In this post I will give a general overview of the slanting that I observed during the portion of the Decide for Yourself War of the Worldviews event in Whitby, Ontario this weekend. I will also comment briefly on Frank Sherwin’s presentation. Finally, I will cite the most ridiculous comment I heard during my time at the event. Unfortunately, I was only present for the atheism - Christianity debate and for about 60% of Frank Sherwin’s presentation entitled “Refuting Macro-evolution”. I wanted to stay for all of Saturday’s events but those that I had come with were all leaving, in many cases because they were fed up with the slanting. In a subsequent post either today or tomorrow I will review the atheist-Christianity debate between Christopher DiCarlo and Dave Hunt, and will begin an ongoing project of posting on areas of contention between creationism and evolution.

Christian Literalist Bias 

First off, I was quite disappointed with the Christian literalist bias that permeated the Whitby religion debates yesterday. As I mentioned in my post advertising this event, this event was run by a Christian literalist at a Catholic school with a Christian apologist, Michael Coren, as moderator. But that’s not where the slanting ended. To begin with, the Christian literalist event organizer, Paul MacGregor, stated in his opening remarks on Saturday that in staging this event one of the main intents was to expose people to Christianity.

There was also a bias in how the supposed event rules were being applied. On Friday one of the humanist attendees who was representing the Humanist Association of Canada was handing out pamphlets on humanism. He was asked to stop by one of the (Christian literalist) event organizers, which he did. Then the next day there were at least two Christian literalists handing out either a paper or pamphlet - one of them was Dave Hunt, one of the debators. Upon noticing that the literalist who was not Dave Hunt was going around handing out many of his small pamphlets, the humanist who had been asked not to do this as it was supposedly against the event rules approached one of the organizers to inform him that this other gentleman was handing out pamphlets. I am told that the organizer’s response was effectively “so what?”, indicating that he had no idea of any rule against it. So the humanist told him what he had been told the evening before regarding policy on the handing out of pamphlets. So the organizer took a look at the small pamphlet and said that it was okay because it was just a business card. It was not a business card. It may have been a smaller pamphlet, but it was absolutely a pamphlet. It was filled with anti-evolution declarations and biblical citations spread across 6 small pages. And not only was this “gentleman” handing out these pamphlets, he was witnessed attempting to force them upon people. There were some people who declined to take one and he pressured them to take it. He even spread a bunch of them across the humanist booth even though he knew that this was not wanted. Any repercussions? Not to my knowledge. I wonder what might have happened if the humanists had begun doing these things. Not only handing out pamphlets but not taking no for an answer, and spreading them against the Institute for Creation Research table even though it was unwelcome. I’m sure that would have gone over very well.

Instances of Potential Bias

In addition to the clear cut slanting just described, there were a number of sources of potential bias. First off, the question-answer format. Rather than being able to go up to a microphone to ask questions to the speakers, audience members were made to submit their questions on pieces of paper to who else but the Christian literalist organizer, Paul MacGregor. Now, I know for a fact that not all questions were asked because I submitted a Christian person’s questions for him (his questions, by the way, were “Why don’t humans have tails?” and “When did the first fish become human?”). But given that only one person, a Christian literalist who up front said his intent in this event was to expose people to Christianity, is reviewing the questions, and given the aforementioned self-evident slanting, I am somewhat wary.

Secondly, in the Chris DiCarlo vs. Dave Hunt atheism - Christianity debate, DiCarlo was blind-sided by an unconventional debate format arrangement. The format of the debate had been that Hunt speaks first, DiCarlo speaks second. So first Hunt then DiCarlo gives an opening 40-minute presentation, than each has 15 minutes rebuttal time, then each as 5 minutes to give final rebuttals and last words. At the end of the 15 minute rebuttal period DiCarlo was told that he would give his 5 minute final rebuttals and last words right away. The reason being that up until that point he had had the opportunity to speak second, and thus could respond to what Hunt had just said - an advantage. In order to make things fair, they arranged that Hunt would be given the last word over all. I suppose that is reasonable. There are advantages to speaking second. However, one could argue that there is also an advantage to speaking first in that Hunt had the opportunity to set the initial audience framing of the debate. But all that aside, lets say that it was fair and reasonable to arrange things as they were arranged. Why was DiCarlo the last person to find out? The event organizer, moderator and Dave Hunt all knew that this was how the debate would go before hand; DiCarlo found out as he was sitting down after giving his 15 minute rebuttal. Why was DiCarlo not informed of this before the debate as was everyone else? Secondly, what exactly was he going to rebut in his final rebuttal? Himself?

Unintended One-Sidedness

The last instance of bias I will discuss was not the fault of the organizers. Here, I am not in anyway criticizing the organizers. However, despite the lack of intent, the effect was a biased presentation. In the discussion on evolution, we heard from Frank Sherwin of the Institute for Creation Research. Sherwin and his organization are Young Earth Creationists who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, including a literal belief in the great flood. The problem is that he spoke unopposed. There was no evolutionary biologist to counter his claims. This, however, was not the fault of the organizers. They did make efforts to have a PhD evolutionist speak, but the invited speaker backed out a month ago. It is true that creationists sometimes do have trouble getting evolutionists to debate them. Why? Because evolutionists do not want to enter into a disingenuously titled “science” debate and they do not want to help create the illusion of credibility for creationism. Creationists, of course, frame this as being an instance of fear. And really, who can blame them? I personally am on the fence, but lean toward having the expert evolutionists debate them. Sure by doing so the unintended consequences may include creating publicity for creationism, the illusion of creationist credibility, and the illusion that there is a legitimate scientific debate. But unintended consequences of not debating them is allowing the creationist to misrepresent science and evolution in favour of creationism without being called on it, and the establishment of the illusion of evolutionist fear, of weakness of evolution, and dogmatism are created. Moreover, the scientist fore-gos the opportunity to help educate members of the public on what evolution and science are, and that creationism is not a scientific project but a social-political project of the Christian right. If scientists are reluctant to give an air of credibility to creationism, then participate in the debate but open the debate with a statement that creationism is not science, there is no scientific debate, that the grand majority of the scientific community (including the majority of religious scientists) oppose creationism and view it as nothing more than a cunning attempt to misrepresent religion as non-religious secular science, that many religious communities (most notably the Catholic Church) stand in support of evolution and against Creation Science and Intelligent Design, and that the only people who side with ID Creationism are the devoutly religious.

Brief Commentary on Frank Sherwin’s Presentation “Refuting Macro-evolution”

As I only saw just over half of Sherwin’s presentation, I will present his views with some, but not extensive, commentary. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, some of my criticisms may not be fair. Since I did not see his entire presentation, he may well have addressed my criticisms; thus, it would be unfair for me to criticize him for doing (or not doing) something that he may or may not have done. Secondly, Sherwin has inspired me to investigate Creationist and ID claims in greater detail. So, today or over the next day or two I will begin an ongoing blog project in which I will post daily (or almost daily) on issues of disagreement between creationism and evolution. In so doing, I will focus on claims made specifically by Sherwin in earlier posts.

Firstly, a review of his general presentation skills. Sherwin is undeniably a good presenter. He spoke well, was funny, and regularly solicited audience participation. If one did not view what he was doing as disingenuous, they would be quite endeared by him.

So now to review some of what Sherwin said on Saturday during the first portion of his presentation.

Sherwin continually misrepresented evolution as occurring by way of random chance. Natural selection, the means by which complex functionality is said to develop across generations, is not a random process. It’s a biased probabilistic process: those features that are conducive of reproduction are more likely to go on. He also referred to the time course of evolution as being over “allegedly” millions of years, reflecting his belief in a roughly 6000 year old Earth. Further, he referred to evolution as being a discipline, not a science. He also referred to evolution and evolutionists as Darwinism and Darwinists, respectively. Darwinism is a derogatory term often used to cast evolution in the light of dogmatic religious commitment, to link it to unscientific moral philosophies tied to eugenics, to equate evolution with natural selection, as if there were no other mechanisms and to deflect attention from the evidence for the historicity of evolution, or to otherwise degrade it as being unscientific or conducive of immorality. He referred to evolution as being an unproven theory, and therefore a faith. He also went so far as to say that it is wrong to be funding the teaching evolution in public schools because children are impressionable and evolution is unscientific.

Sherwin said that there are only two potentially viable origin models:

• I create myself (evolution); his way of illustrating this is by asking if a car could create itself.
• I was created (in God’s image)
• No other options, including theistic evolution

Sherwin stated that he has no problem with micro-evolution, or small changes across generations within a species. He says that some creationists refer to micro-evolution as Creationist Adaptations. His problem is with Macro-evolution, or the large scale transition between species. As Sherwin put it, in the creationist view “Roses have always been roses, and dogs have always been dogs”. Sherwin asserts that many leading atheist scientists also contend that small change via natural selection cannot generate macro-evolutionary transitions. He argued that there is no evidence for a beneficial mutation ever having arisen that could result in turning fish into humans– and that isn’t a deceitful caricature of evolution, is it? He also says that there is an absence of transitional fossils in the archaeological record; according to the fossil record, new species apparently just pop into existence in complete new-species form. Further, he cites clams as being found all through the strata — bottom, middle, and top. Clams have always been clams. Sherwin also referenced Tiktaalik, the fish with foot-like extremities that has been touted as a possible evolutionary link between water and land-dwellers. He cites a few evolutionists at Cambridge and Upsalla University in Sweden who view Tiktaalik as not being the link between fish and land-dwellers, but said it appears to be a short-lived “experiment”. He failed to acknowledge that the finding of a fish with feet (the reference of the Darwin fish) was found in a geographic and strata location predicted by evolutionary biology. He also claimed that the famous case of the peppered moths is no longer evidence for evolution (I don’t think the peppered moth case was ever an example of macro-evolution, but it could have been a first step toward the development of a new species by virtue of resulting in geographical separation of light and dark coloured moths).

Sherwin poked fun at the notion of something coming from nothing. He referred to the claim of “change through time” as a copout, as lots of things change through time (e.g., a developing organism). He also says that we know of no cases of abiogenesis (i.e., the emergence of life from non-life). He spoke at some length about Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” not addressing the origin of species. I found it befuddling that Sherwin gave his presentation under the implicit assumption that evolutionary biology has not progressed since Darwin’s pioneering publication. Well, that’s not quite true. He would readily cite newer research when it could be presented as opposing his strawman of evolutionary biology.

Sherwin referenced long-time atheist philosopher Antony Flew’s conversion. Many creationists portray Flew as having become a creationist. DiCarlo, in his presentation, argued that Flew converted to deism. Flew, according to DiCarlo, came to believe that an intelligent force is needed, but that’s it; Flew does not believe in any particular religion, nor does he believe that the intelligent force necessarily gives a hoot about humanity one way or the other.

That wraps up my review of what I saw of Sherwin. As mentioned above, starting either later today or (and most likely) in the next day or two, I will begin an ongoing series of posts on areas of contention between creationists and evolutionists. So stay tuned for that.

The Most Ridiculous Comment of the Day goes to: Frank Sherwin

I heard a number of pretty uninformed comments and questions on Saturday. These included statements that believing in evolution requires more faith than believing in God (and the Christian God in particular), and questions such as “Why don’t all humans have tails?” (yes, all, not any, all), and “When did the first fish give rise to the first human?”. But I can be almost certain that nothing I heard even approached the absurdity of this question posed by Frank Sherwin during his presentation:

If Darwinists are so confident in macro-evolution, then why don’t we see any of them lining up to be subjected to high doses of x-ray radiation? Shouldn’t they want to help accelerate the evolution of the human species?

Wow. I do not know of any words that fully reflect the sheer the stupidity and ignorance of this comment. I don’t know about any of you, but I’m pretty sure that I care more about staying alive and free from discomfort myself than testing to see if I just might be a genetic mutant that can help begin the million year process of the evolution of radiation-tolerance in human progeny. And I’m pretty sure my kin and any sensible individual would side with me on this, as I would with them. Sherwin appears to be feigning ignorance of one of the foundational tenets of evolution: individuals and kin groups are driven to propagate their own genes far more so than they are driven to preserve the species. To risk killing oneself on the off-chance that one might possess a rare mutation is just stupid, both evolutionarily and in terms of general human experience.

Up Coming Posts

Check back for posts on DiCarlo vs. Hunt and on issues of contention between evolutionists and creationists. If we are to listen to the grand majority of scientists as well as a great many religious organizations, one expects that these areas of contention are not at all based on genuine scientific discrepancies, but by the religious convictions of creationists. As I submitted yesterday as a question to Frank Sherwin: If evolution is so weak then why are opponents of evolution always devout religionists? If evolution is so weak, then where are the anti-evolutionist religious moderates, agnostics and atheists? Why does one need the ulterior motivation of fervent religious conviction to see such weakness?

(BBC) - Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Israeli MP Shlomo Benizri has attributed Israel’s two recent earthquakes to parliament’s tolerance of gays. In addition to the 2 quakes last week, Israel was hit by 4 others in November and December. But y’know, Shlomo is probably right. But not for the reason he thinks. It’s probably all the fags rockin’ the headboards which is rattling Israel’s foundation….Or maybe plate tectonics has something to do with it…Whatever. While we figure this out, perhaps the honourable MP can help himself to a science textbook because he’s making a dope out of himself. And perhaps these people could use a lesson in science and reason, too.

Hat Tip: Irreligion (http://www.irreligion.org/2008/02/22/israeli-mp-blames-quakes-on-gays/)

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7255657.stm?joyo

If anyone can get to the root cause of school shootings it’s Chuck Norris!

Here’s how Chuck breaks the NIU shooting down for us:

… As I’ve said in different ways in different settings, we teach our children they are nothing more than glorified apes, yet we don’t expect them to act like monkeys. We place our value in things, yet expect our children to value people. We disrespect one another, but expect our children to respect others. We terminate children in the womb, but are surprised when children outside the womb terminate other children. We push God to the side, but expect our children to be godly. We’ve abandoned moral absolutes, yet expect our children to obey the universal commandment, “Thou shall not murder.”

…

Do we now believe we can consider morality and religion optional, without suffering civil and societal repercussions, despite the warning of our Founding Fathers like John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”?

[bolding by The Friendly Atheist] 

Spot on!

Of course teaching children the overwhelmingly supported scientific fact of evolution is leading to violence. Yes, we are simply glorified apes. And of course we will rid ourselves of reason for prosocial conduct when we defend the separation of church and state. Without a governmentally-entrenched God there is no basis for empathy and compassion. And moral atheism? GIVE ME A BREAK! Odd, though, that many largely nontheistic nations like Sweden have crime rates among the lowest in the world (far lower than America), atheists are substantially underrepresented in the US prison system (which probably means that theists are over-represented), and even within the US the less religious states tend to have less crime. These must just be a few minor statistical anomolies. Or perhaps Satan’s strategy to undermine God is to sneakily lure atheists away from antisocial behaviour so as to create doubt that religion is needed for moral behaviour. Yes! That is Satan’s strategy: to nudge atheists away from socially destructive behaviours in order to lure people over to the dark side!

And how could abortion not lead to violence. I can clearly see the connection between a 19 year old woman aborting a 5 week old fetus and university campus shootings. I mean, c’mon, do we really need Chuck Norris to point this out to us? CONNECT THE DOTS, PEOPLE! And it’s pretty obvious that by having more parents give rise to more unwanted children, the average mental health of children can only improve. As I always say, the best parent is a reluctant parent. Now surely some readers will say “well, they could put the child up for adoption”. Yes, this is true. But not all children are equally likely to be adopted. Because of pesky minor social factors like racism, some children are less likely to be adopted than others. But hey, who wouldn’t want to be raised in a series of foster homes?

And lastly, when is everyone going to learn that humans are uncapable of figuring out what sorts of behaviours are good and bad for people and societies? When are we going to realize that we need moral absolutes that were supposedly dictated thousands of years ago by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God? Our ability to feel empathy and compassion and to engage in reason are nothing compared to an evidentially uber-weak 2000 year old book when it comes to ironing out moral precepts.

You kick ass, Chuck Norris!

Hat Tip: The Friendly Atheist

You will all surely enjoy this piece of ridiculous hate mail sent to the website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In reading it, note how every statement in it could be applied with equal felicity to mainstream religions. Note also how much more seriously such a letter would be treated if it were sent to a mainstream religious congregation.

“YOU DUMB BITCH!!! this is no such thing as a fucking flying spaghetti monster and hes not god ! If he were real i would chop that bitch up and feed him to the poor starving people in africa! you people are sick and demented, and your all going to fucking hell! FUCKING SPEGHETTI I MEAN COME ON IF YOU WANTED TO COME UP WITH A RELIGION THE GOD HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE REALISTIC! IM SORRY BUT MY SPEGHETTI DOES NOT TALK TO ME IT IS NOT JESUS! Lol you all are way to funny XD You guys must be on some good drugs, pass that shit around. Sooo like are you guys in a cult or something?? What are the disciples of this spaghetti guy? A piece of garlic toast and a meat ball? LOL!!!! You guys are soo sick i wouldnt even spit in your direction and when you all die im gonna piss on ALL of your graves!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You are all a joke!! I will tie down everyone of you sick bastards and force feed you guys spaghetti!!! and i will scream out “weres you fuckiNG spaghetti bitch now? Is he gonna save you? NOO! Cause hes NOT REAL!” Do you guys like revolve around food or something? Like cause you have fine art taco photography?!? Who the dumb bitch who thought of this religion??? Cause i bet you money they were on shrums at the time or maybe some fucking acid! Cause this is some trippy shit! AND yes i do believe in hell! But im not gonna go to hell for believing in a false idol like you stupid spaghetti! JESUS CHRIST I STILL CANT EVEN GET OVER THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE IN THIS BULLSHIT!!! DO THEY LIKE FORCE FEED YOU THIS SHIT? LIKE SHOVE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT?
WTF???That does not look like a spaghetti monsterrrr you dumb cunt! SUCK MY BIG BLACK PRESIDENTIAL COCK BITCH!
- jade-jewel”

YOU DUMB BITCH!!! this is no such thing as a fucking flying spaghetti monster a virgin-borne savior and hes not god ! If he were real i would chop that bitch up and feed him to the poor starving people in africa! you people are sick and demented, and your all going to fucking hell! FUCKING SPEGHETTI CRACKERS AND WINE I MEAN COME ON IF YOU WANTED TO COME UP WITH A RELIGION THE GOD HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE REALISTIC! IM SORRY BUT MY SPEGHETTI JESUS DOES NOT TALK TO ME IT IS NOT JESUS! Lol you all are way to funny XD You guys must be on some good drugs, pass that shit around. Sooo like are you guys in a cult or something?? What are the disciples of this spaghetti Jesus guy? A piece of garlic toast cracker and a meat ball wine? LOL!!!! You guys are soo sick i wouldnt even spit in your direction and when you all die im gonna piss on ALL of your graves!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA You are all a joke!! I will tie down everyone of you sick bastards and force feed you guys spaghetti crackers and wine!!! and i will scream out “weres you fuckiNG speghetti Jesus bitch now? Is he gonna save you? NOO! Cause hes NOT REAL!” Do you guys like revolve around food or something? Like cause you have fine art taco photography?!? Who the dumb bitch who thought of this religion??? Cause i bet you money they were on shrums at the time or maybe some fucking acid! Cause this is some trippy shit! AND yes i do believe in hell! But im not gonna go to hell for believing in a false idol like you stupid spaghetti! JESUS CHRIST I STILL CANT EVEN GET OVER THE FACT THAT YOU BELIEVE IN THIS BULLSHIT!!! DO THEY LIKE FORCE FEED YOU THIS SHIT? LIKE SHOVE IT DOWN YOUR THROAT?
WTF???That does not look like a spaghetti monsterrrr virgin-borne saviorrrr you dumb cunt! SUCK MY BIG BLACK PRESIDENTIAL COCK BITCH!
- jade-jewel

Now to forward this on to the Catholic League! Nah, I’m not going to slam a whole group of people just to prove a point.

Here is a video which chronicles Scientology scandals. Scandals include infiltration of the IRS, going to extreme lengths to suppress critics, causation of deaths (including possible murders), exploitation of members, and so on.

“they should be shot and hanged from the tallest redwood and then thrown to the raging sea” read the note posted on the door of the newly-formed Michigan Tech University Pastafarian club. In October, the website of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster reported that the two students who had been identified as the authors of this message were undergoing disciplinary procedures throught the Dean of Students Office. The culprits were deemed to have posted a “threatening message”. I’m curious as to how the university dealt with this. This is clearly a tough one. The Church of the FSM is a parody religion that certainly is disrespectful to the “real” religions. However, to post such a message for the President and VP of the group to read is certainly a threat to those who are taking part in the political statements behind the FSM (e.g., the initial purpose of the movement was to oppose the teaching of Creationism in science classes). As such, how much less seriously—if at all—should this message be taken than if it were attached to the door of the office of a Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, or Christian student group? Or some other type of student group (e.g., LGBT, Republican, Democrat, pro-choice, pro-life, etc.)?

Thanks to religious dogmatism and sophistry, the biological fact of evolution will be taught as a theory in Florida public schools. While this is surely a step up from the old curriculum, which did not mention evolution at all, it is a clear demonstration of religious dogmatism polluting impartial scientific teaching. Read on for more on this, and on clarification of the fact versus theoretical status of evolution.

Today’s decision was a close one, with the “theory” side winning 4-3 over the fact side.

The Tallahassee Democrat provides a brief background of the teaching of evolution in Florida public schools:

The state adopted new science curriculum standards in response to poor showings on national science exams by state students and an economy dominated by high-tech jobs that take scientific knowledge. The state’s old standards didn’t mention evolution.

A panel of 68 experts, heavy with science teachers and scientists, drew up detailed, age-specific standards that described evolution as the basic “concept underlying all of biology.” The standards said evolution was supported by “multiple forms of scientific evidence.”

In a series of public hearings, several conservative religious leaders and parents objected to evolution being “the” accepted standard. The compromise language approved today cites “the scientific theory of evolution,” making it officially a theory rather than a settled fact.

Board member Roberto Martinez said members were caving in to pressure from fundamentalists who, however they phrased it, wanted to get “creationism” and “intelligent design” into the public schools. But board members Kathleen Shanahan and Linda Taylor said there were other theories – not just religious ones – that students should explore in addition to evolution.

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

Here is how I addressed this question in an earlier post entitled Is evolution “just a theory”, a scientific theory, or a fact?em>:

There is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to determining the status of evolution. We are all familiar with the lay, and often religion-motivated, misinterpretation of evolution being “just a theory”. This misrepresentation of the status of evolution is based on a confusion—a confusion which in many cases is deliberate—between the meaning of theory in the lay discourse versus scientific discourse. Another common area of misunderstanding is in addressing whether evolution is a scientific theory or a fact. Here’s the short answer: evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

I’m quickly going to comment on the irony of the “just a theory” argument. This argument gets its strength from the fact that many people do not know the difference between theory in lay discourse versus scientific discourse. Its power is based entirely on ignorance. As most of the people reading this blog probably already know, here’s the difference. A lay theory can be something that someone has just thought up; it can be deeply thought out or just pulled out of thin air. A scientific theory, on the other hand, is a carefully tested and evidentially supported means of explaining data. A theory is based on rigorous scientific testing of a hypothesis (which is the closest thing in science to a lay theory; though these hypotheses are generally more thoughtfully developed and evidentially-justified than most lay theories), intense peer review, and the constant possibility of disconfirmation.

The “just a theory” versus scientific theory is not the only area of misunderstanding. People, including many scientifically-oriented skeptics, frequently misappraise the status of evolution. Is it a theory or a fact? The answer is both. It is both because there are two dimensions to evolution: historicity and mechanism. Historically, evolution is a fact. The evidence for the idea that species evolved by way of gradual changes in population gene pools over time is so overwhelming that to not grant it the status of fact would simply be ludicrous. While it is true that we can’t truly know anything aside from each own personal existence, to the extent that we can we can know that other things we can know that evolution is a historic fact. The evidence from genetics, archaeology, comparative anatomy, embryology, and so forth preclude the possibility that a person can be knowledgeable of the relevant information, honest, rational and not believe in the factuality of evolution. These 4 factors simply cannot coincide. At least one of them has to be false.

The late eminent paleontologist Stephen J. Gould explains the issue as follows:

Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

The theoretical area of evolution is with regard to the mechanisms by which the historically factual process of evolution occurred. While we know for certain that evolution did occur because we have the data—the data are the facts, we use scientific theory to explain the data. That’s what scientific theories do: explain data. When it comes to explaining the data, not only is evolutionary theory a theory, it cannot become a fact. Theories explain data. Facts are data. So it’s not like we call natural selection a theory of evolution because we simply do not have enough evidence to call it a fact yet. We call it a theory because it explains the data. It will never be a fact. Indeed, if fact was a latter rung on the ladder (hypothesis–> theory –> fact) we would have been calling natural selection a fact for a long time by now. Natural selection is not the only scientific theory of evolution. There are others such as genetic drift and punctuated equilibrium theory. Natural selection, however, is the only process by which complex functionality can evolve.

Hat Tip: This Busy Monster

NBA great Charles Barkley said what surely millions of people have been thinking for a long time: the Christian Right is rife with fake Christianity. This group is known for being one that claims righteousness in the word Christ, but they have shown themselves to be unChristian time and time again, primarily by passing judgment on anyone who doesn’t live the way that they want them to. While I can be a more forgiving on the topic of abortion as they see it as murder (though I am nevertheless unimpressed by arguments that I have heard on their side), their castigation of gays, feminists, Muslims, secularists, and so on is anything but Christian. Barkley had the following to say on the matter:

After speaking respectfully of Senator John McCain, Barkley said that he doesn’t like “the way that the Republicans are taking this country. Every time I hear the word conservative it makes me sick to my stomach, cause they’re really just fake Christians, as I call them. That’s all they are. I’m going to vote Democratic no matter what.”

Barkley then went on to say that he plans to run for Governor of Alabama in 2014, which is the earliest that he can run given that he just moved there in 2007 and must be a resident of the state for 7 years prior to seeking election.

Before wrapping up the interview, host Wolf Blitzer asked Barkley to clarify what he meant by “fake Christians”.

Barkley responded as follows:

BARKLEY: Well, I think they — they want to be judge and jury. Like, I’m for gay marriage. It’s none of my business if gay people want to get married. I’m pro-choice. And I think these Christians — first of all, they’re supposed to be — they’re not supposed to judge other people. But they’re the most hypocritical judge of people we have in this country. And it bugs the hell out of me. They act like their Christians. And they’re not forgiving at all.

…

WOLF BLITZER: But you can’t lump all these conservatives as being fake. A lot of them obviously — most of them are very, very sincere in their religious beliefs.

BARKLEY: Well, they should read the part about they’re not supposed to judge other people. They forget that one when it doesn’t fit what they want it to say. ”

I was very happy to hear these words come from Mr. Barkley. Though I can’t help but speculate that they will come back to haunt him during his planned campaign for Governor of Alabama in 2014. Nevertheless, I respectfully tip my hat to Barkley.

The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission was quick to respond:

[Dr. Gary Cass, Chairman and CEO:] “We respect Barkley as an expert on basketball, but he is obviously not an expert on Christian moral theology. The Christian Anti-Defamation Commission calls on Barkley to apologize for his hateful remarks. We are hopeful that he will do the right thing.”

Hat Tip: The Friendly Atheist  (follow this link for video)