It seems the Why Don’t You…? opinion that Technorati is mad is more widely shared than we had previously realised. (“Technorati Suffering?,” “Technorati – Tech Support Needed” and “Technorati Oddities – Again” are three recent examples)

Reading through the Register’s RSS feeds I found this today “Google overtakes Technorati,” in which the Register outlines research from HitWise inc. This research seems to show that Google’s blog search is vastly outstripping Technorati in results returned and usability. The article also shows screen shots from a search for Dr.Who in Google and Technorati. In the article, Google returns over 40,000 hits, while Technorati shows zero.

Just to confirm (and in the interests of scientific repeatability), we have run the tests again here with almost identical results. You can see for yourself: http://technorati.com/search/dr.who or http://www.google.co.uk/blogsearch?hl=en&q=dr.who. (It may change now this blog exists though!)

In the interests of fair play, we must point out that with different search terms you get different results (for example “Richard Dawkins” produces almost the same number in both engines). However the Google interface is much faster than Technorati and seems (this is currently totally unconfirmed) to be more up to date.

Can Technorati survive this? Time will tell. (Will it ever be possible to use “Google Tags?”)

Normally I would try to avoid to make many blog entries based on a single newspaper article, however after posting my previous messages (The Spread Of Madness and (Un)Intelligent Design), I read the second page and found something too funny to ignore. This is a quote from Lord Pearson (Conservative Peer and ID proponent):

“Advances in DNA science show that the DNA molecule is so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. It shows there is a design behind it.”

Now I am not a biologist (evolutionary or some other kind), so I may be a bit behind the curve on this one, but what advances is Lord Pearson talking about here? I have even done a search through various online journal repositories and I have yet to find ANY evidence to support his statement. I can only assume that if Lord Pearson did say this, he has access to unpublished research (now I wonder what that could imply) or he is simply expressing his own ignorance and the argument from credulity (i.e. he can not work out how it could have happened without a designer, therefore there must be a designer….)

A day or two ago, when I was chastised for incorrectly representing the views of the author of a weblog one of the comments read:

Reading his [Dawkins] comments about creationism is a delight, especially because in Europe we (thankfully) don’t have the problem of ‘Intelligent’ Design.

Sadly, as mentioned in my previous blog entry, yesterdays The Times newspaper has shown this is no longer the case. Creationism is making its mark felt in the UK, so it is more than probable that the rest of Europe will follow one day. Should Atheists remain divergent, meek and polite solely to maintain the moral highground? (Yes, the irony of this is not lost on me!) Or should more people like Dawkins stand up and resist the tide?

Well, my blogsurfing via Technorati has continued today. This time, the tag of choice was “Intelligent Design” and the results, as you can imagine, were fantastically entertaining. Given the raw conviction some of these blogs demonstrate, it strikes me that the “moderate” atheist tone taken by the likes of Mary Midgley et al., is doomed to failure.

Like I said previously, the problem with showing “respect” to the religious zealots is they will never (and can never if they are going to abide by their own beliefs) show the same in return.

There is a blog on Uncommon Descent, titled Intelligent Design Added to Primary School in Britain, which revels in an extract from yesterday’s Times which reads:

The government has cleared the way for a form of creationism to be taught in Britain’s schools as part of the religious syllabus.

Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America.

Until now the government has not approved the teaching of the controversial theory, which contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory, the basis of modern biology.

The apparent creationists on Uncommon Descent are relishing in this with the main comment following the text reading:

Quick, call Judge John Jones and let him know. Obviously the Brits haven’t heard of his majesty’s ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover and how ID died as a result. ROFLMAO

Now it is interesting that they take so much relish in this (apparent insanity) happening in the UK. What is more interesting is they (Uncommon Design) seem to have missed the next few paragraphs of the Times Online article which carry on to state that at best ID will be taught in Religious Education classes:

Adonis said in a parliamentary answer: “Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.”

Now, I dont know why the missed this out as it was the very next paragraph after the copy and paste, but I suspect it may be because the introduction of ID into UK schools in this manner has no impact on its value (or to be more correct, lack thereof) towards science. RE teaches myths and beliefs, so ID is probably not really out of place there. I do hope that as part of the curriculum they teach alternative creation theories as well and not just the Judeao-Christian one.

Even more entertaining are another quotes which mysteriously managed to be left out of the Uncommon Design post [emphasis mine]:

Opponents in the Church of England dismiss it as fantasy. Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, said: “Everything needs to be explored, so that children can ask sensible questions. Though I see no huge difficulty with exploring intelligent design or creationism or flat Earth, they happen to be misguided, foolish and flying in the face of all evidence. I see no problem with Darwinian theory and Christian faith going hand in hand.”

Canon Jeremy Davies, Precentor of Salisbury cathedral, said: “I don’t see why religious education should be a dumping ground for fantasies. If it is claimed that this is a scientific theory, why isn’t it explored in science classes? Its validity or otherwise should be tested against the usual criteria.”

Both from the same times online article and both from prominent members of the Church here in the UK. Now, the reasonable, rational Atheist in me, cant help but wonder why the authors of the Uncommon Design blog felt that this was unimportant.

To carry on the borderline intellectual dishonesty, there is a comment on the Uncommon Design post which is a copy and paste of a Dawkins quote. The original message is from a page titled Alabama Insert: A study in ignorance and dishonesty, where Dawkins goes through each of the sentences in the message from the Alabama state board of education, which apparently was required to be pasted in all biology text books.

The quote mined from the website (and surrounding comment) reads as follows:

For what it’s worth I have quote from Richard Dawkins:

I really have less trouble than some of my colleagues with so-called creation science being taught in the public schools as long as evolution is taught as well. By all means let creation science be taught in the schools
Richard Dawkins
Alabama Insert

Now, given that Dawkins’ web page is large, I have no intention of repeating it here, although I do suggest reading through the original page and seeing the quote in the original context. I am not 100% sure if quote-mining the above from Dawkins really was intellectual dishonesty so I will leave final judgement to you the reader.

Charles Darwin,
originally uploaded by Alun Salt.

This is sheer brilliance. Alun Salt has made a set of trading cards (in the manner of Magic: The Gathering) regarding the ID/Creationism debate.

Funny is an understatement.

Well, backing technorati up with broader search terms produces even more goodness 🙂 This time I came across some very entertaining sites – Why Wont God Heal Amputees and God Is Imaginary. Both seem to come from the same person / organisation and while they do not make comfortable reading for a Christian (or Moslem or Jew), they are entertaining for Atheists. Take a look and see what you think.

As you can probably imagine, the Christian Forums website did not like it very much when someone posted a link there 🙂

Well, following the little gem I found with my last Technorati Tag search, I thought I would give it another shot and see what comes up under the God Delusion tags.

It certainly was rewarding (again). Going to the “more posts” bit on Technorati, I found these two sites which have done wonders to reset the balance.

First off, an article by Sam Harris on www.patzivota.com, titled “God’s Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends.” Sam Harris wrote the book “Letter to a Christian Nation” which is certainly worth reading and, as you can imagine this blog post is well worth reading. I especially like the way Sam Harris has explained why he feels he is not an “atheist” and why the term shouldn’t be needed:

As I pointed out in my subsequent book, Letter to a Christian Nation, we do not have a term for a person who rejects astrology, nor do we need one. If legions of astrologers sought to bend our public policy to their pseudo-science, we wouldn’t need to dub ourselves “non-astrologers” to put them in their place. Words like “reason,” “evidence,” and “common sense” would suffice. So it should be with religion.

There is more of his writing on http://www.samharris.org/ and it is also worth taking a look at his “Ten Myths and Ten Truths” article.

In addition, and trying to move away from the public (almost professional) Atheists, there are some personal blogs which I found very endearing. In The God Delusion – First Impressions, “Harry” (a final year BioMed student applying for Medical School) writes:

[about Dawkins opinions on the excessive respect “religion” gets] and thus his staunch atheistic standpoint seems to me, a little too staunch …

Dawkins is, despite his claims to the contrary, an argumentative old man. While I agree with Dawkins that too often people can claim a belief as a shield against criticism, “Harry” is quite right with his other points that persuasion can yield a greater effect than provocation.

The main issue I have with this equitable approach, is that it is very, very one sided. People who are devoutly religious will often be very offensive, even threatening, towards Atheists as the lack of belief seems to carry the attendant lack of automatic respect. It strikes me that religious people could learn quite a bit from the Atheistic moral code…

It seems like a daily visit to the Technorati Richard Dawkins Tags is going to provide a constant supply of entertainment. At the moment, there are around five blog posts a day with that tag and while two or three of them seem to be this one (at the moment) this is not always the case 🙂

Anyway, today I was rewarded with a post on the Chris Street Blog, which reprinted a New Scientist magazine article. The article is a “review” of The God Delusion by Mary Midgley.

Now, as Mary Midgley is a long standing and well known “opponent” and critic of pretty much everything Richard Dawkins writes, I am intrigued as to why New Scientist got her to write a review of the book. I suppose they were hoping that she would be able to provide a solid “counter argument” to most of Dawkin’s writings.

Sadly, while Midgley is certainly arguing against Dawkins, it is not a review of the book. In her article she talks about how Atheism gave birth to Nazi Germany, a fallacy (Hitler at least claimed to be a Catholic in his letters to the post, and the vast majority of those who committed the atrocities were Christians) which Dawkins exposes in the book. Surely if Midgley had read the book she was reviewing, she would have been able to pass comment on how Dawkins explains the fallacy rather than repeat it.

The remainder of her review is better and she does (occasionally) make some good points about Dawkins. Most of her valid points though are not as part of a review of the book, but about Dawkins’ attitude in general. It is a shame she chose to use a “review” as an opportunity to take a shot, it does no one any favours.

One last point. Throughout the article, Midgley seems to imply that there is a form of “knowledge” which stems from religious belief. I find this unusual to say the least. She objects to Dawkin’s creating a specialist definition of “religion,” yet she is more than happy to create a form of “knowledge” which can not be verified, tested or even seen.

Trying with a smaller sized picture