h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Australian fairy tale.

One upon a time there was a rabbit.

Now there are billions of the #*%^@!

Which reminds me, Easter is coming.

Every year I make a nice bunny stew!

what? You're a bunny boiler?

Well, not right off. First I chop them into bits and roll those in spiced flour. Then I brown them in oil in a dutch oven. Then I add water and some veg and simmer the lot for a while and finish up with some dumplings on top.

Grate some cheese on top of the dumplings and put it under the broiler for five minutes.

It's why I make it at Easter. With a bottle of good wine it's sooo good, I eat too much and I can't get up for three days.

Speaking of rabbits and Easter I just heard recently that Easter eggs (especially as rolled around the White House lawn) are supposed to symbolize the rock that was rolled away from tomb of Hayzeus. (The Russians of Greek Orthodoxy may have other notions but they sure go overboard on the decorations!)

And the rabbits of course are symbols of fertility, which is what the Springtime celebration of Estra (pagan goddess of fertility) was all about before them johnny-cum-lately Romans used the fear of eternal damnation to impose what little was left of their empire on the northern cultures.

peace
~jwf~

I've posted the following into the 'what news story . . ?' thread as well:

Introduced into the Oklahoma House of Representatives:

'NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma. . .'

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/03/richard_dawkins_banned_in_okla.php

I think it's damn fine of them to risk their freedom of speech to save Dawkins a wasted trip to a place that wouldn't listen anyway and might even string him up.

BTW:
Didja know that Bonnie Rait's father was the guy who starred in the original cast recording of Oklahoma?

"Oooooooooooo-kla-homa..."


Think I'll go paint my wagon now, just in case the temperance folk drop by.

~jwf~

The answer:

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2009/03/06/hate/

Going back to what Ed was saying about Islam and Catholicism being urban religions: for Islam in the UK that's certainly true. If you had a map plotting religion, for Islam you'd have a map showing the major cities and not much else. In fact, you'd have a map that showed mostly the poorest areas of the major cities.

I know I'm treading on very dodgy ground here, but Islam has failed to move beyond the desperately poor inner-city areas that most immigrants arrive in. Most ethnic/religious groups, given time, break out of the inner cities. Educational indicators tend to rise steeply in second and third generations immigrant communities (reference: the Economist/YouGov poll released last week). These things haven't happened with Muslim communities - successive immigrant groups seem to be overtaking them.

You can't draw any concrete conclusions from this fact alone, but it is an interesting fact on its own.

One of the reasons Islam is not spreading further than the inner cities is that the Muslim community is based around their mosques which require planning permission. If councils will not give planning permission for mosques outside of inner cities then that does reduce the chance of Muslims spreading into the wider community.

For me this is honestly a good thing. I do not want another religious virus spreading through the UK.

MMM six days have passed and the book is ordered but in the meantime 136 posts have been lodged and yes I freely admit to not reading them all as closely as I should so please excuse me if I just jump right in and continue where I left of in my search for understanding oh and by the way thank you for all the helpful information clive...

At this point I will also apologise for my atrocious typing in advance

A few thougths occur to me they are in no particular order:

the referecnce to the big book business re religion and the money to be earned but I notices in an article in a science journal I was recently reading that sales on books by "atheists" are also up big time so possibly they too have an economic stake in this

There seems to be a view that most scientists do not believe in a god as logical thinking people however while many of my fellow scientists may not follow a specific religious belief they still have a belief that something intelligent is behind things

I attended a series of lectures at my Uni celebrating the ear of atronomy on Thu where yet again I heard about the Big Bang
and why it is dissmissed by those in the community as bad science from both believers and non believers one "elieving" Astrophysicist
presented a paper that was extremely compelling re scientific evidence for intelligent design

Still not having read the book by Mr Dawkins and so still in the dark
I was reading another paper by a plant biologist Dr Gina Mohammed and how her belief actually helped her to make break thru research in the area of seed viability

It seems to me that peoples beliefs either for or against impact on their ability to do good science if not acknowledged they influence the assumptions and theories put forward and make for poor research

I am enjoying this conversation immensley it is challenging me to look at my own assumptions and I find it very interesting hearing peoples views do you discuss the cultural implications as well or simply the scientific? I would be interested to know peoples thoughts on a movie i heard a little about today called Corpus Christi I think? What I was told was that it is a remake of the Christ story that many christians find offensive and they are trying to ban it from being shown here in Australia I think the last movie that they tried to have banned here was also religious in nature, my personal opinion is that while I may not like the subject matter that is not a good enough readson to prohibit it...I do think that there are some things that should be banned but if it is a genuine exploration of an idea that isn't seeking just to be offensive it should be available though maybe with limitations imposed ie not for viewing by children or warnings that some may find this offensive what do others think?

sorry just reread my typing and I did not mean to imply all scientists have some sort of a belief it was meant to say there are those that do in reasonable numbers

kariblake:

Welcome back!




Don't worry about that it isn't in the rules that you have to read them all.



And so you should...sheez!!!!





Indeed! It also shows that increasingly athiests are realising they have every right to criticise religion and also discuss the 'origins' and reasons why religions are created.

I suggest you have a read about 'Cargo cults' to see easily people are willing to create belief systems out of something that has a totally rational explanation but because they haven't got the sophisticated knowledge they come up with a reason to explain why something is happening...and it usually happens to be religious:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2267426





A lot of scientists will have been brought up believing in a god and hence have no problem in studying theories robustly during the week at work and forgetting all the rational methods of logic at the weekend when they go and worship their god.

One's who 'believe' later in life sometimes due to the need to believe to help some life issue are very willing again to ignore the irrationality of it all because 'it helps'.



Two points here: there is absolutely nothing wrong in saying the big bang isn't the correct explanation of how the universe came about...as long as someone has some proof or evidence of a different explanation. Secondly, for believers it is useful to destroy the big bang theory as it reduces the explanations to 'god did it'.



The thing about evidence for Intelligent Design is the amount of evidence left out which destroys the theory or the way in which proponents of ID give examples but knowingly or unknowingly ignore the facts that discredit those examples.

The 'Dover Intelligent Design' court case:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District which happened in 2005 was a case to stop ID being taught in a US school.

The defence brought in Micheal Behe who was on eof the people to coin the phrase ID...which is basically Creationism in a new suit.

Here is a good report of the case:

http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v7/n5/full/ni0506-433.html

He has a major problem with evolutionary immunology i.e. it can't be something that could evolve:

"...Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not 'good enough.'"

Also the other thing he grasps on to is 'irreducibly complex systems' i.e. 'A single system which is composed of several interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.'

The flagella is something he has mentioned: A molecular motor that he believed could not have evolved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagella

It can evolve and he was shown evidence of how it evolved. Simply he saw the flagella and invoked personal incredulity and hence said 'I do not believe that could have evolved to be that complex and hence God must have designed it. Unfortunately, he didn't look hard enough...it can evolve.


Proponents of ID are snake oil salesmen trying more and more to push it into schools. They call on extra-ordinary proof of evolution and snap at the gaps in the theory but are happy to ignore the huge gaping holes in their hypothesis of ID (it is not a theory as there is no solid peer-reviewed evidence for it).



YES! You have got it.

Now I am not saying 'proper' scientists do not have blind spots when it comes to their research but that is where the importance of peer review comes from which is able to spot the holes or the bias in theories and research.



Yes, we do. but that would be adifferent thread subject really!

Glad you are enjoying the dicussion. The main problem is there is a lot of information for you to read and digest to realy start to understand the issues around ID, creation of religions, human evolution and it's need to create gods etc. Hopefully, you will be able to drag yourself away from the science books and read more widely.

Welcome back kariblake.

Saying that atheists hate god is a position taken by believers to rally the troops. We can't hate someone who we don't believe exists. All that we are asking for is an honest debate. Since the faith side has no evidence they can't argue their position so they resort to misrepresenting the other side. 3Dots has mentioned the bacterial flagellum but there are many other examples.

We've said it before and it bears repeating; science is about searching for truth, faith is about thinking that you've already found it.

3Dots,Thanks for that last post.

Welcome back Kariblake.

>>thank you for all the helpful information clive...<<

My pleasure. Hope it helps.

>>in the meantime 136 posts have been lodged <<

It's not compulsory to read the backlog, however, I always find it is worth it.

>>sales on books by "atheists" are also up big time so possibly they too have an economic stake in this<<

Mmm...possibly, but adherence to atheism predates the writing of popular books on the subject, so I would read to much into that, myself.

>>many of my fellow scientists may not follow a specific religious belief they still have a belief that something intelligent is behind things <<

People, as has been noted, are complex;

And this very odd talent is manifest in being able and willing to engage in cognitive dissonance and non sequitur at the drop of a metaphorical hat. Francis Collin's celebrated conversion is a case in point. A rationalist and scientific mind as none could be doubted, whilst out walking came across the scene of a frozen tripartite waterfall. Falling to his knees he accepted the truth of Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour.

Clearly beautiful, The human brain as you can attest is fantastic at spotting patterns. The number three is a good example. Three is a very common number in myth. I'm not entirely sure why that is. The so-called triune nature of god and the tripartite frozen ice sculpture were allied in this sense that they both represented the significance of the number three. therefore , not only did God make it, but Francis Collins knew precisely which god (out of the thousands that have been worshipped in recorded human history)

Some people find that kind of non sequitur possible. Even attractive. That I find confusing. This is not to impugn overly Francis' Collin's rationalist credentials, rather to underscore that people do complex and bizarre things and justify it to themselves, daily.

On a related point, the suggestion has been made that, amongst physicists say, as a classic example they haven't had their Darwin. By which I mean the breakthrough theory that unifies and explains everything. Physics has no shortage of geniuses each responsible for developing a branch of fundamental importance along the way, but no grand theoretical framework of Everything, in the way that evolution can explain the complexity of the entire field of study.

As a result biologists in particular tend to have
a) little or no reason to believe in design as an explanatory theory for complexity in nature. Physicists, who deal with things like the fundamental constants* still have that hurdle to jump. The can juggle relativity and quantum theory and the standard model of particle physics but still they lack the over-arching perspective of why these things are the way they are.

b) because evolution conflicts so directly with religious texts in ways in which the speed of light traversing a complex plane doesn't, that biologists have bloodied their knuckles with the creationist lobby to a much greater extent than either the chemists or physicists have had to. Of course as physics can see further and explain more the conflict has increased (see below), and it is complicated by the fact that physics is less accessible or intuitive, in the way male deer butting heads for a mate are visible, than the fraction of the picosecond when super-symmetry fractured. For the biologists who still can't wrap their heads around undirected process creating complexity through material processes, random mutation and natural selection: people are complex.

------------
*The fundamental constants things like the value of the strong and weak nuclear forces, which allow elements and isotopes to form or stars to shine.
The argument runs something like this: Our universe supports life. If our universe were any different, then the universe wouldn't support life. Therefore God did it.

This is then further complicated by the anthropic fallacy which says: Our kind of life exists in this universe; therefore the universe was created with us in mind. Which ignores that most of this planet is hostile to humans, the majority of planets in this solar system would be outright deadly to humans, the, the majority of the universe is inhospitable and that in any event our galaxy is set to collide with another galaxy, which will be terrific for forming new stars, but quite what will happen to Humans in that maelstrom is anyone's guess. As Chris Hitchens would say: some deign, huh?
------------


>>I heard about the Big Bang and why it is dissmissed by those in the community as bad science from both believers and non believers. One "believing" Astrophysicist
presented a paper that was extremely compelling re scientific evidence for intelligent design.<<

Well I anticipated this one: physicists can be prone to seeing design where there is none.

As Dots pointed out, there is nothing wrong with saying the big bang model of universal development is wrong so long as there is soe good reasonign and evidence to back that assertion up. The Big Bang has been resoanably good at explainign the known features of the universe but it also perfectly true to note that to do this the model has had to be revised and updated to include many new developments (the latest being dark matter and dark energy) which leaves some quite secular scientists scratching their heads. However Dots other point is the appropriate response, an alternative hypothesis will be entertained, if it can explain all the features the Big Bang Model can; if it can make accurate and testable predictions, I'd like to hear the contenders.

The (quite sniggering at the back) "scientific" evidence for Intelligent Design, is a contradiction in terms.

Thanks Clive. You make a good point about a mind primed to see. Do you suppose if Francis Collins' background had been Hindu instead of Christian he might have come across a rock formation that looked like an elephant? Then might he have fallen to his knees and accepted Ganesha as his lord?

That's precisely the point.

'The (quite sniggering at the back) "scientific" evidence for Intelligent Design, is a contradiction in terms.'


well, now, actually, Clive, it isn't really a contradiction in terms. 'The Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design' is certainly an Empty Set, and will remain so as long as the proponents of Intelligent Design refuse to utilize anything approaching the scientific method (and probably remain empty forever even then), but it is certainly conceivable that scientific evidence for an intelligent designer may be turned up someday.

And, someday if I get around to pointing my camera at the bottom of my garden I might actually snap a photo of the fairy down there.

You are of course correct, I was being mildly flippant with an exaggeration of smileys to try and make a point.

I thought I had in the foregoing made enough of a case about physics and the appearance of design, not since Darwin, being replicated in biology to leap to the parody without going through the necessary steps of having to say that whilst it is conceivable that such and such a feature of the natural world *could* have been purposively designed, the dominant Khunian paradigm is to search for natural and material causes, and intelligent designs proponents need to find someway of combating instances of complexity (bacterial flagella, cascade clotting in blood etc) with their naturalistic explanations with the supposition of a designer for which there is no evidence other than the supposition that Feautre x is so unlikely / complex/ improbable it simpyl *has* to of been designed.

The matter only worsens when that designer is supposed to be either supernatural in origin or character, extra-universal, or one of the many deities on the books.

Nor should it pass without comment, that far more likely personality traits of the designer are imaginable, if one enters into the spirit of the argument than simply intelligence.
One need only to look at the human eyeball, one of the member of parasitoid wasps or The Planet Earth to see that this designer is either a) incompetent b) incredibly sadistic and cruel or c) in J.B.S Haldane's legendary turn-of-phrase, 'inordinately fascinated by beetles.'