It's too hot to study

I know I really should but it's just too hot.

We're currently having the hottest November since 1894.

It's going to be 36°C on Saturday according to the quick Google check, which will be fun. Especially since it's Pageant Day, but I'm sure we're still going to get a lot of people, but I don't think that we'll get any Guinness World Records for anything this year (I'll tell you later.)

Anyway, I should be studying I've got exams coming up.

Ray Comfort makes a fool of himself

Ray Comfort, the banana guy, was invited to debate Eugenie Scott by a bloke called Dan Gilgoff. this was his first post. Eugenie makes some very good points and I'm not going to bother writing too much about Comfort's first post.

For a summary Comfort basically says "book burning atheists are angry racism racism racism Hitler non-standard definition for "atheist" plug for book angry atheists abuse Amazon I like science theory theory theory no evidence qualifiers are bad I only mean well really people should read the book evolution is like Mormonism it's a miracle and Darwin is a fantasy writer."

I must admit that I did like this paragraph:

The problem when arguing with those who believe in atheistic evolution is that they move goal posts by redefining atheism or evolution or the word species. From Darwin to Dawkins, they speak the language of speculation, continually using words like probably, maybe, perhaps, and could've. And Darwinism is as nebulous as a puffy cloud on a hot windy day, forever moving, changing, and expanding—because its bounds are limited only by the fertile human imagination.

Good ol' Comfort. First we see him claim that "evolutionists move the goalposts regarding definitions" considering that he said earlier:

The Introduction also defines an atheist as someone who believes that nothing created everything—which is a scientific impossibility.

Really?

That's what an Atheist is? It's not someone who "a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings"?

Why that sure looks like someone moving the goalposts there doesn't it?

Then again there are members in his camp that don't seem to have a very solid definition of a Kind or Baramin.

Then it's that scientists use speculative words when talking about something we don't know for certain. Based on that paragraph then we can say that God must have built the pyramids because we don't know for certain how they were built. Look at all these possible ways that we think the Ancient Egyptians built their pyramids.

Then we see Comfort contradict himself with his "forever moving and changing line. It does make me wonder what he thinks science is. I guess it must be some sort of unchanging pseudo-Bible where you'll be damned for all eternity if you dare change it. It's also a really good hyperbole.

But enough about Ray and his first post. I'm going to talk about his second post.

We start with some back pedalling, Comfort immediately addresses the criticism of his book put forward by Scott, that Comfort removed some of the chapters. Personally I think that the reason Comfort decided initially to remove chapters was so he could make Darwin's work seem weaker then it actually is.

But since he's put those removed chapter back in there isn't really any problem now, even with his introduction you would still be getting yourself a copy of On the Origin of Species.

So let us move on:

Scott quoted a famous geneticist, who said, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution." I would like to drop one word, so that the quote is true. It should read, "Nothing in biology makes sense in the light of evolution."

Really Ray? Really?

Nothing at all makes sense? I guess we are seeing another example of a creationist redefining a word, in this case "evolution". It's clear that Comfort takes a middle ground regarding "microevolution". So clearly he must be talking about "macroevolution" which in creationist circles is some fanciful magical form of evolution that has no grounding at all anywhere.

When you make a strawman it's easy to make one that conforms to your beliefs.

Nothing we have in creation is half evolved.

I'm pretty sure when he says "half evolved" it's that a creature has "half a wing" or "half a gill" or something stupid like that.

So I'm going to propose a new theory that explains this:

Evolution is "quantised" (for lack of a better word) so you can't have a "half evolved" species.

My evidence is the fossil record, I now call on the Nobel Prize Committee to give me lots and lots of money.

My second point is that Scott is happy for students to read the first eight and the last 10 pages of the Introduction, but she doesn't want them to waste their time on the meat in the sandwich. She says that this portion is my weakest, most tasteless of arguments. If that is true, shouldn't she then encourage students to read that portion to prove the weakness of my case? Instead, she says not to read it. I wonder why?

Well from what I've read of it, the reason she says not to bother reading it is because it's irrelevant to the topic at hand. What does Jesus have to do exactly with evolution? Or Hitler?

The introduction is just a veiled attempt to poison the well and nothing more.

I'm going to skip the stuff about ardipithicus ramidus because it appears to be Comfort misunderstanding information that he has been told.

So I'm just going to skip towards the end.

She then encourages doubters to consider museums where "you will find transitional fossils galore." I went to the Smithsonian to see the fossils galore, and they were there—millions of fossils that were evidence of special creation. The Smithsonian didn't have any transitional fossils that proved evolution (staunch believers claim that they have them, but not on display). I also visited the evolution museum in Paris (Grande Galerie de L'Evolution). I took a camera crew, and we spent an hour looking for the evolution exhibit. It didn't have one. All it had were millions of fossils of fully formed animals that God created.

(my bold)

Ray, it's a museum about evolution, the whole museum is one giant exhibit about evolution. It's right there in the name of the museum.

I'm going to bring this post to a close. I took a while to write it, because I had a few distractions and in that time Eugenie Scott wrote her reply, and there is a thoughts post.

I'm going to say though, that Comfort comes across as someone who is misinformed about what exactly science is, but I get the feeling that he knows better. I think he's like many of the more vocal creationists (big names and anonymous people online), someone who actually knows that they are wrong, but is so willingly blinded by dogmatic faith that they will torture scientific findings so they can prop up their faith in what can really only be described as a weak and quite possibly incompetent creator God.

Looking over the your thoughts post I think that there are many people who see can see through the lies and misrepresentation of Comfort and his ilk.

However there are many people who don't and are blinded by misinformation. There is still a lot of work to be done in the US, and it will be achieved through the hard work of people like Eugenie Scott and the NCSE.

When people don't read.

I created a thread on the Evolution section of the CARM forums about this article about God creating a new bird. (Sorry, no direct link since registration is required).

This is the first response to that post, from a creationist called scarlets79 (fstdt):

so when a "new" species is found, this doesn't mean it is a "new" species that just evolved. It just means we discovered it, not that it has only just come about.

You don't seem to understand the difference between an event occurring and an event being reported.

I can understand his confusion. I mean we all know that The Onion is America's finest news source.

Comedies predict the future

'Naked' scanner in airport trial says the BBC.

Well you know who did it first? Airplane!.

So, instead of looking to psychics to predict the future, we should start looking at comedies. I wonder what mystical insights they will hold?

Homeopaths Take Heed.

'Cruel' parents jailed over baby's death is the headline on the ABC.

Thomas and Manju Sam have been sentenced to 6 and 4 years jail respectively for allowing their 6-month old daughter, Gloria, to die from eczema.

The reason she died? Thomas, being a homeopath, decided that homeopathy would be a better way to help her daughter then proper medicine.

The report that I found from AdelaideNow is more graphic in some details:

On the ninth day, concerned about a lingering eye infection, the Sams took their daughter to the Sydney Children's Hospital at Randwick.

Doctors described Gloria as "incredibly sick" with a "massive eroded rash" and "grossly malnourished".

They gave her morphine for the pain and began treating her eye infection - her corneas were melting.

The sad thing is that even though these people are going to jail, I still don't think that they understand the gravity of their crime. I'm of the opinion that they honestly thought that they were helping their child.

Although this is a child negligence case the ABC article says something interesting:

Thomas Sam got the longer sentence of at least six years because, as a homeopath, he had a double duty of care.

This I believe is very important. And I suspect that it will have some rather big repercussions in the CAM industry. In NSW at least. If the above is actually true it means that homeopaths have a greater duty of care to their clients, and can be held responsible for whatever happens to them. This probably won't affect the "take this along with regular medicine" crowd, but it will affect the "don't take the regular medicine, take this instead" crowd.

Even if it doesn't I hope that people who are in the "Complimentary and Alternative Medicine Industry" take a good long look at themselves and think about the possible ramifications of what they tell people. This little girl never got a chance at life because her parents didn't seem to trust modern medicine. Would you want to live like they do, with the blood of an innocent on their hands?

All the US is like Texas

Just like all Australia is like Queensland.

This is the story in question regarding Tegan Leach who is currently charged with procuring drugs for an abortion.

This article from the Courier Mail states that the laws that she is being charged with are actually over a century old.

Now the issue isn't "Why does Australia have such crappy abortion laws" but it's in fact "Why does Queensland have such crappy abortion laws". The issue of abortion is not a Federal issue, but a state one. In general whatever isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution as something the Federal Government is in charge of is the job of the States to deal with. That is why Marriage law is dealt with on a Federal level, but de facto relationships are dealt with on a State level.

Now to be fair, the state I live in (South Australia) actually has some rather crappy laws regarding abortion compared to other parts of Australia. Wikipedia has a nice picture summing it up here.

Queensland does not even allow abortion in rape cases.

Victoria and the ACT allow abortion on request (there might be limits I don't know about though...) and they are basically the polar opposite of Queensland in this sense.

With time, and also from the reactions that people have against those who firebomb the houses of people charged with violating the abortion laws, the view should change and Queensland should start to come in line with the rest of the country.

RIP Norman Borlaug

He is, beyond all doubt, the greatest man who ever lived. Through his work in agricultural research he helped to improve the lives of billions by ensuring that enough food could be grown for them.

He died today at age 95.

His life was spent creating strains of plants that were high yield and disease resistant. He helped countries like Mexico, India and Pakistan become self-sufficient in their production of wheat, and did similar work with rice and other cereal crops. In doing so he prevented hundreds of millions of people from starving.

His work helped to make the world a better place, and we should remember him, and also try to make the world a better place as well.