The last post about Ray being bananas was far too light on the details. So, I thought I’d say a bit more about the ordeal today, while I have some time.

Ray operates a ministry in Huntington beach, and can usually be found on a soapbox bantering with beachgoers on Saturdays. There are several videos of this on YouTube, that I won’t reproduce here for brevity. He made himself famous online with one episode of his “Way of the Master” series that he produces with his boy-toy and former actor, Kirk Cameron. That episode, Bananas: The Atheist’s Worst Nightmare, claimed that bananas were perfect for human consumption, obviously designed as such by a loving creator god. His arguments were rapidly debunked, both in video form, and through skeptic websites.

In the video, Ray reveals his obvious lack of scholarship. He completely neglected to research anything about bananas before simply making up creationist arguments. He overlooked the history of bananas and their human cultivation for 7,000, year. He missed the fact that the convenient ‘pull tab’ is used by stupid humans, while smart monkeys simply pinch the other end. He claimed that the shape of the banana was a perfect fit for finger joints, while it’s simply a result of having grown in a bunch (nature can pack efficiently). It is unfortunate that Ray has a successful ministry, as it reveals that humans are easily won over by superficial arguments and tend not to take the time to seriously critique the messages they hear. The success of his ministry almost directly demonstrates, how fallible and gullible we are.

More recently, as an obvious publicity stunt, Ray decided to distribute a republication of Darwin’s Origin of Species, in ‘honor’ of the 150th anniversary of its original release. Of course the book has long been in public domain, so, while a bit touchy, this is a perfectly legal maneuver on his part. He placed within the book a 50 page Special Introduction, available at his ministry. In his indoctrination, Ray again reveals sloppy scholarship. He plagarizes, and uses well worn creationist arguments, that have long been refuted. A summary nice refutation can be read at the Don’t Diss Darwin site, setup by the National Center for Science Education. He ends the Indoctrination with a plea that you should buy one of his other books, presumably also as thoroughly researched.

Since enough people within the science community had found out about the publication, there was time to address the misinformation that would be spread on so many college campuses. US News and World Report has a back and forth between Ray and the Eugenie Scott, who works as the executive directory of NCSE and who’s work finding ‘cdesign proponentsists’ helped considerably in the Dover Trial. Ray introduced why he wanted to publish the book, Exclusive: Ray Comfort Defends His Creationist Edition of ‘On the Origin of Species and Eugenie replied with How Creationist ‘Origin’ Distorts Darwin.

Ray had initially planned on releasing his creationist re-publication on the anniversary of Darwin’s original. Yet, since that landed on a weekend prior to Thanksgiving, he rescheduled to Thursday, Nov 19. This was convenient for my club, AAR@UCI because we have meeting on Wed night, and could easily discuss strategy and organization prior to his arrival. We were also hoping, that since UCI is so close to Huntington Beach, he might show up to our campus in person.

Then, on the morning of Wednesday, Nov 18, we spotted his people handing out books! He preempted the schedule! Fortunately, we had already received a collection of banana bookmarks from NCSE, and rapidly organized ourselves to hand them out. He must have felt that the atmosphere in Orange County is too strongly affected by the rationalists because he decided to show up at UCLA instead. He was immediately countered by the Bruin Skeptics though, as recorded by their posts:

• Nazis, Darwin, and Living a Good Life
• BASS Meeting VIII
• A Day Early: Banana Man and Kirk Cameron at UCLA
• Ray Comfort Soapbox Video

In summary, I found the whole event anti-climatic. Most of the world had not heard that this was going on. All they say was some people handing out Darwin books, claiming “This might help you with your studies”. The only people that even wanted to debate with them were members of our own group, who knew what was going on. It seems that the creationists must go to extreme lengths to find a way to shovel their shit into the minds of others. This includes deceit about schedules, slipping bogus content into otherwise good books, neglecting scholarship, misrepresentation of the material, and all other manner of logical fallacies. On strictly moral grounds, I have to give the entire creationist movement a big CHRISTIAN FAIL, for not following their own espoused moral code.

The Libertarian think tank CATO recently published a small, trite piece that attempts to establish The Case against Literary (and Software) Patents. Being a Libertarian, I actually agree with the position; I just don’t think that this article fully explored the issue. Here, I seek to provide some links to more fundamental content.

It begins with the hypothetical existence of a ‘Literature patent’. I consider such an idea to be terrible at face value, and the article actually dismisses it as much. It would be ridiculous to expect every author to carefully comb over their work making sure that it doesn’t infringe on any registered plots or (worse!) plot devices (good buy holodeck!) Acquiring knowledge of registered patents would be prohibitive for a beginning author, they’d have to rely on publishers/editors. This significantly raises the cost of creating an innovative work. Not to mention the human effort the government must spend to maintain consistency in it’s patent database, and the legal costs and liabilities for the inevitable infringement.

The article then proceeds to demonstrate what happens in patentable areas. Immediately, there is a land grab on the ‘low hanging fruit’. During this process, established market leaders tend to benefit, because the have the resources (both funds and people) to make a large number of claims and file the required paperwork (economics of scale apply to paper shuffling too). Typically only a relatively few companies will be successful in this endeavor. The initial grab might also appear to be an ‘economic stimulus’, as it will show a remarkably steep and sudden interest in the field, resulting from the underlying similarity of the tragedy of the commons. After the market settles, a few incumbents then use their patent portfolios to threaten up-start competition. As the article points out, in the world of software patents, so much of the field is so obvious, that agents without an explicit interest in software will find themselves infringing as a normal course of their business but will be without their own patent portfolio and unable to make a bargaining counter-threat.

Another economic phenomenon that happens as a result of the patent system’s existence is economic stalemate. This actually happened with the sewing machine, as recorded by Adam Mossoff in A Stitch in Time: The Rise and Fall of the Sewing Machine Patent Thicket, which was blogged about at the Volokh Conspiracy. He recounts how the marketing and distribution of the sewing machine was actually encumbered by the patent system, because the machine required the combination of several innovations, and no single agent held all patents on the functionality. History also demonstrates the practice of ‘patent trolling’, whereby a company, which doesn’t actually produce anything, seeks to profit by legal threats of infringement and licensing agreements on its patent portfolio. The resulting stalemate was finally resolved through the explicit creation of a patent-holding company, whose sole function was to share the patents and resulting profits of all involved manufacturing firms.

So we can see that for areas where copyright is already established practice, the introduction of an extension of the patent system results in litigation and paperwork and encourages the preservation of an established regime of a few powerful companies working in loose collusion, both of which tend to outweigh any potential benefits to development and innovation

Now, I’d like to go out on a limb here, and reject the very concept of ‘Intellectual Property’. Richard Stallman has spoken out against its use, and continuously advertises the fact that it’s deceptive and misleading. At the root of the issue is that ideas and physical matter behave differently. That is, copying != stealing. The reasoning behind this position is fairly simple, when an idea is copied that does not deprive the original possessor from the idea. When you tell me about your theory of X, you don’t suddenly forget after telling me. In contrast, if you give me an apple, now you no longer have that apple. Ideas are part of a different realm of existence.

Finally, I’d like to point out the slippery slope, what happens if we go too far with this property idea: we might lose The Right to Read, or watch How creativity is being strangled by the law.

I hope that through these references, you can see where, how, and why I’ve developed my position on the patent issue; I’m firmly on the side of maximum freedom (and that includes the opening up of all media: open-music, open-software, open-hardware, open-design, open-architecture, open-video, open-government, open-literature, etc…)

Today I stumbled across a somewhat recent post by Luskin of the infamous Discovery Institute. Luskin observes some comments made by Eugenie Scott, in regard to how scientists should portray their results, so as not to be pounced upon by the creationists. He accuses Scott of instructing scientists to “spin it [changes in science] positively and never acknowledge they were wrong”. Worse, he concludes with:

When scientists in a field are instructed to avoid publicly admiting when they’re wrong, and are advised that improving the public’s perception of science is not best served by doing better science, then you know that field is steeped in intolerance towards dissent, and political pressure to give assent to orthodoxy. These are not the signs of a healthy science.

Which, while technically an accurate statement, is very misleading in this context. When we look at what Scott actually said, she’s effectively counseling scientists to be careful about their phrasing. Importantly, those working in evolution should avoid hyperbole about their discoveries. She wants scientists to be aware of the following problem:

So people get confused when scientists discover things and change ideas?

Yes, all the time. This is one of the real confusions about evolution. Creationists have done a splendid job of convincing the public that evolution is weak science because scientists are always changing their minds about things.

So, Luskin (and other creationists) are actually responsible for Eugenie’s reaction! They’ve been pouncing all over science, politicizing evolution with a “Teach the controversy” campaign and continuous whining about “being blacklisted from the journals”. They’ve been rejected from journals because they have no falsifiable claims, nor associated experiments; they then tried to push the creationism into schools, but were thrown out in the Scope’s Monkey Trial and again in Dover, Pennsylvania; and now they’ve jumped on an “equal-time in science classrooms” even though the comparison is akin to astrology vs astronomy.

This has really gone on for long enough that Eugenie feels she must remind scientists that:

What’s the current state of the effort to keep schools teaching evolution?

Sometimes it feels like the Red Queen around here, where we’re running as hard as we can to stay in the same place. The thing is, creationism evolves. And for every victory we have, there’s pressure on the creationists to change their approach. We constantly have to shift our response. Ultimately the solution to this problem is not going to come from pouring more science on it.

What should scientists and people who care about science do?

I’m calling on scientists to be citizens. American education is decentralized. Which means it’s politicized. To make a change … you have to be a citizen who pays attention to local elections and votes [for] the right people. You can’t just sit back and expect that the magnificence of science will reveal itself and everybody will … accept the science.

Though Luskin takes warps these comments to imply that science itself isn’t healthy, he should be reminded that the whole political situation is the fault of the creationists! They’ve got a strategic attack with the Wedge Document that’s mostly taken the scientific community by surprise. Then, when scientists make outrageous claims (like when New Scientist had a cover proclaiming Darwin was Wrong) the creationists blow it all out of proportion. That’s why Eugenie is recommending that scientists not try for these kinds of claims; it’s inaccurate and the distortion is too easily inflated by creationist cohorts.

So, Luskin, like all creationists before him, has once again reversed cause and effect and confused his premise and conclusion. It’s not that science is dogmatic because Scott has to encourage carefully worded discoveries; It’s that the political climate surrounding evolution has become so highly charged that it can no longer tolerate the hyperbole that scientists naturally inject into their claims to sell their importance to other scientists. And the entire problem was manufactured by the creationists! And Luskin continues to flame the distortion in his post that prompted this whole rant.

Oh, and one more thing: Any time that a creationist claims the Earth was created in 6,000 years, point them over to Yes, Millions of Years! and then ask who’s rejecting what evidence!

I have the great P.Z. Myers in my RSS feed, and read his post, Men, Women Divided Over Sex Bill. It’s about a bill that proposes to criminalize marital rape, and it’s opposed by bible thumpers (even a women is quoted) on the grounds that “the woman and the man become one flesh” so marital rape, by definition, cannot occur, it’s abuse of one’s own body. It’s a view that strongly encourages the thinking of women as property, rather than partner.

Reading the objections to the bill reminded me of a conversation that I had with a friend about The Bible and Homosexuality, who claimed that I had misinterpreted the following passage:

• Romans 1:26-27

  For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
  And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I claimed that this was the only passage mentioning lesbianism. But apparently this is not true, the real interpretation I would never have guessed because I’m not misogynistic enough.

Apparently the sin of women in this passage, isn’t that they slept with each other; it’s that they refused to sleep with a man (their natural use). And the men sinned in that they disregarded the women for their natural use.

I know that the Bible is awash in passages that treat women as chattel, but, really, this is just too much! I have to agree with Christopher Hitchens when he says that Christianity is immoral. I’m also perplexed by the statistics which show a slightly higher religiosity among women; do people even read their Bible, or are they too busy thumping it?! I think that many of the moral gains achieved by our culture have been made in spite of the Bible. It’s a good thing that our secular culture promotes equality and tolerance; because the Bible sure doesn’t!

I was working on a paper today, and noticed some very peculiar about linguistic gender-neutrality. I know that we are all encouraged to use female character in our examples to combat the inherent chauvinism of the English language. Despite following the recent gender politics over at Less Wrong (summarized by a post on The Nature of Offense) and hearing Douglas Hofstadter explore the topic in some of his work, I’m still not entirely convinced that enough women feel alienated when males are used in examples.

Nevertheless, the issue has been raised to the level of my awareness, and I’m now sensitive to it. So I find myself in a huge conundrum, as my example involves shopping. So, I’m a bigoted sexist no matter what gender I choose!

Damn, English is sucks!

P.S. Assuming that example involving idiots and geniuses occur with equal frequency, what exactly stops people from using one gender as the canonical example for idiocy and the other gender for genius? Of course this association can be carried as far as one’s bigotry allows.

Recently the ever popular doughnut chain, Krispy Kreme, got in trouble for supporting our new political administration.

Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American’s sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20.

Somehow, the wording of this rather innocuous invitation for free doughnuts, has led some to accuse Krispy Kreme of being “pro-choice,” which translates to pro-abortion; which is also a party political position of the Democratic Party. Of course, the American Life League would take it that way, given their entire existence is predicated on that viewpoint.

Upon discussing this bit of hilarity with my friends, we almost immediately jumped to the conclusion that ZFA set theory must be pro-abortion because of the (highly contentious) Axiom of Choice. This must be what separates the Democratic mathematicians from the Republican ones. It’s not all that nonsense about the Banach-Tarski paradox, it’s about Abortion! I get it now!

It’s been 4 days since Californians voted to deny rights to a certain minority of its population. Let’s look at a few of the arguments against gay marriage:

• It protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage.

This argument was loud and clear in a TV ad that depicted a child showing the children’s book “King and King” to her mother. The mother of course was absolutely aghast. The ad then threatened that passing Proposition 8 would prevent such dire consequences. This was countered with an ad in which our Superintendent of Public Instruction, Jack O’Connell publicly stated this would not happen. Clearly, since almost everyone in CA came out of the CA public school system, we should all know how it works, and which of these two scenarios is the more believable. In actuality, the CA public education system never actually teaches anyone about its own organization; So we’ve all graduated without any knowledge about the system itself.

So, lets look at the law, CA Education Code Section 51933:

• …
• (b) A school district that elects to offer comprehensive sexual health education pursuant to subdivision (a), whether taught by school district personnel or outside consultants, shall satisfy all of the following criteria:
  • …
  • (7) Instruction and materials shall teach respect for marriage and committed relationships.

So clearly issues regarding marriage will be mentioned in class, and CA schools will be obligated to mention that gay marriage is legal within the state. We also have code 51932, which reads

• (a) This chapter does not apply to description or illustration of human reproductive organs that may appear in a textbook, adopted pursuant to law, on physiology, biology, zoology, general science, personal hygiene, or health.
• (b) This chapter does not apply to instruction or materials that discuss gender, sexual orientation, or family life and do not discuss human reproductive organs and their functions.

Which means that sexual education materials must be non-discriminatory, and thus corroborates that gay marriage will be taught in schools.

But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves here, the education code still might not require that a child learn about gay marriage, because parents are allowed to remove children from school regarding certain types of education. Codes 51937-51939 which provide notice and parental consent regarding “comprehensive sexual health education¹, HIV/AIDS prevention education, and assessments related to that education” in order that parents can remove their child from such education are unfortunately too specific. That is, parents are not required to receive notice about materials regarding marriage, nor would they be able to pull their child from school². (although any local school could certainly inform parents during a PTA meeting, and simply look the other way when a child is absent)

So I have to counter this with an open question: What is so bad about a kid learning that CA approves gay marriage? To do otherwise would deny them knowledge of the fact that gay couples do get married. Besides which, fact-based education isn’t the same as an endorsement. Besides, CA allows gay couples to adopt children; so learning about gay marriage doesn’t harm children at all. No credible study has ever found that children are negatively impacted by being raised in a lesbian or gay household.

• All major world religions and civilizations have historically condemned the practice of homosexuality.

First, anyone remember the Greeks and Romans? what about Hindu and Chinese art that depicts homosexuality? We don’t have universal historical condemnation of the practice. But even if we did, that wouldn’t necessarily make it wrong. Inter-racial marriage was condemned for a long time, but is completely accepted practice now. It’s time to grow up.

• Being gay is a choice.

Really, and I suppose that you are in full logical control of your attractions? That you are fully conscious and aware of the reasons for your attraction? That you’ve never questioned why you felt an attraction? or felt that your attraction was illogical? People don’t really choose who or what they are attracted to, it’s something that strikes them from within, that doesn’t follow the laws of society or rationality. We don’t choose who we are attracted to or why; we only rationalize it after the fact. For many people, being gay isn’t a choice, it’s the nature of their life.

• Homosexuality is a crime against nature.

This argument actually dates way back, at least all the way to Plato. See the previous blurb about choice. Or look at all the documented cases of homosexuality in nature, in zoos, and among monogamous animals. The fruit fly has a gene that practically guarantees strict homosexual mating practices.

• Homosexuality is dangerous. (Religious)

This argument can get very interesting: Supposing you believe in an omnipotent deity that dislikes homosexual practices, and has been known to destroy entire cities for committing such sins. Then you could reasonably argue that allowing such practices endangers society. But it simply doesn’t hold up to the historical record. People have been gay (and practicing) since before Plato; What happens between conscenting adults won’t bring down the apocalypse. (Or that would have happened already, your deity has had plenty of time and opportunity.)
As an aside, a variant of this argument was used to persecute christians during the Roman Empire because they refused to make sacrifices to a certain pagan god, and thus endangered the city.

• Homosexuality is dangerous. (Secular)

Because of the dysfunctional, unhealthy and changeable nature of homosexuality, legitimizing it as “marriage” constitutes irresponsible and reckless public policy that endangers the future of our children and grandchildren. But I disagree. Driving a car is a reckless act of self-endangerment, yet completely legal (even encouraged). The use of any of a number of household chemicals or cleaners is certainly unhealthy, yet also completely legal (even encouraged through advertisement). Ensuring that people behave in a functional, healthy, responsible manner through the drafting of law nearly always fails. It confuses what is moral and what is legal. There are many behaviors that one might consider immoral (eating horse meat) but that should certainly be legal. Just because your moral code tells you not to do something, doesn’t give you the right to demand the same of everyone else.

• Legalizing gay marriage will lead to legalizing polygamy or bestiality.

Not necessarily, we could easily outlaw marriage between a man and a horse, and simply stick with defining it as being between two people. Canada legalized same-sex marriage, and they aren’t having a sudden outbreak of polygamy or polyandry, nor has the country gotten appreciably hotter (gone to hell).

• But defining marriage doesn’t take away their rights.

Firstly, Separate but equal is not equal. Though, I would actually love for CA to complete remove all references to marriage from all of its current legal code and replaces it with the term ‘civil union’, and then make some small change that grandfathers previous marriages to be civil unions, and out-of-state marriages to be CA civil unions. Then the religious conservatives can have their precious marriage. This is not a workable solution.

CA has a code³ that converts valid marriages in other states into valid marriages in CA. I’m sure that many other states have similar codes. I’m also sure that other states have no such clauses regarding what would become a CA civil union. So, no couples leaving CA under this proposed change would be recognized in other states; and there’s nothing that CA can do about it. For largely historical reasons, the term marriage is in the legal codes, both in CA and elsewhere. Thus, for practical reasons, this forces CA to extend marriage to its homosexual citizens, and not to declare everyone as having a civil union.

• It Preserves Traditional Marriage

Ok. Then we should support arranged marriage? Or disallow divorce? Tradition isn’t always right, sometimes we need to move on.

• Marriage is for Procreation, not Recreation

This argument is found in The Somerville Paper. It argues that �Through marriage our society marks out the relationship of two people who will together transmit human life to the next generation� and further argues that marriage �is not a recognition of the relationship just for its own sake or for the sake of the partners to the marriage�. These are not necessarily true statements. We already allow infertile couples to marry, and the principle reason that people get married is because they love each other, not because they want society to continue, or because they get a tax break. Marriage is about having a long-term loving and stable relationship with another person; it’s not about gender, and it’s not about procreation. [it actually the other way 'round: all the laws regarding marriage are actually cruft that lets society recognize/endorse the pair bonding]

Marriage should be what brings us together today. It shouldn’t separate us. It should be about true love.

This issue is really one about civil rights. Homosexuals are being denied their civil rights, as were blacks, women, and inter-racial couples before them. Having the progressive state of CA deny marriage to homosexuals, feels like being stabbed in the heart. I expected more from my state of California. The U.S. expected more from California.

1. CA education code 51931 (b) “Comprehensive sexual health education” means education
   regarding human development and sexuality, including education on pregnancy, family planning, and sexually transmitted diseases.
2. one of these days I’ll write something about how mandatory education is wrong. Principally, it’s because of issues like the current one only arise in massively coercive systems.
3. CA Family Code 308. A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state.

Last night I was embroiled in a long argument with my flatmate about the Government. I used the typical Libertarian claim that the government was an immoral institution because it uses coercive force to collect taxes. Of course, he countered by saying my residency in a country implies a contract with the government, and the government is only using retaliatory enforcement should I breach the contract by nonpayment. Technically this is true, I could vote with my feet. I usually use this argument myself to defeat claims of economic exploitation. I was very nearly had by this, until I realized that because the U.S. grants citizenship by birth, I was entered into a contract without conscent, even though I could void the contract by leaving, it’s impractical to do so (and all the other countries are worse).

So, I moved to claim that irrespective of my complicity or acceptance of a contract the arrangement was immoral. That is, I could voluntarily conspire with another in order that we murder a third. The fact that I voluntarily joined the agreement does not make such an arrangement a moral institution. So, by residing in the territorial confines of a government, and participating in it’s voting system, and receiving its benefits (safety, public education, etc..), obeying its laws, means that I have formed an agreement with what I claimed is an immoral institution. But because I’ve received benefits, and maintain residency, I’m implicitly accepting the contract, so collection of taxes is contractually enforced. Not to pay constitutes a breach of contract that warrants retributive force. So, I had to concede that it was no longer the enforced payment of taxes that made the institution immoral. I could have parried this by pointing out that I was conscripted into the contract via my birth in the U.S. (BTW: I don’t at all agree that entering into a contract via birth is moral or even legal. Though my flatmate thought it acceptable.)

So, I tried a different strategy. I claimed that the government involves itself with immoral behavior in killing others, both during war, and via the death penalty. I thought I might win with this, because I could easily demonstrate our initiation of force on other sovereign peoples, and that because governments regularly do this it is therefore an immoral institution. But he claimed that in doing a blame calculation you must pin it on the people involved, not the institution, because it is ultimately the people who carry out the wishes of the government. Unfortunately, I’m not very well equipped to defend this point, though I did mention that you can easily sue both companies and the government in court (they have legal status as a person) and that because the government has a large number of people it is always able to replace the executioner with an individual that is willing to comply (that is, the institution can ensure an immoral action takes place even when the majority of the members would passively resist by resignation). [I didn't even bother to appealing to the Milgram experiment to demonstrate coercion]

Finally though, I was shot down:
Only a sentient being can have morality.

So institutions can’t be moral or immoral, it doesn’t apply. The government, as an institution, has no intrinsic morality. I had to withdraw my object to the government on moral grounds.

Also, I’ve never found anyone that agrees with me that our ultimate goal with regard to government should be to get rid of it. I find that some people agree when I claim that we should make it smaller each year, but that nobody agrees we should get rid of it altogether. Typically, they ask for a replacement system, which I don’t have. But that still doesn’t invalidate the goal. I like to argue that via a long process of whittling, we might be able to achieve it. But more importantly: if we don’t state that as an explicit goal (even if unachievable), we won’t have a mark to aim by, and government bureaucracy will grow steadily (as evidenced by history).

I claim lack of imagination. After all, there are many unachievable goals that are revered as noble. (ex: living you life as a perfectly moral being) In the end I’ve noticed that people tend to assume that anarchism necessarily implies unorganized militant chaos. I should probably work to dispel that myth. But it’s really hard when I’m unable to propose a workable alternative. Nobody strictly follows the logic, rather they follow their beliefs about anarchism.

My next argument will probably be about “what will Libertarians do about emergency services”? My current roomate thought in my ideal world without taxes or subsidies, there’d be no incentive for anyone to form emergency relief services. (honestly, he voluntarily donates time to Habitat for Humanity and still argues this cynically about his fellow humans)

Of course I should probably also look into the morality of contracts based on territoriality. The inconvenience of moving is pretty coercive.

Today I read about one of the most ironic events of which I’ve ever heard. You can’t make this kind of thing up. The atheistic PZ Meyers (a biologist and associate professor University of Minnesota, Morris), was kicked out of a private screening of a now highly controversial ‘documentary’. Events proceed roughly as follows:

1. PZ is approached to perform an interview about a film titled ‘Crossroads’ which is to be an ‘analysis of the intersection between religion and science within the context of biology’. Basically, both he and Richard Dawkins were deceived into giving interviews for the film.
2. PZ goes on the web, and through the interface provided by the filmmakers, reserves a seat for himself, family, and his guest Richard Dawkins. He does not falsify his name (or anyone else’s) in doing so.
3. While standing in line at the theater, he is approached by a guard and told he must leave.
4. Ultimately he complies, without any fuss.
5. Richard Dawkins, and the rest of PZ’s family get to see the movie.

So the major points of irony?

• He got kicked out of a movie in which he appears on screen, and for which he is thanked in the credits.
• He’s an associate professor, and was expelled from a private screening of a movie titled: “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”.

Of course some major deceptions get spread about the entire affair. Instead of listing those, I’ll just let the people involved speak for themselves.

• PZ himself posts about the experience here, here and here.
• A video of a discussion between PZ and Richard about the affair, with disparaging comments on the quality of the movie itself.
• Two examples of the ‘official’ account now being spread about the incident: here and here.

And in other (re|be)lated news. In the movie they have used a clip, from Harvard, about some of the molecular mechanisms within a cell; The same clip (mentioned in the above discussion) that has been completely plagiarized by the minions of the Discovery Institute.

So, a mirthful smirk to the ID folks for providing me and the rest of the blogosphere a really good laugh.

I’ve been watching the Beyond Belief 2006 conference on the relationship between Science and religion. While I didn’t agree with all of the views expressed I did learn many things.

• That when you ask someone to give up their religion, you’re asking far more than just giving up particular beliefs. In many cases you’re also asking, through implication, the abandonment of membership in a cohesive community, admission of being incorrect, possible alienation of close family or friends (both on social and ideological grounds), and a disruption to habitual lifestyle. For many, whose religious beliefs are more entrenched, you’re asking them to conceive of the world in a fundamentally different way; a way that, from their current viewpoint, is completely barren of meaning and purpose.
• That the world at large, and the scientific community by extension, has only just now gotten to the point where critical discourse on/about belief systems is not only possible but also tolerated. Only now are we becoming willing to fess up to the fact that sometimes what some other person believes has actual (possibly negative) effects on everone; that it’s not only the crazy religious fanatic that’ll suffer for his own foolishness, but that, if spread, those beliefs can hurt other individuals, and society as a whole.
• That scientists, because they are human, don’t really know what they want, and aren’t always successful at picking a strategy to obtain it. Sam Harris wants a world where social checks on destructive radicalism exist so that we can avoid fearing each other, yet he believes that religious moderation is perniciously bad because it’s not enough of a check, and its underlying scripture actually endorses some forms of violent extremeism. Dawkins wishes for everybody to live in a completely rational world, yet unfortunately expresses his views in a vitriolic manner. Both want to get rid of religion, yet their verbiage put it on the defensive, feeding the current meme that religion and science are in some sort of cosmic battle, thus undermining what they hope to achieve.
• Of the few that were in defense of religion, I really liked the account of Abraham arguing with God (who apparently is not always right), and the anecdote of the atheist that was told by his devoutly Jewish father that “The only sin would be to pretend.”
• I noticed that, of those mounting the attack on dogma, there was a refusal to wait for scientific studies in the areas of belief/scripture and it’s affects on behavior, group dynamics, and socio-economic systems. That waiting for this evidence is immoral because we should be devoting our resources to improving the human condition, rather than measuring it, as any time taken to measure is time taken from improvement (which compounds exponentially). So those attacking dogma most viciously, were themselves most dogmatic.
• That currently, more than half of society believes that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old and that Evolution doesn’t happen. In a technological society, these beliefs are unsustainable. In order to continues scientific advancement, we need intellectual cooperation, the explicit acceptance of empirical findings and the rationale/explanations for those findings.
• Science has, thus far, remained largely silent on the issues of morality and ethics. This has resulted in the social tolerance of irrational, though dangerous, beliefs, on the one hand; and the polemical misuse of scientific findings on the other (social Darwinism, Eugenics, and other social engineering efforts) We have do develop in this area, so that we can, if not derive, at least suggest, “ought from is”.

Well, I actually agree with all the speakers viewpoints, and I think it’s important for scientists to do the following:

• Choose, as a goal:
  1. Stamping out all vestige of religion.
  2. Castrating existing religions so that they they have less chance of becoming destructively violent.
  3. Replacing religion with a form of moderate secular humanism
• Then choose a strategy that will effectively achieve that goal.
1. Propagate and popularize evidence that religion leads to destructive behavior.
2. Work with religious leaders to emphasize those parts of scripture that stress living in harmony with ones neighbors. Help to create systems of arbitration such that doctrine can be revised in the face of new empirical evidence.
3. (my favorite) Create an anthology of parables honoring important figures of Science (Newton and the Apple, Fleming and penicillin, etc…) Preach that these achievements are within the realm of everyday mortals, and not the exclusive domain of privileged genius. Use the work of folklorists, anthropologists, and social/group psychologists to create literature engineered to provide everything that religion currently provides: personal meaning, purpose, morality, community, social cohesion, anecdotal tales useful as memetic analogies and cultural themes spreadable as children’s bedtime stories. Replace religion with a belief in science, and do so in a scientific, purposeful, fashion.
• Work to promote the chosen strategy for the chosen reasons, and perform this work on the individual level.
• Stop the rhetoric about a war between science and religion.

Religion probably has the biggest problem with science, not because of a whittiling away of the “God of the Gaps” but rather, because the relentless progress that science makes is not only exponential because of feed-back mechanisms and therefore disruptive to the status-quo, but because it creates gods. No longer are gods the exclusive domain of historical fictions, Not when we can perform miracles. I can make light at the flip of a switch, travel through the air like a bird, command mysterious machines to do my bidding with cryptographic incantations (yes, I like the console). Medical technicians can make some of the deaf hear, will be able to let some of the blind see. Nuclear technicians have turned lead into gold (at extreme expense). We’ve put men on the moon. Yes, we are gods. And it’s time we started assuming responsibility for self-created power. Exposing religion for the non-acceptance of self-criticism is only the beginning. As science enables us to achieve godhood status we must develop a corresponding morality, for we can no longer afford subscription to the dictums expounded in history books.

Oh yeah, and Happy Holidays.