Youth Defence: Facts Deserve Better

I've been on holiday and am somewhat behind on current affairs. No matter, the Youth Defence blog provides a rich source of material for me to discuss.

Today I look at an entry from Eadaoin, a UK based blogger with an interest in Ireland's abortion debate. Rather than provide commentary I'll just offer my free fact checking service.

"It has become increasingly clear that, over the last ten decades the women’s liberation movement across the globe, which had noble aims in its infancy, has become an oppressor of women’s freedom."

I have a fortnight's worth of laundry to do: regrettably time does not allow me to also correct grammar or suggest how Eadaoin might express ideas clearly. Do feel free to assist her in the comments.

Statistically speaking, induced abortions increases [sic] the risk of breast, cervical, ovarian and rectal cancer.

No it doesn't. I offer as evidence a Lancet published meta analysis of 53 studies and a 12 year study of 25,000 Danish women. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the United States National Cancer Institute agree that there is no causative link. The American Cancer Society goes one further, saying that "...the public is not well-served by false alarms. At this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer". Eadaoin doesn't offer any evidence of this purported link with breast or other cancers, and with good cause - she doesn't have it. Nor does she mention that her organisation opposes the HPV vaccine, proven to reduce instances of cervical cancer.

Alive! Gay Pro Life And The Minority Report

It's been some time since we discussed the suspicious @ProLifeAtheists. Unusually for an atheist group, the most common adjective their followers used to describe themselves was 'Catholic', with only two profiles containing the word 'atheist'. Cardinal Dolan and David Quinn featured high on the list of accounts the group felt worthy of following. In short it seemed rather a poor choice for those who posit significant numbers of atheists who oppose abortion. You're welcome to read the post for background.

This post has been rather popular. In fact it's my most popular post of all time, and I was touched by the genuine interest and excitement around the investigation. A recent spike in visits to the post (over 2,000 in one day last week, my thanks to @glinner) caused me to wonder if the masterminds between this cunning deception might have targeted other groups unpopular with American Republicans to create the impression of diverse support.

So I checked.

Waterford Street Preachers Talk on Wednesday 28th

Delighted to announce I'll be making a field trip to Waterford on the 28th of this month to give a talk for Waterford Skeptics in the Pub. It will be an extended version of my Street Preachers talk, including oddities from the Hare Krishnas, Young Earth Creationists, Moonies, scientific miracles in the Qur'an, and the pictured representative if the Mormons.

It will be taking place at 7:30pm in The Munster Bar. I'm told I'm moderately amusing. I hope to see some of you there - if you know anyone in the Waterford area who might be interested I'd appreciate it if you passed it on.

Youth Defence: The Only Thing Worse Than Being Talked About

I commented earlier on the difficulty of differentiating between those of @YouthDefence's followers who approved of the organisation's aims, and those whose morbid sense of curiosity compels them to see what bizarre utterances they'll next belch on to Twitter.

I said it would be tricky, most likely involving trawling through all posts by all followers, and not a task to which I warmed.

Still, there seems to be some appetite for material of this sort so I offer you an alternative. I searched Twitter for mentions of either "Youth Defence" or youthdefence, categorised them as either in favour, against, or unknown and did another pretty chart. Note - tweeting about Youth Defence does not mean the person necessarily follows @YouthDefence. The source data is below; and bar the observation that their claims to be "the voice of the majority" seems even less credible I leave the commentary to other bloggers. It's sunny outside.

Craig Marsh and the Starship Enterprise

"His surgeons do not know how this has happened and have said it was not something that should have happened on it’s own"

 -Testimony on Craig Marsh's website

In an earlier episode, worth reading for background, I spoke of Craig Marsh and his miraculous regrowing stomach. He says with confidence that he is a walking miracle, astounding experienced surgeons in his native New Zealand. He claims documentation to back this up, except when he says the opposite. When you ask to see said paperwork you learn that skeptics are unworthy of standing in its presence and Christians who request proof are merely failing to show enough faith in Craig Marsh.

I've exhausted all reasonable attempts to view a copy of these fascinating records. Luckily, although lacking in detail, there are many stories and anecdotes on his site and one had just enough information to track down the hospital mentioned as being baffled by a supposed miraculous cure.

Craig Marsh's Response: More Than I Can Stomach

*Edit: I've been asked to state that I do not work for Premier Christian Radio, do not represent their views and am not acting on behalf of their company or agents. I'm happy to do so.*

Back in March I discussed modern-day miracles with Doctor Craig Keener on Premier Christian Radio. He'd written a 1,200 page book on the subject, and while he was a pleasant chap with some good points on Hume I disagreed with his endorsement of riot-inciting Evangelist Reinhard Bonnke and Dawit Molalegn, mega rich megapastor of the FBI miracle church.

In addition the host played two recorded messages and asked for my response. One was from a woman who said her leg felt improved some days after being prayed for. The other was from a Pastor Craig Marsh. His - let's be polite initially - story was that his stomach had been largely amputated for medical reasons, he was terminally ill, and then during a group prayer event his stomach spontaneously regrew, allowing him to both live a normal life and perplex his medical staff.

Lennox, Scherer, and the giant floating forest hypothesis

While first reading "God's Undertaker" I noticed a reference to "Evolution - ein kritisches Lehrbuch" by Professor Siegfried Scherer. I'll admit I didn't pay it much heed at the time - the review was already unwieldy in length, my German was rusty, and tracing down every last error would have been something of a time sink.

But a couple of months later I amused myself with a dictionary and skimmed a few pages of the book Lennox had used to justify the following quote:

"Siegfried Scherer of the Technical University in Munich suggests that living things can be classified in certain basic types – a classification slightly broader than that of species. A ‘basic type’ is defined to be a collection of living things connected either directly or indirectly through hybridization, without regard for whether the hybrids are sterile or not. This definition incorporates both genetic and morphological concepts of species, and, according to Scherer, research so far indicates that ‘in the whole experimentally accessible domain of microevolution (including research in artificial breeding and in species formation), all variations have certainly remained within the confines of basic types’." -God's Undertaker, Page 109

I'd thought that the 'basic type' sounded suspiciously like the Biblical 'kind', used by Creationists to mean something between species and clade, meandering between both possible definitions depending which chapter of Genesis was at stake.

Reinhard Bonnke and the Case of the Evil God

"When you grasp what we are saying here, then you join the army with the battering ram of the Word of the Cross. It will pulverise the strongholds of the devil. It is the drum-roll thunder of God’s invincible army on the march."

 "No matter how brilliant a sermon may be, in a form as perfect as the bullet case of a tank cartridge, if you do not fill it with explosives it will simply bounce off the hardened hearts of the unbelievers."

"Witnesses should witness; it is our nature. Soldiers are not fitted with uniforms and equipped with weapons simply to go on parade; their true place is on the battlefield." (Wasser und Mehr)

There are religious books that only provide heat when put on a bonfire. (Evangelism by fire.)

The church was never constructed for defensive purposes. The gates of hell should be invaded, not avoided. Offence is the best defense. Instead of waiting to ward off the devil's onslaught, turn the tide of battle and launch an invasion of the devil's territory. Jesus is with you. (Official Facebook page) 

Many years ago I spent a rather enjoyable week working in Istanbul. It was my first time in a Muslim majority country and much less of a difference than I had perhaps naively expected. I avoided alcohol, pork, and long conversations on unstunned Halal slaughter. I'd heard a rumour that showing the sole of one's shoe could be considered offensive. This was prudish of me - I have no doubt that I would still have been welcome had I indulged in all the above perceived vices - but it seemed only fair that I make a moderate effort when visiting.

But what of Reinhard Bonnke? A close associate of the very rich huckster Benny Hinn, Bonnke was called in a dream (naturally) to minister to Africa, where his performances are billed under the ill-advised heading of crusades.

I feel certain that Bonnke must work late into the night in his efforts to provoke reactions when he 'invades the Devil's territory'. Crusades are not looked upon with kindness by Muslims and they have strong historical precedent for adopting this position. Couple this with Bonnke's incessant, dreary repetition of analogies with soldiers, guns, explosives, invasions, tanks and so on and you're left quite certain that he is not a chap interested in interfaith dialogue.

But could it get worse?

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Chapter 2. Lennox refutes Lennox, Northern Ireland conflict.

Chapter 2: Is Religion Poisonous? - Part A, Lennox refutes Lennox, Northern Ireland conflict.

<-- Previous Chapter

Reviewing a book in-depth can be a time-consuming task, so it's always a joy when the author takes the time to refute themselves. Take this quote from Lennox:

"However, the New Atheists undermine their own case in astonishingly naïve fashion by lumping all religions together indiscriminately, as if all religions were equally guilty of the charge of fomenting dangerous behaviour. One would not expect such unscholarly, crass oversimplification to come from authors who loudly praise their “scientific approach”. In this connection it is to be noted that Prospect magazine, which had earlier voted Dawkins a world-class intellectual, described his book The God Delusion as “incautious, dogmatic, rambling and self-contradictory”. After all, it does not take one to be at the cutting edge of academic research into religious thought, to see that classifying the peace-loving Amish with Islamic fundamentalist extremists is culpably and dangerously naïve." (Page 61)

From this it is reasonable to assume that all "New Atheists" consider all religions to be equally dangerous. He cites the example of Amish and Islamic fundamentalists. Let's contrast this with some later quotes:

"It should be noted, however, that Sam Harris appears to have grasped the inadequacy of his colleagues’ approach — possibly because he seems to have certain quasi-religious notions of his own. Consciously breaking ranks with Dawkins and the others, he calls on them to attend to the differences among the world’s religions..." (Page 64)

 Lennox has lost one of the four horsemen. Let us proceed a little further, to where he quotes Dawkins in support of non-violent nature found in Christianity:

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Introduction and Chapter One

I recently had the pleasure of finishing Gunning for God by John Lennox. Read into my phrasing what you will.

Introduction

Lennox opens by listing some of the atheists who have earned his ire. Dawkins takes the lead, a seemingly odd choice for primacy as he is followed by Hawking to whom Lennox recently devoted an entire book. The "lesser calibre" atheists that follow are Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and the "more junior Sam Harris". His targets are spread further afield when he lists Frenchman Michel Onfray and Italian Piergiorgio Odifreddi. Note at this time that Richard Carrier and Dan Barker are not listed. I'll come back to this.

He makes a reasonable criticism of Dennett's attempt to rebrand the godless as 'Brights'. This stillborn move never garnered the sympathy Lennox implies; all he can offer in support of his profession of its popularity is the fact that they possess a website. Is that really a mark of overwhelming adoption? And have the religious not similarly erred? Could we point to a single individual who describes himself as simultaneously the Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God, and say that we are not alone in occasionally letting marketing get the better of us?

Signature in the Cell Part 3 - The Book Of Numbers

"I went up to Meyer at the conference and asked him, "You wrote that 'information theorists' (plural) talk about specified complexity. Who are they?" He then admitted that he knew no one but Dembski"
 - Jeffrey Shallit, http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/07/stephen-meyers-honesty-problem.html

The Book of Numbers in the Old Testament starts with a census to count the able-bodied capable of defending God's chosen people. In Meyer's book, its case so dependant on numbers, we should count the mathematicians  therein who answer Meyer's rallying cry.

One name dominates.

My previous chapter in this saga was a long digression on Dembski, outlining his theological motivation for both embracing and promoting ID. I showed that he considers the bible to inerrant and superior to scientific discovery. I noted how his continued employment is contingent on professing these views. For flavour I spoke of his affirmation of a worldwide flood and questioned if his belief in a Genesis 11, Tower of Babel-based origin of the world's various languages would lead to a new field of intelligent linguistics. What I didn't make clear was how much he contributed to Signature in the Cell.

Signature in the Cell - Part 2. A digression on Dembski

In Part 1 of my review I ended by observing that Meyer is unwilling to draw any conclusions as to the nature of his proposed intelligent designer. Thankfully we have at our disposal an ID proponent relied upon by Meyer who is willing to oblige. William Dembski is a Biblical inerrantist. He believes in a global flood, a literal Adam and Eve, and Noah's ark.

"... Genesis 6–9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality."

"As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible ... I accept that the events described in Genesis 1–11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors." (William A. Dembski, http://www.baptisttheology.org/documents/AReplytoTomNettlesReviewofDembskisTheEndofChristianity.pdf)

Podcast Interview with a Young Earth Creationist

In an earlier post I mentioned I'd offered my services to a young earth Creationist who bemoaned the absence of debate. We met for coffee a fortnight ago and recorded a short interview. Although not swayed in my belief that the earth is older than 10,000 years I quite enjoyed the experience - Anthony's a likeable chap who let me do most of the talking, paid for the tea and biscuits, let me duck a question on the rotation of galaxies and put the whole interview up unedited. We talked for an hour overall, but kept the recorded section to under 15 minutes to maintain interest.

You may like to visit his blog. Alternatively, you might see him on Temple Bar. He attends on some Saturdays and holds a Jesus sign for identification. Do tell him I said hi.

The podcast is available here. The title is "Does science disprove faith?" (Not my choice of title) and includes a longish intro before the interview. If you don't find it, it may have been moved to his archive.

Yes, that is what I sound like. Some feedback would be great - it's easy to write blog posts with reference materials to hand, but somewhat harder to do these things on the spot.

Porn, Rape, Hamza Tzortzis and Statistical Analysis Part 2

Last month I wrote a review of Hamza Tzortis' article entitled 'Do Liberal Societies Facilitate Rape via the Legalisation of Pornography?' As a member of a liberal society I took a dim view of this. It's worth reading before going further.

I brought my article to Hamza's attention for his comment. In fairness to Hamza, he read this post, describing it as 'quite thorough', and we discussed for a few FaceBook posts. As always he was polite. I've met him in person and cannot fault his manners or eloquence. He wondered if the figures on Google Insights could have been caused by increased liberalisation or materialism in Muslim countries. He said that rising property prices meant people were marrying later in life, forced to live with their parents for longer and that this could be the cause. This was an off-the-cuff hypothesis on his part, I don't mean to represent it as an entrenched position.

How can we check for this?

Age of the earth - seeing the wood for the trees

Last Saturday I had a chat with Anthony from http://alienonamission.blogspot.com. He's a young earth creationist, putting a maximum age of the earth at about 10,000 years but believing the real figure to be closer to 7,000. He's a pleasant, polite and interesting chap and while we disagree profoundly on the fundamental nature of the planet we both inhabit I found I quite enjoyed the chat. He'll be making a podcast available at some point in the future (to be announced), but in the meantime I'll be running a series of articles on the age of the earth and how we know it. I'm going for shorter articles, hopefully one a day.

I'd like to thank Anthony for the opportunity. I'd also like to thank his friend Jim for buying the tea and biscuits.

Anyway, on to the article:

Porn, rape, Hamza Tzortzis and statistical analysis

Hamza Tzortzis has recently published a response in his questions and answers section entitled "Do Liberal Societies Facilitiate Rape via the Legalisation of Pornography?" In it he attempts to link liberal society with consumption of pornography, consumption of pornography with rape, and offers Islamic society as a corrective solution.

As a member of a liberal society I read the article with much interest. If he's right it's the most important article on the internet. as head of research with iERA he is "responsible for ensuring all of the research projects are ... of the highest standard". His team and target market are both based in liberal countries as of course are many of the world's Muslims, so it would be best if he tackled the subject with tact and care to avoid the offence caused by inaccurate research.

Let's see if he was of a similar mindset:

Lennox, evolution and honesty

If you have a moment, perhaps you could add a comment to my Amazon review of God's Undertaker? There are four creationists commenting on it at present (generally polite chaps) and regrettably I don't have the time to give all of them lengthy replies.

The Disciples Wouldn't Die for a Lie

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."

-Paul, 1 Corinthians 15:14, NIV

The resurrection is the sine qua non of the Christian faith and much has been written in its defence. Today I'd like to address one I've heard from a few different sources. My suspicion is that it originated with Lee Strobel's 'The Case for Christ' but I haven't given the origins investigation extensive time. Getting through the Case for Christ was trial enough already.

Anyway, on to the argument. It proceeds as follows:

• Witnesses to the events of the resurrection are listed in the Gospels
• They would not have been willing to die for their faith if it were based on a lie

No Sacred Cows

Perhaps I should introduce myself. Or perhaps not. A minor part of me values my privacy. A more significant part of me realises the information will not be interesting to either of my readers. Perhaps it's better if I introduce my interest.

I talk to street preachers. Almost exclusively street preachers. I'm not the sort of chap who'll spot a pensioner clutching a set of rosary beads and demand the owner explain the distinction between the output of a Peritus and output caused by pertussis. I don't initiate conversation, though I have been known to walk past stalls incredibly slowly. In short, anyone who wishes to discuss their views on the nature of reality will likely find in me a receptive ear.

Dark Side of the Moonies

A few days ago I blogged about meeting a Moonie evangelist outside the GPO in Dublin. I was polite. She was perplexing. The meeting spawned some research on my part and I now regret my civil tone.

It seems her Messiah said the 6 million Jews that died in the holocaust were paying their just indemnity for killing Christ., and that they had to suffer for 2,000 years as a result.

Like many religious leaders, he reserves his greatest opprobrium for those who love people of the same gender. In a world where every psychopath and mass murder is the fruit of heterosexual relationship I find the logic confusing.

The official church website employs hamfisted alliteration  in its description of homosexuals as dirty dung eating dogs. He longs for the day when [t]here will be a purge on God's orders, and evil will be eliminated like shadows. Gays will be eliminated ... If not then they will be burned. We do not know what kind of world God will bring but this is what happens. It will be greater than the communist purge but at God's orders.