It looks like ID is going to remain a wonderful source of comic commentary. Despite their best interests (and notably lacking any support from their designer), the proponents of ID often end up looking comical.

Having spent a fair amount of time on the scienceblogs sites recently, I came across an interesting debate about ID, titled “Answering Cordova on ID goals.” This is a follow up post after Salvador T. Cordova made some comments on a previous post Ed Brayton made about anti-ID typology.

Now, it is apparent from Salvador Cordova’s comments that he is a very much “pro-ID” so as you may guess it is entertaining to read them. As always, the pro-IDer has no theory to support, no predictions, no testable claims and relies heavily on arguments from incredulity and a lack of personal understanding. For example:

For example, I met a couple computer science students entering junior year who were Christians. I pointed out the cell is a computer with operating systems and software and compilers. I simply posed the question, “do you think Darwinian evolution can make that? You design computer systems, do you think Darwinian evolution can make something like a computer system?” They shook their heads and laughed that evolutionary biologists actually believe that Darwinian evolution can create such systems!

Amazing, really. First off he has created an incorrect analogy (calling a cell a computer with operating systems) and then he gets people who are already biased towards creation (i.e. he specifies they were Christians) to pass comment on a subject they have no reason to have any training, education or specialist insight into. It is like going to a random sample of two building site workers and asking them to write computer software because a building is just basically a program… Madness.

As always, and this will probably remain true until the end of time, ID has no argument or answers and solely exists by trying to find flaws in evolution. As each attempt is rebuffed, the ID supporters happily move on to the next one without batting an eyelid. “Goddidit” seems like a valid answer for any of life’s questions if you are a creationist ID supporter.

On the positive side, some of the comments (fortunately anti-ID) are intelligent, well written and very entertaining to read.

Now it is an interesting thing I have come to think about reading the recent crop of blogs. I am a fan of Dawkins’ work and find his books on evolution very readable while still being good quality educational material.

His book The God Delusion is an excellent read and he makes a multitude of valid, mostly reasonable, points. Dawkins is a staunch atheist – to the extent that he is the “example” given on the BBC religion website, where he is described as one of the most famous scientists in Britain (!!) and called a “pro-humanist.”

Now, you may be wondering “so what” about all this. None of it is news.

Reading some recent blogs about a furore kicked up over Dawkins apparently signing a petition which reads:

In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

Apparently, the wording of the above has got Americans into a major tizzy over the implied impact on “constitutional rights” and the implication it requires the Government to interfere with private individuals and private thoughts. Blimey. I honestly never came to that conclusion when I read it.

Now, that alone would be fair enough. Despite the similarities there are massive differences in collective mindsets between the UK and the US, so it is understandable. What I do find unusual is that the debate over what Dawkins meant by this and the potential impact this has on anti-ID/anti-creationism/Atheist movements (etc) is approaching religious.

The “Religious Right” in the US appear to have demonised Dawkins as an anti-libertarian or some such nonsense. Now this is understandable. They are theists who believe in a person representing a supernatural power. They arguments invariably hinge on ad hominem attacks against high profile individuals because they have no valid arguments of their own. They specialise in building an individual into a representation of an idea.

What I cant understand is why rational atheists have responded to this in a pseudo-religious manner. Debates over what “Dawkins meant” are, when viewed in this light, quite entertaining. Dawkins does not speak for all atheists, he does not speak for all biologists in fact he speaks for no one but himself. His writings are not a doctrinal Atheist Bible and like all people there will be things he says which I (or you or anyone) will agree with and things I (we) don’t.

Now, if you are wondering what debate I am talking about, there are two very good blogs which provide all the information you need – Despatches from the Culture Wars and The Panda’s Thumb. Take a look, follow the links and more interestingly read the comments posted.

Just remember, Dawkins is neither a God nor a Prophet of one.

Well, sometimes idly surfing blogs can be more disheartening than cheering. While reading about the latest insanity some Intelligent Design idiot has come up with to try and protect their fragile faith is always going to be entertaining, reading about people tricked into believing some alternative quackery therapy is going to save their children is depressing.

I found a post on the Respectful Insolence blog about the madness which surrounds alternative therapies, and while never a happy topic at least most of it was light hearted enough.

After a few paragraphs I came to a few bits which saddened me more than anything else. First this little gem: (emphasis mine)

Prior to the ominous warning above [about the need to pay for regular MRIs to check the progress of cancer], Katie’s family had taken her to an unnamed medical practitioner, her father making the claim that he “really can’t say anything because it could jeopardize her treatment.”

Now this is worrying. If I am sick and I go to see my doctor he will still treat me if I tell people what he is doing. Can you imagine what is going through the mind of a distraught father who is worried that discussing his daughter’s cancer treatment will prevent her getting treated? What sort of treatment makes that demand? It is insane. It is worse than insane, it is fundamental cultist brainwashing.

In any sane country there would be sufficient legal weight to ensure that this practice is stamped out.

Further down we see more of the mental state of the father who has allowed such lunatic quacks to have access to his daughter (I nearly wrote “treat” there but that is the last thing they are doing to her). Again, emphasis is my own:

Indeed, it was the very honesty of Katie’s oncologists about these potential long-term side effects that scared her father into rejecting further conventional therapy and turning to “alternatives.” Anyone want to guess what probably happened next? Although I cannot know personally, my best guess is that the blandishments of alternative practitioners promising to cure Katie’s cancer without the potentially nasty side effects of conventional had their effect. Mr. Wernecke seems to have been pretty distrusting of the “conventional” medical establishment to begin with, and his distrust, coupled with his belief that prayer could help his daughter, likely made him even more receptive than average to such promises of cure with little or no pain.

Two more strikes against the poor father. For what ever reason the father was predisposed against “conventional medicine” and this was pounced upon by the quacks. I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest this predisposition was more than a little influenced by his religious beliefs and upbringing. This would be another tick for Richard Dawkins’ “Why Religion is Evil.”

What a wonderful world.

Although it is a considerable time since the lunacy inspired by “Dr” Wakefield, there are still reverberations bouncing around – not least the first measles death in the UK for 14 years. Recently the news Dr Wakefield was being paid by lawyers suing over vaccines has been highlighted which hammers further nails into his (metaphorical) coffin.

The excellent Pharyngula blog reports “Unethical is too mild a word” for this and I cant help but agree. It is shameful.

I am also slightly surprised that Wakefield hasn’t had a civil suit taken against him for something along the lines of negligent homicide. (Does such a thing exist in the UK or have I watched too many US cop shows?)

Just to let you know the Compuskills Web Design Service now has an RSS feed for any news and updates. This will be in addition to the Web Design Blog which is in development.

I came across a link to the Pharyngula blog titled “How normal is Kearny?” and it is certainly entertaining to read – if a little disturbing. Basically, the issue began with a history teacher who decided it was time to warn his students about the eternal damnation they faced if they didn’t adhere to the teachings of Jesus, this rambling nonsense was recorded by a student and his parents quite rightly complained. It get more entertaining (or worrying I suppose, especially if you are American!) when you read through this – http://lippard.blogspot.com/2006/12/kearny-high-school-and-david.html.

Shocking really.