Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 5

In volume 4 of this ridiculous series, I addressed Conservapedia's claim that the second law of thermodynamics was a counterexample to evolution. Click here to read that. (Same window)

This time, Conservapedia shifts from thermodynamics to mathematics. Let's see what they have to say about the Law of Large Numbers:

"The Law of Large Numbers states that things tend to revert to their average over time (the large number of examples), while evolution requires the opposite: that things become more complex and depart further from their average over time."

To understand the Law of Large Numbers, take a six sided die and begin rolling it. It can only land on 1-6, with 3.5 being the average. You might get a series of 'runs' where your average outcome is 1 or 2, but after a few hundred rolls, your average will grow closer and closer to 3.5.

Refuting the central point...

The claim "evolution requires...that things become more complex" isn't true. Evolution is just small changes over large periods of time. The process we call Natural Selection does usually result in things becoming more complex, but natural selection has more to do with how likely traits are to pass on.

Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

Some researchers believe that sponges may have evolved from more complex ancestors by becoming simpler [1], but counterexamples aren't necessary after refuting a central point.

TLDR; Evolution does not require growth in complexity, and The Law of Large Numbers applies to Evolution differently because parameters change. Evolution IS change. 

But how do parameters change throughout evolution? Let's take our six sided die. We'll let the D-6 represent a specific gene in wolves; a gene for aggression. Let's let each numbered side represent how strongly that gene is expressed. Roll the die 10 times. Each roll represents a wolf in our pack, and each outcome represents how aggressive that particular wolf is.

Wolves with traits 1 and 2 are more vicious, cruel, and are very likely to kill for food without a second thought. Wolves with traits 5 and 6 are less confrontational. They're less likely to kill for food, and more likely to stealthily steal meat from the other wolves. Wolves with traits 1 and 2 are better fighters, but wolves with traits 5 and 6 are more inclined to avoid fights.

So far, all wolves in this tribe have an equal chance of surviving, and passing on their genes. The parameters representing their aggression remain 1-6.

But meat has become scarce, and they have no choice but to find new territory. They claim land neighbored by humans. They grow hungry.

Our wolves with traits 1 and 2 immediately go for the humans. These guys readied their guns, and most of them are shot. However, the less aggressive wolves wait, and are fed by sneaking unattended food.


Wolves with traits 3 and 4 are slightly confrontational and not very sneaky, so most of them are eventually shot. Due to these environmental changes, wolves with traits 5 and 6 now greatly outnumber the others. Wolves with these traits are significantly more likely to breed, so the next generation of wolves are less aggressive than the original pack.

When we roll a D-6, we have solid parameters. Every outcome will be a random number between 1-6. The average outcome will always drift towards 3.5. But genes aren't so random in the same sense. They're self replicating, and certain traits are likely to be passed on from parents. With our wolf pack, the parameters associated with aggressiveness changed. The average aggressiveness in these wolves is getting closer to 5.5 with every pup born. The average will drift as survival dictates. When aggression is needed, the parameters change again. This goes for every trait; speed, boldness, temperature sensitivity, cuteness, etc.

Clearly, the Law of Large numbers doesn't apply to evolution in the same sense as the author suggests.

Want more? Next time: Is Evolution untrue because a historically recorded ancient flood conflict with the fossil record? (Placeholder)
___________________________________

Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.

 __________________________________________

[1]
http://phys.org/news/2012-09-evolution-meant-simpler-complex.html#jCp

CT School Blocks Conservative Websites

On June 16th, a Connecticut student vented to Facebook after discovering that his school had blocked several right-leaning websites. 

"Is the region supporting the religion of Islam, whose radical believers wage war against this nation, who murdered almost 3000 Americans on 9/11, and vow to continue these acts of terrorism, but are rejecting the principles of Christianity which this nation was founded upon?"

His entire rant and a list of websites that were blocked can be read here. Although his rant contains inaccuracies, this central point is still concerning.

The school's superintendent responds:

Many of the liberal sites accessible to the student fell into the “not rated” category, which was unblocked while many of the conservative sites were in the “political/advocacy group” which is accessible to teachers but not to students.  The district is trying to determine the reason for the inconsistency and if the bias is pervasive enough to justify switching to another content filtering provider.

The school's entire reply is found here. Several questions have yet to be answered.
Are right-leaning websites actually being blocked disproportionately?
If true, could this be due to any reason other than a person/company's political bias?
If conservative websites disproportionately contained inaccuracies or incited leaps in logic to a greater extent than left-leaning websites, should a school then be allowed to block those sites?

I'm not jumping to conclusions until more information is provided. Those who battle confirmation bias understand how important it can be to read material that conflicts with their points of view. However, if these websites were blocked for legitimate reasons, it may not be wise to unblock them for the sake of political correctness.

Stay rational, my friends.

Jesse
___________________________________
Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.
___________________________________

Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 4

Last time, we countered Conservapedia's claim that Evolution doesn't account for the current rate of extinction. Click here to read that. (Same window)

Conservapedia hits a new low, as their fourth counter-example to evolution misrepresents yet another scientific theory. This is what they say:

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention; the theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible perpetual motion machine."

There are two separate claims in this argument. Let’s look at the first one.

“The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that everything in the world becomes more disordered over time, in the absence of intelligent intervention.”

The Second Law of Thermodynamics establishes that isolated systems lose the ability to do work. Since some energy is lost due to heat and other factors, an isolated system can’t convert all of its energy into working energy. This is why perpetual motion machines don’t work forever. Even the most efficient ones will leak energy, and eventually slow down.  

The phrase ‘in the absence of intelligent intervention’ is incorrect. A working phrase would be ‘within a closed system’. It seems like the author chose this misleading phrase just to make evolution seems impossible. After misrepresenting thermodynamics, the author immediately says this about Evolution:

"The theory of evolution falsely claims that some systems can become more ordered, like an impossible perpetual motion machine."

The theory of evolution does conclude that systems may become more ordered, but this doesn't contradict the actual Second Law of Thermodynamics. It only contradicts Conservapedias incorrect version which claims that intelligent intervention is needed to maintain order. The difference is that Evolution is not confided to a closed system, like impossible perpetual motion machines. 

Living organisms are not closed systems either[1]. They gain energy by eating other organisms. Most of life on Earth wouldn't even be possible without the constant intervention of the Sun, which heats organisms and even allows humans to convert cholesterol into vitamin D. Organs and the cells within them are extremely ordered[2]. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in no way implies that these open systems can't become more ordered.

TLDR; "Within closed systems" =/= "without intelligent intervention." Conservapedia's entire counterexample rests on their incorrectly defined version of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Next: Does the Law of Large Numbers disprove Evolution? (Same window)
_____________________________________________
Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
Twitter: @RationalJesse
Facebook: /RationalJesse.
Youtube: Click here.

 ________________________________________

[1]
John W. Patterson, "Thermodynamics and Evolution," in Laurie R. Godfrey, ed., Scientists Confront Creationism, W. W. Norton, New York, 1983, pg. 99-116.

[2]
http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/45182/excerpt/9780521845182_excerpt.pdf

A beginner level lesson on Thermodynamics:
Thermodynamic Laws that Explain Systems

Ridiculously high level reading on the subject:
Open Systems and Organization Theories 
Thermodynamics of Living Systems .___________________________________________
.

Comedian Burns Dr Oz (John Oliver)

(After Dr Oz touted a substance called Green Coffee Bean Extract, one company in Florida sold half a million bottles.)

"The main ingredient in those magic beans not only fails to help lab mice, it gave them the early symptoms of diabetes. [...] If you wanna keep spouting this bullshit, that's fine; but don't call your show Dr. Oz. Call it, 'Check This Shit Out, with Some Guy Named Mehmet'."

If the glorious video doesn't load below this sentence, you can watch it by clicking the link below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAZe1jMASVc

Should Dr. Oz be held accountable for using misleading terms, like 'simple solution' and '#1 miracle in a bottle?' Is he using his title as a doctor to promote potentially dangerous products ?
_______________
Posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
I'm on Twitter! @RationalJesse
I'm on Facebook!
_______________

Acupuncture Trials Under Serious Review

Acupuncture uses heat and sharp needles to supposedly correct imbalances in the flow of qi through different qi channels. Acupuncture is used in the treatment of stress, chronic pain [1], and even nausea in chemotherapy patients [2]. Acupuncture is possibly the backbone of alternative traditional Chinese medicine, and the skeptical researchers have taken notice.

A team of 8 supervised medical students began their research by searching for randomized, controlled trials in 28 journals of traditional Chinese medicine. They then examined the quality of methodology used. Here's what they had to say:

The method of randomization was often described incorrectly. Only 15% of trials were blind, out of which only a few used a large number (300+) of subjects.

Here's the weirdest part. Many of these "trials" use other Chinese treatments on their control subjects. These were treatments which may or may not have been effective themselves. 

Here's the kicker. Effectiveness was rarely reported in terms of actual numbers. Out of this inconclusive mess, take a look at how effective acupuncture was reported in Stroke trials.

Out of these trials, many of which were incorrectly randomized, non-blind, small, without proper controls, and without actual numbers... the overwhelming majority of scientists reported acupuncture and other traditional Chinese treatments as effective. 

As news stations and social media sites buzz about the newest slanted studies reporting how effective alternative treatment is, the skeptics ask for more.

And heads collide with desks, because skeptical scientists would rather have one good study than 1,000 slanted ones. They know that methodology is everything. Skepticism is essential for unbiased science.

This doesn't necessarily indicate that acupuncture is ineffective, but this does mean that there's really no good reason to believe it's effective. This treatment has had hundreds of years to prove its effectiveness, and we still can't say it works due to inadequate methodology and researcher bias.

Read the original study here.
_______________
Posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
You should definitely add me on twitter. @RationalJesse
You should probably add me on facebook here.
_______________
[1] 
http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/acupuncture-is-worth-a-try-for-chronic-pain-201304016042
[2] 
http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/manualhealingandphysicaltouch/acupuncture

Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 3

Last time, we countered Conservapedia's claim that "Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time" .  Click here to read that. (Same window)

Conservapedia's third counter-example to evolution reads: 

3. "The current annual rate of extinction of species far exceeds any plausible rate of generation of species. Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely." 

Entire species are rapidly becoming extinct every year, and it takes a lot longer for new species to emerge (speciation), according to evolution. That part's correct. (That's a first!) The second sentence argues that evolution becomes less and less plausible the longer this trend continues, since everything should have already been dead by now. That's also correct.

Note that the first sentence deals with the "current rate" of something, and the second sentence deals with applying that current rate to the past".

If we flat-out assume that Conservapedia's assertions are correct, the conclusion still does not follow. This is called an unsound syllogism. We can examine the truth value of the premises for fun, but this syllogism is already flawed, so we really don't have to. Here's why:
This argument conflates the current rate of extinction/speciation with past rates of extinction/speciation.

"Stocks are up 20% this quarter. Expanding our timeline back 10 years when we started, stocks must have increased by 20% every quarter! We're up 800%!"
- Conservapedia's Head Business Adviser.

Do you see the conflation? It happens as soon as the expanding timeline is mentioned, because the conclusion is based on the assumption that those rates are static. To lay the premises out in a way that avoids this logical fallacy, we have to take away the conflation tactic.

P1] The current rate of extinction exceeds speciation.
P2] Rates of extinction have always exceeded rates of speciation.
C] Expanding a given timeline reveals that extinction always exceeds speciation

Here, the argument avoids the logical fallacy. The argument's now stronger because it is sound. Now, the conclusion actually makes sense if the premises are true. You're welcome, Conservapedia.

In order to counter this, we now have to actually show that one of the premises is incorrect. In an actual argument, Conservapedia would have to prove the second premise. Us having to prove it's wrong is a shifting of the burden of proof, but we don't care since the second premise is so easy to refute.

If the second premise is false, this conclusion:

Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely

becomes unsound, and crumbles apart. Let's do it.
(Conservapedia's conclusion also seems to argue against how long scientists believe life has existed on earth. Conservapedia is known for young-earth arguments, but it's beyond the scope of this article.). 

Let's talk about death and destruction. Between the Permian and Triassic period about 250 million years ago [1], an event occurred that we now call the Great Dying [2].

Up to 96% of all marine life [3] became extinct. This was one of the few times in history where insects [4] took a massive hit. This event also wasn't isolated.

440 Million years ago, 60%-70% of all species became extinct[6]. 200 million years ago, 70-75% of all life was wiped out[5]. 66 million years ago, it happened again[6]. In fact, we know of 5 great extinction periods, and several smaller extinction periods, where the rates of extinction have far exceeded rates of speciation. This confirms that rates of extinction vary greatly from time to time.

When laid out on a timeline, the trend looks like spikes in extinction followed by longer periods of speciation. Keep in mind that speciation isn't always gradual[7].

It's literally not possible for the average extinction rate to exceed the average speciation rate. Otherwise, 11 species can become extinct when only 10 species have ever existed.

This proves that rates of extinction do NOT always exceeded rates of speciation. Therefore, this conclusion:

"Expanding the amount of time for evolution to occur makes evolution even less likely"

is logically impossible. The necessary second premise (which fixed the conflation problem) is incorrect, there's no reason to ever reach the conclusion. Because we actually know of periods where speciation exceeds extinction, the conclusion that we shouldn't reach is demonstrably false.

TLDR; The current rate of extinction is a trend and speciation rates generally exceed extinction rates. Therefore, Conservapedia's counter-example fails to reach it's conclusion. 

Next:: Does the Second Law of Thermodynamics invalidate Evolution? Conservapedia thinks so! (Same Window)
____________________________________
Originally posted on Blogspot.com/RationalJesse.
You should definitely add me on twitter. @RationalJesse
You should probably add me on facebook here.
____________________________________
[1] 
250m years ago 
 Shen S.-Z. et al. (2011). "Calibrating the End-Permian Mass Extinction". Science. Bibcode:2011Sci...334.1367S. doi:10.1126/science.1213454.

[2] 
death due to carbon 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/03/26/1318106111.full.pdf+html

[3] 
marine life
126/science.1213454.
^ Jump up to: a b c Benton M J (2005). When life nearly died: the greatest mass extinction of all time. London: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-28573-X.

[4] 
insects
Labandeira CC, Sepkoski JJ (1993). "Insect diversity in the fossil record". Science 261 (5119): 310–315. Bibcode:1993Sci...261..310L. doi:10.1126/science.11536548. PMID 11536548.

[5] 
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/extinction

[6] 
Raup, D.; Sepkoski Jr, J. (1982). "Mass extinctions in the marine fossil record". Science 215 (4539): 1501–1503. Bibcode:1982Sci...215.1501R. doi:10.1126/science.215.4539.1501. PMID 17788674. 

[7] 
https://www.inkling.com/read/biology-marielle-hoefnagels-2nd/chapter-13/13-4-speciation-may-be-gradual 

Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 2

Last time, we countered Conservapedia's claim that artistic beauty lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation by refuting the central point and providing counter-examples- the very ones Conservapedia tried to use to dismiss evolution. Click here to read that (Same window).

Today, we're discussing Conservapedia's second counter-example to evolution. It reads: 

2) Evolution predicts that human intelligence should increase over time, when in fact all evidence is that it is decreasing: declining SAT scores, shortening attention spans, and increasing mental problems.

This is the kind of claim that a child would make after watching a Science Fiction movie. “The X-men  have reached the pinnacle of human Evolution! Smarter, stronger, faster, telekinetic abilities!” This view of Evolution is so fundamentally absurd and movie-like that I can't tell if it's satire or not. SAT scores have been declining for 50 years.

Checkmate, Evolutionists? Humor aside, this claim is demonstrably false. 

Evolution itself makes no claims to human intelligence. We can attempt to predict how an environment may affect a certain species to evolve over extended periods of time, but incorrect predictions wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution.

An incorrect prediction would only turn the scientific community on its head if one of the laws of evolution (that the theory is built upon) couldn't account for what actually happened.

So using "Evolution predicts X, and X did not occur" as a counter-example is inherently flawed. I could end the article here, but I'll continue for educational purposes, and because I like talking about gorillas.

Before that, I need to clear the air. Conservapedia makes it seem like there's some massive conspiracy, where the majority of scientists are plotting against God or something. Let's look at reality. I can only think of 3 possibilities.
1) Either 99% of biological scientists are wrong, 
2) there's a massive conspiracy between them, or
3) a portion of the population misunderstands a commonly misrepresented scientific theory.
Occam's Razor demands rational thinkers to contemplate which of these choices makes the least assumptions. Now let's talk about monkeys.


Sometimes, there's no need increased intelligence. Some primates have kept the same level of intelligence for 10,000,000 years. Let's look at a family of gorillas in the wild.

If their environment generally stayed the same, there would be no demand for an adaptation. They're already smart enough to survive, breed, and pass on their genes. If nothing in the environment kills off the unintelligent ones, they also pass on their genes. 

Furthermore, traits of intelligent may actually be unfavorable to survival. Going back to our gorilla family, throw in the very recent presence of poachers. Suddenly, traits such as the curiosity to investigate may cause immediate death. If the curious gorillas don't run away from poachers, they may be more likely to be picked off, thus never passing on those genes. 

Enough about gorillas, let's talk about us. Why did us humans develop such intelligence in the first place?  Some of our finer aspects of intelligence, such as higher communication, may not have been necessary for survival. They could have easily developed by proxy via sexual selection. [1] This conclusion is pretty likely, since intelligence was a good indicator of general fitness.

I could stop here, but there's a glaringly obvious example that destroys Conservapedia's claim about human intelligence. It's something we've observed as early as 1939. There's a very real, very noticeable inverse relationship between intelligence and fertility. [2] This means that upper-class humans with higher intelligence have less children than lower-class humans with less intelligence. I'm not generalizing here, this is all on average. This may be due to better family planning, easier access to birth control, more independence, or other factors.

Idiocracy puts a hilarious spin on what could happen if this trend continues.

To put it bluntly, 'less intelligent' people have more children. Given this fact, we can easily predict decreasing SAT scores. However, Conservapedia should know that these problems go much deeper than the theory of evolution. Other factors, such as school funding and lower standards affect SAT scores. Not only that, human intelligence may have more to do with nutrition [3] than anything else. 

So to even consider the possibility that lower SAT scores counter evolution is wishful thinking at best, and the fact that intelligent people are less likely to pass on their DNA basically destroys Conservapedia's claim. Boo!

Next: Can Evolution account for the current rate of extinction? (Same window)

_________
I made a twitter. Message me or something. @RationalJesse
_________

[1]  
Miller. The Mating Mind. ISBN 0-8058-5749-4.
[2]
The Sociological Review
olume a31, Issue 2, pages 144–165, April 1939
[3] 
Dewar, C.S; Psych, M.R.C (2004). "Enhanced nutrition of offspring as a crucial factor for the evolution of intelligence on land".Medical Hypotheses 62 (5): 802–7. doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2003.11.031. PMID 15082111.

Conservapedia vs Evolution: Vol 1

Authors for the website Conservapedia tried to disprove Evolution, and it's just hilarious. 

Claim: Evolution cannot explain artistic beauty, such as brilliant autumn foliage and the staggering array of beautiful marine fish, both of which originated before any human to view them; this lacks any plausible evolutionary explanation.

Before we even begin, notice two reasons why this way of thinking is malformed.

1) There may be no evolutionary explanation for many things, but the lack of an explanation doesn't automatically disprove the scientific theory. At best, the lack of an explanation makes the theory less valuable than competing theories. What disproves something is evidence to the contrary. Therefore, citing something that evolution doesn't account for as a counter-example doesn't affect it's state of correctness. In other words: Even if these counter-examples were correct, the theory of Evolution could still be true. If this was a debate, the scientist could literally not present a case, and these counterexamples would still be laughable for that reason.

2) Also, if no scientist could understand how evolution accounts for something at this specific point in time, that still doesn't suggest that evolution does not account for it. There was a time when scientists couldn't account for magnets or lightning. Their inability to understand how lightning worked didn't make lightning any less real. In other words, Even if these counter-examples seem correct, evolution may still account for them; scientists might not have the proper explanation yet.

So, who would be silly enough to list counterexamples that, even if true, don't actually counter anything? 

Onto the counterexamples..
Conservapedia provides two specific examples of beautifully colorful things that disprove counter(?) evolution.

1) Evolution is false because colorful Autumn leaves lack any evolutionary explanation.

The link between evolution and colorful leaf variation is already well-established. The claim that evolution cannot explain this is laughable, and demonstrably false. For example, we know that variations in leaf color are caused by lice [1] in the silver birch tree. Trends in Ecology & Evolution goes into more detail about how both animals and non-biological factors affect variation in leaf color. [2]

2) Evolution is false because colorful marine fish lack any evolutionary explanation.

Some animals are so bright and vibrant that predators can spot them easily. Think peacocks. People who don't understand evolution may think this pokes a big hole in the theory, but that's a massive misunderstanding of the many different pressures evolution explains, such as sexual selection.

The vibrant colors in marine fish are often due to the colorful habitat, full of bright coral reefs. In these instances, vibrant colors act as camouflage. Also, only fish who are noticed by mates are successful at consistently passing on their genetic coding. In some cases, fish with 'colorful' gene variations are simply noticed more, and out-breed the less colorful fish [3], even when vibrant colors seem disadvantageous to survival.

Evolution also accounts for instances when these colors are due to other factors, such as variances in colorful egg patterns. [4] [5]

Seriously though, even if I didn't write anything at all, these counterexamples to evolution are too malformed to be taken seriously. Ignoring the other flaws the argument presents (research 'argument from beauty' criticism), beauty is just a physiological perception of something. Is it really far-fetched to think that Evolution can't account for something like our eyes adapting to find pleasure in nature or symmetry?

The same guy who wants scientists to "stop wasting so much money" on investigating fish-mating habits (How much money actually goes into this?) can turn around and claim that evolution is false, citing these very products of fish-mating as an example. He can then rally enough people to try to ban the teaching of evolution in schools.  Good game, science!

Next: Can Evolution account for decreasing human intelligence? (Same window)

_________
I made a twitter. Talk to me and junk. @RationalJesse
_________
[1]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22548444
[2]
Archetti, Marco; Döring, Thomas F.; Hagen, Snorre B.; Hughes, Nicole M.; Leather, Simon R.; Lee, David W.; Lev-Yadun, Simcha; Manetas, Yiannis; Ougham, Helen J. (2011). "Unravelling the evolution of autumn colours: an interdisciplinary approach". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 24 (3): 166–73. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2008.10.006. PMID 19178979. 
[3]
'Evolution of Visual Communication in Neotropical Reef Fishes''; Gil Rosenthal; 2007
[4]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3778878/ 

[5]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20333216 

_____________

Angry Atheist Rips the Catholic Church

...and it was glorious.

During Sunday's episode of The Atheist Experience, former Southern Baptist Matt Dillahunty went off on a rampage against the Catholic church. The only phrase I can think of which accurately describes this verbal beatdown is combo-breaker.  Watch below.

If you prefer to watch on YouTube, click here (new window).

It's embarrassing. It is appalling, and everyone that supports the catholic church is without excuse. It has to stop. If you care about the things that you believe, you should be the first ones up saying, "Stop poisoning this. Stop making the rest of us look bad." 

On duty- off duty... "I didn't know I shouldn't have sex with children.", "I didn't know I should report sex with children", "I didn't know the catholic church was a criminal organization that was killing women during miscarriages by allowing them to get infections because you won't remove a dying fetus until its last heart beat, even if it costs the mother her life." 

I don't care that the catholic church supports hospitals and does some good things. They are not a force for good. It is a corrupt, criminal organization that is poisoning the planet, and it needs to be destroyed. 

- Matt Dillahunty, The Atheist Experience episode #870

The Atheist Experience is a weekly, live call-in program located in Austin, Texas. To watch the episode in its entirety, click here (new window).

His anger with the catholic church is reasonable, but is he right to call the catholic church a criminal organization? Is the Catholic Church necessary, or even worth keeping?

Where Jeopardy's definition of Atheism came from

Not according to oxford.

This didn't exactly make headlines, but there are a lot of heads colliding with desks right now.

Here, Jeopardy incorrectly defines atheism (new window).

What's the true definition? Where did this definition actually come from? Why does it matter? Keep reading.

If you're actually unsure about the true definition of atheism is, don't worry man. I've got you covered.

Atheism: 

• A disbelief in the existence of deity, or the doctrine that there is no deity (Merriam-webster) 
• The doctrine or belief that there is no God, or disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. (dictionary.reference.com)
• Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (Oxforddictionaries.com)

You may think it’s weird to disbelieve in God, but you at least recognize what atheism is.  So how does Jeopardy define it? 

"THE ACTIVE, PRINCIPLED DENIAL OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD”

What the crap? Where did that come from? 

I am a wizard, and thus was able to find out.  Jeopardy's definition of atheism came from the book "Isms & 'Ologies: All the movements, ideologies and doctrines that have shaped our world", authored by Arthur Goldwag. 

If you're an atheist, you probably aren't too surprised. You're kind of used to this thing by now, aren't you?

It seems consistent. After all, someone who actively denies the existence of God probably also disbelieves in his existence.  However, it's completely wrong, and hurts the atheist community.

Let me show you how ridiculous this definition is by contrasting Jeopardy's definition of atheism with an actual definition, "a disbelief in the existence of deity."

Claim 1): Atheism is the active, principled denial of the existence of God [...]

We can easily refute the central point here because this definition is demonstrably incorrect (and misleading). 

1A) Jeopardy's definition doesn't address belief. Under Jeopardy's definition, someone who believes in God while actively denying it is an atheist. Since this only addresses the action of denial, it creates straw man scenarios where believers can claim that atheists actually believe in God, but are just angry with him.

1B) Jeopardy's definition ignores polytheism by keeping God singular. By keeping God singular, believing in multiple gods doesn't present itself as an option. Other definitions address polytheism by keeping 'gods' plural.

1C) Jeopardy's definition of atheism does not exclude Christians. Christians actively deny the existence of Thor and Allah, so other religions may claim that christians are atheists because they actively deny the existence of 'the true God'.

1D) The use of principled creates more contradictions.  By definition, a principled action (denying God) is an action that either 1) must be based on a set of rules, or 2) indicate recognition of the concepts of right and wrong.

"Atheism: the active, principled denial of the existence of God." - Jeopardy.

Actual atheists who also actively deny the existence of God are still not necessarily atheists under Jeopardy's definition. They denial part has to be out of principle. (If everything is done out of principle, the use of the word is redundant, presenting another flaw to Jeopardy's definition).

Summary: Under Jeopardy's definition of atheism......people who don't believe in God aren't necessarily atheists, and Christians aren't necessarily not atheists. Contradicting these well established definitions creates straw man arguments against both parties and implies states of denial instead of addressing true belief.

If that wasn't bad enough, even Jeopardy omitted Goldwig's entire definition of atheism, found in his book. It's that bad.

Atheism: the active, principled denial of the existence of God, as opposed to skepticism, indifference, or ignorance on the subject.  Was that little add-on necessary?  It's in the same sentence as the definition, so it's in fact not an add-on, but necessary to the definition itself.

In definitions, words are to take on their very literal meaning. Let's assume Goldwig is using the literal definition of oppose, which is the opposite of support.

X can't opposed and support Y at the same time, in the same sense. Goldwig's definition of atheism claims that it isn't (and can't be) supported by skepticism. This creates a false dichotomy, where these ideas must be mutually exclusive. One cannot adhere to atheism and skepticism. However, this is demonstrably false.

The less formal idiom "as opposed to" may only imply a significant contrast between two things. Oxford's example of this is 'an approach that is theoretical as opposed to practical'. Theory and practice compliment each other, dealing with the same things. and are not opposites. By choosing 'as opposed to', Goldwig's may be implying that atheism and skepticism share the same relationship, complimenting each other. However, remember that Goldwig's definition of atheism only addresses the act of denial. Skepticism affects belief states and has little to do with arbitrary acts of denial, so we can only make two intellectually honest assumptions. Either...
A) Goldwig meant 'opposed' to take on its literal definition, or
B) Goldwig has trouble understanding 'skepticism' as well as atheism.    

Let's assume he meant the literal definition for now.

Claim 2:) Atheism is opposed to skepticism
2A) This is demonstrably false, as atheists under every other definition may consider themselves skeptics.

Claim 3:) Atheism is opposed to indifference on the subject.

3A:) Demonstrably false.  Being indifferent to a claim (God exists) may be the exact reason why belief is withheld. If I withhold my belief towards the claim God exists, I am an atheist by definition. (Yes, I would be agnostic as well). 

Claim 4:) Atheism is opposed to ignorance on the subject.

4A:) Demonstrably false. If I am completely ignorant to the concept of what a God is, I will most likely not believe in one. People also believe and disbelieve in things due to bad reasons, so a person's atheism may in fact be supported by ignorance towards the subject.

Goldwag's clear bias against atheism.

Set his logically fallacious definition aside for a second. Goldwag's writing also demonstrates a strong bias against atheism by being extremely one-sided in a quote that immediately follows the definition.  He quotes C.S. Lewis, who found it ironic that "Atheists express their rage against God, although in their view He does not exist."

On the surface, Lewis seems to firmly understand that atheists don't believe in God. But do you ever just get mad at Santa, and shout, "I hate you, Santa. Why are you suck a jerk?" No, because you would have to believe in Santa before truly being angry with him. Claiming that atheists express rage against God is a massive generalization, and suggests that atheists are dishonest in their lack of belief.  By quoting Lewis, Goldwig appears to agree with the statement.

By quoting Lewis, Goldwig either...
1) agrees that atheism deals with a belief state and not the act of denial, and his definition is intentionally inaccurate and insufficient, or
2) doesn't firmly grasp the difference between denying a concept and not believing in it. 

Atheists are already one of the least trusted groups in America, and are statistically trusted less than rapists. The definition Goldwig and Jeopardy agree on is not the definition most atheists identify with, putting them in an extremely dishonest position. 

Jeopardy is a popular TV show. You can view their facebook page here.
Goldwig is an accomplished author. You can see a list of his accomplishments here.

Godspeed, and don't forget to call a spade a spade.

-RationalJesse.


_______________________________________

Originally posted on RationalJesse.blogspot.com 

I just made Twitter. Follow me and stuff. @RationalJesse 

_________________________________________