but none of these definitions is biologically significant. I'm going to assume that the author meant higher to mean more complex.

Secondly, there is no reason to think that, because we cannot duplicate evolution in the laboratory, it does not occur in nature. Indeed, true evolution cannot occur in the lab, because it requires such long expanses of time. This is why we have never been able to observe speciation.

Morris differentiates between what he calls horizontal change, or adaption, and vertical change, or evolution. The fact is, there is no such harsh differentiation. There are no such things as higher or lower organisms. Evolutionary change is adaptive change.

Section 3: Natural Selection is a Conservative Process

Natural selection is the process whereby natural environments tend to cull the least fit from their populations... It preserves and protects a species, it does not innovate. Natural selection only "selects" from what already exists.

All of this is true. Natural selection does not add new genetic information to a species. Natural selection alone, however, is not evolution. Genetic mutations provide natural selection with the variation it needs to work. Morris gets to this shortly.

Mutations... on the other hand, do change genetic information. [they] disrupt the "code" and cause changes to the life-building process. Most mutations are "accidents" in the highly complex and vast information instructions ... the unusual creatures that do reach live birth either die before maturity, or are ignored by the rest of the population and do not reproduce. Thus, natural selection preserves or conserves the genetic characteristics of that kind and, eliminating the "mistakes" that happen.

Mutations are indeed mistakes, but that does not make them deadly. The vast majority of mutations are small, nearly imperceptible, and even those large enough to contribute to evolution are still minuscule. We are not talking about mutations which add extra limbs, we are talking about mutations which make limbs a millimeter longer. Over the generations, these small alterations add up to produce larger changes. Evolution does not move in fits and starts brought on by huge mutations, so we do not have to worry about such huge mutations wreaking havoc on individuals.

No one has observed evolutionary process of upward change happening today. It does not happen. The false reasoning used by evolutionists is that "since there is evidence of small changes (horizontal) there must be big changes (vertical) over time." This may be a logical supposition, but it is not an observation—and it is not a fact.

This final paragraph is filled with same problems which permeate this entire "reason". First of all, we have the same two misconceptions which are present earlier: the false distinction between "horizontal" and "vertical" change, secondly, we have the assumption that, if evolution occurs, we should observe it within our lifetimes.

I wish I could have carried on this series, but alas, the pamphlet I was reviewing disappeared into the black hole that is my desk.

5 Reasons Not to Believe: Part 1

2010-05-03T21:49:00.000-07:00

Reason 1: The Bible Does Not Allow an Evolutionary Interpretation

We begin with what is quite possibly the book's worst argument. Essentially, we are attempting to use the premise of "the Bible is true" to prove the conclusion "the Bible is true. Arguments four and five are similarly circular.

Section 1: The Bible Has No Hint of Evolutionary Development
Ultimately, since no human was around to observe the origin of the universe, we must all begin with presuppositional belief. Either God's Word is true about creation, or modern scientific 'theory' is true about the ages long evolutionary development of all things through random processes. They cannot both be true. They are mutually exclusive.

I would hardly think it necessary to state that one cannot be a creationist as well as an evolutionist, but having established that fact, we are ready to move on. It goes on to say that there is, "no metaphorical allegory," of evolution in the Bible, and cites various New Testament references to creation. All of which is to say that one cannot believe in evolution while taking the Bible literally. So far, we agree! Alas, it shall not continue.

Any time man attempts to discover how God created, using his natural mind and his present ability to test and verify the processes of nature, he is doomed to fail.

All science is, essentially, an "attempt to discover how God created." To ban this is to damn all of science and return to the stone age. Furthermore, we are given no reason for why we are doomed to fail. If our natural mind "tests and verifies the forces of nature" accurately when researching mundane topics, why should reason break down when we consider our origins? We are given no explanation.

Section 2: The Bible's Language is Precise About The Language of Creation
Morris cites Genesis 1:5, "And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day," to establish that the six days God is said to have used for the creation of the world were, in fact, the 24 hour days we are familiar with. This argument, while logical from the verses quoted, is countered by another Bible verse, the one that goes something along the lines of 'a day to God is a lifetime to man' (I can't find it in the bible to save my life. Of course, considering I don't know the exact wording or even what testament it's in, that's not exactly surprising, is it? Does anyone on here know where it's found?) In other words, there is no indicator that, even if God were to have created the world, there is no indicator He would have done it in literally six days.

Section 3: The First Verse is God's First Test of Faith

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."... Obviously, Genesis 1 is unique among all the hundreds of sacred books from the various religions of the world. With those words, we are confronted with the simple implied request: do we believe what God says?

I'm confused here. I think they're trying to say that Christianity is the only religion that believes in creation, which is far from the truth.

Section 4: The Creation Account Does Not Match Evolutionary Progression

Duh.

Section 5: The Role of Death

Evolution is dependent on death. Death, for the evolutionist, an only be a good process intended to weed out the "unfit" and make survival of the fittest possible... For the evolutionist, therefore, death and time are absolute necessities—the key elements that make the process possible.

On the other hand, the Biblical record introduces death as a judgment, a "curse" by the Creator on his fallen creation (Genesis 3:17-19). Death is an intrusion...

Evolution is dependent on death, but that is no reason to deny it, as the truth is true, no matter how much it hurts. The truth of evolution is far from painful. I agree with Darwin in that, "There is grandeur in this view of life." To me, and to many others, the view that all life is a family, that species have histories, and did not just 'poof' into existence, and finally, that death, however cruel, at least fits some larger 'plan' beats the view that life appeared on Earth, fell, and was 'cursed' by cruelly "loving" god to suffer and die. I prefer death to be the product of cosmic indifference, rather than divine hostility. Even if the Biblical view of death were preferable to the evolutionary one, that would still not make the Biblical view correct.

Conclusion

The first "reason" given failed to even slightly hint that creation is true. By stating the obvious, that evolution is unbiblical, and by using emotional arguments about the role of death, they have done nothing to advance their case. While they did pretty clearly demonstrate that evolution is incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible, they have given us no reason to throw out evolution and keep the Bible, not vice versa. Hopefully, their next four arguments will be more effective. Next up, we have Reason 2: Science Does Not Observe Evolution Happening Today.

5 Reasons Not to Believe in Recent Creation: Index

2010-04-28T22:34:00.000-07:00

This booklet, produced by the Institute for Creation Research and distributed (to me, at least) by the Christian Coalition, puts forth five arguments for young-earth creationism. None are successful. The book is divided into five sections, each one of which I will refute with a post. Here's a rough transcription (eliminating page numbers) of the table of contents:

Introduction

Reason 1: The Bible Does Not Allow an Evolutionary Interpretation

The Bible Has No Hint of Evolutionary Development
The Bible's Language is Precise about the Duration of Creation
The First Verse is God's First Test of Faith
The Creation Account Does Not Match Evolutionary Progression
The Role of Death

Reason 2: Science Does Not Observe Evolution Happening Today

Experimental Science
Adaptive or Directional Change is Not Evolution
Natural Selection Is a Conservative Process

Reason 3: There is No Evidence Evolution Took Place in the Past

Historical or Forensic Science
The Evidence of the Fossil Record
Evolutionary Faith

Reason 4: God's Character Absolutely Forbids Evolution

A Universe of Space, Matter, and Time
The Signature of God in the Heavens
The Holiness of God
The Omniscience of God
The Universe is an Infinite Reservoir of Information
The Bible Emphasizes God's Omnicience

Reason 5: God's Purpose For Creation Excludes Evolution

Creating Eliminated Any Excuse to Deny God's Existance
Creating Gave a Foundation to the Everlasting Gospel
Creating Gave Authority to the Message of Jesus Christ
Creating Displayed the Power of Jesus Christ
Creating Is How God Gives New Life

As you can see, the booklet is heavy on theology and light on science. Arguments one, four and five are essentially the same, and are all circular in that they use the Bible as evidence for itself. Arguments two and three are both quasi-scientific, and, while arguably the best arguments in the booklet (relatively speaking!), are not given very much space.

*Note: this series died when I lost the packet. If ever I find it, it will continue.

Some Propaganda I Ran Across

2010-04-27T21:01:00.000-07:00

At a JSA convention this past weekend, various pamphlets, fliers, and brochures from various political parties and causes came into my hands. In the next few posts, I am going to analyze the claims put forth in these materials. I've got "Five Reasons to Believe in Recent Creation", by Henry Morris III, distributed by the christian coalition,

a flier from the libertarian party,

and some sort of packet/brochure/thingy from PETA.

I'll be tackling the creationist packet first, starting with the very next post. Stay tuned!

Day of Silence

2010-04-14T20:09:00.000-07:00

This Friday (April 16) will be the 14th annual day of silence, an event designed to end anti-gay harassment and bullying. Anyone participating takes a vow of silence for the day. I'm going to attempt it, though I can't guarantee that I'll make it through the day! Here's a link to the official facebook event, and here's one to the official web page.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A few notes: This is technically a U.S. event, but people in other countries are welcome to participate. Communication by text/e-mail/blogging/writing etc. is allowed and encouraged.

Plate Tectonics and Evolution

2010-04-10T15:12:00.000-07:00

Nobody who has lived through beginning of 2010, with its three major earthquakes— Haiti, Chile, and now, several minutes ago as I write this (a few days ago now), Baja California—can deny that continents move. While the offsets for individual earthquakes are generally small the theory of Plate Tectonics* holds that the continents have moved thousands of miles from their previous positions.

mya=million years ago

In much the same way, the various species of earth drifted** from their previous 'positions'—of single celled prokaryotic organisms—into their myriad of present-day forms, by a progression of small mutations. Of course, the processes by which these changes occurred are vastly different, in
mechanism, as well as (for lack of a better word) guiding power. Evolution is driven by natural selection, based on environmental pressure, and thanks to the diversity of habitats, it is a divergent, branching, process, following different paths for different populations. Conversely, plate tectonics is a linear process, proceeding in one direction only, and controlled solely by the laws of physics, without any sort of selection directing it. Despite these vast differences, the theories are twins in two important respects: they describe and explain huge changes by means of small, gradual ones, and they are require an accurate estimate of the earth's age to be reasonable.

Both theories involve vast stretches of time, inconceivable to human minds. For this reason, they both seem unlikely on the surface. ("Continents move? Preposterous. Wouldn't we feel it? Species change? I'll believe it when I see a monkey have a human baby." ) Within our short lifetimes, we will never observe speciation, but neither will we see mountains rise, or notice that Japan is getting closer to California. Geologic and evolutionary timescales are simply to large in comparison to human ones.

Following their discoveries, both theories seem painfully obvious. How did nobody before Wagner notice how neatly the continents fit together? Was Darwin truly the first to consider the possibility of a common descent? Natural selection seems, well, natural. Organisms that do not survive to reproductive age clearly do not reproduce. From observing resemblances between family members, we can, even without knowledge of DNA (or even Mendelian genetics) see that physical traits are passed down through generations. From this, any fool should have been able to figure out the rude mechanics of natural selection. From the prevalence of analogous structures, a common ancestor seems like the only natural conclusion. Continental drift, too, seems natural. The continents, especially Africa and South America, fit together neatly, and knowing what we now do about spreading centers and subduction zones, is is obvious that the small movements over time must add up over the centuries.

Of course, spreading centers were not yet discovered when Wagner put forth his theory; consequently, continental drift was not widely accepted until they were discovered in the 1960's. Natural selection too lacked a mechanism at the time of its discovery. Darwin knew nothing of DNA, or even of genetics. Without the structure and function of DNA known, evolution stood on shaky ground. When DNA was discovered, and was shown to be used by every sort of living thing, the use of a "common language" by all life emerged as one of the most compelling arguments for a single ancestor. While it is possible that a designer could have used DNA for his own convenience, there would be no reason for him to do so. When the structure of DNA was discovered, we saw that it could and did mutate, and that these mutations are responsible for the diversity within populations which makes evolution possible.

Now that we know and can measure the motions of the continents, we can see that their rates of motion, generally less than 1 cm/year, can't help but add up over the milennia. In much the same way, beneficial and neutral mutations which are passed can't help but add up over the generations, and must, as some point, lead to changes great enough to lead to speciation. Many creationists say that they believe in microevolution, but not in macroevolution. The problem is that, given millions of years, there is no way to prevent species from diverging. Indeed, divine intervention not just unnecessary in driving evolution, it is necessary to prevent it!

Even though Plate Tectonics and Evolutionary theories are similar, given their separate disciplines, creationists reject evolution while (Correct me if I'm wrong here) accepting plate tectonics, even though their reasons for rejecting evolution—we've never observed it, the changes are to large, the earth isn't old enough, etcetera—apply to Plate Tectonics as well. One reason creationists cite for believing in plate tectonics is a Bible verse which claims that God, during the creation of the universe, at one point gathered the waters into one place. For Him to do that, there must have only been one continent. This counters the creationist claim that they reject evolution on scientific grounds, without strong religious influence. If they accept one theory and reject another based on their similarity to the Genesis myth, their decision is religiously motivated.
.....................................................................................................................................................................
*Theory in much the same sense as gravitation
**In some cases, this really was drift—genetic drift, that is, change over time resulting from random mutations without strong evolutionary pressure in one direction or another. In other cases, natural selection has played a strong role. Scientists disagree on to what degrees natural selection and genetic drift have played a role in the evolution of life.

Quotes & Questions: Technology

2010-03-21T18:54:00.000-07:00

"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
-Douglas Adams

"Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards."
-Aldous Huxley
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Has modern technology truly improved, or truly worsened our lives?

What limits, if any, should be imposed on technological development?

Happy St. Patrick's Day

2010-03-17T20:49:00.000-07:00

St. Patrick's Day was one of my favorite holidays growing up. My elementary school was seventy or eighty percent Irish, so we all got early dismissal that day, because we all had family dinners to go to. I was no exception, and for the rest of the day I would help my parents cook corn beef(ugh.), cabbage(ugh!), and mashed potatoes(yum!). My family, instead of telling me that I would get pinched if I forgot to wear green, told me that, if I wasn't wearing green at any time during the twenty-four hours of March 17, I would get kidnapped by leprechauns. Needless to say, I wore green! The night before, I put on green pajamas and dressed my teddy bear in green. While I began to doubt the leprechauns when I was five or six, I still, to this day, dress in green the night before, night after, and the whole day of St. Pat's.

If ever a leprechaun were to kidnap someone...

Quotes & Questions: Science

2010-03-14T20:50:00.000-07:00

"Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science."
-Edwin Hubble

"One thing I have learned in a long life: that all our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike -- and yet it is the most precious thing we have."
-Albert Einstein

"The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be."
-Douglas Adams
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What divides the questions science cannot answer from those that it can?

Should scientists focus on pursuing pure research, for the purpose of expanding human knowledge, or practical research, for the immediate purpose of improving people's lives?

Happy International Pi Day!

2010-03-14T10:43:00.001-07:00

Texas ed board vote reflects far-right influences

2010-03-13T08:01:00.000-08:00

April Castro for the Associated Press
Friday, March 12, 2010

A far-right faction of the Texas State Board of Education succeeded Friday in injecting conservative ideals into social studies, history and economics lessons that will be taught to millions of students for the next decade.

Teachers in Texas will be required to cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state. Curriculum standards also will describe the U.S. government as a "constitutional republic," rather than "democratic," and students will be required to study the decline in value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

"We have been about conservatism versus liberalism," said Democrat Mavis Knight of Dallas, explaining her vote against the standards. "We have manipulated strands to insert what we want it to be in the document, regardless as to whether or not it's appropriate."

Following three days of impassioned and acrimonious debate, the board gave preliminary approval to the new standards with a 10-5 party line vote. A final vote is expected in May, after a public comment period that could produce additional amendments and arguments.

Decisions by the board — made up of lawyers, a dentist and a weekly newspaper publisher among others — can affect textbook content nationwide because Texas is one of publishers' biggest clients.
Ultraconservatives wielded their power over hundreds of subjects this week, introducing and rejecting amendments on everything from the civil rights movement to global politics. Hostilities flared and prompted a walkout Thursday by one of the board's most prominent Democrats, Mary Helen Berlanga of Corpus Christi, who accused her colleagues of "whitewashing" curriculum standards.

By late Thursday night, three other Democrats seemed to sense their futility and left, leaving Republicans to easily push through amendments heralding "American exceptionalism" and the U.S. free enterprise system, suggesting it thrives best absent excessive government intervention.
"Some board members themselves acknowledged this morning that the process for revising curriculum standards in Texas is seriously broken, with politics and personal agendas dominating just about every decision," said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which advocates for religious freedom.

Republican Terri Leo, a member of the powerful Christian conservative voting bloc, called the standards "world class" and "exceptional."

Board members argued about the classification of historic periods (still B.C. and A.D., rather than B.C.E. and C.E.); whether students should be required to explain the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its impact on global politics (they will); and whether former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir should be required learning (she will).

In addition to learning the Bill of Rights, the board specified a reference to the Second Amendment right to bear arms in a section about citizenship in a U.S. government class.

Conservatives beat back multiple attempts to include hip-hop as an example of a significant cultural movement.

Numerous attempts to add the names or references to important Hispanics throughout history also were denied, inducing one amendment that would specify that Tejanos died at the Alamo alongside Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie. Another amendment deleted a requirement that sociology students "explain how institutional racism is evident in American society."

Democrats did score a victory by deleting a portion of an amendment by Republican Don McLeroy suggesting that the civil rights movement led to "unrealistic expectations for equal outcomes."
Fort Worth Republican Pat Hardy, a longtime teacher, voted for the new standards, but said she wished the board could work with a more cooperative spirit.

"What we've done is we've taken a document that by nature is too long to begin with and then we've lengthened it some more," Hardy said, shortly after the vote. "Those long lists of names that we've put in there ... it's just too long.

"I just think we failed to keep that in mind, it's hard for teachers to get through it all."

{It's awful to see conservatives (or anyone else) using every opportunity to recruit more to there cause. While this happens to be about conservative ideals & biases entering the curriculum, any bias should be kept out of textbooks.}

What is the Meaning of Life?

2010-03-09T21:16:00.001-08:00

42. But seriously? I have no idea. You’re born and, less than a century later; you die, and are gone. Forever. Put like this, life seems to have no greater meaning, no higher purpose, than to eat, breathe, and wait for it to be over, yet we know that life must be much more than all of that. It is what you do that the time you have that counts. You work, you learn, you play, and hopefully, you make some sort of lasting impact on the world; you leave this planet knowing, that, by you’re efforts, you have made a better life for the next generation. And that, I suppose, is what life is all about. You live so that your life means something, to yourself, and perhaps more significantly, to the outer world. You do something worthwhile, but, at the same time, you enjoy yourself. You ride the roller coaster, but you comfort the child who tripped at the bottom. You accumulate memories that will, when the end comes, remind you that you lived; that you did more than inhale oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide; that you were more than another wad of matter floating through the universe; that you were a person, on a quest, not for the meaning of life, but for life itself. The meaning of life, then, is to live.

[Written for my Modern World class in about five minutes this morning. Edited a bit, but mostly what I thought up on the spot then.]

Quotes & Questions: Humanity

2010-03-07T20:52:00.000-08:00

"People aren't either wicked or noble. They're like chef's salads, with good things and bad things chopped and mixed together in a vinaigrette of confusion and conflict."
-Lemony Snicket (Daniel Handler)

"It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people."
-Neil Gaiman& Terry Pratchett (Good Omens)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is human nature corrupted good, controlled evil, or something else entirely?

Is there some aspect of our nature separate from our evolutionary nature, something that would (perhaps) apply to all sentient beings?

Moral Foundations

2010-03-07T20:02:00.000-08:00

Sabio has again provided me with another "sharing," this time, on which morals I most highly value. While I cannot say I am a huge fan of any 'values' based approach to morality, as they are generally too subjective and self centered, focusing too much on improving a person, when they should focus on improving the world, this approach is interesting, and a bit more quantitative than studies of 'values' tend to be. The connection between morals and politics is interesting, because, while I did rate as, essentially, a classic liberal, I try to base my politics on 'rights', not 'right', and do not consider my politics to be affected my morals in any significant way.

Note: In real life decisions, I tend to rate "no harm" a bit higher than it shows up here. I'm always a bit wary of superlatives, especially concerning morality, so this colored my answers to some of the questions, especially in this category.

Quotes & Questions: Courage

2010-02-28T18:29:00.000-08:00

"Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear - not absence of fear."
-Mark Twain
(because you've never heard that one before)

"Every man gives his life for what he believes ... one life is all we have to live and we live it according to what we believe."
-Joan of Arc
**********************************************************************************
Should we admire our enemies for their courage and devotion, even if they are fighting for the wrong cause?

Quotes & Questions: Numbers

2010-02-21T21:38:00.000-08:00

“Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.”
-- Bertrand Russell

"Pure mathematics is in its way the poetry of logical ideas."
--Albert Einstein

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would an omnipotent god be able to divide by zero?

Do mathematics have a real (if not concrete) existence, or are they purely human creations?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the beginning of a (hopefully) continuing series of weekly "Quotes & Questions" posts, with two quotes and two questions addressing various topics.

Alien

2010-02-14T10:51:00.000-08:00

It began as an doodle...

My Philosophical Positions

2010-02-10T18:20:00.000-08:00

School of Philosophy	Analytic
Ontology	Naturalist
Science	Scientific Realism
Theory of Time	I have no idea
Theology	Atheist
Politics	Very Liberal, with some Libertarian leanings
Language	Undecided
Mind	Physicalism
Mental Content	Externalism
Abstract Objects	Nominalism
Knowledge	Rationalism in math, Empiricism elsewhere
Personal Identity	Undecided
Free Will	Undecided
Normative Ethics	Consequentialism
Meta Ethics	Ethical Naturalism

Again, thanks to Sabio for producing this table.

My Atheist Positions

2010-02-09T21:21:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Sabio Lanz, of Triangulations for creating this chart.

Level of Certainty	Agnostic
Level of Affirmation
Stance Toward Religion	Categorically Against in that I think there is great value in knowing and believing the truth, Sympathetic in that religion can often do more good than harm.
Openness	Totally Open
Degree of Action	Always up for a good debate
Religious Participation	Not exactly abstaining, it is just that I am otherwise occupied Sunday mornings
Degree of Enchantment	Enchanted
Mystical Inclination	None to speak of
Belief History	St. Brendan's has 21 crucifixes, 64 electric lights, and 5 Mary statues. The fact that I have counted these illustrates my degree of (dis)interest and partial belief.
Sect History	Catholic, Deist for a few months
Theory of Religion	Desire to believe in something greater than ourselves, to find obvious external purpose to our lives, to have someone "up there" who understands us perfectly, for there to be justice at the end of the road, for there to be order behind apparent chaos, to be able to "do something" by praying when physically, we are helpless.
Non Theistic Leanings	My leanings are certainly non-theistic, though I assume that is not what is being asked.
Degree of Secular Superstitious Thinking	Irrational Habits? Sure. Superstitions? None to my knowledge.
Faith Items	A few basic assumptions, such as the capacity of reason to arrive at the truth, the capacity of humans to apply reason, the truth of mathematical and philosophical axioms.

Citizens of The Moral Law (pt 1)

2010-02-08T19:54:00.000-08:00

What is it that separates me from my desk chair? My laptop? My dog? What is it about me that gives me a right to fair treatment?

Could it be the fact that I am alive? But that can't be right. A bacterium or plant is equally alive, biologically, yet I can wash my hands or eat a carrot without committing any wrong . So it is not biological life which confers moral importance*. Yet it gives us our starting point, because only living things can be regarded as morally important.

Is it the fact that I am human? Again, that can't be right, because there is no reason that our particular arrangement of genetics make us somehow more important than all other life forms, and a morality which falls along species lines looks suspiciously like mere evolutionary instinct. Even still, we are getting somewhere, because all, or at least, most humans, have whatever it takes to be considered morally important.

So, whatever quality produces moral importance, it is held in common by all humans.

------------------------------------------------------------------
*Morally important= to be a "citizen of moral law**", having the right to fair, ethical, and kind treatment.

**While I do not believe morality to be based on law, this is the best way to express the meaning of my terms.

2010-02-06T22:10:00.000-08:00

The WBC is Coming!

2010-01-26T21:17:00.000-08:00

This Thursday, the Westboro Baptist Church, of godhatesfags.com fame (or infamy), will be picketing my school, because of our overwhelming support for gay rights and our large Jewish population. I'll be at the counterprotest, offering fabulous rainbow bracelets to the picketers.

God, it seems, also hates spelling, yet supports baby killing. And why does an anti Semitic group quote the Hebrew Bible?

What do you think of the WBC? And what are your suggestions for slogans?
So far, I've got:

GOD HATES FIGS
THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER IS LOVE
SO GOD HATES EVERYONE?
GOD HATES HATE
BURN IN HELL FOR YOUR SIGNS
GOD HATES NUBI'S
NO-NOTHINGS ----->
HOW DO BABIES TASTE?

Here's a link to pics of the best anti WBC signs. My favorites are 2, 6, 7, 21, 22, 23, and 30.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, 1-29

The "protest" (more of a party, actually) went well. Best signs by far : "Jesus had two dads" and "If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love.'-Albus Dumbledore"

Ethics

2010-01-18T19:52:00.000-08:00

This is a work in progress. Edits are in italics.

I.The self is no more and no less important than any other person.*

"Person" is defined as any being capable of ~~feeling complex emotions~~ reasoning.

II. Actions can be right, wrong, or neutral.

A right action has a beneficial effect on other people.
A wrong action is harmful to other people.
A neutral action has no foreseeable effect on other people.
Right actions are preferable to neutral actions which are preferable to wrong actions.

III.The purpose of ethics is to determine future actions

Not to judge past actions, or the actions of others
If past actions must judged, it is by their intentions, not their consequences

IV. Near-future consequences are more important than long-term consequences

Because we are more likely wrongly predict long-term consequences than near future ones
There is also a chance that we will not have a long term, thanks to an unforeseeable disaster, such as a solar explosion, collision with an asteroid, etc.
The ends do not justify the means.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*I think this is the heart of the issue. If other people don't matter, all morality (even if dictated by god) disappears, or, at best, becomes selfishly motivated.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I may continue this outline at some point in the future.

This Was Not a Natural Disaster

2010-01-13T20:47:00.000-08:00

Like the rest of the world, I am saddened by the tragedy of Haitian earthquake. But instead feeling depressed, I am outraged. Now, I am not outraged at the fact that earthquake occurred. Continents move, the Earth quakes, and there is nothing whatsoever we can do about it. I am outraged at the way in which hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, blizzards, and the like disproportionally affect the poor, who certianly have enough to deal with as it is. I am outraged because this was not a natural disaster.

Now, the earthquake, in and of itself, was natural enough, and in no way preventable. But the widespread destruction it caused? Completely human in origin. Haitian buildings did not collapse and kill people because of the strong shaking. They collapsed because they were poorly built. In fact, the Haitian earthquake, in geologic terms, was nothing special. With a 7.0 magnitude, centered approximately 25 km (15 mi) away from Port Au Prince, it could have been considerably worse. For comparison, the Loma Prieta earthquake, here in San Francisco, 21 years ago, had a magnitude of 6.9 and was located 96 miles from The City. Its affects? In my house, a crooked picture and a nervous dog. The death toll? Sixty-two. While that was 62 deaths too many, it seems insignificant compared to the thousands of deaths which Haiti is expecting to find.

It angers me to think that so much human suffering could have been so easily avoided, with something so simple as a well enforced building code. Still, if it has done nothing else, this disaster has given the Haitians a chance to rebuild their city and country, making it better than it was before. It has given them a chance to rise from the ashes. They certainly have many improvements to make.

You can donate to the relief effort here.

I Wholeheartedly Agree

2010-01-13T19:38:00.000-08:00

"It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people."

-Terry Pratchett &Neil Gaiman (Good Omens)

What Color are my Beliefs?

2010-01-10T19:25:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Sabio for this post, which uses the traffic lights as an analogy for how we hold beliefs. I'll summarize it briefly here:

4 categories of belief:

Green Light Beliefs: Believed (little doubt)

Yellow Light Beliefs: Doubted

Red Light Beliefs: Rejected (little doubt)

Grey Light Beliefs: Suspended from consideration

and 3 subcategories:

Grey Transition Yellow: Suspended doubt which we begin doubting

Yellow Transition Green: Doubt Turning to Belief

Yellow Transition Red: Doubt Turning to Rejection

I'd like to add a few categories of my own, further cluttering this once simple analogy:

Olive Light: Committed Without Consideration

Maroon Light: Rejected Without Consideration

Blue Light: Committed Agnosticism

Purple Light: Agnostically Rejected

Aqua Light: Agnostically Accepted

So, now, where do my own beliefs lie?

Green Light: The universe, naturalism, myself; Gravitational, evolutionary, and cell theories; Free speech; Gay, gun*, and animal** rights; Rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and personal property; the scientific method, and many, many other things.
Olive Light: The laws of mathematics**; Liberal economics (I should read up on this); many other things which I do not care to admit
Aqua Light: Global Warming****, Moral Realism, extraterrestrial life

Red Light: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc.; fairies, celestial teapots, ghosts, 'death panels', absolute aesthetics, the afterlife, vampires, miracles, and anything else I find wanting of evidence
Maroon Light: Paranormal claims*****, relativism-of-truth******, and many things which I probably should consider, if only to reject them more strongly
Purple Light: Deism/a non-micromanaging god, UFO visits,

Grey Light: Nothing, I hope. But there must be something in there.
Olive Transition Yellow: Free Will
Green Transition Yellow: Barack Obama
Blue Light: Abortion, animal consciousness/reason, numerous other things, none of which are coming to mind at the moment.
=============================================================
*Damn constitution
**Vegetarian since middle school
***Which can not, arguably, be proven to have real existence.
****A scientific theory. With more evidence behind it than some, less than others, which should be subjected to the same skepticism which all good science faces. A phenomenon which is probably occurring, and which should be stopped, or at least, slowed.
*****Which are not worthy of consideration.
******A philosophical dead-end.
==============================================================
Again, I'd like to thank Sabio a trillion times for inspiring this post. For ~~all~~ both of my readers who aren't him, you should definitely check out his amazing blog.

Totalitarian Airport Security

2010-01-07T18:10:00.000-08:00

Please remove your shoes. Raise your arms. Turn slowly around. Now, kindly remove your clothes, and put on our paper thin, open backed hospital gown. This is what you are wear for the rest of your flight. Now place your bag on the counter for your complimentary search.

You pass! No bombs, that we can detect—but you must hand over any hard, sharp, or dangerous objects, or any objects which could, in the proper frame of mind, be considered hard, sharp, or dangerous, such as chopsticks, ballpoint pens, pencils, erasers, and gummi bears. You will now be asked to pour any liquids down our white courtesy drain.

Due to the notorious "book bomber", you will not be allowed access to your personal items during the final one hour and seventeen minutes of your flight. Thirty seconds prior to this, however, you will have unlimited access to such objects, including your explosive laced romance novel, your beeping cell phone, which your fellow passengers would probably like to blow up by now, and your baby, who has been crying ever since we confiscated his bottle.

Thank you for flying out of Paranoia International Airport. We hope you enjoy your flight. Please come back soon.

Recreational Gods

2010-01-03T19:33:00.000-08:00

[New years day on the San Francisco bay. A blue whaleboat sails, or rather attempt to sail. Sadly, there is no wind.]

KB: Oh Great God Odin, Give us wind! Does anyone have spare change?

TB: (checks pockets) Nope.

CRL: Oh Odin, All-Father, God of wind, God of rain! Accept our sacrifice!
(throws three pennies into bilge)

KB: Please Odin, hear our request. We need wind!

[crew continue rowing, wind obstinately refuses to rise]

CRL: Great God Odin, hear our prayer! Wind!

[still no wind]

CRL: Damn you Odin!

KB: Blasphemy!

[finally, wind]

None of us believe in Odin. We are six Christians, an atheist, and an agnostic, yet put us together on a boat, and we become devout Pagans. For a moment, we suspend disbelief, and throw all of our hopes after a god who hasn't seen a follower in centuries. We pray to Odin with a sincerity generally reserved for Jesus. Then, we step onto shore and return to our previous beliefs. Our Odin-worship shows no sign of replacing our real-life beliefs (yet). But I sometimes wonder what will happen after one windless sail too many. Is this how religions start?

Holiday Humor

2009-12-27T07:35:00.001-08:00

I'm not usually one for Jesus jokes, but this one was quite harmless and too good to pass up:

"What did Jesus ever do for Santa Claus on his birthday?"

A Year Without Faith

2009-12-16T17:48:00.000-08:00

(this was supposed to be posted yesterday but it didn't show up for some reason)

Today, the 15th of December, marks one year since my most recent deconversion. I've spent a lot of time lately thinking about what I believed a year and a day ago and whether I miss it, or whether I am glad to be rid of it, once and for all. It's bit of a mix between the two most of the time, though at the moment, I'm leaning more towards missing my belief in God and hoping (and literally praying) that I am wrong.

Pascal's Wager: Part 3

2009-12-06T20:27:00.000-08:00

Another question which Pascal's wager raises is whether a person can truly choose what they want to believe. For instance, although it may be personally practical to believe in God, in case one exists; without evidence, I would have an easier time convincing myself of fairies. A life of daily Mass, constant prayer, and telling myself, against my reason, that God existed would probably do nothing to change my belief, and certainly would do nothing to change the facts. I might convince the world that I was a theist; perhaps, after a lifetime of lying to myself, I might come to call myself a one, without truly believing, yet it would be impossible to deceive God. Since getting God to accept me as believer and allow me into heaven was my original goal, if my self-deception fails to deceive whichever god I face after death, I will be no better off than the atheist.

Another problem with the wager is that it assumes salvation by faith, which has always seemed extremely unfair (granted, it is also completely foreign to me, as I am an ex-Catholic). Where is the justice in sending people to an eternity of torture or pleasure, based simply on which religion they happened to believe? If a person is mistakenly atheistic, surely their greatest mistake ("sin") is one of logical error or inferior intelligence, not one of moral failure? Is faulty reasoning grounds for eternal damnation? If a person is mistakenly Hindu or Muslim, in what is their sin? Being born on the wrong side of the globe?

If God judges purely by actions, believing based on Pascal's wager is useless, if not counter-productive, because to deceive one's self, as well as the world, could be regarded as a sin. If God judges purely on faith, than he is an unjust god, and not one which I would consider worthy of worship. If my refusal to lie to myself, the world, and this god sentences me to eternal damnation, I will burn in hell along with my integrity. If the God that I face is the same one that I left, a merciful god who judges on actions, sincerity in looking for the truth, and by the motivations in my heart, than death will leave me with nothing to fear, except the probability that I am right.

Switzerland Bans Minaretes

2009-11-30T18:37:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, the Swiss people voted to ban minarets. Although the ban's right-wing backers claimed that it was an attack only on extremism, claiming, “This is not against Islam. The minaret is a symbol of political power,” I see it as an obvious attack on Islam, and on freedom of religion in general. Is this any different than a law banning steeples on churches, claiming that they are symbols of militant Christianity?

War is Peace

2009-11-22T18:54:00.000-08:00

Amazing article about media bias and misinformation.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=war-is-peace

Pascal's Wager: Part 2

2009-11-01T18:04:00.000-08:00

Another, perhaps deeper, flaw in Pascal's wager is that it provides no guidance as to which god to worship. Throughout history, humanity has believed in hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of religions. If one assumes that, in lieu of any evidence, that atheism and theism are equally likely, and that beliefs should be based on personal utility, it does not follow that one should worship any specific god, because believing in the wrong god will not increase ones chances of going to heaven and avoiding hell; an angry Allah will not be particularly thrilled if I tell him that I've devoted my life to Jesus, or vice versa.

Considering the multitude of religions that humans have invented, along with the infinite undiscovered gods technically possible, Pascal's wager becomes an argument against god, because atheism has a higher probability of being true than any single religion. Unless one distinguishes itself from the rest with greatly superior evidence than that of the rest, the sheer volume of religions on earth is proof that they are all human creations.

Pascal's Wager: Part I

2009-10-26T21:37:00.000-07:00

One of the strangest, and, in my view, most fallacious arguments for theism is Pascal's Wager, which states that,"You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

The problem is that the choice whether or not to believe in God is not a decision of which belief will benefit one the most, based on probability and risk, but a decision of which belief is true, based on logic and evidence. Only if (hypothetically) the probability of God's existence is a 50-50 toss up, or a situation of pure, blindfolded, uncertainty would Pascal's wager come into play. If one believes that there is a 40% chance of theism being true and a 60% chance of atheism, then one is an atheist, albeit a very unsure one. For such a person to, while thinking that there was most likely no God, to force themselves into belief would be a leap of faith beyond the power of many, or a great act of simple self deception.

I didn't do anything either. Do I get a prize?

2009-10-09T21:53:00.000-07:00

What the hell was the Nobel Peace Prize committee thinking? There must be someone out there who is more deserving. True, Obama is an improvement over Bush, but then, who wouldn't be? True, he has broken racial barriers, which certainly is an accomplishment, but it is unrelated to the task or spreading peace. Certainly, he has promised a change, promised to close Guantanamo bay, extend diplomacy, and end the war in Iraq, but, almost a year later, what change do we see?

In all fairness to Obama, much of his inaction is congress's fault, but much of their ineffectiveness is caused by the general flaws within the American political system. One serious problem is that of politicians propensity to change once elected, promising to root out corruption and then taking suspect money, promising to end wars and then voting for them, promising change, but dragging their heels when it finally comes.

Possibly our greatest problem is our ineffective campaign finance system, which turns even the best politicians into useless puppets of business. Another culprit is the mass media and political advertising, which changes elections from a contest of ideas to a popularity contest and a war of 30 second clips, with information that may or may not be true and promises that may or may not be kept. TV time costs money, of course, crushing the chances of all candidates who do not wish to buy into the corrupt finance system.

A first step to fixing the American political system would be to reform our campaign finance laws. Unfortunately, we are trapped. Who would be writing the reform legislation? Politicians. Who stands to loose most from effective reform? Politicians.

In a democracy, there is a certain difficulty in blaming our leaders, for it's our fault that they are in power in the first place. Ultimately, it is the American people who are at fault for our own country's blunders. The only solution is for us to wake up and start voting based on who has the best policies, not on who has the most TV ads, the most bumper stickers, the most support among friends and other politicians. Once we start to disregard political advertisements, politicians will stop using them, the cost of running a campaign would be significantly reduced, forcing the campaign finance system into obsolescence, ending corruption and giving the power back to the people; taking it back from businesses and special interests.

I do not expect these changes to happen in my lifetime, but then, my parents' generation never expected an African American to be elected president, and they have been proven wrong beyond their wildest dreams.

"i" wonder

2009-09-30T19:51:00.000-07:00

Why on Earth is the pronoun I capitalized? I mean, seriously? Why? As far as "i" know, English is the only language that does this. Even within the jumbled mess that is our language, there are only two situations which call for capitalized pronouns: when referring to oneself with the pronoun I (but not me,) and when referring to God (Allah, the FSM, etc.), with a capitalized He, Him, His (Her?) etc. Referring to oneself with a capitalized pronoun seems to be a pretty self-centered idea, when one considers it's rarity. Could this be a reflection on the values of early English-speakers?

Introductory Post

2009-09-30T19:10:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog, said the peacock...

This will basically be a compilation of all the semi-significant thoughts that decide to pop out of my head. Possible topics may or may not include politics, religion, science, and photography.I'll try to keep out the soporific details of my life, but I apologize in advance if I fail at this.