Macro and Micro Nonsense

I recently came across this video by a YouTube "vlogger" who goes by the name "God Rules".  In the video, he claims that "macro-evolution" is not science because there is no factual evidence for it. I had a bit of a debate with myself as to whether or not to respond; while I accept the overwhelming scientific consensus behind evolution by natural selection I don't tend to say much about it because biology is not really one of my areas of interest. I eventually decided, however, to comment on this for two reasons: First, a few days ago, I criticised the Atheist Community of Austin for letting Don Baker spew his rubbish about Christian history without pulling him up, it feels wrong for me, as a Christian, not to take fellow Christians to task in the same way. Second, the whole thing about "macro-evolution" pressed some buttons of mine in that, while I don't know much about biology, I do understand the importance of good definitions.

For those who may not be familiar, "macro" and "micro" evolution is a distinction invented by creationists to get around the obvious fact that at least some form of evolution happens. Evolution simply means change and change happens in the biological world: new breeds of dogs come into existence, animals adapt to different environments, change happens. The response of creationists to this is to admit that these undeniable examples of evolution happen but to label them "micro-evolution" and to declare that this is something totally different from "macro evolution" such as humans and other apes having evolved from a common ancestor.

When asked to define the actual difference, creationist fall, broadly, into two camps. In the first camp, fall those who define Micro evolution as "adaptation within a species." while macro evolution (which, they deny happening) would involve new species coming into being (what biologists call speciation.). This school have at least this to be said for them, they at least have the courage to take a clear position, to nail their colours to the mast.

This is, evidently, the school to which "God Rules" belongs. At about the five minute mark of his video he begins claiming that atheists don't understand science and simply accept, as scientific, anything which supports their existing beliefs. As an example of this, he cites macro-evolution, saying that atheists accept it as science, in spite of there being absolutely no evidence to support it. He says that micro-evolution is a science, explicitly says that micro-evolution is "adaptation within a species" and concedes that the fact support the conclusion that this happens. He then tells us that there are no facts or evidence to support the proposition that macro-evolution happens. That was it, a blank assertion; he made no effort to interact with or refute any of the claims of evidence.

Unfortunately, for God Rules, there is very detailed observed evidence for speciation you can read about here and, in more detail, here. Put simply, the claims of this school are wrong and are documented as such.

Note: The preceding paragraph was edited, from its original form, in light of comments made in the comment thread below.

The second school of creationists have learned from the mistake of the first school. They define macro-evolution as a change, not in species but in kind. Comfort acknowledges that change in species happens, indeed in his recent debate with Matt Dilahunty, he declared that "we all believe in" speciation. (It's at about the thirty-one minute mark if you want to listen for yourself.) So, as an aside, let me congratulate "God Rules", in denying speciation, you have actually taken a position so widely at odds with the evidence that even Ray Comfort acknowledges that your claim is untenable.

Comfort's position, however, while, in a sense, cleverer, is also, let's call a spade a spade here, dishonest and cowardly. This was well illustrated in this video in which Comfort is interviewed by his fellow creationist Todd Friel. Comfort says that "change of kinds" has not been proven. In a way, Comfort is right. Change of kinds can't really be proven because, to be proven, a proposition needs a clear definition and there is no clear definition of the term "kind." In their interview, Friel asks Comfort about the meaning of kind (the relevant part of the interview starts at about six minutes, ten seconds into the video). Comfort gives the example of dogs as a kind. He says that different breeds of dogs are different species but they are all dogs and thus all one kind. Even if this were true (and it isn't, if Comfort had bothered to do basic research he'd have discovered that all dog breeds are members, not merely of the same species but of the same sub-species: Canis Lupus Familiaris) an example is not a definition. Comfort goes on to claim that kind is a well defined scientific term. To support this claim he says that "we have a clear definition of the word kind from a biological website."

I assume anyone with any discernment can see the snake oil here but let me spell it out: Comfort claims to have "a clear definition" but doesn't bother to tell us what the definition is. He says it comes from "a biological website" but doesn't cite the name or address. For example, what does "a biological website" mean?

Normally, when polemicizing against someone, I presume that that someone is arguing in good faith. In light of the above, I don't think Comfort can be extended that presumption. He is arguing dishonestly and deserves to be called out.

P.S. As a brief aside, if Comfort is actually saying that the domestic dog is a kind of animal, then his claim that animals reproduce only after their own kinds is easily refuted: the domestic dog (Canis Lupus Familiaris) can interbreed with the Eurasian Grey Wolf (Canis Lupus Lupus)

Happy Birthday, Mr. Hetherington!

I was all prepared to post something on a controversial topic today (don't worry, I have something prepared for tomorrow) but, while tracking down links for said post, I noticed the Doodle of the day on Google and discovered that today is the anniversary of the birth (he would have been ninety-three) of Norman Fredrick Hetherington. For those who do not know, Hetherington was creator, puppeteer and voice of Mr. Squiggle.

If you are one of the poor, benighted souls who grew up somewhere other than Australia, the name Mr. Squiggle may mean little to you and if you grew up relatively recently in Australia it may mean little more. For generations of Aussies, however, the name will immediately evoke happy memories of sitting in front of our T.V. shows, watching Mr. Squiggle drawing and trying to guess where his drawing was going.

Mr. Squiggle was a childrens' television show running for just over forty years on Australian television. Mr. Squiggle was also the name of the main character of said show, a man from the moon with a pencil for a nose, a playful sense of humour and a great love of using said nose to turn random squiggles, drawn by children, into creative works of art.

When I realised what today was, I tried to think of something to say that would encapsulate what Mr. Squiggle meant to me and to generations of young Australians. I tried to find words to verbalise how watching him turn those random lines into something clever would fire our young imaginations and creativity.... I got nothing. All I can say is, if you happen to have a spare, take that time to lay aside your adulthood and watch this episode.

Happy Birthday, Mr. Hetherington, may you rest in peace, and thank you for the memories.

 

The Failures of Don Baker

The latest episode of The Atheist Experience TV show is on-line. Co-Host Don Baker had done yet another of his "Failures of Christianity" series. I've complained about Baker before and, in this episode, he has certainly gotten no better.

Baker devotes the beginning of the episode to talking about "The Dark Ages." I want to stress, Baker's rant was not an off the cuff response to a question, it was pre-prepared, so he had ample opportunity to fact check. To give a full list of his factual errors would take a long post indeed. Some of these claims are popular myths which have long been refuted , such as the claim that Christians burned the Great Library of Alexandria. Had Baker simply bothered to read the Wikipedia article on the destruction of said library he'd have recognised what rubbish he was talking.

Other claims are simply bizarre, Baker actually claims that Christians of the middle ages persecuted Zoroastrianism. Yes, you read the correctly. How Baker would get around the small problem of no Zoroastrian communities existing within Christian lands during the middle ages, I'm not certain of.

Even when describing real atrocities, Baker shows a horrific lack of attention to details. Take, for example, his discussion of the crusades. Now, there is no question, a lot of horrible things were done by Christians during the Crusades, and it's fair enough to criticise this. Baker, however, can't seem to wrap his head around the basic history of the Crusades. He notes. accurately enough, that there were six major crusades, but then says, eventually, they captured Jerusalem. Actually, the first Crusade captured Jerusalem, the second failed to hold it and the remaining four were failed attempts to retake it. In other words, even when describe an actually failure, Baker can't be bothered doing a simple Google search to get the details right.

I mention these three examples, those with more time and patient could list many more. My question, however, is this, how does Baker get away with this? This is by no means the first time, that he's made factual claims this wide of the mark. The show is sponsored by the Atheist Community of Austin, Texas, which I understand to be a reasonably large organisation. Surely there have to be people in the ACA who would know enough history to know that Baker is frequently wrong. Alternatively, there must be people who, hearing one of Baker's bits, will think it sounds interesting, doing a quick Google search and discover that Baker is wrong? Have none of these people tried to talk to him? If they have, does he care?

This matters because people on the show frequently call creationists and others to account for their failure to do basic research. If people want to be consistent however, they need to hold their own side to the same standards.

Answers for an Atheist (Part I)

About three weeks ago, Hemant Mehta, aka "The Friendly Atheist" posted a video entitled "78 Questions for Christians."  I have to admit to being a little bit impressed about his ability to fit so many questions into such a brief video. Obviously, answering the questions will take longer than asking, I'm not going to be able answer to answer all of them in one blog post, but, let's see how we go.

His first three questions are:

#1. Is Anne Frank burning in Hell right now?
#2. How about Mahatma Ghandi?
#3. Is Fred Phelps in heaven, because he believed in the divinity of Jesus.

My short answers to these three questions: "I hope not", "I hope not", and "It depends what you mean."

Longer answers: I assume that Mr. Mehta is asking these questions having in mind the widely held evangelical protestant belief that anyone who has explicit faith in Christ is going straight to Heaven upon death and everyone without such faith is going to Hell.

I have to admit, as a Catholic, I found this a little annoying. Obviously, there are a huge number of different Christian positions and Mr. Mehta can't be expected to respond to every Christian belief in a short video. I would think, however, that in a video labelled "78 Questions for Christians" he'd show at least some awareness of the beliefs of the world's largest Christian denomination.

The Catholic Church acknowledges the possibility of those who are, for whatever reason, unable to fully grasp the truth, either because they never heard it or because, for some reason, they were unable to accept it, can, in fact, be saved. When Pope Francis, publicly spoke of the possibility of atheists being saved, many people treated this as big news and suggested that it represented a major break from his predecessor. This just isn't true. Benedict XVI, on numerous occasions, spoke about the possibility of atheists being saved. This point can't be emphasised enough, Benedict XVI, frequently cited as an example of a strict, conservative Pope, said atheists can go to heaven.

Some will claim that, while Benedict is by modern standards, a conservative pope, that, even a modern conservative is liberal by pre Vatican II standards. Prior to Vatican II the Church certainly would have affirmed that people who don't believe in Jesus go to hell. Respectfully, those people would be mistaken. A good case in point is the famous "Boston Heresy Case." In the late 1940s, the famous Jesuit, Leonard Feeney, accused Richard, Cardinal Cushing, Archbishop of Boston, of heresy, in part because of Cushing's statement that it is possible for Jews to go to heaven. The Vatican investigated and, in a very significant letter, the Holy Office came down of Cushing's side. This happened four years before John XIII's election to the Papacy.

If the above is insufficient, it is worth noting that, Bld. Pius IX, a man frequently cited as an example of one of the most reactionary Popes of the 19th Century, in his 1863 Letter to the Bishops of Italy defended the possibility of those who, through no fault of their own, could not accept Catholicism, being saved.

So, to answer the first two questions, I have no idea where Anne Frank or Mahatma Gandhi will be spending eternity. I hope that they are in heaven, I have the same hope for all my fellow human beings. What I can say, however, is that I reject the idea that because they died not believing in Jesus, this automatically means that they are in hell.

To Mr. Mehta's third question. I have no idea where Fred Phelps is. As I said above, I would hope for all my fellow human beings to be saved and, yes, that includes Fred Phelps. My hope that Phelps may be in heaven is strengthened by the reports that indicate he may have had a change of heart before his death.

Having said that, if Phelps is in Heaven, it is not just because he believed in the divinity of Christ. Catholics reject the protestant doctrine of salvation by faith alone. So, I have no difficulty at least acknowledging the possibility that someone can die believing in Christ's deity and go to hell. As St. James said "Even the demons believe, and tremble."

Having said the above, fairness to my protestant friends requires me to add that, most protestants do not equate faith simply with believing in the deity of Christ and so they would agree that belief in Christ's deity does not necessarily mean a given person is saved.

So, my, brief answer to Mr. Mehta's first three questions, I hope all three of the people you name are in heaven, but I really don't know.
 

Yes, Jesus Hates.

Right-wing political commentator, Glenn Beck said some things on his podcast recently which highlight a widespread theological confusion. If you are interested in hearing for yourself, you can find the link here. The podcast in question is dated 5/20/14 and the relevant section begins at approximately the eleven minute mark.

For sake of background, Beck is a Mormon and was recently invited to Liberty University, a conservative Baptist institution, to give the "commencement address" to graduating students. In the speech he spoke of Mormonism as if it were simply another Christian denomination and praised Mormonism's founding "prophet" Joseph Smith as a martyr who died for his beliefs; the inconvenient fact that Smith, unlike any Christian martyr I'm aware of, died with a gun in his hand and shooting back was not mentioned.

As you might imagine, an orthodox Christian institution inviting a Mormon to give such a speech has been greatly controversial and a large number of people have criticised Liberty for this action. Beck, in his podcast, declares that Liberty is being "smeared" by "so-called Christians". Now Beck doesn't cite any examples so, for all I know, there may well be critics out there who are guilty of making their criticism in a way that could legitimately called "smearing". Having said that, all the criticism of Liberty that I've seen has been reasonable and on point with no lies or ad hominines involved.

In my opinion, if you are going to claim that you or someone associated with you is being smeared, you ought to provide an example of such a smear and explain why it's a smear. Absent such examples, the claim that one is being smeared looks to me like an attempt to poison the well of meaningful debate by suggesting that any criticisms of one's position is a "smear."

Beck goes on to declare he can't find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus hates or encourages His followers to hate nor can he find anywhere where Jesus is not "embracing people". This really depends what you mean. No, Jesus never hates people and He always stands ready to embrace the repentant. He does, however, hate ideas, especially ideas which falsely profess to be Christian. I'd recommend Mr. Beck might want to try reading chapters two and three of the Book of Revelations. These chapters contain letters which Jesus personally dictates to seven churches in Asia Minor (roughly modern day turkey). Of particular interest might be 2:6 where Jesus, after scolding the Church of Ephesus for various sins commends them that "...you hate the works of the Nicolations, which I also hate." He will later criticise another Church for having in their midst, some who hold to the teachings of the Nicolations. The rest of this sections contains a number of warning, from Jesus, to the various Churches warning against the toleration of heretics and false teachers and also contains warnings of what Jesus will do those false teachers should they fail to repent.

Beck goes on to reveal his ignorance by declaring that he can't find where Jesus says "you shall know them by their fruits." Had he bothered to use Google it would have taken him only a few seconds to find the answer: Matt. 7:16.

At the end of this discussion, Beck declares that he would happily send his children to Liberty University, despite his differences with them because Liberty would give them a deep knowledge of God. I'd love to see Beck questioned on this by someone who knows what they are talking about. That Joseph Smith, whom Beck declares a prophet and martyr, in the "King Follett Discourse", declared it to be a "first principle of the Gospel" that God was not always God but was once a human who became divine through obedience to the God of His planet. Liberty, by contrast and for all its faults, still remains committed to the biblical principle that God has eternally been God. I fail to see how anyone could believe Smith was a prophet and also think that committed monotheists can give someone a deep knowledge of God. But, then, I'm one of those weird Thomist types who thinks truth about God matters.

P.S. I first heard about Beck's comments on the most recent edition of James White's webcast "The Dividing Line". White makes a number of worthwhile criticisms of both Beck and Liberty. You can find the DL episode here, with the relevant section beginning at about the twenty-five minute mark. 

High School Sucked

If you disagree with the above statement, this post is probably not for you.

I just realised that yesterday was the anniversary of the screening of the last ever episode of Buffy: the Vampire Slayer. For those unfamiliar with the show, the show's premise is that an ordinary Southern Californian high school girl discovered one day that she was the latest in a long line of mystic warriors, gifted with supernatural strength and skill with which to battle Vampires. If that sounds like a less than promising premise for great drama, I can't blame you, I was sceptical myself at first, myself. There's really not a lot I can say in response to this beyond "watch the show if you get the chance, let it shake your scepticism."

For its first three seasons, the show's protagonist, Buffy Summers and here friends were students at Sunnydale High School. The town of Sunnydale, and more specifically, its high school, and more specifically still, the high school library were built over a mystical vortex  leading to Hell. Dark, mystical energy was consistently being pumped up from this "hell mouth" attracting all kinds of evil into the area.

If, on reading the above description, you don't suspect that your high school was similarly situated, I can only say that your experience of high school was obviously very different to mine.

C.S. Lewis, in his discussion of the epic work of his friend J.R.R. Tolkien, wrote that, we have never seen humanity as we really are until we see that we are the like heroes of faery tales. Buffy, at its best, embodied this. It took the basic difficulties we all go through in high school: the struggles with classes, the conflicts with parents, the pressures to fit in and be popular, and raised them to level of a mythic struggle of good against evil.

It was an amazing show, I don't think television has really seen its like since.
 

Mr. Repzion's New Direction

I was both interested and rather touched by this video posted by atheist "vlogger" (a term I dislike) Daniel "MrRepzion" Sulzbach, MrRepzion is, obviously, some I have my fair share of disagreements with, but also someone with whom I have a few things in common: we seem to share a few of the "nerdier" fan activities.  More importantly, he's talked a lot about his history with mental illness and a lot of what he has to say on the subject of his struggles has struck a real cord with me.

MrRepzion begins this latest video with the words "I really hate being a perfectionist." I definatly relate. I think a large part of my mental health problems are related to perfectionism. There are various things both in the past and now which I could have done or could be doing but which, when I attempt to do them, I find myself paralysed by the fear that I won't do them perfectly.

After this opening admission, MrRepzion goes on to describe the way in which he feels he has been discussing religion in the wrong way. He says that he feels that his previous videos attack religion have come across as far too hostile. I have to say that I'm not certain I agree. I've seen a number of his videos and haven't found him overly aggressive. I've certainly seen worse. He goes on, however, to say that, while he still intends to make videos about religion he doesn't want to continue with such a polemical tone. His aim, he says, will be to take a more nuanced approach, exploring, for example, the reasons why people become religious.

I have to say, this former atheist convert to Catholicism is very keen to hear of MrRepzion's change of emphasis. I don't know what exactly his plans are but I'd be very excited to interact with him on this subject and I hope other Christians will likewise by interacting with his material in a positive way.

Virtue is Magic

Mild Spoiler Alert

It's a little over a week now since the screening of "Twilight's Kingdom", the two part, season four finale of My Little Pony: Friendship: is Magic. I'm inclined to regard season four as the best season yet and I'll certainly go to the mattresses to defend the view that this was the best season finale so far.

Why do I love MLP;FiM? I could give a great many reasons: I love the witty dialogue, I love the animation, I love the songs. Having said all that, there is one reason, above all that I love this show. I love My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic because it is a show about virtue.

Virtue has, oddly enough, become a little bit of a dirty word in the modern world. For many, the word virtue suggests a world of chastity belts, repressed desires and people walking about looking po-faced and serious and never, ever doing anything fun. The ancient Greek Master, Aristotle, however, and the tradition following, him, took a different view of things. For Aristotle, and the tradition following him, virtue describes those habits which tend to lead to greater human flourishing. For the Aristotelian school, there is a happiness the properly follows from human nature lived to its fullest and the virtues are the habits which promote the best chance of that happiness.

This is, in my judgement at least, what MLP:FiM is all about. Throughout the series, the mane (misspelling deliberate per fan convention) six ponies (and their dragon sidekick) learn a variety of life lessons which lead to them developing those qualities of character which lead to a free, happy and fulfilled life. I have no idea whether any of the writers or producers of the show have actually read Aristotle or not, but, whether consciously or unconsciously, they have produced a profoundly Aristotelian parable for life.

So, what was so great about season four? To back track, at the beginning of the first season, the mane six discovered that harmony is maintained in their kingdom of Equestria through six "Elements of Harmony". Through various trials, each of these six becomes mystically linked to one of the six elements: Apple Jack to honesty, Fluttershy to kindness, Pinky Pie to laughter, Rainbow Dash to loyalty, Rarity to generosity and Twilight Sparkle (my personal favourite) to the element of magic.

At the beginning of season four, each of the ponies, to prevent Equestria being over-run by chaos, the ponies had to sacrifice their connection to the elements. In response to their sacrifice, a magical trunk with six key-holes was revealed. Over the course of the season, each of the six mane ponies faced a situation in which she was tempted to act contrary to the element to which she was formerly linked. In each case, the pony in question overcame the temptation, acted in accord with her element and learnt a valuable lesson about the nature of her element as well as a lesson about life more generally.

In the season finale, Equestria faces a new danger, worse than anything it has faced before. The solution to the crisis turns out to lie in the chest revealed at the beginning of the season and the keys to the chest turn out to be linked to the lessons each pony has learnt about her element.

This is why I love this show. At the end of the day, it's show that send the message that the world can be saved and we can all live happy lives by following the path of virtue. Nothing else compares.

 

"Knowledge" About Mark's Gospel

 

As the old cliche goes, “A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.” This is true for a 

number of reasons. One reason is that, when we half know or half understand something, 

we tend not to just accept that we half know or half understand it, but to 

make up “knowledge” to fill in the gaps and convince ourselves that we understand 

more than we do. 

 

As an example of what I’m talking about, there seems to be a growing misconception 

among a number of atheists concerning the longer and shorter endings of the Gospel 

According to St. Mark. The misconception its self, isn’t a huge problem, but the fact 

way it seems to have formed in some people’s minds is. Let me hasten to had that, 

while, for this example, I’m picking on my atheist friends, I have little doubt that many 

examples of similar folly could be found on my own side.

 

For those unfamiliar with what I mean by longer and shorter endings of St. Mark; St. 

Mark’s Gospel has sixteen chapters and the final chapter has twenty verses. The 

vast majority of scholars, however, would consider that only the first eight verses 

were part of the original gospel with the remaining twelve being added by a later 

scribe. The shorter ending of St. Mark does not contain any description of the risen 

Christ appearing to His followers. This fact makes it unique among the Biblical Gospels; 

the longer ending, as well as the other three Gospels all do contain such narratives. 

It is important to note, however, that the shorter ending, does clearly affirm the 

resurrection happening. The shorter ending describes a group of women coming to 

the tomb of Jesus, early on Sunday morning, finding the tomb empty and being told 

“You are looking for Jesus of Nazareth. He is not here, he is risen.”

 

A large number of atheist, however, seem to have heard this fact, but only partly 

grasped it. The upshot of this is that, in past few months, I’ve had several atheists 

inform me that Mark’s Gospel, as originally written, contains no mention of the 

resurrection and, at least one of them, as gone so far as to conclude from this that, 

at the time of the Gospel’s writing, belief in the resurrection was not part of Christianity. 

I’m pretty sure that none of these people are lying; they believe what they are saying. I 

think that, what has happened, is that they have heard it said (truly) that most scholars 

believe the original version of Mark’s Gospel contains no accounts of appearances of the 

risen Christ and, not fully grasping the important distinctions, concluded that this means 

that it contains no mention of the resurrection.

 

This error, by itself, would be harmless enough. The problem is that many will then 

go on to claim something like “people who think the original gospels contain an 

account of the resurrection obviously aren’t aware of modern scholarship like I am.” 

Even when, I point out to such individuals the fact that, actually, the shorter ending of 

St. Mark, the one universally recognised as being part of the original gospel, does include 

the clear affirmation that "He is risen.", this is sometimes dismissed as "Silly Christians
not even knowing what scholarship says about your own book." Actually, quite a few of
us do know. The difference is we are interested in knowing the details of what that
scholarship says, not just a few points we can cherry pick.