To amend Public Law 111-321 (Dont’ Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010) to require that… members of the Armed Forces are not pressured to approve of another person’s sexual conduct if that sexual conduct is contrary to the personal principles of the members.

Rather than protest the clear purpose of the bill – to enshrine bigotry – I would simply propose the following language be introduced simultaneously with Hunter’s bill:

To amend Public Law 111-321 (Dont’ Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010) – or any other public law that will do – to require that… members of the Armed Forces are not pressured to approve of another person’s religious convictions, customs or activities, nor should members be pressured to participate in military events or activities that are sponsored by religious organizations, contain religious overtones or are perceived as being religious in nature,  if it is contrary to the personal principles of the members, where personal principles includes orientations that are atheistic, non-religious, non-denominational spirituality, or  minority religious persuasions.

I’m sure the MRFF would agree that something like this is needed to protect the personal principles of our service men and women.

Of course, it WILL eventually rain substantially in north Texas again..and those convinced of a god who acts in the every day affairs of humans will rejoice in verification of their convictions. Of course it’s a little like praying for light at midnight and then rejoicing in divine intervention at the dawn.

Greg Laden has had a series of posts on gun ownership over the years. It seems clear that Greg would prefer additional gun control in the country and he frequently cites cases that would seem to support this conclusion. Personally, I am a proponent of firearms ownership (and use) in this country. Unfortunately, there are so many misconceptions about gun ownership (on both sides of the argument) that the seriousness of the issue often gets muddled within the anecdotal and media scare stories that seem to dominate what we Americans use as “logic” these days. Even as an advocate for private ownership, however, I also frequently wonder what the reasonable boundaries should be.

Let me start by saying that I have always been around rifles, shotguns and pistols. I was introduced to shooting sports early as a child, hunted as a young adult, and was an accomplished reloader by the time I was in high school. I therefore grew up in a “gun culture”. I shot competitively in high school and early college, winning several marksmanship awards. I hunted and shot during graduate school (although not as frequently) and have always felt that my hunting knowledge and abilities aided me in my studies of the Hadza and other peoples in Africa. I still “shoot for score” with rifles and pistols at various distances and have started to learn “combat style” shooting techniques (no, not backwoods militia wargames (glorified paint ball with a self-aggrandizing delusional streak if you ask me) – but developing the ability to draw and fire multiple times (and still hit the target!) frequently while moving). I have been fortunate to shoot with law enforcement during qualifying matches and have received personal instruction from a number of them. So, my background probably makes me a bit biased in this discussion, and in this regard, I probably seem like a typical “gun nut”. However, there are some things that separate me from the typical media depictions of people who own and use weapons:

1. I’m not an active member of the NRA (well, technically, I am…my grandfather bought me a “life” membership as a child, but ever since Waco (and the subsequent political trashing of federal ATF agents) I’ve refused to give them money and over my many moves across the country they seem to have lost track of me).
2. Gun control issues are not the prime motivation for my vote; in fact, more often than not I probably vote for candidates who don’t share my views on gun ownership (although they share them on other issues I consider more important);
3. I don’t particularly think gun control laws are especially egregious at the moment; I can easily wait 10 days for a weapon pick-up, I don’t mind getting fingerprinted to buy handgun ammunition (law about to go in effect in California – although I live close to Nevada and also reload my own, so it’s not as much of an issue – I do feel an obligation to support local sports shops, however, so I’ll still buy pistol ammo in CA). Now, I DO feel the semi-auto ban in California is arbitrary and capricious, which may make me seem like a “gun nut” – do I think any of these gun control laws actually make us safer…absolutely not. Oh, the 10 day waiting period might keep down the spur of the moment decisions by some kooks, but I can’t think of any other laws where data show it’s being effective. Gun control laws are a lot like Intelligent Design – they make you feel like something greater is out there but don’t reflect the real processes at work;
4. I’m a member of the “Gun Owning Atheists” group over at Atheist Nexus (not exactly the profile for an NRA member, is it?). Personally, I think there is a social value to having a populace that is largely (and openly) armed. I would personally like to see more of my liberal friends actually take up gun ownership (even join the NRA) as liberals, freethinkers, atheists, etc. I think it makes a statement about the true intent of the Second Amendment that people other than white, Christian good-ol-boys own guns. (I would LOVE to see a “gay atheist” gun group show up at an NRA convention!). By the way, I think there are way more “liberals” out there who own guns and who know how to use them than the Right would be comfortable knowing about. I also thought it was somewhat comical the way the Teabaggers would use revolutionary language in their politics (first, I doubt very many Teabaggers would take the risk – they’d probably just pay to have mercenaries do it for them; and second, I think the extent of resistance against them would be an eye-opener).

Finally, gun ownership is a responsibility, not a right. If there was one governmental action I think would make a difference it is regular training. Owning a gun is for thinking individuals (not beer drinking yahoos who make videos of themselves shooting firearms for YouTube). I (and others like me) spend a lot of time training – and the emphasis is always on safety (I DO think the NRA makes safety a priority – you can get any of their safety materials for free). Responsibility is also taken seriously by true gun owners. I recently completed training for my conceal-carry permit and it was eye-opening (probably because I had a great instructor) – the responsibility of using deadly force requires serious thought and contemplation – you better be absolutely sure, not only that it’s your only choice but that you can live with yourself afterward…before you pull that trigger. And you better not be thinking you can win that “bar fight” now that you’re packing a deadly weapon. Unless your first reaction is leave, call appropriate authorities, back down, de-escalate the situation, do anything else BUT pull that gun, your motives for using it will be called into question should you actually need to use it. I have to admit, once the training was over, I was questioning whether or not I should actually proceed with getting a CCW permit – and in my opinion, that’s what every good gun owner SHOULD be thinking.

The point is that everything has a designer, except for one thing. Something that designed it all, something that caused it all. God. Machines don’t create themselves, even living beings don’t recreate themselves.

Notice that last sentence: “Machines don’t create themselves, even living beings don’t recreate themselves” (emphasis mine). If you actually stop to think about it, this idea has profound implications not just for how we understand the world around us, but also (and more significantly) for our understanding of a potential deity. The assumption here is that Dave actually means that the very act of recreation (we’ll get to what that may mean in a moment)is, in fact, driven by an omniscient god and not by the individual organisms involved in the process. One can only further assume that every act of that recreative event (from the attraction and physical process of mating to the process of embryo formation (yes, we’re only talking about sexual procreation, but the same issues would apply to asexual as well) to the development of an embryo, to the eventual birth of an individual is controlled by god and NOT natural processes. I believe this is what Dave is thinking by that statement and I would suggest that he is not alone. The thought of a supernatural “guiding” influence is a paradigm running through much of religion (usually not explicitly), from arguments against abortion and birth control to the spread of AIDS, to the reason for hurricanes, to the concept of intelligent design. All of these ideas, as espoused by many in the religious community, presuppose the intervention of a supernatural being. In effect, god is responsible for these events and processes.

Of course the implications of this position are profound. Consider just the example of Dave’s view that the process of procreation is guided by god. If that is the case, then when all goes well, we can all clap, laugh and revel in the beauty of a newborn fawn, foal or baby. But what happens when it doesn’t work out?

1. Is god responsible for point mutations occurring in base pairs that can cause disease and certainly lead to variation among organisms? Is god responsible for Sickle Cell disease?
2. Is god responsible for deletion/insertion mutations responsible such things as Huntington’s disease?
3. Is god responsible for transcription errors, or crossing over errors, or recombination errors we frequently see and that may result in horrendous mutations and frequently death of the individual?

If we are to believe that god is responsible at all stages of this process, then what does that say about god? If he is responsible for the failed implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall and subsequent loss of the “life” (we know this as a miscarriage) then is god an….abortionist? If god is completely responsible, then he clearly deserves a lot of blame in the world. If he is not responsible and those processes are beyond his control, then god is not omniscient. If humans, through medical research and good old-fashioned science can “fix” some of these natural processes, mitigate their effects or prevent them altogether (which we do regularly) then are we actually interfering in god’s plan and process? The very fact that we can interfere makes us substantially better than the deity.

Forget natural processes, what about events that many people consider “miraculous” every day (or at least every Sunday). Catholics believe that the bread and wine of the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. It essentially becomes divine at that point (this is not supposed to be mere symbolism – faithful Catholics are supposed to buy into actually drinking Christ’s blood and eating his body – it was the first belief I dropped on my journey to leave the Catholic Church). If the communion is so divine, then explain how people can be infected with Hepatitis A. What, god can’t even keep the challis and host clean during a ceremony in his honor?

The fact is, that when we attribute natural processes to god’s whim, it becomes abundantly clear that god operates capriciously. There is no pattern to god causing X or fixing Y or preventing Z. In effect, isn’t god just acting…randomly? And isn’t randomness just like…natural processes? Is there a difference between god and nature, and if so, where do you find it?

Cargill, like Cline and McGrath, often writes about one of those areas (like creationism) that really sets me off – the parasitic use of archaeology by “biblical archaeologists”. I have written on the theme of how fundamentalists have really cannibalized archaeology in the Mid-East in order to further their narrow view of biblical history. In the process they have lessened the integrity of biblical archaeology to such a degree that one has to almost automatically question any new discovery that purportedly relates to the archaeology of the bible. I have even had to debunk the archaeology claims of famous creationists such as Carl Baugh who visited our small, conservative town here in Lassen County thinking he had a free shot at peddling the usual falsehoods. He didn’t.

I look forward to reading more on Dr. Cargill’s site.

Fortunately, there is the rare occasion when I can read about a church’s activities and find hope (instead of getting pissed off!). Dr. David Platt and his Church at Brook Hills in Birmingham, Alabama did something absolutely remarkable among the faithful these days:

First we gave away our entire surplus fund – $500,000 – through partnerships with churches in India, where 41 percent of the world’s poor live. Then we trimmed another $1.5 million from our budget and used the savings to build wells, improve education, provide medical care and share the gospel in impoverished places around the world. Literally hundreds of church members have gone overseas temporarily or permanently to serve in such places.

This is the kind of religious effort that gives me hope (not only for humanity, but for the cultural relevancy of religion). My only quibble with the effort is that I think the need is becoming just as great here in the U.S. We have significant numbers of people falling into poverty, no access to health care (perhaps….) and limited education opportunities and all the churches can do is blame the victim. I suspect, with the pro-wealth Republicans we have in Congress now we’ll see more cuts to basic needs and more advantages given to the rich.

Nonetheless, Dr. Platt (note to Sarah Palin: it takes an educated person to truly walk in Christ’s footsteps, not some backcountry moron with a gun and a private property sign). Hat tip to Robert Cargill, who also makes this comment about Christianity:

Christianity is not first about doctrine or dogma, it is about service (specifically, social justice). Until we get the service part down, our doctrine is worthless.

While infuriating, the consolation here is that creationists offer us those “teachable moments” where we can engage the public, students, and others with the honest information in a “heads-up” sort of fashion: “Look, you’re going to read or hear X about Lucy…here’s why it’s not true….” The reality is that I teach a lot of creationism and intelligent design in the classroom. I don’t use the terms per se, but you can’t believe how many times I say something like, “Some people will say (or you’ll read on blogs or hear in the media) that Lucy was just an ape….let’s take a closer look at that and see if those sources are accurate”.

So, as an example, let’s consider the circumstances behind Lucy’s pelvis (hip) reconstruction. The following comments from a creationist website I recently visited, although this is not an original idea and the information offered is nothing different from that you would see on any creationist website:

When Lucy’s hip clearly showed that she didn’t walk upright, that like a modern chimp, she may have walked upright for a few steps and only awkwardly in those cases, Darwinists simply took a power tool to her hipbone to reshape it into an architecture that might work.

There are several implications being suggested here: First, that the discoverer’s didn’t think Lucy student upright originally and then reconstructed her hip to make it appear like she did; second, that the reconstruction changed the nature of the original and was done fraudulently; third, that the only evidence for Lucy’s bipedalism comes from her hip; and finally, that the original bone was actually altered, thereby destroying any evidence of its original orientation. The creationist’s evidence for this comes from the Nova series, In Search of Human Origins (Part 1), hosted by Don Johanson (the discoverer of Lucy). This is a wonderful series, although a bit dated now, and one that I show in my class frequently. PBS also has a wonderful Teacher’s Guide to this series and others. The creationist website actually shows the video clip from the section where Don Johanson and Owen Lovejoy talk about the hip reconstruction, but let’s look at the actual transcript instead:

DON JOHANSON: … The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn’t. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee’s, which meant that Lucy couldn’t possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they’re in an anatomically impossible position.

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn’t want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human. The case for our earliest ancestor walking upright was growing stronger, and Lucy wasn’t the only evidence…

For someone with a conspiratorial mind, I suppose those conversations would lead you to believe the creationist is correct, and in another blog post, the creationist repeats the same accusation:

But, all hope was not lost, to paraphrase the documented fraud that soon occurred.  Ladies and gentlemen, beloved readers, Darwinists simply took a power tool to her hipbone to reshape it into a geometric architecture that might work.  Instead of the actual evidence, the real bone, the altered bone was then used as “proof” that Lucy walked upright after it had been ground down and cut to pieces that more closely fit the Darwinist preconceived bias and world view.

There is an additional accusation implied with this second creationist comment: that the In Search of Human Origins series inadvertently documented an actual fraud taking place that otherwise would have remained unknown to the rest of us. This paleoanthropological conspiracy is presented again in another blog post:

…Owen Lovejoy, declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape. Therefore, he concluded, whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes. This statement, I believe, was made in an attempt to quell the rising dispute over the validity of the find though Lovejoy would take part in fraudelent reconstruction of the Lucy bones in 1994 for the PBS series Nova; In Search of Human Origins, in a vain attempt to make her appear more human.

Here, of course, the accusation is that, not only did Owen Lovejoy fraudulently reconstruct the shape of Lucy’s pelvis, but he then attempted to cover up the act by claiming publicly that that Lucy is actually an ape (so, it doesn’t matter anyway). Moreover, the effort was to quell a “rising dispute” over Lovejoy’s fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy’s bones. You certainly can’t find high drama of this caliber outside of daytime television!

So what’s the real story behind the reconstruction? First, Lovejoy was not hiding anything with the reconstruction; the fact that creationists were unaware of the reconstruction until the In Search of Human Origins episode just demonstrates how little they read the primary literature regarding human origins. Lovejoy described the Lucy pelvis reconstruction in detail in an American Journal of Physical Anthropology issue in 1979 and at a professional meeting that same year (a full 15 years before creationists would pull a few comments out of a public television show and spin a conspiracy around it). No one in the paleoanthropology community (or the greater public at large) was kept in the dark about the reconstruction – it was certainly common knowledge for anyone with any interest in the subject.

Second, reconstructing fossil fragments is a standard practice among those of us who study ancient bones. Bones fragment, get pushed together, become fossilized in place and must be pieced together to restore their original orientation (by the way, this is the same technique used by forensic anthropologists to reconstruct an individual’s identity – creationists don’t seem to have a problem with bone fragments being “reconstructed” to identify a murder victim). Further, creationists misrepresent what Lovejoy actually did. He did not “reshape the bone…in a vain attempt to make her more human”. He (and every other anatomist who looked at the fossils) realized the bone had been fossilized in an “anatomically impossible position” (emphasis added). The documentary noted this, Lovejoy described this at professional meetings and in professional publications, and others have noted it. The only people who seem to ignore this fact are the creationists who are more interested in weaving a Darwinist conspiracy theory than understanding the nature of paleontological research. Lovejoy simply cut the broken parts out and re-fit them into the position they occupied at the time Lucy was alive.

Third, Lovejoy did not alter the original fossil, although creationists make it appear that he destroyed the original in an effort to hide the evidence of the alteration. He made a cast and altered it – the original is still available for anyone to review it. Again, this is common practice – no one messes with the original fossil. (Interestingly, no one has professionally challenged Lovejoy’s reconstruction – even those paleoanthropologists who disagree with Lovejoy’s interpretation of the pelvis have not questioned the reconstruction).

Fourth, creationists present the idea to their audiences that it is only a fraudulent hip reconstruction that makes scientists think Lucy walked upright like humans. Not so. Lucy’s bipedal gait is demonstrated by a whole host of other anatomical indicators, most of which are misrepresented, ignored or outright lied about in the creationist literature. But don’t take my word for it. While surfing the web, I happened across an article by Matthew Murdock in the 2006 Journal of Creation. What Murdock does, remarkably, is present a fairly accurate presentation of hominid locomotor capability based on fossil evidence. Moreover, he quite bluntly lambastes his fellow creationists for not reporting the fossil evidence honestly. Here are a few snippets from his article that are relevant to the discussion at hand:

Reading the popular literature (non technical papers), one would get the impression that there has only been one australopithecine pelvis found: the one belonging to A.L. 288-1 (‘Lucy’).Students sometimes get the notion that from this pelvis alone that australopithecine locomotion has been determined. The truth is there are several pelves belonging to australopithecines, some partial, some complete, and the evidence for australopithecine bipedality was establishedlong before the skeleton of Lucy was even discovered…

When I placed a cast of the unrestored ilium next to the sacrum, the distorted auricular surface forced the ilium into an anatomically incorrect position (figure 5). It is rotated to a right angle of where it should be no matter what the posture of this individual was (biped or quadruped). No animal alive or dead has a pelvis orientated this way, and this was clearly not its position during life, and no other australopithecine has this problem. It is clearly a case of post mortem distortion in this specimen (A.L. 288-1) only. As such, some repair had to be done to this surface (see postscript)….

I have seen a few creationists claim that it was this restoration that gave Lucy her upright posture. It does not appear as if these people have studied the skeleton in any detail (even if only through the writings of others). For if they did, they would see that it is not just the pelvis of Lucy that makes her bipedal, but her entire skeleton. Curvature of the spine (lumbar lordosis), length and angulation of the femur and tibia/fibula, and the hand and foot skeleton all indicate bipedal locomotion…

Did Lovejoy’s restoration give Lucy a bipedal pelvis? No, she already had one. In fact, even if this damaged part of the pelvis had not been found, we could still determine Lucy’s posture and gait from the rest of her pelvis (and skeleton)…

Finally, what are we to make of the statement that Lovejoy, “…declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape. Therefore, he concluded, whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.”? This statement has been repeated word for word on a number of creationist sites, but none report an original source. I find it difficult to believe Lovejoy would have seriously contended that Lucy was an ape when he has consistently been a staunch proponent of the idea that Lucy and her kind walked like humans and not at all like apes. Again, a quick read of his professional publications demonstrates exactly this position. My bet is that creationists have either seriously misinterpreted what Lovejoy said or have fabricated the entire event (perhaps mixing Lovejoy up with someone else?). If creationists can provide an original transcript of the talk, I would be more than happy to look into it in more detail.

What all of this demonstrates is that creationists frequently fabricate the “evidence” they use to make an argument. They depend on an audience that will not question the sources of their information or spend time to verify the validity of what they say. Fortunately, most of us aren’t that naive.

Postscript: I am not the first one to demonstrate the deceptive nature of the creationist “Lovejoy Reconstruction” myth. Some time ago, Afarensis linked to an article by G.P. Jellison that also critically evaluates this creationist canard. Unfortunately the link seems to be invalid and I could not retrieve Jellison’s paper…if anyone has a copy I’d be interested in reading it.

Hat tip to Pharyngula.

I especially like Harris’ assessment of the mythology of self-reliance:

To make matters more difficult, Americans have made a religious fetish of something called “self-reliance.” Most seem to think that while a person may not be responsible for the opportunities he gets in life, each is entirely responsible for what he makes of these opportunities. This is, without question, a false view of the human condition. Consider the biography of any “self-made” American, from Benjamin Franklin on down, and you will find that his success was entirely dependent on background conditions that he did not make, and of which he was a mere beneficiary. There is not a person on earth who chose his genome, or the country of his birth, or the political and economic conditions that prevailed at moments crucial to his progress. Consequently, no one is responsible for his intelligence, range of talents, or ability to do productive work. If you have struggled to make the most of what Nature gave you, you must still admit that Nature also gave you the ability and inclination to struggle. How much credit do I deserve for not having Down syndrome or any other disorder that would make my current work impossible? None whatsoever. And yet devotees of self-reliance rail against those who would receive entitlements of various sorts–health care, education, etc.–while feeling unselfconsciously entitled to their relative good fortune. Yes, we must encourage people to work to the best of their abilities and discourage free riders wherever we can–but it seems only decent at this moment to admit how much luck is required to succeed at anything in this life. Those who have been especially lucky–the smart, well-connected, and rich–should count their blessings, and then share some of these blessings with the rest of society.

I absolutely detest those rich individuals who claim to have worked for their money and achieved it simply because they were smarter, worked harder, or are somehow better than the rest of us. I’m sure there are a few who did, but their number is miniscule. The majority inherited their wealth, or, since Reagan, spent enough of it to fix the political system so that their future earnings could be protected from investing it in the country. They bought up media like FOX and right-wing radio so that the myth of the self-reliant rich could be perpetrated across the country. And they invested in churches so that Jesus’ original message on the irrelevancy of the rich could be re-written to justify the pursuit of wealth and keep the rest of us peasants thinking that we could “someday become rich like them” (the south bought into the lie; they continue to vote Republican and yet largely remain the poorest section of the country).

Personally, I am tired of hearing about the rich and wealthy in this country. They have no allegiance to this country or its principles; their sole purpose in life is collect as much wealth as humanly possible and make the rest of us servants who will fight their wars for them and change their bedding, nanny their kids, clean their swimming pools and otherwise stay out of their way. I appreciate Sam Harris’ plea to the rich that they engage in a little more philanthropy…but I don’t place that much stock in the personal integrity of the wealthy.

Harris asks: “Just how much inequality can free people endure? ”. I think history holds the answer. My son came home from college and we were discussing something he had learned about 18^th century France and attempts by the monarchy to get the rich to pay a little more to help the nation along. Of course, the rich refused (all of their wealth was completely derived from “self-reliance” don’t you know….). “So what happened after that?” I asked. He thought for a minute…”I think the peasants rebelled”…..

UPDATE: Jerry Coyne has a good post on Harris’ article up at Why Evolution Is True. I like the title: Land of the free-and unequal.

James McGrath posts a wonderful essay on Illustrating Differences Between Scholarly Research and Mythicist Blog Conversations that all of us who have any interest in what understanding and scholarship should be all about. Unfortunately, the culture in this country is developing a very warped sense of how to reason and reach conclusions about almost any topic you can imagine. Most people seem to think that knowledge can be attained cheaply and easily, that experts don’t count (read both McGrath’s previous post as well as Duane’s post on the subject), and that anyone with a laptop and access to internet can be become an expert in a field and successfully challenge those who have spent lifetimes learning their field. It is a long post, but here’s a snippet:

And here we see the biggest methodological problem that confronts creationists, mythicists, and other such points of view that ignore scholarship, choosing instead to attempt to figure things out on their own (or with the help of some likeminded conversation partners), in conformity with their own convictions, without concern for scholarship or research, and no need for labs or excavations or knowledge of ancient languages. Whether we are talking about the question of biological evolution, or the question of whether a historical figure of Jesus existed, these are questions for which particular pieces of evidence may be important, but ultimately the decisive consideration is that large numbers of scholars working on different specific areas related to these questions independently produce results that correlate with one another and cohere with the theory.

Ok, one more….

Because that is how scholarship works, whether in the humanities or the natural sciences. It is not any one scholar, but the scholarly enterprise as a whole, that helps us to understand the big picture. And complaining that you are not convinced when you haven’t taken the time to study the subject in a serious way simply illustrates that you have done something far worse than simply ignoring experts’ conclusions or finding them unpersuasive. You’ve failed to understand how expertise is achieved in relation to questions that no one scientist or historian can master alone. And as a result, you’ve left yourself open to being misled, whether by others or by yourself.

This last paragraph expresses my real heartburn with people like Gregg in my previous post. They don’t want to do the work to understand the issue, either because they’ve already made their minds up and are simply protecting their own personal belief system, or they are intellectually lazy. I have always enjoyed James McGrath’s perspectives and posts on various issues – he’s the one individual I can point to that makes me think I may be a bit hard on the religious. To paraphrase commenter David on my previous post: If more believers were like James McGrath, I could find Christianity (and belief in general) a bit more palatable.