Does the life of an atheist lack meaning?

Creationism and Intelligent Design in AQA biology exam papers

In june 2009, a British examination board (AQA) featured this caper of a question in their GCSE Biology paper:

 AQA received a lot of criticism for the question because of it's misleading nature. It implies that Creationism and Intelligent Design are genuine theories within the field of biology. It also implies that this nonsense was being taught as part of the curriculum. Is it necessary to learn about alchemy to better understand chemistry, or to include astrology in physics and cosmology exams? No, so why is it necessary here? It's quite possible  that the word theory was being used in the sense that Muammar Gaddafi has a theory about how he is a  fashion god in charge of one of the happiest countries in the world. However, this is not an acceptable use of the word in a science paper.

Following the exam, the Daily Telegraph printed a story about the bizarre question. AQA replied with a swift response :

"Merely asking a question about creationism and intelligent design does not imply support for these ideas. Neither idea is included in our specification and AQA does not support the teaching of these ideas as scientific.

In the examination question, information was given to candidates and they were asked to relate evidence to conclusions. The use of the term 'theory' was intended in its common, everyday sense. However, we accept that in the context of a science examination this could be misleading and we will be addressing this issue for any future questions."

It seems they paid attention to the criticism because their 2010 Biology paper did not include any mention of Creationism or Intelligent Design. New Humanist magazine contacted AQA to see if these topics would feature in their 2011 paper. Their spokesperson responded by saying:

"The subject team have confirmed that future exam papers will not contain any questions on creationism or Intelligent Design."

The Intelligent Design Colouring Book

Hey Kids! It's the birthday gift you've all been waiting for... The Intelligent Design Colouring Book, and (according to the cover) it's 100% Fact free! YEY!!! Check out the description below:

A child’s life is full of both joys and challenges—the infinite wonder of learning, the literal and figurative scraped knees of everyday life, and, of course, deep, penetrating theological terror.

That’s why Pastor Brett of the Mega-Pheasant Heights Assembly Church has created an activity book that will divert those long lazy hours of idle youth into a soul-saving good time. Inside are crafty puzzles, mazes of wrath, and connect-the-dots! Also, the mysteries of God’s creation are revealed and explored, including, but not limited to: why God sometimes does not answer your prayers; why heterosexual monogamy is demanded of us; and why listening to scientists will end with your corporeal destruction and eternal damnation. You will learn the nature of other “religions” as well as how best to crush them. And then there will be juice boxes.

While tradition states that the path to heaven is paved by knowledge of scripture, the doing of good works, and the conversion of heathens, it has recently been revealed that no one can obtain their eternal reward without first obtaining a copy of The Intelligent Design Coloring Book!

It's quite obviously a parody, but if you're still not convinced or have a complete lack of faith in mankind, check out the author's bio:

Before joining the Mega-Pheasant Heights Assembly Church in 2010, Pastor Brett Pirkle headed up the Intelligent Design think tank at American Family Mission. A proponent of corporal punishment, he claims that the Holy Spirit channels God's love into his fist before he corrects the evildoer. The jury did not see it this way.

A Medical Dilemma for a Sunday Creationist

This is just genius cartoon highlighting the problem of making choices based on your beliefs when they are misinformed :)

 A strip from Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau

Brontosaurus- Was it a great dinosaur hoax?

In 1874, Othniel Charles Marsh discovered a huge sauropod dinosaur which he declared as a new species. It's name was Brontosaurus. The discovery came during the "bone wars", a period of intense fossil hunting marked by a  heated rivalry between Marsh and Edward Drinker Cope. Cope, among others, was not convinced that Bronotosaurus was a new species, but was actually Apatosaurus. Marsh died in 1899 having discovered around 80 new species of dinosaur, far more species than Cope had unearthed.

However, in 1903, scientists announced that Brontosaurus was not a new species at all. It seems that this news did not reach the general public, nor did it reach the U.S. Post office who issued four dinosaur stamps, including one for Brontosaurus. Even museums continued to use the label Brontosaurus on their exhibits. Many saw this as  promoting scientific illiteracy, and the media enjoyed the scientific scandal. It wasn't until 1974, however, that the name of Brontosaurus was formally removed from paleontology. It is unclear whether Marsh made a deliberate mistake due to his intense rivalry with Cope, or whether it was an accident.

Yet to this day, people still use the word Brontosaurus despite the fact that it is scientifically obsolete. But does it really matter?

Elmer Riggs, the scientist who discovered the  mistake, certainly didn't think so:

"As the term 'Apatosaurus' has priority, 'Brontosaurus' will be regarded as a synonym."

Stephen Jay Gould, in his essay Bully for Brontosaurus, didn't think it mattered much either:

"If you . . . [claim] that our postal service has mocked the deepest truth of paleontology, I will know that you have only skimmed the surface of my field." 

Basically, it's good to know that Brontosaurus is actually Apatosaurus, but it's also good to know that it doesn't actually matter.

Possibly creationism's best ever attempt to explain feathered dinosaurs

Almost every creationist argument is based on the assumption that Genesis is an account of actual events, and that the bible is the word of God and therefore the only truth. This is one of the main reasons why all their attempts at science have failed, because they only look for 'evidence' which is remotely compatible with their own assumptions. Alternatively they look for 'evidence' (a term we should use very loosely in this case) that contradicts their own grotesque caricature of the theory of evolution, often based on misunderstanding, deliberate misinformation, and complete ignorance of reality.

The idea of dinosaurs with plumage has often ruffled the feathers of the creationist movement. They've never really tried to explain why dinosaurs have feathers at all. All previous attempts by creationists to explain can be summarised by at least one of these points :

• In Genesis- birds were made on the 5th day, but God filled the land with animals on the 6th so birds must have come before dinosaurs. Look, it's in the Bible - which is the word of God because it says so in the Bible- therefore it's true.
• When I don't inspect it closely, it looks more like a bird than a dinosaur. It's a bird.
• Evolution is only a theory.
• I don't know much about the natural world at all.

 However, after searching through answersingenesis.org I finally found an attempt at an explanation that tickled me.
Dinosaurs ate Birds. Birds have feathers. Dinosaurs therefore ate feathers. If you completely ignore every piece of scientific evidence which suggests that dinosaurs had feathers and completely ignore the context in which these these sort of observations should be made- it makes perfect sense.

If you want to know more about evolution, two books I'd highly recommend are Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters and Why Evolution Is True.

Anti-Evolutionist Parody

This is a great parody of the sort of 'logic' that is parroted by advocates of Intelligent Design and Creationism. One of the biggest of these is the Discovery Institute. There are still many people who think that evolution means that humans came from slime, or that a cat gave birth to a dog. Once again this video's best asset is it's comedy value.  Enjoy :)

Perspectives from an ignorant minority

This quite a popular video of 3 guys acting out quotes made by fundamentalist christians on forums. Although there is a clear take home message, that most of the opposition to science and atheism is based purely on ignorance of almost everything, the video is far more appealing purely due to its comedy value. In fact, you can see that one of the guys has a hard time trying to keep a straight face. People often say to me that these type of people are in a minority, and I agree. However, I believe that people forget just how many fundamentalist christians there are, so a minority in their case can still be quite a considerable number. Some of them even get slots on prime time television! Just imagine if they replaced the word 'atheists' with 'homosexuals', 'mixed race couples', 'people who read the times' or 'people who ate meat'. You'd be mad not to get angry.

There is an entire website devoted to examples of crazy  quotes called Fundies Say the Darndest Things. They also have quotes from paranoid conspiracy theorist and bigoted racists, some of which are frightening in their stupidity.

Atavisms: A blast from the past

The evidence for evolution comes in a variety of forms, many of which can only be understood with a good grasp of  modern concepts in  biology, genetics, ecology, molecular biology, developmental biology or geology. However, there are examples which can be seen with the naked eye and can be understood by anyone. For me, this is one of the best examples around...

In the natural world, traits which have been lost through evolution can reappear naturally. These are known as atavisms, and they are one of the most visually compelling evidences for evolution.

Here are a few examples:

 Human Tails

Most primates have long tails which can be used for balance or even serve as a fifth limb, which suits their arboreal lifestyle. However, all apes have lost their long tails through evolution, yet we still have the genes for a tail- they just aren't expressed anymore. This is because other genes override the expression of a tail during development. However, every so often a mutation may occur which permits the development of a tail.

Over the years, there been over 100 reports of human tail atavisms. These are not just stumps or extra bits of tissue; instead they have vertebrae, and some people can even move them!

Hind limbs in dolphins and whales

Dolphins and whales are both mammals. Since mammals evolved on land, the ancestors of dolphins and whales must have also lived on the land. During their transition to a marine lifestyle, they have lost their hair and their hind legs and develop a more streamlined shape. Occasionally these features reappear in the wild. In October 2006, this four finned dolphin was donated to the Taiji Whaling Museum after being captured off the west coast of Japan by fishermen.

Horses with extra toes

 Horses are actually standing on their hooves with the same bones as a human would if they were standing on tip toes. This is because although they evolved from a multi-toed creature,  these extra toes have shrank in size over millions of years. Now all that remains of them are a few vestigial bones. There are a  few recorded examples of extra toes in horses, such as "Clique, the horse with six feet", which was donated to Yale after it's death in 1891. Complete ulnas and fibulas have also been found in Welsh and Shetland ponies as well as miniature horses.

Chickens with teeth

This atavism has been induced by scientists by using viruses that mimic a known mutation which has the potential to cause chicken embryos to grow teeth. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and we know that dinosaurs had teeth. In fact, even early birds such as Archeopteryx had teeth. Scientists can induce  this atavism because the chickens still retain the ability to grow teeth, but it is overridden by a complex set of developmental pathways. Unfortunately, the pathways are so complex that tinkering with them can often be lethal for the embryo. This tells us that (a) changes in natural populations are far more subtle than those in the lab, and (b) we are only skimming the surface of a science that has great deal of practical potential.

Can we bring the Dinosaurs back?

This weekend I spotted some Dinosaurs by the Blackpool lights. Unfortunately they're not real since the only living descendants of Dinosaurs today are Birds. But the worlds most famous Dino-hunter, Jack Horner, is helping the man who he thinks has the potential to change all this. His name is Hans Larsson. His work involves merging paleontology and molecular biology in order to understand major evolutionary changes. One of his goals it to 'switch on' dormant genes or change the regulation of currently active genes so that ancient traits, lost through evolution, will be expressed. Hans Larsson believes that although birds have lost many dinosaurian traits, it may be possible have them expressed once again.

So far, Larsson and his postdoctoral assistant have began working on chicken embryos. Traits such as a long tail have been lost in birds, and we can see the gradual reduction in tail length in the fossil record. Larsson found that although the tail grows very well in early development, "at a particular stage in development everything comes crashing to a halt". They found that retinoic acid, which stimulates the release of an protein called sonic hedgehog, “pushed tail growth to the upper range of normal development. It had some effect, but it didn’t break it out of the cycle.” This gave an Larsson an idea of how complex the growth of the tail is. Unfortunately there isn't much research on how to sustain growth in a tail, so Larsson and his assistant have had to do everything from scratch.

“The experiment I’m envisioning is that you have a single embryo developing in the egg with multiple injection sites and multiple kinds of molecules to be really fine-tuning the regulation of genes,” says Larsson. “We’ll be able to inject different parts of the embryo at different times of development with different things. If we do that, if the timing and position are correct, we should be able to manipulate lots of different kinds of morphologies—feathers, wings, teeth, tails.

“It would take just a little bit of time to work out each one of those systems in very great detail, which we’re now doing for the tail. Other people are doing it for the limbs for clinical work. And teeth are being worked out by other people for mammals and such, and then we can just sit down and play with all these in concert, which has never been done before.”

This'Chickenosaur' may resemble something from the coelurosaurs, a clade of theropod dinosaurs which resemble birds more than carnosaurs.“Birds are dinosaurs, so technically we're making a dinosaur out of a dinosaur. The only reason we're using chickens, instead of some other bird, is that the chicken genome has been mapped, and chickens have already been exhaustively studied. A number of people in a number of different places are moving forward with the project slowly and carefully,” says Horner.

Below is a video by Hans Larsson about the work he does.

Creationism lives on in US public schools - science-in-society - 20 October 2010 - New Scientist

Creationism lives on in US public schools - science-in-society - 20 October 2010 - New Scientist

I know it's frightening isn't it? Get 'em while their young is the prefered method of persuasuion for the desperate.