Letter from Secular Coalition for America

A week ago I received the following from the Secular Coalition for America. I thought I would share it.

I am writing to tell you about my meeting last week, along with other representatives of CARD (Coalition Against Religious Discrimination), with Joshua DuBois, the director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

I entered the meeting with very mixed emotions. Although I was glad that the Secular Coalition for America has the political connections to meet face-to-face with the person who runs President Obama's new faith-based office, I was saddened that this meeting was even taking place -- saddened that our new president has decided to continue the failed faith-based policies of his predecessor.

The meeting was an open and often lively discussion of our concerns -- and each of us clearly expressed our disappointment that the Obama administration had decided to continue Bush's faith-based program without first dealing with the critical constitutional and civil rights problems it presents: direct funding of houses of worship, religious discrimination in hiring, and entangling secular and sectarian program content.

I left the meeting with the same kind of mixed feelings I had going in. One the one hand, Mr. DuBois seemed sympathetic to our constitutional and civil rights concerns; on the other, it's clear we will have a long wait to see if and how these concerns are going to be addressed. Nearly three months after he was appointed to run it, DuBois told us the new faith-based office is still getting organized and they are just beginning their information collection and policy review.

Unfortunately, until this process is complete, faith-based programs will continue to operate under the Bush administration rules.

We face a very difficult challenge in getting this administration to address all our concerns, so we will continue to put pressure on the White House -- but this meeting did reinforce that we do now have a place at the table.

As the cover story in the National Journal recently reported,

In the past, politicians in Washington and elsewhere could largely ignore the Godless. But those days are over. With their numbers growing, nonbelievers are intent on pushing a political and legislative agenda governed more by cool reason than by faith.

Thank you for your support and efforts that have helped to make this and many other meetings possible.

Sincerely,
Ron Millar, Acting Director
Secular Coalition for America

P.S. The Secular Coalition for America represents the interests of atheists, humanists, agnostics, freethinkers and other nontheists in our nation's capital. According to the latest ARIS study, our community is larger than Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Mormons and Jews - combined.

Evo vs Anti-Evo #12: Casey Luskin admits random mutation and natural selection.

Here is Luskin's attempt to refute evolution by using Hitchens' observation.

His argument is:

"While random mutations usually fail miserably at creating new complex biological functions, they are in fact quite good at messing up complex biological functions (or doing nothing). When natural selection occasionally prefers the "messed up" state, it's quite capable of preserving it. But the neo-Darwinian mechanism is not good at producing new complex functions."

"[E]xamples of loss-of-function in organisms may be best explained by natural processes of random mutation and natural selection. In this regard, features like functionless eyes on blind cave fish are probably best explained by Darwinian evolution. This poses no challenge to the validity of intelligent design in other cases. ID is far more interested in explaining the GAIN of biological function rather than loss of function."

"Hitchens, Dawkins and Carroll can have all the evidence they want that the neo-Darwinian mechanism can mess things up, turn genes off, and cause "loss-of-function." No one on any side of this debate doubts that random mutations are quite good at destroying complex features. Us folks on the ID side suspect that random mutation and natural selection aren’t good at doing very much more than that. And the constant citations by Darwinists of "loss of function" examples as alleged refutations of ID only strengthens our argument."

Basically he is saying that ID accepts evolution, random mutation and natural selection and being able to of preserving changes within a being as being a fact. But only if the affect is negative.

However, as PZ Myers states, in studies of seeing and blind fish, this mutation is actually beneficial - ergo a gain not a loss.

What's actually going on is that there is an increased expression of a gene called Sonic hedgehog, which causes an expansion of jaw tissue, including both the bones of the jaw and the array of sensory structures on the ventral surface — this is an adaptation that produces stronger jaws and more sensitive skin, what the fish finds useful when rooting about in the dark at the bottom of underground rivers to find food. The expansion of Shh has a side effect of inhibiting expression of another gene, Pax-6, which is the master regulator of eye development. Loss of eyes is a harmless (if you're living in the dark) consequence of selection for better tactile reception.

Maybe Luskin should do some research before he opens his mouth.

Evo vs Anti-Evo #11: Hitchens and the salamanders

Christopher Hitchens discusses why some salamanders are not friends of creationists. The TV series Planet Earth shows scenes of salamanders that live underground. Living underground, sight becomes rather useless. Over time these salamanders have become blind. And yet they still have vestiges of eyes.

So, Mr. Banana-Man and your boy wonder side kick croc-a-duck, why would a god create an animal with eyes but make it blind? Was there a sneaking salamander in the Garden of Eden that god punished for tempting Adam and Eve to eat the forbiden banana? But bananas are perfectly designed for humans, right? Further more, why are only some salamaders blind?

Note, the first 10 Evo vs Anti-Evo Reports

Physics prove god? Well I don't buy it.

My first post regards information about Professor Frank Tipler who is the subject of neotropic9's video Science Proves God Exists, Claims Ridiculous Professor

This is a summation of a book review of Frank Tipler’s book The Physics of Christianity. The review was written by Martin Gardner and can be found in the March / April 2008 issue of Skeptical Inquirer

In his book The Physics of Immortality, Tipler argued that modern physics proves that on a future date – which he calls the Omega Point - god will resurrect every person who lived as well as every person who could have lived. Our brains will be preserved as computer simulations and given new spiritual bodies to live happily forever in the paradise described in the New Testament.

- Now I'm not a scientists, but I'm thinking ... he's Coo Coo for Coco Puffs.

In his book The Physics of Christianity, he claims physics provides explanations of Christian miracles.

Some examples:

The star of Bethlehem was a supernova bursting in the galaxy of Andromeda. God timed it to signal the birth of Jesus.

The virgin birth was a rare case of parthenogenesis (asexual form of reproduction). Tipler believes this could be confirmed by Jesus’ blood on the Shroud of Turin.

- Now parthenogenesis does occur in some species, including some fishes. So could this be the connection to the Jesus Fish symbol? Jesus was part fish?

How is it, that Mary and Jesus are free of original sin while everyone else is not? Original sin genes! That’s right Mary and Jesus did not have those genes while I guess the rest of us do.

At this point Martin writes “I am, dear reader, doing my best to keep a straight face while I summarized Tipler’s convictions.”

Tipler then uses quotes from Stephen Hawking to state that the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is trivially true, which he uses to explain the resurrection of Jesus. Quote “…[god] guided the worlds of the multiverse to concentrate the energy of the particles constituting Jesus in our universe into the Jesus of our universe. In effect, Jesus’ dead body lying in the tomb, would have been enveloped in a sphaleron field. This field would have dematerialized Jesus’ boy into neutrinos and antineutrinos in a fraction of a second, after which the energy transferred back to the other worlds from whence it came. Reversing this process … would generate Jesus’ … body”

- No comment

Tipler explains that Jesus walked on water by directing a neutrino beam.

At the end of the review Martin writes “For a few moments after finishing The Physics of Christianity, I began to wonder if the book could be a subtle, hilarious hoax. Sadly it is not."