Richard Dawkins' Twitter Followers

I remember the first time I met Muslim apologist Adnan Rashid. He, Hamza Tzortzis and other members of the Islamic Education and Research Academy were running a stall on my route home and he attempted to convince me evolution could not be true because of 'irreducible complexity'. As he waxed lyrical on the complexities of bacterial flagellum (a whiplike appendage that enables movement in bacteria) I realised he was liberally borrowing from the work of Christian creationist Michael Behe.

Rather than point out the incongruity of relying on such a source I said it seemed odd to offer a mechanism that allows the spread of devastating diseases like Legionnaire's as evidence for a loving God. He paused, folded his arms, fixed me with a gaze that conveyed seriousness and then asked "what would happen if all the cells in your body lost their flagellums?".

Some with an interest in biology may have chuckled at the above. Bacterial flagella by definition are attached only to bacteria, facilitate movement, and as a general rule the cells in my body have no particular need to independently decide to relocate. It demonstrated the lightest skimming of Christian creationist material and a near complete misunderstanding of Behe's rather poor argument. (Those interested can see it debunked in full here. You can watch footage of Rashid losing an argument with PZ Myers here.)

The second time I shared a room with Rashid was at the World Atheist Convention in Dublin, 2011, when he asked a ponderously long and dreary question of Dawkins. I shared my anecdote with Dawkins who chuckled briefly. I thought it might be interesting to look at his Twitter account.

Word Cloud
I took a sample of five thousand of Dawkins' followers and examined their Twitter biographies, running them through a program that counts the frequency of words folk use to describe themselves and assembling an image where most frequently used words are shown in greater sizes. Dawkins' followers are likely to describe themselves using words like student, science, university, teacher and atheist. (On a general note, an improbably high number of tweeps describe themselves as writers. I do hope they have day jobs.)

Words noted by their absence include homeopath, Hare Krishna, acupuncture and miracle. It seems the head of the foundation for reason and science has done an admirable job of attracting those interested in both fields.

Gender
These results are indicative only. Again working off the same sample of five thousand Twitter accounts, I ran the first names through a script I wrote to estimate gender. It isn't overly complex - I have a list of known masculine names and a list of known feminine names. Based on the results it seems that 75% of Dawkins' followers have masculine names.

Discovering the Discovery Institute

I've written about Intelligent Design Creationism before. Hovering at the intersection of bad science and bad Theology, its origins depend heavily on William Dembski, an anti-vax Biblical inerrantist who believes in a literal global flood, a historical Adam and Eve, and the confounding of Tongues at the tower of Babel. I devoted an article to him previously.

They summarise themselves as believing that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" and propose their group as the true defender of the scientific method, wishing to 'teach the controversy' about evolution. The Judge at their trial found to the contrary, saying that "[T]he overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

The movement has expanded to include other quacks and loons, blossoming into the Discovery Institute, which refers to itself as the "Intellectual [sic] home of the modern intelligent design movement and the scientists and scholars challenging Darwin's theory of evolution on the basis of science [sic]."

Much as I would love to continue my polemic greater voices than mine have covered much ground. What have I to offer?

Twitter stats.

I found myself wondering who else tickled the fancy of followers of @DiscoveryCSC, the Twitter account of the Discovery Institute. I pulled a list of all their followers, then for each follower pulled a list of all accounts they followed. I then put the results to a table and present for your viewing pleasure the top twenty:

Giant's Causeway III - A New Hope

This is the third e-mail I've sent to the National Trust and the Caleban on the subject of Young Earth Creationism at the Giant's Causeway. Read part 1 and part 2 first if you like. Mervyn and Wallace are chair and vice chair of the Creationist Caleb Foundation, David works for the National Trust.

Dear David, Mervyn and Wallace,

Can it be true? Should we kill the fatted calf? I see that the National Trust has "decided to review the interpretive materials in this section [Giant's Causeway]." I cannot express the joy these words inspired in me - my Fian will be so happy to see that you're taking our constructive criticism seriously and considering adding our views with equal prominence to our fellow giant believers in the Caleb Foundation.

We've already discussed with you the examples of extreme strength displayed in the Old Testament, and in an earlier e-mail we went over some of the many mentions of giants in the text Mervyn and Wallace consider inerrant, so I think there's definite room for collaboration.

Giant's Causeway II - The Druids Strike Back

The National Trust took the time to send a standard form letter in response to Rígfénnid Geoff's inquiry. (Best to read this first for background.) WhyEvolutionIsTrue received the same, and their thoughts on the matter are worth reading. Below is  Rígfénnid Geoff's response.

Dear David,

Many thanks for taking the time to e-mail me. I suspect you've been rather inundated with mail and may not have had the chance to read mine fully. Your response suggests I am opposed to the National Trust including material favoured by Young Earth Creationists. Far from it! My fian and I were overjoyed to see such an open-minded approach taken, and we celebrated late into the night, knowing that this bold move on your part could be used by us as well as the Caleb Foundation as a foot in the door for our beliefs.

As I mentioned in my earlier e-mail I represent the Dublin branch of Na Fianna, an organisation devoted to maintaining the traditional ways of the poets, warriors, Druids and kings of old Ireland. We recognise and respect the valuable contributions made to society by those who take a purely scientific worldview, and fully agree that their understanding of the Giant's Causeway's formation should be given prominence at your site, even though we do not consider it the only valid view.

One Giant's Leap for Creationists

I read with some disappointment that the Caleb foundation have persuaded the UK National Trust to include a Young Earth Creationist interpretation of the formation of the Giant's Causeway in Antrim. I decided to ask for equal time for a Druidic interpretation. I'll let you know if either group get back to me. (Side note - people tend to not reply to my e-mails.)

Dear friends at the National Trust and Caleb Foundation,

I write to congratulate you on your recent collaboration to ensure a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint is given prominence at the Giant's Causeway interpretive centre in Antrim. I'm sure you share my view that science has brought us many wonderful benefits and would not seek to stand against it. I feel you likely share my view that science is a useful tool, but that too often the blinkers of the majority opinion mean we see only one possible interpretation of the evidence.

I, too, represent a group that seeks to understand scientific discoveries with proper respect and in the context of my beliefs. Although not a Young Earth Creationist, or indeed a Christian, I have been impressed with the Caleb Foundation's ability to make a case against overwhelming scientific consensus, and the National Trust's willingness to be open to other viewpoints.

My group has experienced much the same discrimination and, dare I say it, mockery as the Caleb Foundation. I represent the Dublin branch of Na Fianna, an organisation devoted to maintaining the traditional ways of the poets, warriors, Druids and kings of old Ireland.

Hamza Tzortzis and The God Delusion

As regular readers of  this blog are likely aware, some two years ago Hamza Tzortzis released what he described as his response to the God Delusion. Back in February I happened upon it and noticed it bore marked similarities to the work of William Lane Craig. After PZ Myers featured my article, Hamza updated his piece to indicate it was a pastiche of Christian authors, including Paul Copan, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Frank J. Tipler, John D. Barrow, Keith Ward and Roy Abraham Varghese.

Thanks to an anonymous commenter I'm only now realising the delicious irony in his opening line:

"What I read were rehashed, incoherent and outdated arguments that made me realize that Richard Dawkins is not very well read in philosophy"

Emphasis mine, but I digress. Hamza and I had a pleasant Twitter chat after the events, during which he suggested I respond to the content:

After two years his collage of Christian authors stands at version 0.3: I jokingly responded that I would await version 1.0. Dawkins is well able to defend himself; writing further on the matter seemed superfluous. Still, there seems to be appetite for this stuff.

Particularly avid readers of this blog - likely those who make notes - will recall I wrote another piece on Islam, months ago, where I described exemplary behaviour from Muslim apologists despite extreme provocation. You'll note that before the physical and verbal abuse of these fine gentlemen started I was discussing Halal fish oil supplements. Softgel capsules are generally made from porcine gelatin and a gym friend of mine was looking for a Muslim-friendly alternative.

Hare Krishna Impersonator!

Sometimes I can be helpful. Take the below, where I alert the Hare Krishnas here to an impostor in their midst. Or is he for real? Links in this post do not appear in the e-mail I've sent. Contact details taken from here. 

Dear Mayesvara and Syamananda, 

I'm writing to alert you to an impersonator in Dublin who is attempting to bring the good name of your organisation into disrepute.

He stopped me last Thursday on Henry Street and introduced himself as a travelling Yoga teacher asking for donations for Dublin's Hare Krishna temple.

He had no identification, and while his distinctive haircut suggested a monk I felt this was not enough to ensure authenticity. I recalled that your parent organisation had declared bankruptcy to avoid paying compensation to child sex abuse victims, and I asked him if he could explain this approach to me. This may have seemed a mite harsh but I was sure anyone authorised by your temple to collect money would have been appropriately briefed to discuss this matter with tact and compassion.

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.

Gunning for God (John Lennox) - Chapter 2 Part B. Pilate, Prophecies and Lost in Translation

 
Chapter 2: Is Religion Poisonous? - Part B Pilate, Prophecies and Lost in Translation

<-- Previous Chapter

I ended my last blog post halfway through chapter 2. I did this partially because there is much to discuss, but also because I was rather happy with the closing line and did not wish to see it wasted on a midway point.

In the previous section Lennox went to great lengths to refute himself and then failed to seriously engage with what we Irish euphemistically call "the troubles". There followed a clean division whereafter he returned to Biblical interpretation. Lennox plays a game of association, often enlisting atheists to his cause to confirm the existence of a historical Jesus who was crucified in first century Judea, then making reasonable arguments for an empty tomb. But then he'll glide on to a discussion that presumes the accuracy of all New Testament texts, often with his own interpolations or additions, as seen by his modification of the Ten Commandments and unsubstantiated discussion of Peter's swordfighting ability discussed in previous posts.

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.

The Unusual Suspects - a guide to street preachers in Dublin

The fine folks at Atheist Ireland were kind enough to mention me in their latest newsletter. This had the advantage of sending some more readers to my blog and in the absence of an 'About' page I decided to recap my intent.


I talk to street preachers.


I'm glad I had this opportunity to recap. The remainder of this post will trace an imaginary walking tour of Dublin and detail some of the highlights. Is there a street preacher I've missed? Do let me know in the comments section.

Hare Krishnas
Our tour starts on Grafton Street where, if you're lucky, we'll spot one or more Hare Krishnas. Normally dressed in distinctive orange or white flowing robes with incomplete headshaves, they can be hard to spot when they work the streets. Their activities are of dubious legality. Look for casual dress, wolly hats, hoodies, or other devices to cover their heads, and an armful of books.


When to find them: Rush hours, days vary. They're sometimes active on Henry Street and O'Connell Street.
Awkward questions to ask:

• Which is closer, the sun or the moon? (The answer will surprise you.)
• I see you're asking for cash donations. As per section 94 of the Charities Act 2009, may I see your written permit and sealed collection box?
• Do you agree with your founder that women's brains are half the size of men's?

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)

Signature in the Cell - Part 1

One Valentine's day a friend dipped his spoon into a bowl of soup and found unexpected resistance. On further investigation he discovered a half-eaten bread roll lurking beneath the broth. With sinking heart he realised the restaurant was reusing crockery without washing to improve the profit margins of the night.

But what to do? Finding an alternative table for two after sunset on February 14th seemed unlikely. He could alert the staff to their error, but his date did not seem the sort to stay in a venue if she knew of such transgressions. His cooking at the time was functional at best - returning to home base would not do. Seeing no other options he smiled, made romantic small-talk, and ate the evidence.

I experienced similar emotions while wading through Signature in the Cell. Despite wishing to stop and having good reasons to do so, I'd made a commitment to review and no honourable avenues of escape presented themselves.

Open Letter to Creationists - Why You Should Learn About Evolution

The first evangelist I met was a Catholic missionary to China called Father Michael O'Neill. He was a rebellious sort and spent some time in Chinese police stations. When asked if Ireland had a communist party he replied "Yes! They held their last meeting in a phone box".

Thankfully for his sake the joke did not translate well.

I remember in my eight year old innocence asking him why he had to learn Chinese at all. Surely the simpler approach would be to learn how to say "Jesus died for your sins", and wander the streets with a bell and a loud voice?

I don't recall him laughing, but I'm sure the temptation was there. Instead he explained that he'd spent five years preparing for his first mission. He learned the language, the culture, appropriate ways to eat, interact and discuss beliefs. This was not a case of memorising set answers and proofs but a five year process of intense study. He said that to give people directions to where you are, you need a clear understanding of where they are.

Later, when I read the Bible, I saw a similar message in Luke (24:49) and Acts (1:4). Jesus told his followers not to immediately spread the good word but to wait until they were endued with power from on high. When this power came it was not the power to convert people by touch, or the power to instantly crush any argument or belief, but the power to talk to people in their own language.

If you feel Creationism is a necessary component of Christianity, know that it is in your power to gain a similar gift. You can talk to we Christian and non-Christian 'evolutionists' in our own language with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15) like the apostles did. All you need do is learn about evolution. Feel free to search for counterarguments or refutations, but also look at the material we read, even if you consider it wrong. talkorigins.org is an excellent free resource. Your Inner Fish is an entertaining read if you'd like to buy a book on the subject.

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.

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:

One Handed Keyboards and Evolutionary Computing

If you’re reading this you likely have one advantage over me when it comes to typing. You can type the word QWERTY faster than I can.

These letters are found in order on the top row of the majority of the world’s keyboards and typewriters. The arrangement prevents keys jamming together, a design flaw inherent in 19th century typewriters that has long since been remedied. The arrangement was not intended for speed.

So, why am I so slow to type QWERTY? My keyboard is different. I’ve been using a Dvorak keyboard layout for just shy of a decade. Where you have QWERTY I have the letters ‘,.PYF. For your ASDF I have AOEU. The rest of the keyboard is similarly rearranged, the goal being to design an arrangement more conducive to efficient typing.

Debating creationists in Dublin

Anthony Brazabon, Dublin street preacher, blogger and podcast host is disappointed at the lack of debate on young earth creationism.
So I've volunteered my services.
I'll let you know if he gets back to me.