Why Not? Evolution, Videos & Rockstar Scientists

The below guest post was written by Matt Shipman, a science writer and father of three who lives in Raleigh. You can follow Matt on Twitter at @ShipLives or connect with him here on Google+. 

Evolution shouldn’t be controversial. But, in some circles, it is.

That point was driven home earlier this year via, of all things, the Miss USA competition. This year’s competitors were asked whether they thought evolution should be taught in schools. The majority of them either said no, or that creationism should receive equal time in the science curriculum.

Many girls look up to young women like the Miss USA contestants. So when these role models overwhelmingly speak out against evolution education, that’s a problem.

Normally, I would have shaken my head and moved on. But I made the mistake of posting a flippant remark on Twitter. Something to the effect of: “Someone should do something to respond.” I got called on it.

An acquaintance of mine named Dave Wescott agreed that someone should respond. Then he said that someone should be us. I saw my future free time evaporating.

Within hours we had found a small group of scientists and science communicators who were also interested in being involved. Ultimately, there were me and Dave (P.R. guys), Kevin Zelnio, Jamie Vernon and Andrea Kuszewski (scientist/science communicators). We came up with the idea of creating a video, featuring scientists, which would explain evolution and why it is important to teach evolution in schools. We wanted to avoid divisive behavior and name-calling. Instead, we thought we could convey the fact that evolution is an amazing, uplifting discovery that has served as the genesis of countless advances in many fields of science.

Then someone, I think it was Jamie, suggested that we focus exclusively on female scientists. This was a great idea. In addition to talking about evolution, we could highlight positive role models, showing that women can be scientists and researchers, as well as beauty queens.

We contacted tons of great researchers from around the U.S., Canada and the U.K. Most of them turned us down. They’d never heard of us and, after all, they were all successful scientists (which is why we contacted them). But some of them – amazingly – said they’d participate.

After months of collecting video and editing, here it is. It’s the product of a small group of people, working on their personal time, with a budget of zero dollars. It wouldn’t work at all without the videos submitted by brilliant, generous and well-spoken scientists in fields ranging from genetics to anthropology to marine biology.

It’s not perfect, but we did something good here. We did not just roll our eyes.

It’s a good reminder that creative responses to challenging problems don’t come from other people. They come from you, when you stop making excuses and decide to actually do something positive.

So check the video out. And pass it on.

Charles Darwin 'Barrel of Monkeys' Portrait

Check out this amazing Darwin print from Pure Evil. If you look closely, you'll notice that dozens of Barrel of Monkeys chimps comprise the portrait. The print is 24 by 33".

From Pure Evil's description:

A 4-colour process screenprint with 5th colour border of the beardy genius Charles Darwin made up of 100's of stenciled barrel monkeys.

Unfortunately, the print is currently sold out.

Detailed look here.

h/t Dangerous Minds.

Rabbi Thinks Non-Believers Actually Believe (But I Don't Believe Him)

Over at Huffington Post, Rabbi Adam Jacobs tries to make a case that everyone, regardless of what they tell you (or what they think they believe), believes in God.

While I was willing to give the Rabbi the benefit of the doubt, it didn't take long to realize that I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

In the post The God Test: Why Really Everyone Believes writes:

Try as I might, I continue to be startled by the mindset of the non-believer. It's not so much that I can't grasp the notion that someone could believe that there is no Creator and that there is no grand design to the universe, but rather that so many of their choices and thinking patterns seem to suggest that they believe something quite unlike that which they profess. Often, I've inquired of non-believers if it at all vexes them that nothing that they have ever done or will ever do will make the slightest difference to anyone on any level? After all, one random grouping of molecules interacting with another has no inherent meaning or value. I still await the brave soul (or neuron complex if you prefer) who will respond that I am quite correct; that no thought, deed, action or impulse is any more significant or meaningful than any other, that statements like "I would like to enslave all of humanity" and "I would like a chocolate bar" are functionally equivalent, and that their very own thoughts and words are intrinsically suspect as they are nothing more than some indiscriminate electro-chemical impulses. Until then, I will carry on believing that most "non-believers" actually believe a bit more than they generally let on, or are willing to admit to themselves. That, or that they have contented themselves to willfully act out fantasies that bear no relation to their purported worldview.

Rabbi Jacobs makes his first misstep when he suggests that the very nature of non-belief requires the non-believer to concede that his or her actions and accomplishments lack meaning or value. Either Jacobs has not talked to many non-believers, or he chooses to ignore the fact that meaning does not require a creator or a religion.

Jacobs poses three questions to non-believers. He believes that the non-believers' answers to these questions will likely prove that they actually do believe in God. He says, "I posit that if you are inclined to answer any of them from a non-materialist perspective then you might secretly suspect that there are grander cosmic forces at work than those discernible on a purely empiric level, or, possibly, that you are a victim of societal programming."

What are the questions?

1. Would you be willing to sell your parent's remains for dog food?

2. You and someone you dislike are stranded on a desert island with a functioning ham radio. One day you hear that there has been a terrible earthquake that has sent a massive tsunami hurtling directly for your island and you both have only one hour to live. Does it make any difference whether you spend your last hour alive comforting and making amends with your (formerly) hated companion or smashing his head in with fallen, unripe coconuts?

3. Is love, art, beauty or morality intrinsically significant?

It is apparent that the good Rabbi is unable to understand that respect, compassion, empathy, heritage, ritual, morality, and pleasure can all exist outside of religion.

I'll address Jacobs' questions one at a time:

1. As a non-believer, I would not sell my parents' remains for dog food because I am an evolved human being with a strong sense of respect for family, heritage, and ritual. Do I believe that by not disposing of my parents' remains in an appropriate manner I would be punished in some metaphysical sense? No. Do I believe that my parents would be aware of my lack of respect from beyond the grave? No. Then why would I not take the materialistic route, and accept the dog food? Because -- get this -- non-believers actually are capable of placing value on non-material things. Like believers, we evolved to be ritualistic beings with a strong sense of heritage. Because humans have had rituals associated with the burial of loved ones for at least 130,000 years, and because these rituals remind us of who we are, and where we come from, we (yes, even non-believers) find comfort in these rituals. There is a psychological and emotional component to closure (obviously) that transcends religion. There are many non-religious components to a proper burial (respect, sanitation, etc.), just as there are religious components (the afterlife, etc.). These rituals, regardless of their origins, do not lose their importance if one does not believe in a supernatural being.

2. The reason I would not smash my 'hated companion' with a coconut upon hearing about the tsunami is twofold:

• First, as a skeptic, I understand that, at times, when we attempt to predict the behavior of natural phenomena, we can be wrong. Perhaps, the tsunami will not destroy us. Perhaps, we would both find a way to survive. All humans have a survival instinct, and non-believers are not exempt from this. 

• Secondly, this question is insane. Without the Ten Commandments as a source of morality, and without the fear of eternal hellfire, humans are still quite reluctant to murder, steal, and cause harm. This is called empathy. Lack of belief in a higher power in no way makes it okay to murder anyone, even if the world is about to end, and even if that person is a real pain in the ass. If I were to find myself in the desert island scenario, as a human being with compassion and a evolved predisposition for altruistic behavior, I would wish to comfort my fellow human being in our final hours, just as I would wish to be comforted. It would matter not that I might be rewarded in the afterlife for such compassion -- it would simply be the right thing to do. Also, there's that psychological need for closure that we were discussing above. If this particular scenario is not a good time to seek cognitive closure, I don't know what is.

3. Of course, love, art, beauty and morality are intrinsically significant. The reason that we find them significant is actually quite simple: they evoke feelings of pleasure. Humans place value on things that bring pleasure. When we are in love, when we view wonderful artistic expressions or natural beauty, or when we do good things, we feel pleasure, warmth, and appreciation. These things have value not only to us, but to others. As social beings with evolved capacities for reciprocity and compassion, we gain pleasure from producing art and music. We gain pleasure from expressing love to others, and by performing acts of kindness. Art can be a source of communication. Beauty, love, and morality enhance our lives and our well-being. I would ask you, Rabbi, why do we find expressions of love in animals? Why do birds, who have no known capacity for religious thought, sing or exhibit their beautiful plumage? All of these things you list (love, art, beauty, morality) exist in nature: apes and birds woo mates with song and beauty. They participate in altruistic behavior daily. Yet it is not required that they believe in a creator.

I find Jacobs' view of non-belief to be rather sad. It mirrors the view of many -- that without religion, life is meaningless, or that without religion, society would dissolve into barbarism, greed, and anarchy. This view shows how very little Jacobs, and those who share his views, understands about where humans came from, and how we got here. If we study the evolution of religion alongside the evolution of humans (and of societies), we learn that we were social, compassionate beings long before the God of monotheism arrived on the scene. I am not denying the role of religion in shaping humanity and society, but just as we evolved morality without the Abrahamic God, morality will continue to evolve regardless of a belief in said god. Just as polytheistic (and other pre-monotheistic) humans exhibited moral codes, a hypothetical post-Abrahamic society of the future would also exhibit moral codes. Many of these codes would certainly have ties to pre-monotheistic societies, just as many of these future codes might improve upon the sometimes barbaric and primitive moral codes of the Bible.

Jacobs concludes:

If you are willing to define the human experience as nothing more than an arbitrary series of chemicals, atoms and other blind and indifferent forces acting in concert, then at the end of the day, you necessarily concede that human emotion and experience are intrinsically meaningless. What difference, then, does it make if you (or others) choose to completely disregard concepts like kindness, decency and love? The non-believer is duty bound to say that it makes no difference whatsoever, as meaning -- in all of its varied splendor -- resides exclusively with those who acknowledge its basis. One that is neither blind nor random nor physical.

If you chose the non-materialistic answer to any of these questions (no, yes, yes) you may be more of a believer than you think.

*sigh*

Rabbi, most non-believers do not define the human experience as nothing more than arbitrary series of chemicals, atoms, etc. And those who might, are not saying in any way that human emotion and experience are intrinsically meaningless.

Science may tell us that we arrived via a series of chemical reactions, mutations, and a complex array of mechanisms. But at the end of the day, we are here, and we will do what we will do. It took us 4.5 billion years to arrive, and over the course of that amazing journey we developed the ability to create and to find meaning. We do good things because good actions promote societal cohesiveness, good-will, and ultimately, survival. We ostracize those who do bad things, such as killing others, because such behavior threatens that cohesiveness and survival. Even if we took religion completely out of the equation for everyone, most of us would still choose to do the right thing. As social beings, we want to belong. As survivalists, we want to survive and reproduce. And as empathetic beings, we want to make others happy. Because, ultimately, we want to be happy. We can't be happy when everyone is killing everyone.

The meaning of life is up to each of us. We do not have to understand where the first life came from in order to appreciate how fortunate we are to be alive. Originally, life's purpose was simply to survive, to replicate. And now, our purposes are defined by what we choose to do with our lives.

Michael Shermer On The Evolutionary Roots Of Political Tribalism

Science writer and historian Michael Shermer isn't afraid to make some generalizations about people and their political ideologies. We all, more or less, belong to tribes, he says, and the characteristics are fairly easy to predict:

This is why, for example, the political beliefs of members of each party are so easy to predict. Without even knowing you, I predict that if you are a liberal you read the New York Times, listen to NPR radio, watch CNN, hate George W. Bush and loathe Sarah Palin, are pro-choice, anti-gun, adhere to the separation of church and state, are in favor of universal health care, vote for measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich in order to level the playing field and believe that global warming is real, human caused and potentially disastrous for civilization if the government doesn’t do something dramatic and soon. By contrast, I predict that if you are a conservative you read the Wall Street Journal, listen to conservative talk radio, watch Fox News, love George W. Bush and venerate Sarah Palin, are pro-life, anti-gun control, believe that America is a Christian nation that should meld church and state, are against universal health care, vote against measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich and are skeptical of global warming and/or government schemes to dramatically alter our economy in order to save civilization.

Some might beg to differ. Certainly there are those of us who are moderate, who fit somewhere in the middle of these two ideological descriptions. Some of us may even find ourselves migrating from one side of the spectrum to the other over the course of our lifetime. But I'm willing to bet that, for the most part, Shermer is correct. We do tend to like to seek out information that supports our beliefs, while rejecting information which calls our beliefs into question. We all are guilty of drinking the kool-aid, to various degrees.

Shermer's predictions bring up two questions: 1) Why are we so prone to such tribalism? and 2) Why are these tribal affinities remain so predictable -- and so strong -- despite our unlimited access to information and our capacity for critical thought?

Shermer describes how this tribalism has evolutionary roots, and was crucial to our survival. He takes us back to our hominid ancestors who lived in small bands on the African Savanna:

There, in those long-gone millennia, were formed the family ties and social bonds that enabled our survival among predators who were faster, stronger, and deadlier than us: unwavering loyalty to your fellow tribesmen was a signal that they could count on you when needed. Undying friendship with those in your group meant that they would reciprocate when the chips were down. Within-group amity was insurance against the between-group enmity that characterized our ancestral past. As Ben Franklin admonished his fellow revolutionaries, we must all hang together or we will surely hang separately.

In this historical trajectory our group psychology evolved and along with it a propensity for xenophobia — in-group good, out-group bad. Thus it is that members of the other political party are not just wrong — they are evil and dangerous. Stray too far from the dogma of your own party and you risk being perceived as an outsider, an Other we may not be able to trust. Consistency in your beliefs is a signal to your fellow group members that you are not a wishy-washy, Namby Pamby, flip-flopper, and that I can count on you when needed.

Surely, now that we have evolved the capacity for rational thought, and live in such a racially and ideologically diverse society, we have overcome this tribal mentality, right?

Research in cognitive psychology shows, for example, that once we commit to a belief we employ the confirmation bias, in which we look for and find confirming evidence in support of it and ignore or rationalize away any disconfirming evidence.

Shermer describes a study conducted during the 2004 Bush-Kerry Presidential election. Drew Westen, a psychologist at Emory University scanned the brains of 30 men, half of which were characterized as "strong" Republicans, and half which were characterized as "strong" Democrats. These men's brains were scanned as they watched videos of both Bush and Kerry making statements which contradicted previous statements.

Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own preferred candidate off the evaluative hook. The brain scans showed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning — the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex — was quiet. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex that is involved in the processing of emotions, the anterior cingulate that is associated with conflict resolution, and the ventral striatum that is related to rewards. Roughly translated: we have an emotional reaction to conflicting data, rationalize away the parts that do not fit our preconceived beliefs about a candidate and then receive the positive reinforcement of a neurochemical hit, probably dopamine.

In other words, reasoning with facts about the issues is quite secondary to the emotional power of first siding with your party and then employing your reason, intelligence and education in the service of your political commitment.

Studies like these tend to show us what we already assume about human nature -- we have seen it enough in our own experiences. But understanding the science behind such instincts reminds us that, no matter how evolved we think we are, we are still, in many ways, quite primal.

Science: What's It Up To?

The Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi brilliantly skewers the science denialism embraced by so much of the religious right. The clip addresses Herman Cain's climate science denial, Rick Santorum's denial of evolution, and Michele Bachmann's claim that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation.

Mandvi is joined by Republican strategist, Noelle Nikpour, who unwittingly provides most of the comedy in the clip.

Noelle Nikpour: It’s very confusing for a child to be only taught evolution to go home to a household where their parents say, “Well, wait a minute. . . God created the Earth!”

Aasif Mandvi: What is the point of teaching children facts if it’s just going to confuse them?

Nikpour: It confuses the children when they go home. We as Americans—we are paying tax dollars for our children to be educated. We need to offer them every theory that’s out there. It’s all about choice; it’s all about freedom.

Mandvi: It should be up to the American people to decide what’s true.

Nikpour: Absolutely! Doesn’t it make common sense?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Relative Insignificance Of Your Problems (And Perhaps, Humanity)

If there's anything that's difficult for humans to grasp, it's the relative insignificance of humans.

While going about our days, it's easy for the little things to set us off.  A bad experience in the DMV line can alter our mood for the entire day. Getting cut off in traffic can raise our blood pressure. Getting rejected by an employer or a romantic interest can seem like the end of the world.

The below image, from the University of Wisconsin's Geoscience department, should help you put things into perspective. When the history of the world, and the evolution of life, is cast into a 24-hour clock, it's difficult to not feel that many of our daily gripes are trivial. In fact, it's difficult to not feel as if humanity itself is kind of trivial.

If the history of the world were cast into a 24-hour clock, humans would not show up until 11:58:43 PM.

Keep in mind that, in addition to the immensity of this timeline, it has been 13.75 ± 0.13 billion years since the Big Bang. (Earth was formed a mere 4.54 billion years ago).

If that's not enough to make those worries melt away, also consider that there are at least 100 billion stars with planets in our galaxy and about 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. If we widen the scope, we must also consider that scientists have estimated there are at least 10 trillion planetary systems in the known universe, with many planets possibly harboring intelligent life.

Relax.

h/t Sheril Kirshenbaum

Is Religion Complicit In The Suicides of Gay Teens?

A recent post about the suicide of Jamie Hubley, a 17-year-old gay Ottawa teen, sparked a debate about the role of religion in anti-LGBT bullying.

Asher Brown, Tyler Clementi, Seth Walsh

I noted in the post that Jamie's funeral would be held at a Catholic church, and stated that "Jamie's family and friends will pay tribute to Jamie's life in an church institution which undoubtedly contributed to his death."

I realize that those were strong words, yet I stand by that statement.

LGBT Teens, Bullying, and Suicide

Here are some startling statistics on LGBT bullying:

Statistics suggest that youth hear anti-gay remarks approximately 25 times in an average school day, or more specifically, once every 14 minutes. 

The Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network’s (GLSEN) school climate survey found that approximately 61% of LGBTQ youth reported feeling unsafe in their school environments and 44% reported being physically harassed due to their perceived sexual orientation. This unsafe sense is not just a feeling, because 1 in 6 LGBTQ youth will be physically assaulted so badly that medical attention is needed. 

Recent research on the relationship between anti-gay bullying and suicide indicate that LGBTQ youth are at a higher risk for physical and emotional abuse at school and are at a higher risk for suicide. 

The 2006 Massachusetts Youth Risk Behavior Survey of over 3,500 participants indicates that LGBTQ students were more than twice as likely than their non-LGBTQ peers to attempt suicide.

One recent study suggests that anti-gay discrimination increased symptoms of depression among LGBT high school students overall and increased risk of self-harm and suicidal ideation among LGBT male high school students in particular. Another study of 7,376 middle school students found that LGBQ youth reported higher levels of bullying, anti-gay victimization, depression, and suicidality when compared to heterosexual youth. 

(Anti-Gay Bullying and Suicide: Implications and Resources for Counselors, Penn State University College of Education)

I'm sure we can all agree. Anti-LGBT attitudes and bullying can be devastating, especially to teens, and often leads to isolation, physical and mental abuse, depression, and suicide.


Where Do Anti-LGBT Attitudes and Bullying Come From?

Many believe that bullying is simply part of growing up. Michele Bachmann has stated, "It’s part of growing up, it’s part of maturing…I hardly think that bullying is a real issue in schools."

While it is true that bullying has occurred for as long as humans have been social beings, and that much of bullying is not directed at LGBT teens, the bullying that LGBT teens experience is something different altogether. While no bullying should be acceptable, the bullying of LGBT teens should be of great concern, due to the nature of the bullying and its devastating effects on our children.

The religious component of bullying is especially damaging. When we say that bullying is simply a normal part of growing up, we fail to remember that Leviticus 20:13 does not state, "If a man plays the piano instead of football, he has done what is detestable. He must be put to death; His blood will be on their own heads."

We forget that 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 does not say, "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor skinny kids who play chess, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

The religious condemnation which informs the bullying of LGBT teens does more than hurt feelings, or cause a bruise. It is a visceral attack on the core of a child's being. It condemns. It eviscerates self worth and advocates a sentence of eternal damnation.

Via 'Faith in America':

Religion-based bigotry is the foundation of anti-gay attitudes in our society and in the minds of a majority of Americans, particularly persons of faith. Religion-based bigotry is not synonymous with bigotry. It is a uniquely vile form of bigotry as the prejudice, hostility and discrimination behind the words are given a moral stamp of approval.

Via Soulforce:

We recognize that oppression is most often rooted in religious belief and ideologies of power in which women, people of color and non-gender conforming (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer) people are subjugated and subjected to the violence of exclusion. You will find us most often in dialogue with religious leaders, denominations and institutions who discriminate in polity, policy or practice. We are committed to decriminalization of sexual minorities by all church and state sanctioned organizations worldwide.

While some might claim that the above organizations are biased, or working to advance the gay agenda, there is no shortage of respected Christian writers who also acknowledge that religion is complicit in LGBT teen suicides.

Christian author and blogger John Shore writes,

We very often find conservative Christians defending themselves against the accusation that the theology in which they believe–and specifically their belief that homosexuality is a sin against God—ultimately contributes to that which informs, motivates, and encourages the bullying of gay teens.

Elsewhere he writes:

If you’re a Christian who believes that being gay is a morally reprehensible offense against God, then you share a mindset, worldview, and moral structure with the kids who hounded Jamey Rodemeyer, literally, to death. It is your ethos, your convictions, and your theology that informed, supported, and encouraged their cruelty.

Presbyterian minister and blogger, Mark Sandlin writes writes:

Oh sure...we [Christians] have “softened” our approach, saying things like “hate the sin, love the sinner,” but we fail to recognize that what we are calling a “sin” and the person we are calling a “sinner” are one and the same. A person whose sexual orientation is homosexual, or bi-sexual, or queer can no more separate themselves from their sexuality than a heterosexual person can. It's like saying “hate the toppings, love the pizza.” It's just not the pizza without the toppings. We just aren't loving the person if we don't love the whole person.

I suspect the “softening” of the language we use has everything to do with making us feel better and very little with making LGBTQ folk feel better, because it certainly doesn't make them feel any better. As a matter of fact, the love/hate (emphasis on hate) relationship that the Church continues to push on this group of people only serves to push them into closets and into even darker places, which sometimes leads to suicide. The Church and its approach to this issue are at fault for most of the hurt, anguish, self-doubt, abuse and death associated with being LGBTQ. Not very loving. Not very grace filled. But it certainly leaves us in need of forgiveness.

A Call To Action

Religion is responsible for so much good in the world. Religious organizations help feed the poor, build homes for the homeless, provide aid to the sick, and raise money for many wonderful causes. It is also important to note that many religious folks reject religion-based bigotry, and fight for LGBT rights every day. Many churches openly welcome members of the LGBT community, and many are directly involved in organizing campaigns against anti-LGBT attitudes and legislation.

However, far too many sweep religion-based anti-LGBT ideology under the rug. We often fail to speak up and denounce religious leaders or organizations which use the pulpit to debase the LGBT community. We avoid confronting the fact that we bury our gay teens in the cemeteries of churches which perpetuate the attitudes that lead to the deaths of more teens.

The least we can do for the teenagers who have taken their lives, and for those who might be on a similar path, is to rethink our association with institutions whose ideologies are at odds with our own. We need to speak up and demand that these religious organizations and leaders re-evaluate their attitudes on homosexuality.

We need to evolve to the point that we do not take scripture literally. I would like to see us reach a point when we, as human beings with evolved minds and the capacity for empathy, reject the dogma that we see as harmful and archaic. We have done this with so much of scripture, yet we hang on to the Bible's archaic and obsolete take on the nature of sexual orientation and gender.

We are capable of rejecting the Bible's treatment of women (e.g. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35, 1 Timothy 2:11-15), or advice on disciplining children (e.g. Proverbs 22:15, Deuteronomy 21:18-21). We have let go of the Bible's examples of keeping slaves, polygamy, or the killing of others with different religions. Yet, so many seem incapable of doing the same with regard to homosexuality, an orientation determined by a combination of genetic, hormonal, environmental, and biological factors, and which is not a choice. Why would we choose to condemn, discredit, and belittle these folks based on cherry-picked instructions from the Bible, while dismissing other scripture which makes no sense to us in modern society?


Morality Evolved, And Continues To Evolve

The precursors of human morality can be traced to the behaviors of many other social animals. Our morality predates scripture. It predates the concept of God.  As evolved human beings with the capacity for determining what is morally right and wrong, we owe it to ourselves, and to humanity, to allow ourselves to point out flawed morality when we find it, regardless of its source.

We are fully capable of determining what does and doesn't cause suffering in others. Morality is one of our most basic instincts. We shouldn't be afraid to use it. We must question religious dogma which asks us to go contribute to the suffering of other human beings. Most humans reject stoning, slavery, and human sacrifice -- all smiled upon by God somewhere in the Bible. We have moved beyond such barbarism, because our morality has evolved since biblical times.

Human beings and human morality continue to evolve. Why postpone our progress?

Why on earth would we resist a path that guarantees less suffering and more happiness for our fellow humans?

Richard Dawkins: Who Was The First Human?

Whatever your opinion of Richard Dawkins, it's difficult to deny that he has a gift for explaining extremely complex and unimaginable scientific processes in such a way that a child could understand. Some of his thought experiments, such as his wonderful 'hairpin turn' thought experiment in 'The Greatest Show on Earth', are compelling for their ability to provoke an 'aha!' moment in young children, and adults who may not have had the good fortune to be taught evolution, or to be taught it well, in school.

In the below video, from his appearance at The New Yorker Festival, Dawkins walks us through one of the thought experiments in his book for all ages, 'The Magic of Reality.' Through such experiments, children can begin to grasp the immensity of time required for evolutionary change as well as the fact that no particular living thing is ever the first of its kind.

Are You A Young Earth Creationist? Take The Quiz!

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? In case you're unsure, you may want to answer the 9 questions below, which Creation Ministries International put together to help "ascertain whether your future pastor, youth group leader or Bible College principal takes a straightforward view of Genesis."

You wouldn't want your child to learn actual facts would you? Heavens, no.

From the introduction to the quiz:

CMI periodically receives requests for us to identify Bible colleges/seminaries that believe/teach a straightforward reading of Genesis. We also know of pastoral search committees lamenting that they would not have selected certain candidates if only they had known in advance of their compromise (long-age, or theistic evolutionary) stance on Genesis.

For a number of reasons, CMI does not provide a list of ‘young-earth’ theological colleges, nor do we get involved in church staffing matters. However, in response to such enquiries we have prepared the following questionnaire to meet an evident need.

Please feel free to reference CMI's explanatory notes for each question.

Good luck!

1. SIX DAYS 

Do you believe that God created the earth and universe in six ordinary-length (earth-rotation) days?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

2. AGE OF THE WORLD 

Do you believe that the earth and universe are only thousands (not millions or billions) of years old, as measured by Earth time?

☐  Yes

☐  No

___________________________________________________________________

3. THE FIRST HUMANS 

Do you believe that Adam and his wife Eve were the literal, historic ancestors of all (other) people who have ever lived?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

4. ADAM AND EVE’S ORIGINS 

Do you believe that Adam and Eve had no physical parents, but were created directly by God; Adam from the actual dust, and Eve from the actual flesh and bone of Adam’s side?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

5. HUMAN DEATH 

Do you believe that human physical death began only after Adam sinned?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

6. CARNIVORY 

Do you believe that all animals were originally created vegetarian?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

7. SUFFERING IN THE FOSSIL RECORD 

Do you believe that fossils showing evidence of bloodshed and suffering (e.g. half-eaten prey, dinosaur cancers,) could not have been formed before Adam’s Fall led to the Curse?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

8. GLOBAL FLOOD

Do you believe that the Flood of Noah covered the whole globe? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

9. THE SUPERNATURAL POWER OF JESUS

Do you believe that after Lazarus was physically dead for days, Jesus miraculously caused him to regain physical life? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

If you answered 'No' to any of the above questions, you have nothing to worry about. Wait -- I mean, you failed.

'The Magic Of Reality': Richard Dawkins' Science Book For All Ages

No matter what you think of Richard Dawkins, he has an extraordinary gift for explaining science's complexities in a way that anyone can easily understand. I credit him, along with Jerry Coyne, David Sloane Wilson, and others, with helping me (an English major who did never had much interest in science, and who can't recall hearing about evolution in school) to really grasp the complexity and beauty of evolution.

After several wonderful books written for adults, including The Selfish Gene, The Greatest Show on Earth, and The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins has undertaken the task of writing a sprawling, 272-page, illustrated science book for all ages. The book is called The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True.

As the father of 3 very curious young boys, I'm excited to get a hold of this book. It seems perfect for reading and discussing with children, and for keeping readily available for those times when kids ask questions about how things work. I've been disappointed with much of the books presently out there for kids about science, specifically those that address evolution (with the exception of Daniel Loxton's wonderful illustrated book, Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be). Dawkins' book will be a welcome addition to our shelves.

From the publisher:

Magic takes many forms. Supernatural magic is what our ancestors used in order to explain the world before they developed the scientific method. The ancient Egyptians explained the night by suggesting the goddess Nut swallowed the sun. The Vikings believed a rainbow was the gods' bridge to earth. The Japanese used to explain earthquakes by conjuring a gigantic catfish that carried the world on its back—earthquakes occurred each time it flipped its tail. These are magical, extraordinary tales. But there is another kind of magic, and it lies in the exhilaration of discovering the real answers to these questions. It is the magic of reality—science.

Packed with clever thought experiments, dazzling illustrations and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena. What is stuff made of? How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? This is a page-turning, graphic detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.

Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous evolutionary biologist and one of science education's most passionate advocates, has spent his career elucidating the wonders of science for adult readers. But now, in a dramatic departure, he has teamed up with acclaimed artist Dave McKean and used his unrivaled explanatory powers to share the magic of science with readers of all ages. This is a treasure trove for anyone who has ever wondered how the world works. Dawkins and McKean have created an illustrated guide to the secrets of our world—and the universe beyond—that will entertain and inform for years to come.

Ken Ham & Answers In Genesis Refute Evolution With 3-Minute Video

Stop the presses! Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis have refuted evolution with a 3-minute video.

A still from AiG's 'Check This Out' DVD series

From AiG:

We’re sure you’ve heard this claim before, probably hundreds of times: “Science has proven evolution is fact.” It’s like a strange Darwinian chant that emanates from atheist blogs and secular universities. Too bad (for them) it’s not true.

Yes, Ken, it's exactly like that. A "strange Darwinian chant" from atheist blogs and secular universities.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from the world's largest scientific society, with over 130,000 members, and over 262 affiliated societies comprised of over 10 million individuals.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from pretty much every scientist (97%).

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 90 educational organizations, over 30 religious organizations, and over 100 scientific and scholarly organizations.

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 1170 scientists named Steve (Steves make up approximately 1% of all scientists).

A "strange Darwinian chant" from over 12,000 American Christian clergy.

What is so explosive about the information in Ken's video that he believes disproves the theory that serves as "the foundation of modern biology?" The video states, "What the bible reveals makes sense of what we see and understand. Evolution does not. 'Nuff said."

Ham's refutation centers on the following two statements:

1. Life has never been observed to come from non-life. 
2. There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism. 

Let's have a look:

 

Let's address the first refutation. First of all, the theory of evolution does not depend on how life began. Abiogenesis is another matter altogether, and proof or dis-proof of abiogenesis would not affect evolution in the least. Evolution is defined as "the gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms." As long as there is life, there is evolution. Saying that evolution cannot exist without proof of abiogenesis is like saying the germ theory of disease does not work without first understanding how bacteria first originated.

Secondly, just because science has not observed abiogenesis does not mean that God created all life in its present form. This is a 'God of the Gaps' argument and it's silly. It is true that we have not replicated abiogenesis, but there are many models to describe how life may have originated, and we are learning more and more each day. There was a time when we could not explain where lightning came from, and so we attributed it to the gods. We later gained the knowledge to explain how lightning works, and the gods explanation faded away. Abiogenesis is a little more complex, and may or may not be replicated in my lifetime, but that does not mean that it cannot be explained. Science is closing in on it. This is how science works.

Now on to Ham's 2nd refutation: "There is no known observable process by which new genetic information can be added to the genetic code of an organism." This is, quite simply, a flat out lie. Although creationists never seem to be able to define exactly what they mean by "information," It appears that they keep this definition rather loose, so that they can exclude whatever evidence is put in front of them. Regardless, new genetic information is indeed routinely added to biological systems through various evolutionary mechanisms. You just need to look at the evidence, which is overwhelming. You just won't find it in Creationist sources. 

John Rennie writes in Scientific American:

Biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. 

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. 

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.

Nice try, Ken. Sadly, however, there are many parents and churches who will plop their kids in front of your DVDs, and no new factual information will be added to the child's brain. Most of these kids will eventually have evolution explained to them properly. However, some kids will inevitably grow up to be the next Ken Ham.

It's like some strange Creationist chant.

Tweet of the Day: Jon Huntsman

Reacting to Rick Perry's more predictable stance on evolution, GOP hopeful Jon Huntsman volunteered this bit of information. Too bad this probably hurts his chances (not that he had much of a chance anyway). Kudos to Huntsman for sticking his neck out.

Belief in Evolution vs. National Wealth: Why Does The US Not Fit The Trend?

via Calamities of Nature:

The United States is an odd bird, clearly. This graph reminded me of a post on PZ Myers' Pharyngula blog in which he discussed an international poll showing the US as being near dead last in acceptance of evolution (just above Turkey, another country with a distinct fundamentalism/modernism issues).

What, pray tell, could cause the US to remain such an outlier?

Well, first there is religiosity:

The total effect of fundamentalist religious beliefs on attitude toward evolution (using a standardized metric) was nearly twice as much in the United States as in the nine European countries (path coefficients of -0.42 and -0.24, respectively), which indicates that individuals who hold a strong belief in a personal God and who pray frequently were significantly less likely to view evolution as probably or definitely true than adults with less conservative religious views.

And then there's this:

Second, the evolution issue has been politicized and incorporated into the current partisan division in the United States in a manner never seen in Europe or Japan. In the second half of the 20th century, the conservative wing of the Republican Party has adopted creationism as a part of a platform designed to consolidate their support in southern and Midwestern states—the "red" states. In the 1990s, the state Republican platforms in seven states included explicit demands for the teaching of "creation science". There is no major political party in Europe or Japan that uses opposition to evolution as a part of its political platform.

As Myers noted, the paper ends on a sad note:

The politicization of science in the name of religion and political partisanship is not new to the United States, but transformation of traditional geographically and economically based political parties into religiously oriented ideological coalitions marks the beginning of a new era for science policy. The broad public acceptance of the benefits of science and technology in the second half of the 20th century allowed science to develop a nonpartisan identification that largely protected it from overt partisanship. That era appears to have closed.

Nigel Barber, in Psychology Today, asks if Atheism will eventually replace religion, as research shows that atheism "blossoms amid affluence where most people feel economically secure."

He writes:

It seems that people turn to religion as a salve for the difficulties and uncertainties of their lives. In social democracies, there is less fear and uncertainty about the future because social welfare programs provide a safety net and better health care means that fewer people can expect to die young. People who are less vulnerable to the hostile forces of nature feel more in control of their lives and less in need of religion. Hence my finding of belief in God being higher in countries with a heavy load of infectious diseases.

These findings are not surprising, but his piece does not acknowledge the fact that the US, a developed country where most have access to shelter, healthcare, and education, remains extremely religious (and relatively anti-evolution). Unfortunately, in the US, there appears to be no level of affluence and comfort capable of decoupling religion and politics, despite constitutional assurances explicitly requiring it.

Poll Shows Way Too Many People Take The Bible Literally

According to a recent Gallup poll, 3 in 10 Americans take the Bible literally, saying it is the actual word of God. Although this is lower than the 40% recorded in 1980 and 1984 by Gallup, it is up from the low point of 21% in 2001.

49% say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally, while 17% consider the Bible an ancient collection of stories recorded by man.

Additional findings from the poll show that frequent church attendees (those who attend weekly) are most likely to view the bible as the literal word of God, while those who rarely (or never) attend are more likely to view the Bible as the inspired word of god, or mythology.

This may seem benign to many, but let's consider what this means, exactly. Assuming that this 30% is as familiar with the text as they think, we must assume that they believe the following to be true events in history:

God made the heavens and the earth in seven days. Gen. 1; 2

God made a dude out of dirt, and then, later, as an afterthought, took the dude's rib and fashioned a lady out of it. Gen. 1

The entire earth was flooded for 150 days. Gen. 7

A dude built a boat and put two of every living species on Earth on the boat (because God told him to).  He kept all of them afloat and fed for 150 days.  Gen. 6:14-22; 7:8; Matt. 24:38; Luke 17:27; Heb. 11:7; 1 Pet. 3:20

A dude's cane turned into a snake. Ex. 4:3,4,30; 7:10,12

A dude's wife was turned into a condiment. Gen. 19:26

A dude parted a sea. Ex. 14:22.

A dude's donkey talked to him.  Num. 22:23-30

A bush in flames talked to a dude. Ex. 3:2-5; Acts 7:30

A dude was fed by an angel. 1 Kin. 19:1-8

A dude made an entire army go blind. Kin. 6:18

A dude hung out for a while in a fish's belly. Jonah 1:17

A dude turned water into wine. John 2:1-11

A dude fed 5,000 people with 5 loaves of bread and a couple of fish. Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:35-44; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:5-14

A dude walked on the sea. Matt. 14:22-33; Mark 6:45-52; John 6:16-21

A dude pulled money from a fish's mouth. Matt. 17:24-27

A dude brought a bunch of other dudes back to life. Matt. 9:18,19,23-26; Mark 5:22-24,35-43; Luke 8:41,42,49-56; John 11:1-46; Luke 7:11-16
 
A dude healed all kinds of handicapped people (blind, crippled, lepers, deaf, mute, demoniacs, you name it) John 4:46-54; John 5:1-16; Matt. 12:22-37; Mark 3:11; Luke 11:14,15; Matt. 9:27-31; Mark 7:31-37
 
A virgin had a baby. Matt. 1:23; Luke 1:27,34

A dude came back from the dead. Matt. 28:6,7 Mark 16:6,7; Luke 24:5-7; John 20:1-18

After he came back from the dead, that dude floated up to heaven, body and all. Mark 16:19,20; Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12.

This is only a fraction of the fantastical, supernatural claims made in The Bible.  One could fill a whole book with them (oh, wait).

If anyone claimed any of the above events occurred today, we would consider them to be delusional, insane, or a ridiculously gullible victim of someone's tall tale. What gives these fantastical, supernatural biblical events their legitimacy is, quite simply, their inclusion in a text that is believed to be the word of God. This is circular reasoning at its finest: "The Bible is literally true, because The Bible tells us it is literally true. If any of it is not literally true, then we can't trust any of it, and that's not possible."

We must ask ourselves why it is that these fantastical, supernatural events only seem to occur during and prior to the Bronze Age, and in the future.  This leaves us with a large gap of zero fantastical events of a biblical scale.  In between what we think occurred, and what we expect will occur, we are lucky to get a Cheeto shaped like Jesus.

This is not just about debunking religion.  These literal beliefs have real-life impacts. When we believe that the Bible is the literal word of God, we deny human rights, we impede progress in medicine, we condone wars, we are complicit in the submission of women, we subscribe to religious exceptionalism, and we deny the realities of the natural world and of the cosmos.  Until we come to terms with the fact that the Bible includes mythology, legend, and parables, we perpetuate suffering and condone harm. There is impact on decisions that are made every single day in the halls of governments across the country.

And as we have seen from the potential GOP presidential candidates, a few are having a hard time separating their literal religious beliefs from public policy.

The thirty percent finding from Gallup is not a number we can should feel comfortable with.  It is not a stretch to state that 30% of Americans are incapable of thinking critically, do not have a grasp on the fundamental laws of nature, and reject basic science.  And a good portion of those folks are penning legislation at this moment.