Would you rather be happy or know the truth?

Far too much of religious faith is based on this scary fact: People believe what makes them happy, not what's true. Worse, they even admit it proudly.

There was a great discussion yesterday over at Unreasonable Faith called Thoughts of a Dying Atheist. One exchange summarized one of my favorite topics:

John C [a Christian]: So sad, such utter darkness and despair. “Nothingness” is not the truth, is not the offer that the Truth (Himself) makes you, its far better and its…true.

Ty: No despair. And nothing is sadder than delusion masquerading as hope. You’ll wind up in exactly the same place all the rest of us will, you’ll just have wasted the one life you had first. What could be sadder than that?

Ty hits the nail on the head. I'd rather live the truth, however sad, than to live a lie. Darwin himself said it best:

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, a mere heart of stone.

In other words, what we want to believe doesn't matter. We have to seek truth, no matter how unpleasant. In my mind, this is the single most important sentence that Darwin ever wrote. It is the very foundation of the scientific method, the very thing that made all of Darwin's other discoveries possible.

Religion works in the exact opposite direction from Darwin's advice.

Evolution Predicts: Benedict Will Dig Catholic Church's Grave

The Roman Catholic Church is falling victim to one of the best-understood aspects of Darwin's evolution – sexual selection. They're becoming a self-perpetuating failure.

Sexual selection is one of the most interesting and weird aspects of evolution. I'll explain using an example. Suppose some women, due to random genetic variations, just happen to like men with unusually large noses. Who will they marry? Probably men with large noses. Now think about the children of these unions: They'll inherit the large noses from their fathers, and they'll inherit their mother's fondness for large-nosed men. So at the next generation, and on down through their descendants, men with small noses won't have very good luck, and men with larger and larger noses will be favored.

We see this all the time in nature. The tailfeathers of peacocks and birds of paradise, the huge antlers of moose and the elaborate dances of fruit flies are all excellent examples. We even find it in ourselves. For example, a woman's shapely figure is purely "for show." Other great apes such as chimpanzees and gorillas have no trouble producing milk without large breasts. And we men have genitals that are something like four times the size, relative to our body mass, of the other great apes. It's purely for show, and has nothing to do with our ability to have sex. The other apes do it with much smaller "equipment."

What does this have to do with the Roman Catholic Church? Everything.

Friday Funnies: Darwin according to South Park

Just a bit of fun for today... And you thought Darwin was hard to understand! A creationist makes it easy...

Creationist Film Premier Cancelled, Won't be at Smithsonian

Well, good news, I think. Last week I blogged about a religion film advocating intelligent design that was going to premier at the California Science Center (CSC), a Smithsonian affiliate. Well, apparently I wasn't the only one to criticize the CSC, there was a virtual firestorm of protest, and now the screening has been cancelled.

The ID proponents are, of course, screaming "Censorship!" But the word "censorship" itself shows a gross misunderstanding of constitutional law and the American way: Only the government can be accused of censorship. The rest of us are simply exercising our rights to not listen to silly theories, and more importantly, to not lend scientific credibility to a theory that has no scientific merit by letting it play in a respected venue.

Ironically, I'm somewhat disappointed. I was seriously considering going to the screening, partly for the entertainment value and for the "know thine enemy" aspect of the film. But mostly, I'd started preparing some questions for the Q&A time afer the show, illustrating that this silly "theory" of evolution fails even the most basic tests of a scientific theory. So while I'm glad this drivel isn't being screened by a reputable scientific organization, I was sort of looking forward to the Q&A period after the movie.

The details of the cancellation are murky. The CSC claims it was purely a contractual issue. The ID proponents are screaming about censorship. The mainstream newspapers couldn't seem to make heads or tails of it. But it's my guess that, like most contracts, there were flaws that could have been ignored if both parties were willing participants, but the Smithsonian's embarrassment was too much and they found a convenient loophole.

Maybe I'll follow the news and figure out where the new venue will be...

"Intelligent Design" Film to be Screened at Smithsonian?

This is disturbing news. The religious pseudo-documentary, Darwin's Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record, will be screened at the Smithsonian Institute.

I know the Smithsonian is devoted to enquiry, and encourages honest scientific debate. But there is no debate, no "mystery," about the Cambrian explosion. The Smithsonian should be scolded for letting this pseudo-scientific religious propaganda into their theater.

[Update: See Marc's comment in the comments below. Apparently the Smithsonian is not sponsoring this event. Thanks, Marc, for pointing this out.]

This is yet another example of intelligent-design proponents callously and knowingly relying on the ignorance of their own audience. They find an area of science where there is either controversy, or (as in this case) where a thorough understanding requires considerable study. Then they shout, "Mystery!" "Scientists are baffled!" "They can't explain it!" They bring up arguments from a hundred years ago, quote scientists out of context, and baffle their audience with scientific sleight-of-hand moves.

And finally, when they've built up the "impossibility" of the Cambrian Explosion, they cry, "It must be God," without adding the qualifier, "... because you're too stupid to understand the real science!"

In this case, there is no mystery. The Cambrian Explosion was baffling to Darwin, but that's because he studied its fossils over 150 years ago. Surely we've made some progress since then! In fact, the mystery has been explained, many times. But the intelligent-design proponents who created this piece of religious propaganda are relying on the fact that their audience won't take the time to find the real facts. They're counting on ignorance.

It's a sad testament to their lack of faith in their God that they stoop to such low tricks. If their faith was strong, and their religion was true, it would stand up to scrutiny, wouldn't it?

Darwin: The American Boogy Monster

As a follow-up to yesterday's blog ("Education, the Enemy of Religion?"), I found a story in USA Today that would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. Creation, a new British film about Darwin's life, has been sold to distributors in virtually every country in the world ... except the United States. Here, in one of the most technologically-advanced countries in the world, Christians are afraid of the truth.

This is not some flaky television show, or a blatantly anti-Christian propaganda piece. It is a top-notch story of the personal struggles of a scientist. Reuters calls it "one of the best delineations of intellectual and emotional struggle seen on film in many a year." It stars Paul Bettany as Darwin, and the wonderful (and Oscar-winning) actress Jennifer Connelly, who is Bettany's wife in real life, too.

In other words, it is a biography that should find a ready market in America, and would find a market if it was about any important scientist in history except Darwin. This is so ironic, that "father" of Evolution Science, arguably the most important, best-proved theory in the history of science, is the only one who is vilified by the religious right.

The only reason Evolution Science is singled out and rejected by religious people is because it disagrees with some ancient oral histories, stories that were finally written down by Jewish scholars 2,500 years ago, and declared "the word of God" by a self-appointed committee of rabbis around 2,300 years ago.

I sincerely hope that Creation eventually finds a market here in America. I know I'll watch it if it does.

VPRO Darwin: Bringing the Wonder of Darwin to Children

Seeing is believing, and now there's VPRO Beagle, a wonderful new project to help educate our youth by recreating Darwin's amazing voyage, only this time with modern technology to document it in real time.

Decades ago, my own understanding of evolution was revolutionized when PBS broadcast an amazing recreation of Darwin's journey. I got to see Darwin's discoveries "first hand," through his own eyes.

I still remember one episode vividly: Darwin encountered fossilized seashells at 4,000 meters altitude while crossing South-American mountains on horseback. Shortly after he returned to the Beagle, a huge earthquake struck the region. Over the next few days, watching the tides, Darwin and the ship's crew realize the shoreline had risen a full meter higher – the mussels, barnacles and sea life that marked the high-water line were all dying. The mystery of why seashells were on mountain tops suddenly became obvious: Darwin actually witnessed that very mountain rising from the sea.

Education and knowledge are the enemies of creationism. No single project can cure the current state of mis-education in the USA, but I hope that projects like VPRO Beagle and others, each in its own way, can push back the darkness a bit.

Don't Call it the 'Theory' of Evolution!

What's in a name? A lot. How many times have you seen the argument, "Evolution is just a theory. It's never been proved!"

Evolution is, without a doubt, supported by more evidence than any other field in the history of science. Genetics, immunology, diseases and parasites, taxonomy, fossils, dozens of radiometric techniques ... the list goes on and on and on – thousands and millions of facts and observations, every one of them in agreement with the predictions of Evolution.

It's time to stop calling it a theory. It's Evolution Science.

Scientists use the word "theory" in a different way than the general population. To a scientist, a "theory" is a model that describes a system in an accurate and predictive way. But to the public, a "theory" is something uncertain, something tentative, something that may very well turn out to be false.

The valance model of chemistry is a wonderful theory (roughly, the "ball and stick" model of molecules). It describes a great deal of organic chemistry remarkably well, but falls apart when the electrons' orbitals start to span more than two atoms. Is it "just a theory"? Does the fact that the valence model breaks down for complex aromaticity, tautomers, metal bonds and hydrogen bonds, make it "wrong"?

No! The concept of right and wrong doesn't apply to scientific models. The right terminology is useful. The valence model is useful for most organic compounds, and beyond that, you have to use a quantum-mechanics theory – another model. Quantum mechanics are far more predictive, under a much wider range of atomic configurations, than the valence model, but even quantum mechanics breaks down under extreme heat (relativistic velocities), and doesn't tell you much about radioactivity. Is it "wrong"? No, it's just not useful outside the constraints of the model.

Here's where we scientists are doing ourselves a disservice. The concept of modeling a complex system is fairly esoteric philosophy. The average non-scientist wants to know, "How does it work?" Or, "Is Einstein right or wrong?" The concept of a model's domain (the conditions under which the model is predictive) is not something you're going to read about in the morning newspaper.

We need to start using the same terminology as the general public. It's time to abandon the Theory of Evolution. It's Evolution plain and simple, right alongside Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology and Astronomy.

In the common parlance, evolution is a science. It's a model of a very complex system, the system of life on Earth. The basic facts of evolution have been proved so far beyond any reasonable doubt, that it would be fair to call it 100% certain. Sure, there are interesting details, we're still finding unusual species that force us to rethink some of the details. We're still filling in the corner cases and details. But to say that the core ideas behind evolution science are anything but 100% proved is a huge mistake.

So stop calling it a theory. And whenever you hear someone else say, "The Theory of Evolution," consider a gentle reminder that the proper term is "Evolution," or "Evolution Science."

Tags: evolution darwin theory science chemistry physics religion atheism

Is Evolution only for Smart People?

To Evolutionists, the tenacity of Creationism is baffling: Why do people continue to believe ideas that are thousands of years old, at best unsupported by any facts, and at worst plainly wrong? And as a corollary, why is education (especially in science) inversely correlated with religious beliefs?

Is it possible that only smart people can understand evolution? Is the problem simply that Evolution Science is too complex, too intricate, for a person with an average education to understand? (This is one of those unpleasant questions that you may secretly wonder about, but not want say out loud, for fear of being labeled an elitist.)

Happily, the answer is "No!" And the insight that shows why, ironically, comes from evolution itself: Memetic evolution.

Religion is a highly-evolved memeplex, one that is perfectly tuned to the human psyche. Religion memes appeal to our deepest emotions: fear (hell), hope (heaven and the afterlife), egotism and xenophobia (we're special in God's eyes), and our desire for love (God/Jesus the father). The religion memeplex has been evolving for many thousands of years; at any particular point in history, dozens and hundreds of religions, each with uncountable minor "mutations" (different opinions, interpretations, and misunderstandings) have been competing for survival. The ones that survived are the best of the best.

By contrast, we evolutionists are just children, babes in the woods, compared to our Creationist counterparts. Darwin's ideas, and the memeplex we call the "Theory of Evolution," have only been around for 150 years, a mere eyeblink compared to religion.

And worse, the Evolution Science memeplex evolved in a scientific ecosphere. The memeplex that we call the "Theory of Evolution" spread because it appealed to scientists, who are trained in logical, deductive thinking. Scientists are trained to ignore their emotions, and only accept theories that are based on observable facts and logical deductions from those facts.

Unfortunately, human emotions are far more powerful and persuasive than human logic.

A polar bear is well suited to the Arctic, and a camel to the desert; neither can travel to the other's part of the world and live for long. Each is adapted to the ecology in which its species evolved. If the Evolution Science memeplex is going to spread outside of its evolutionary niche, it too will have to evolve, to be better suited to the needs of non scientists. It will have to develop memes that appeal to human emotions and desires, rather than merely to logic.

To those of us who study culture and history from a Darwinistic perspective, that is, using memes, there is no mystery at all. The answer to our question – Is evolution only for smart people? – is in the memes. It's not evolution itself that is only for smart people, it's just the current memeplex, the one that evolved in an "ecosphere of smart people."

If the Evolution Memeplex is ever going to truly competative with Creationism, it has to evolve.

Tags: evolution memes memeplex darwin science intelligence religion ecosphere ideosphere science scientists

The Religion Virus: Atheist ethics, part 1

Is evolution wrong just because we don't like the facts it predicts? This is one of the most persuasive, yet deeply flawed, arguments that religious apologists use to convince the "faithful" that there must be a God.

In the bookstore's philosophy/religion section today, I encountered a book with a provocative title, something like "The Ten Worst Ideas in History." (The real title doesn't matter, I don't want to encourage anyone to buy it.) Among his "ten worst ideas" was Darwinism, and his reason for including it – get ready for this – is that it predicts that animals and humans will behave "immorally."

This is an embarassing error of philosophy, that facts can be rejected simply because we don't like them. And worse, this purported expert in philosophy, a man with an extensive education, doesn't see just how absurd this is. Not only the author, but his agent, his editor, the publisher who agreed to take on the book, the bookstores that decided to put it on their shelves, and the people who buy it.

One of of Darwin's most profound insights had nothing to do with evolution; it was about science itself:

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, a mere heart of stone.

This simple sentence encapsulates one of the most profound aspects of the scientific method: We must be open to the truth, no matter how unpleasant, or how much at odds with our beliefs.

Darwin's "heart of stone" does not mean a scientist must be cold and cruel, nor indifferent to the results of his/her work. Rather, Darwin was referring to the process of discovering the truth; while we are investigating, experimenting, and hypothesizing, we must take on a mantle of impartiality. We must shed our desires and preconceived notions, and let the facts dictate the truth to us.

It is only after we discover the truth that we can shed our objectivity and consider the moral and ethical implications.

(This is not to say we should conduct unethical science! Don't confuse unethical or cruel behavior with an open mind. The truth can be discovered with ethical experiments and investigations. But we must not let our ethics bias our discovery of truth.)

The author of this "Ten Worst Ideas" book is a scientific and philosophical illiterate. He completely rejects the most basic principles that were responsible for lifting humanity from our hunter-gatherer roots to modern civilization. The author started from a conclusion (that humans were inherently moral and good, presumably because God made us that way, and can be again), and asserts that it is "fact." With this "axiom," he can easily "prove" that Darwinism is inherently flawed, since Darwinism predicts that things like parasitism, racism, infanticide and other unpleasant behaviors are natural.

This, I believe, is one of the worst symptoms of the anti-science attitudes so prevalent today around the world. The people who buy these books are the same ones fighting to inject creationist drivel into our science curriculum, which will only increase the ignorance of true science.

An atheist is inherently better able to do science, because the atheist has no religion that s/he has to reconcile with the facts. The facts can speak for themselves.

Similarly, an Atheist's morals can be derived from natural principles, based on kindness, making the world a better place, and minimizing suffering. Atheists aren't saddled with "truths" that were dictated two thousand years ago by priests with a political agenda, by fictional beliefs about the human soul, by antiquated dietary laws, or by guilt-laden sexuality.