Creationist questions, scientist answers

First, there was the debate: After Bill Nye's debate with evidence-free Ken Ham, the Creationists lined up with their questions. At Slate, Phil Plait provides the answers. Plait offers links to two excellent resources for those who really care to learn more about evolution: 1. Understanding Evolution. This is a collaborative project of the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education. 2. FAQ's for Creationists by TalkOrigins. Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology. Plait ends his article with a link to another of his excellent articles, "Is Science Faith-Based." Here's why science is not faith-based:

The scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That's it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior . . . Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It's a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it's always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn't work, we'd see it. Our computers wouldn't work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn't get off the ground, our electronics wouldn't work, our medicine wouldn't work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

Continue ReadingCreationist questions, scientist answers

Riding A Hobby Horse

Hobby Lobby is suing to be exempted from certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case . . . The question at the heart of this is, should a company be forced to pay for things with which it has a moral objection? [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingRiding A Hobby Horse

Pope invites non-believers to join in effort for peace

I'm ambivalent about Pope Francis. He believes many things I don't, including non-physical sentient beings, virgin birth, life after death and many other things too numerous to list. Today, however, he made another eyebrow raising statement, inviting non-believers to join the effort for peace, according to the NYT:

Francis has regularly attracted huge crowds in Vatican City, and almost overnight he has emerged as a major figure on the global stage, surprising many Catholics with his nonjudgmental tone on issues like homosexuality and divorce, and his focus on the plight of the world’s poor. He has also been unpredictable, telephoning ordinary people who have written him letters, embracing a badly disfigured man at St. Peter’s and making unannounced visits in Rome. He proved unpredictable again on Wednesday, when he went off script to include atheists in his call for peace, rare for a Catholic leader. “I invite even nonbelievers to desire peace,” he said. “Let us all unite, either with prayer or with desire, but everyone, for peace.”
What kind of person would mention non-believers without vilifying them? A half-decent person. Thus, the Pope's neutral inclusion of atheists was quite a low bar, indeed. But he did hop over that bar. For a Pope, this statement was extraordinary, especially considered along with the many other reasonable statements by this Pope, including his refusal to obsess about abortion or homosexuality. Many of this Pope's recent statements are shocking only in comparison with the many ludicrous, bigoted statements of his predecessors. Consider also, this statement the Pope made on December 5, 2013:
In a speech that shocked many, the Pope claimed “All religions are true, because they are true in the hearts of all those who believe in them. What other kind of truth is there? In the past, the church has been harsh on those it deemed morally wrong or sinful. Today, we no longer judge. Like a loving father, we never condemn our children. Our church is big enough for heterosexuals and homosexuals, for the pro-life and the pro-choice! For conservatives and liberals, even communists are welcome and have joined us. We all love and worship the same God.”
I would summarize as follows: "One small step for a man. One giant leap for a Pope." May the new Pope continue to be decent, which must be extraordinarily difficult in such as wretchedly backward and corrupt place as the Vatican.

Continue ReadingPope invites non-believers to join in effort for peace

The last taboo?

Atheism has been called "the last taboo" by the author of this article at Politico. Well, that's exaggerated, because someday we're going to have people that want to marry dead people or have sex with their siblings--people are quite innovative. Nonetheless, this article is well written and does make the important point in these United States of Hypocrisy that many people won't vote for those who don't believe in God, regardless of whether they are good-hearted competent leaders. This, at a time when 80% of those who say that they believe in "God" don't actually believe in God. That's my own personal estimate based on the almost total lack of interest and knowledge of their own holy books and church history by most of the people who claim that religion is important.

Continue ReadingThe last taboo?