As previously mentioned (albeit obliquely) Technorati is still acting strange. For example, the tag Castles apparently has no blog posts stored in Technorati but there has been at least 2 posts a day for the last thirty days. Does this make sense to anyone? If you don’t believe me (or things are working now) there is a screenshot available. Also, I know it isn’t a fair comparison but Google found over 100,000 hits (it wasn’t a search for “tags” though).

Technorati Tags: castles, Technology

Now, this blog has turned a bit anti-religious of late and I am not sure what has caused that. Maybe it is a seasonal influence as the more “devout” try to use this time of year to convince those of us who just want a few days off work to watch TV to appreciate the origination of the holiday. Well, for them I say “unlucky.”

By chance – while I was wondering why Technorati hadn’t registered one of the previous posts here, but had a newer one – I clicked on the Belief tag page and for some reason the “5 hours ago” post (which was listed as the most recent, when mine was 1 hour ago) pointed to a blog post made in 2005 on Nick’s Sanctuary. An amazing example of Technorati’s technical insanity.

Anyway, enough of this, curiosity got to me about this blog (if you read the above link you will see why) and I was intrigued as to what was being written today. This curiosity was rewarded with an insight into how people wrestle with the idiosyncrasies of Christian doctrine, often ending up with nothing more than their own opinion of what is, or isn’t correct.

His most recent blog entry, although overall positive and uplifting highlights some of the odd (to an atheist) problems theists wrestle with. As an example:

Over the past few days I have been very worried about a couple of things, which were leading me to feeling trapped and made me fear I was being sent down a road I did not wish to travel. I worried that I might have no choice or as a dear friend of mine once put it, that my only choice might be “eat the poo or don’t eat the poo.” Basically take what you don’t want or go hungry. In the end it was just paranoia and nothing came of it… but I had been so depressed by the concept that I had sat up in prayer for an hour in the middle of the night, voicing my anger and my distress.

I’ve lately been thinking about the passage in Genesis where Jacob physically wrestles God… actually thinking doesn’t nearly describe it, I’ve been obsessing over it. I’ve read it a couple of times and I’ve printed off three different sermons from the Internet concerning it, in the hope of discovering what the personal relevance is for me at this time.

I honestly suspect this is a frame of mind I will never properly understand.

(By the way, the technorati link is still pointing to a 2005 blog as 5 hours old and if you ever come across a post on Agkyra called the Unhelpfulness of Chance it is just an example that the author doesn’t actually understand natural selection or evolution)

Technorati Tags: Belief, Religion, Faith, Atheism, Natural Selection, Philosophy, Technology, Technorati

It seems Ed Brayton’s blog is a source of information that, if it were fiction, would be funny and obviously I needed to add it as an aside here.. There is not a lot I can add to the “Another Lying Faith Healer” blog post that hasn’t already been written. Visit and read it for your self. When you are done, check out the “Sternberg and DI Misrepresenting His Position?” post as well.

Technorati Tags: Faith Healer, Intelligent Design, Religion, Philosophy

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.

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 🙂