Moving the blog…

This blog is being moved to a new domain: leightontaylor.net.

Over the next few weeks, the articles from Skeptic Circle will be slighty modified and published at leightontaylor.net.

No Comments. Leave a comment!

Evolution comic

Today I came across Darryl Cunningham’s new web comic that teaches the basics of evolution and answers creationist objections (if we evolved from apes why are there still apes, where did the eye come from, etc.).

Be sure to check it out at http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2011/06/evolution.html

Thanks for the excellent and interesting work Darryl! Keep it up.

No Comments. Leave a comment!

What if God disappeared?

Check out this satire of what the world would be like without God. The speaker depicts all the horrible things that would happen if God suddenly disappeared from our world.

Judging by the comments section on YouTube, some people don’t realize that this video is sarcastic. Perhaps it needs to be stated a bit more plainly:

If God disappeared, good people would continue to be good and bad people would continue to be bad.

If God disappeared, much of the world would continue to make moral decisions without the guidance of the Bible (or any religious text). We would continue living moral lives without relying on the tribal laws of a group of Iron Age nomads who supported slavery, genocide, and rape.

If God disappeared, people would continue to suffer. Millions of people would continue to starve, and millions would die of AIDs and other diseases. These problems would only be alleviated when humans made the effort to do something about them.

If God disappeared, we would have to depend on doctors and scientific medicine to heal us from disease and injury, or to perform life-saving surgeries–we would no longer be able to rely on prayer for healing.

If God disappeared, we would have to build success for ourselves. We would have to take responsibility for our actions, rather than praying and letting God do the work. We would have to get out and do something if we wanted to see results.

If God disappeared, we would naturally crave things like sex, money, power, comfort, luxury, and more, and would find it difficult to live the lifestyle that Jesus commanded, in which we would give all our goods to the poor and live meagerly for the benefit of others.

If God disappeared, the cosmos would continue to operate according to the laws of gravity and thermodynamics. The earth would continue to revolve around the sun. The universe would continue to expand. Stars would continue to be born and die.  Evolution on earth and perhaps on other planets would continue.

If God disappeared, everything would be the same.

Subscribe to free email updates from Skeptic Circle!

No Comments. Leave a comment!

Our universe is finely-tuned for our existence, but that doesn’t mean it was made for us

Imagine that our universe is only one of billions of universes that exist in a multiverse.

In this multiverse, universes continuously flit in and out of existence, each with slightly different properties and physical laws. Perhaps in this multiverse, only 0.1% of all universes possess the laws of nature required to allow for intelligent life to arise; in some of these universes, gravity works in such a way that large stars don’t form, and so certain elements needed for life are never  spewn into the cosmos upon the death of the stars, and thus life is never born.

In other universes, the forces of gravity do not allow small, long-lived stars to form, and so a suitable planet does not orbit its star long enough for intelligent life to evolve.

In any case, the rise of intelligent life–of beings capable of wondering how they got there and capable of doing science–is very rare in this multiverse. Any one intelligent race will gaze around them at the universe in which they find themselves, and at the planet on which they sit, and think, “My, this place is fine-tuned for our existence! It seems to be created just for us! If gravity were slightly different, we never would have existed! There must be a supernatural being who ‘adjusted the dials’ of our universe just for us. We must have cosmic purpose. We must be meant to live forever. The universe was made for us!”

We don’t know if our universe is part of a larger multiverse, or if our universe is one in an infinite series of universes, or something else. But to say that the universe is made for us because we exist in it is backwards. If the laws of the universe were such that we couldn’t exist, we obviously wouldn’t be here to make that observation.

In our hypothetical situation above, the chance of a universe arising amenable to intelligent life is 1/1000. The odds could be greater or smaller–we don’t really know. But we do know that the odds of any one person winning the lottery are much less than 1/1000; they are 1 in millions. But someone has to win the lottery, so it’s not amazing that someone does. It’s only amazing from the privileged perspective of the person who wins. Everyone else who bought a ticket is disappointed, but not surprised. The person who wins should not consider the winning lottery ticket to be a supernatural event, because someone was going to win. In the same way, our universe has won the lottery, and we are looking at it from the privileged perspective of beings who could only exist if our universe had won the lottery.

Our finely-tuned universe is no more proof of the existence of a god than a winning lottery ticket is proof of a miracle.

For free email updates from Skeptic Circle, click here to subscribe!

No Comments. Leave a comment!

The self-correction of science proves that science doesn’t correct itself, according to the Discovery Institute

Casey Luskin recently wrote this article at the Discovery Institute’s blog, evolutionnews.org. A paper published last year (2010) in Science reported the discovery of a bacteria that feeds on arsenic rather than phosphorous.

Luskin notes that the June 3, 2011 edition of Science published the comments of several scientists critiquing the claims of the initial paper. Apparently there is some controversy over whether or not these bacteria are actually eating only arsenic, or if they are still snacking on phosphorous after all.

The jaw-dropping conclusion to Luskin’s article comes when he uses the fact that the initial paper was criticized by other scientists to say that science isn’t good at critiquing and correcting itself. Here are the closing 2 paragraphs to Luskin’s article (bold added by me):

Such admissions [that some scientists are critical of the paper] do not bode well for those who blindly believe in the perfectly objective, self-correcting nature of science. Indeed, in this case, it seems safe to experimentally critique these claims since so many respected scientists have already expressed vocal skepticism. Yet experiments are apparently not yet forthcoming.

What about areas of science where scientists are not able to express their dissent freely? For example, who would take time to experimentally critique claims that are central to neo-Darwinian theory, especially if doing so could be dangerous to one’s career? One hopes that science will become more self-correcting when it comes to claims made in support of materialism.

How does the fact that science does correct itself prove that science doesn’t correct itself? You lost me there, Casey. Oh, right, it’s because there’s one small area of science that is closed to critique–the “raging debate” between intelligent design believers and real scientists who accept evolution. Luskin would like someone to “experimentally critique claims that are central to neo-Darwinian theory.” How do you propose we do that Casey?

Subscribe to Skeptic Circle by email

1 brilliant comment. Leave a comment!

The purpose of stars is to give light on the earth. Of course.

Genesis 1:17 says that “God set [the stars] in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth” (NIV). So the purpose of the stars is to give the earth light. Yep, the entire universe exists just for our benefit.

There are an estimated 70 sextillion stars in the known universe (that’s 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). About 5,770 are visible from earth with the unaided human eye in optimal viewing conditions.

To put that into perspective, there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand on the earth. The number of stars visible to the naked eye is comparable to the number of grains of sand in 1 teaspoon. If the purpose of all those stars is to give light to the earth, they’re sure as hell not doing a very efficient job.

What does this mean? It means that the Bible was written by people who thought that the earth was the center of all things, and that all things exist for humans and their benefit. They didn’t know what stars were, that they were thousands of times more massive than the earth, that they are millions or billions of light years away.

Since history began, people have thought that humans are the pinnacle of creation, that we are the center of the universe. Only in the past few centuries have we begun to realize our insignificance. We hold no special place of importance in the cosmos. It was not made for us, but we exist in it, we can thrill to understand its workings, and we can live and love in spite of the indifference of the cosmos through which we fly on a tiny chunk of rock.

No Comments. Leave a comment!

Should we have faith in the Bible or in science?

Recently someone wrote to me, telling me that by accepting the evidence for evolution and other natural sciences (rather than having faith that God did it all), I’m putting my faith in the words of “a very few people.”  He said that I choose to have faith in scientists, just as he has faith in the authors of the Bible.

Christians will often give different definitions of the word faith, but in this context, when they use the term “having faith,” they are referring to trusting in the truth and accuracy of something.

I have to disagree with the idea that faith (or belief) in science is equally valid with having faith in a religious text. For starters, he said that I’m having faith in “a relatively few people.” This sounds like he’s saying that the scientists who accept evolution as fact are in the minority, which is the opposite of the truth.

This discussion led me to ponder the difference between accepting scientific knowledge as true and having faith in the Bible (or any other religious text). I believe that scientific belief is completely different from religious belief, and I’ll try to explain why.

Faith in science

If a scientist or group of scientists believe something about the way the world works, they can do experiments, gather data, make predictions, and test those predictions to see if their hypothesis is correct. Then, if someone doubts their findings, which they often should, the doubter can repeat the experiments or do different ones to see if the theory holds up. Science is constantly adding and revising its information, because it is subject to the evidence.

The person who wrote to me also said that I’m accepting the interpretations of evidence for evolution without actually seeing the evidence myself (I haven’t dug up any fossils, studied the rock strata, etc.). I have to disagree with this claim, because the evidence for evolution is plainly recorded in books and on the Internet for anyone to examine, even if they can’t hold an actual fossil in their hands. Are we having “faith” that whoever recorded the evidence is telling the truth? Sure, to some extent. But anyone is free to go out and collect their own evidence, which means that someone who might lie or exaggerate their evidence is subject to correction. Unless there is a massive conspiracy, with everyone working together to falsify evidence and cover each others’ tracks, it is reasonable to believe that the reported, generally accepted evidence is accurate.

I’d like to share an example of observational evidence—something that you and I are free to observe and interpret, although we haven’t seen this in person. In southern California, there is a population of salamanders that forms a ring around a mountain range. To make it easier to discuss, I’ve made this drawing of the mountain range and the salamanders around it. The original population of salamanders encountered the mountain range and split into two groups, continuing to breed and gradually spread all the way around the mountains.

It’s been observed that the Original Population (OP) breeds with both groups A and X, and all 3 groups (OP, A, X) are considered the same species. Group A breeds with B, and B with C. The same is true of Group X with Y, and Y with Z.

A fascinating thing happens when the two groups meet at the opposite side of the mountains—Groups Z and C do not interbreed, and can be distinguished from each other by different markings and traits, including eye color and camouflage, among others. Groups C and Z are now distinct species, coexisting without mixing, but they are linked by an unbroken chain of cousins that could all potentially breed with their neighbors on either side. This is called a ring species.

So what interpretations should we draw from this evidence? It seems clear that genetic change can happen over the course of several generations, and that by splitting into separate groups, one species can experience two different paths of genetic change.

At what point did OP split into 2 different species? Any one salamander can breed with the salamanders to its right or its left, but not with its cousins on the other side of the mountain. It is impossible to say where one species stops and the next begins, because there is an unbroken chain linking all the salamanders together.

If Groups Z and C continued to thrive, but the rest died off, we would be left with two distinct species, with no intermediary links, and we could easily place a salamander into one of the two species. But because there are living salamanders alive today from all the groups, it’s very difficult to say where to draw the line.

This evidence has been interpreted as being supportive of the theory of evolution, because it shows how speciation happens. There are books full of evidence that we can read supporting evolution; not just one person’s interpretation of evidence, but a written record of the evidence itself.

Faith in the Bible

Christian faith, on the other hand, is based on accepting the written record of authors from about 2000 years ago, or even more for the Old Testament. We can’t really do experiments to see if the Gospels are an accurate record of Jesus’ life. If someone chooses to accept the Bible as true, that is their choice.

But if something in the Bible conflicts with something learned from science, do we believe the Bible or science? Dr. Jason Lisle from Answers in Genesis has said, “If the Big Bang were good science, we would still have to reject it in favor of Scripture, because Scripture is never wrong” (see my article about Dr. Lisle and Answers in Genesis).

The difference between scientific belief and religious belief is that science is always open to new information, new evidence, new ways of thinking about the world. If the evidence says that we were wrong and we need to change our whole way of thinking, then so be it. Religion, on the other hand, closes its eyes and covers its ears to avoid encountering evidence that contradicts it. It is immune to evidence, so it is not based on reality.

No Comments. Leave a comment!

The flaw in Answers in Genesis’ approach to science

I recently made a visit to Answers in Genesis’ Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. The museum’s tagline is “Prepare to believe.” Believe what? The museum presents the Genesis account of literal, 6-day creation and attempts to cast doubt on the theory of evolution (on a side note, they also make a hard sell for Christianity). The museum is a beautiful place, but unfortunately their approach is anything but scientific at every turn.

The main problem with AIG’s approach to science is that they start with the assumption that the Bible is absolutely, literally true. Wearing these tinted glasses, every shred of scientific evidence must be interpreted through the Bible.

For example, while visiting the museum I had the chance to speak briefly with Dr. Jason Lisle, who holds a Ph.D in Astrophysics from the University of Colorado and is employed by AIG.  Here are a few excerpts from Dr. Lisle’s bio, located at AIG’s website (bold added by me):

“Most astronomers and astrophysicists today believe in a secular, naturalistic origin of the universe – a big bang that allegedly happened billions of years ago. Few are willing to accept what the Creator Himself has said about the beginning of all things as recorded in the pages of Scripture, and as confirmed by scientific evidence. Answers in Genesis speaker and researcher Dr. Jason Lisle is one of those few astrophysicists that stand on the authority of the Word of God…

…He grew up in a Christian home, and was taught to respect the absolute authority and accuracy of the Bible, and to be discerning about what is taught in secular schools. These critical thinking skills helped Jason to spot the fallacious arguments that are often used in the universities to supposedly prove evolution…

An important consideration is the fact that the origins debate is a matter of competing worldviews. Worldviews control how we interpret the evidence; thus, creationists and evolutionists can draw different conclusions about the same evidence. Most scientists are not consciously aware of their own worldview, and how it influences the conclusions they draw. This realization made it easier for Jason to see that intelligent scientists, including his own professors, can draw erroneous conclusions when it comes to an issue of origins science, even while they are brilliant and successful in their own narrow field of research. Dr. Lisle is convinced that when the evidence is interpreted in a consistent fashion, it consistently confirms biblical creation…

…In graduate school, Dr. Lisle developed a passion to share the message that God’s Word is true from the very first verse…”

Dr. Lisle is absolutely correct in saying that one’s worldview controls how one interprets evidence. However, if Dr. Lisle insists that his worldview is correct, no matter what evidence may be presented to the contrary, he’s not doing science the right way.

In a lecture titled Answers Academy: Big Problems with the Big Bang (visit this page to stream MP3), Dr. Lisle said, “If the Big Bang were good science, we would still have to reject it in favor of Scripture, because Scripture is never wrong.” To hear it for yourself, visit this page, click play, and go to 00:08:28.

Wow! Talk about putting the cart before the horse. If your worldview is immune to science, I’m sorry, but it’s not based on reality.

Dr. Lisle has also published a paper (in AIG’s own research journal, Answers Research Journal) which proposes a solution to the distant starlight problem. This “problem,” which, incidentally, is only a problem if you’re a young earth creationist, consists of this question: if the universe is about 6000 years old, then how can we see light from stars that are millions or billions of light years away?

Dr. Lisle’s solution to this problem is simple: light travels toward the earth at an infinite speed. His solution is called the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (click to read the paper). The Sensuous Curmudgeon has written about this paper in several posts, and I highly recommend reading through the comments section in this post for an interesting discussion on Dr. Lisle’s paper.

The reason I mention this paper is that it’s yet another example of the twisting and turning that’s necessary to fit the world around us into an entirely inflexible worldview. It seems that the only reason to propose this convention is to make the world match a creation story written thousands of years ago by people who had no understanding of what stars are and how far away they are, and by gosh if my worldview requires that an Iron Age creation story be true, then science be damned!

I’m not saying that Lisle’s proposition is unscientific, because I’m not an astrophysicist and it’s not my place to debate that. However, he reflects the attitude (of Answers in Genesis and young earth creationism in general) of forcing science into an inflexible worldview, rather than adjusting one’s worldview based on science.

By Dr. Lisle’s own admission, good science should be rejected in favor of Scripture, and this is entirely backwards.

1 brilliant comment. Leave a comment!

Evolution compared to language

Photo by neopicture

Recently as I’ve discussed evolution with my creationist family/friends, they’ve raised a few objections to evolution including the following:

“Why isn’t evolution still happening today?”

“If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?”

“Gaps in the fossil record prove evolution isn’t true. Where are all the transitional fossils?”

While not a perfect analogy, I think that comparing biological evolution with the evolution of language can be helpful in explaining the process of evolution to those who don’t understand or accept it. I’m not a biologist, but thanks to those scientists who take the time to write books explaining evolution to the layperson, anyone can pick up a book and, within a few hours, understand the major lines of evidence supporting evolution.

My goal is to share my limited understanding in a non-technical way, and hopefully if you’re someone who doesn’t accept evolution, some of my writing will pique your interest enough that you will go pick up a book by someone who really knows their stuff. For an easy-to-read, enjoyable explanation of the evidence for evolution, I recommend Richard Dawkins’ The Greatest Show on Earth.

“Why isn’t evolution still happening today?”

It is. It’s happening all around us. Evolutionary change takes place over periods of time much greater than your lifespan, so you won’t personally see live animals giving birth to new species.

The English language is evolving. New words are being created, old words are being forgotten, and bit by bit, syllable by syllable, word by word, English is slowly changing over time. It won’t become a completely different language in any one person’s lifetime, but over the course of many generations it will change significantly.

Some creationists claim to accept microevolution, but not macroevolution, meaning that they believe there can be small changes within species, but that evolution cannot account for large changes, or cannot explain how one species becomes another. That is like saying that one believes that English is changing a little, with new words being added and old words being dropped, but that it could never have been a different language, and will never be a different language in the future.

Macroevolution is just microevolution happening continuously for long periods of time. English is changing slowly, and someday the English we speak today will be unrecognizable to an English speaker of the future, just as Old English is incomprehensible to the current day English speaker.To switch metaphors, macroevolution is a mile, and microevolution is an inch. Add enough inches together and you get a mile. Add enough small genetic changes together and you get a new species.

Continue reading »

No Comments. Leave a comment!

12 excellent skeptical blogs you should read

If you haven’t seen these blogs before, I highly recommend that you take a gander. This list is presented in no particular order.

1. NeurologicaBlog

The blog of Dr. Steven Novella. Dr. Novella is one of the leading voices in skepticism today. He hosts a popular weekly podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe.  Dr. Novella writes at NeurologicaBlog about “neuroscience… general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society.” He also writes regularly for The Rogues Gallery, SkepticBlog, and Science-Based Medicine, mentioned below.

2. The Rogues Gallery

The official blog of The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, one of the most popular science podcasts available. The authors include Evan Bernstein, Rebecca Watson, Jay Novella, Bob Novella, Mike Lacelle, Steven Novella, and Brian Trent. Read more about the authors

3. SkepticBlog

A very thorough blog authored by experts in a variety of fields. SkepticBlog is the collaborative effort of the cast and producers of The Skeptologists, a pilot skeptical reality show. SkepticBlog features prominent skeptical authors including Brian Dunning, Steven Novella, Michael Shermer, Donald Prothero, Danielle Loxton, Mark Edward, Kristen Sanford, Phil Plait, Ryan Johnson, and Yau-Man Chan.

Continue reading »

2 brilliant comments. Leave a comment!