Superstition in Peoria: Alive and well!

Workout Notes 5 mile run/walk on the treadmill; 5 minute walk, then 4-1 run/walk (easy pace) after shoveling snow.

Confession: I live in a bubble of sorts. I teach mathematics at a small university; most of my fellow faculty have at least a modest publication record. Mine is a bit too modest of late; that means that I should blog less and research more?

On the internet, I mostly hang out at places where math/science types feel comfortable. Hence, I don’t have a good feel for what the vast majority of people think.

I do read our local paper (it isn’t that good, but it isn’t downright terrible and it is what we have).

Therefore editorials like this just make me shake my head:

As recounted in a special last month on PBS’ program, “Nova,” a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled in 2005 that teaching intelligent design in the classroom violates the constitutional ban on teaching religion in public schools.

I realize, therefore, that what follows – since it could conceivably find its way into schools somewhere or other – might result in my being dragged off to jail and beaten with a rubber hose.

Now, I am not an unquestioning advocate of intelligent design, much less the more fundamental concepts of creationism. But what strikes me as completely irrational is the idea that this all “just happened” and that there is no particular rhyme or reason to this incredible scenario that is life and death, the seasons, and the great globe itself.

To deny that there is some reason, some intelligence, behind all this is to deny common sense, which is in woefully short supply these days. [...]

So what is the point of all this? If we accept without question the legally approved concept that it all just happened and that to bring an intelligence – God – into the picture verges on the criminal, then there is no point. It becomes a cosmic joke with no punch line and very little laughter [...]

The fact that to teach otherwise might be legally unacceptable is to deny what the vast majority of people believe. So we must be taught that we have evolved after some mysterious big bang occurred, and then some kind of creature crawled out of the sea and evolved, eventually, into a species called man with the ability to reason, to laugh, to think and to tie his own shoes.

Talk about a fairy tale.

If you believe this, I know of a nice bridge for sale cheap. It’s blue and it is made of steel beams and lots of rivets and it has a sturdy concrete deck and it wasn’t made by anybody. It just happened . . . by accident. Can you believe it?

Remember, this columnist is popular around here; this is what passes for “common sense” around here, at least among the majority of the newspaper readers.

Though none of the (few) people that read this blog regularly need to read what I am about to say, I’ll say this for the benefit of those less familiar with science who have wandered in:

science, by definition, is inherently “naturalistic” in the sense that one always assumes that the laws of nature are responsible for what we see. When one departs from “naturalism”, one departs from science.

No, science might not have “all of the answers”. But, humans have been around for a very long time (50,000 years or so), and whereas science has delivered demonstrable truths (resulting in electricity, chemicals, cures for and vaccinations against diseases, nuclear weapons), superstition and irrationality has produced nothing, in terms of advancement of knowledge.

Anyway, contrast the level of reasoning and writing from the above article to this one from Sandwalk

In natural selection the frequency of an allele increases in the population because the presence of the allele confers a selective advantage on the individual who carries it. This individual will survive and reproduce more frequently than individuals possessing the other allele of the gene in question. Over many generations the beneficial allele has a higher than normal probability of becoming fixed in the population

In random genetic drift an allele will increase in frequency due to chance alone and not because it confers a selective benefit. In most cases the allele will be nearly neutral with respect to its phenotype. Over a long period of time, these non-selected alleles will become fixed relative to other similar alleles in the genome.

There are many other things that you need to learn about evolution, Granville, but these two important concepts will do for now. Good descriptions of these mechanisms are easy to find on the internet. I’m surprised that you’ve never heard of them before. I guess that’s why you’re an IDiot.

Note: Professor Moran was trying to explain the mechanism of “natural selection” and “genetic drift” to a confused so-called “intelligent design” proponent.

Can you imagine the author of the Peoria article understanding a word of Professor Moran’s explanation? Of course not; it would be like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a frog.

On another note, Friendly Atheist reports on another editorial from another newspaper:

How often do you see writing like this accepted for publication in your local newspaper?

Some days it seems as if candidates are running for the nation’s office of first cleric rather than commander in chief. It is ironic that believing in invisible beings and hearing their voices is viewed as a qualification for an office in the West Wing when traditionally it qualified one for a room in a psychiatric ward. However, the majority of Americans seem to want a candidate who believes in God as well as America.

Go on…

We atheists are a small and misunderstood minority. Only 3 percent to 9 percent of Americans report that they do not believe in God. Professor Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi’s review of psychological studies reveals that atheists are less authoritarian and suggestible than religious believers, less dogmatic, less prejudiced, more tolerant of others, law-abiding, compassionate, conscientious, highly intelligent and well educated.

Some religiously inclined mistakenly believe that atheists are amoral. However, we atheists tend to subscribe to the highest moral principles and do so without being motivated by fear of hell or hope of heaven.

The editorial is here.