FREE hit counter and Internet traffic statistics from freestats.com

Amused Muse

Inspiring dissent and debate and the love of dissonance

My Photo
Name:
Location: Surreality, Have Fun Will Travel, Past Midnight before a Workday

Master's Degree holder, telecommuting from the hot tub, proud Darwinian Dawkobot, and pirate librarian belly-dancer bohemian secret agent scribe on a mission to rescue bloggers from the wholesome clutches of the pious backstabbing girl fridays of the world.



Sunday, December 02, 2007

Cleansing the Palate

After watching the video of John West at Rev. Barky's place, one commenter remarked, "I'll need a chaser- or maybe morphine."

Here you go. (Yes, I was hanging around, watching this being taped - at least until I saw people climb into the jaccuzi with pina coladas.)



UPDATED: The "teaser" for the videos of West is now up at You Tube.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Galapagos Diary: Neo-Darwinism Lecture, Part 1

Richard gave his first of two lectures on Neo-Darwinism after our visit to the young island of Fernandina (account of this coming up) on Sunday (Mother's Day). This is where he first introduces the neutral theory (at 41:11) , and I ask a question about that (at 53:50) during the Q&A.

Here are some of my notes on the lecture, which also includes a brief history, that I will not reproduce here, of the evolution (sorry) of Darwin’s ideas through Mendel’s observations, the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, and Punctuated Equilibrium, up to the present day:

The title of Darwin’s sixth edition of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection should have included and All Sorts of Other Things. The first edition is closer than the sixth and last edition to our modern view of Darwinism. Darwin was pressured into adding the words “breathed by the Creator into,” but the first edition the phrase was just “breathed into.”

Darwin explained both diversity and adaptation. Natural selection is the only theory that can, in principle, explain adaptation. The only “rivals” are design and Lamarckanism.

The neutral theory doesn’t explain adaptation. The premise is that many mutations are neutral – not useless, but equivalent to the original codon. Any amino acid can be coded for by more than one codon, resulting in synonymous mutation.

Synonymous mutation equals zero mutation.

The majority of evolution is neutral. However, phenotypic change is not neutral to a field naturalist (ethologist).

The coding of an amino acid effects a phenotypic change only insomuch as it affects the shape of the protein, which has an enzymatic effect.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Richard Dawkins: "Responses to Criticisms of The God Delusion"

Richard's website has just posted the video of the first lecture that he gave on our Galapagos trip.

Responses to Criticisms of The God Delusion (preface to new paperback edition).

Question and Answer Session afterward.

(Comment moderation is off again. However, if you are John A. Davison or VMartin, you are still banned. Don't comment here. Bye, now.)

UPDATED: Pharyngula has a take on the "atheists are just as fundamentalist as Christian fanatics" hogwash. How many library programs have atheists shut down?

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Our Human Capacity for Self-Transformation

SECOND UPDATE: Reverend Barking Nonsequitor explains it all for you.
-----
UPDATED: Well, this is exactly what I’m talking about, folks!

"Like the Geico Insurance slogan -- so easy a caveman can do it. Letting Jesus take care of our sin problem is so easy a child can do it," said Spaulding.

Religion is television. You read it here first. “So easy a caveman could do it.” And this anti-intellectual crap from a valedictorian!

However, there were some in the audience who said they were uncomfortable during the speech and felt the comments were inappropriate.

Yeah. I’ll bet there were.

There must be something wrong with them! Of course.
-----
The exchange that didn't make it into “Root of All Evil?" - Richard Dawkins interviews Alister McGrath.

At about 28:42 into the interview, Alister McGrath says something that really set me off: “The point I’d want to make would be this, that what Christianity is saying is that there seems to be something wrong with human nature, that we just don’t posses the capacity to transform ourselves, that in some way in order to experience and enter into the redeemed life, something has to be done for us. It’s a question of not having the adequate resources to actually transform ourselves to be saved.”

Well, certainly I don't believe in the necessity of being “saved,” but this answer by McGrath gets to, I think, the crux of the religious mind and to my nonreligious one. I was surprised at my feelings upon hearing McGrath say this. I literally felt pain, and then a great deal of anger. This kind of attitude is a highly personal issue for me, and it brings up a deep-seated resentment which I shall attempt to explain here.

I perceive that all my life I have received similar messages, from many sources, that there was something “wrong” with me: You are not capable. This goal is beyond you, that adventure is too hard for you, you’re just a small town girl from North St. Paul and you will never be one of those people on television or high up in academia (and they’re pointy-headed intellectuals anyway; you don’t want to be like that!). You’re a nice girl. Don’t get too big for your britches. The world is dangerous; it’s no place for you. You’ll get hurt. You can’t handle the big, bad world out there.

Don’t think certain ideas – you’ll get all confused. Don’t ask those questions. We just aren’t supposed to understand some things. Women’s Lib is over with (this was the 1970s) and we’ve got all the rights we’ll ever get – don’t talk about a woman running for President or going into space. That’s just not possible. Don’t talk about science or evolution. What are you, in love with Carl Sagan? (Yes, I was fifteen years old and I was in love with Carl Sagan. Thanks, like any other fifteen-year-old I was horribly embarrassed about it, and even wondered if it was wrong after being teased about it.) What kind of young lady runs around and yelling with the boys after church? Getting all dirty, screaming and yelling? Why can’t you pretend to be a girl for a change? You’ll waste your life talking about outer space all of the time – learn to get interested in normal things. Besides, this isn’t you – we know who you are, and you’re just a little twit from a small town – who do you think you are? You seem to think that you’re some kind of star! Well, you’re just you, so be realistic, and quit being such a dreamer.

It makes me angry. Here I am, doing all these things that nobody taught or even showed me how to do – nobody taught me how to negotiate grad school or how to handle a foreign culture, to go on a trip by myself, or to walk in academic circles, or to work a highly stressful job in a museum – and I’m doing it! I’m not only doing it, but I doing pretty damned well at it. With very few role models, or with none in some cases.

I did transform myself! Goddamnit, I did! I had to. I had a lot of problems in that small town, and I made myself change! And not only that, I am transforming myself all the time. I don’t know how to go to grad school. I had never given a presentation before in my life. Yet the second I walked into class I was expected to become a young professional, and you know what, I did become one – and I’m good at it. Maybe my success so far has had something to do with the fact that I was expected to succeed, that my professors saw no reason for me not to succeed?

If the world had listened exclusively to the warnings of fearful people like Alister McGrath and to the mediocre minds in American small towns, we would never have invented fire, let alone traveled the planet (and into space), made art, or discovered science at all! We do have the capacity to transform ourselves! We are nothing if not capable of self-transformation. And there is nothing “wrong” with me. There is nothing inherently “wrong” with you or me or with human nature. What is up with Alister McGrath? What is up with the people in small town America? Why do they have such a degraded sense of themselves that they need to tell people not to try to improve themselves?

If I saw religion as it is presented to me actually helping people to achieve the kinds of things that I want to achieve, I would change my mind about it. But I don’t see that. I don’t see it solving people’s problems or freeing them of their fears and anxieties. Blue-collar people get blue-collar religious messages to make them stay blue-collar, and upper-class people (like Alister McGrath) get upper-class religious messages to justify their superior status. And increasingly in America, there is less movement between social classes (unless it's people's houses being foreclosed on).

Moreover, people in America are so paranoid and scared of their own shadows that increasingly we are a nation that doesn’t walk anywhere—lock yourself in your car, lock yourself in the office, lock yourself in your house with the television on. Not since people believed in werewolves has a nation become so insular.

I see religion teaching people to sit around and be passive. Great, yet more sitting – just what our obesity-plagued civilization needs. Just more television after all. I’ve worked alongside a lot of African-American women in low-paying jobs and from what I saw religion didn’t do diddly squat for them moving up in the world. They’re exhausted at work. They go to church for hours – several times a week – and then, bleary-eyed and exhausted at work with a mother or sister watching their sick or injured children (because of personal problems with men), they’re practically falling over at work yet talk about how God is “teaching me a lesson” because they can’t pay their electric bill or put enough food on the table. They think they're supposed to be joyful every single second. Well, all I can say is, God never “punished” me that way. Funny that God’s Will toes the line with a racist society (and a classist, sexist, and homophobic one).

Sit in church and listen to stories (or in the big megachurches, watch videos) of other people living their lives, and doing things it’s just assumed that you’ll never do. Because you’re you, but they are them. They are special - prophets and angels. You are sinners – nothing in yourselves. If you’re special, it’s only because Somebody Special made you. All you get to do is vote yea or nay. (But really, with the fear of hell thrown in, it’s not a true choice, is it?)

Do you begin to see my point about how religion was the first form of television? God was the world’s first celebrity.

No wonder Americans don’t believe in evolution! No wonder! When you have been brainwashed to believe that you “lack the capacity for self-transformation,” how in hell can you believe that an amphibian or an ape has great potential? How can you believe that nature itself does? Is it a coincidence that this idea of our personal inability and insufficiency has taken hold at a time in our nation’s history when more people mistakenly believe that IQ is static and strictly inherited, that one’s status in life is determined by one’s parents? (We still give lip-service to the bootstrap idea but surveys show that increasingly, Americans believe status in society is genetically determined.)

And so people invoke God, and show more interest in His supposed hijinks than in living their own lives. I have no problem with what people believe but holy Toledo, today it's walk your dog with Jesus, take a shower with Jesus, go to a megachurch and be surrounded by thousands of people (yeah, that's real personal) all doing the same thing like they belong to some kind of cult. Don't be an individual; don't be yourself. Nature must be acted upon from the outside, right? Just like you, you miserable sinner. Because nature is artificial and so are you. You’re a product, a thing, which suddenly appeared out of thin air like a rabbit out of a hat. “It takes more faith” to believe in the ongoing self-transformation of nature than to blurt out Goddidit, right? Just like it takes more faith to believe that a little girl from a redneck town in Minnesota could associate with “those people” and even be interesting to them, than to believe that she’ll get into some horrible kind of trouble and need to be rescued from her folly.

Well, I think it is evil to tell people that they lack this capacity. What kind of a faith is that? What kind of spirituality is that?

Labels: , ,

Monday, May 21, 2007

Origin of Species

UPDATED: For those of you who are confused by the "Burn Kristine she's a witch" meme by Rich(ard Hughes) at Pharyngula and at After the Bar Closes, all I can say is, it's a long story.

Now that evil warlock Richard Hughes has photoshopped my photo with the good Richard!

I shall marshall my forces, and all my sea horses, to take my revenge. Stay tuned.
----
I brought Origin of Species and Descent of Man to the island that was Darwin's favorite, James (Santiago) Island.

Okay, I'll start the Galapagos Diary soon and stop gloating, I promise! (Today was a hectic day at work for me, if that makes you feel any better.)




However, this comment from Russ made my day:

When one of my favorite bloggers shares a significant event, I often go over the relevant blog entries with my family. It's a great way to kick off non-trivial conversations with my two kids, daughter, 14 and son, 16. Earlier this evening, I rounded up the kids(my wife was at karate) at a computer to share your entries about your Galapagos trip. When I scrolled to the "Origin of Species" entry, my teen son and daughter, in unison, said, "Hey! Isn't that Richard Dawkins." It made me feel quite proud that they both recognized him, but to top it off, they both knew that he is an important evolutionary biologist.

Whether one chooses to call it gloating, in jest, or sharing, in earnest, I think is less important than the way it can raise our awareness to the world and the people around us. As a parent I don't always know if my efforts to guide my children toward a clear perspective on the state of the world are getting through. All too often I have to ask: am I wasting my time? Then, like a shot something simple, like their response to your blog entry, Kristine, has a deep calming effect on me. It puts my heart at ease to think they're catching on, they're getting it.

So, thank you, Kristine. As you continue sharing your recent experiences, who knows what manner of epiphany - yours and mine alike - awaits.

Labels: , , ,

Jerry Falwell Deconverted on Deathbed!

UPDATED: Am I a good witch or a bad witch? Well anyway, thanks for stopping by.
-----
While I was in the Galapagos the Rev. Jerry Falwell, as you know, walked into the funhouse mirror. (If you’re a Cocteau fan, you get this).

I was on the slower of the ship library's two incredibly slow computers when I saw the news. With my characteristic retraint and decorum, I turned to Richard Dawkins who was seated nearby and blared, "Jerry Falwell is dead!" As I've said before, I can be rather demonstrative - I get excited - and I meant to register surprise, not joy. Richard, however, glanced up from his laptop and gave me an incredulous look of gentlemanly astonishment, but merely asked, “What did he die of?”

Well, by now I was dying (if you’ll pardon me) to find out, but that wretched computer was so slow that I started shaking my head and laughing in frustration. I wanted to answer Richard’s question (let’s be honest, I wanted to be the one to answer before anyone else did), and here I was, still waiting for AOL News to load as if it were Godot. Richard, misinterpreting my reaction, leaned forward and teased, “And you’re not sorry? You’re not a very nice girl, are you?” That did it – I just cracked up, and I must have blushed right down to my fingertips.

“I am sorry,” I insisted. “I mean, I’m sorry that he was who he was, that he spent his life in this meaningless pursuit of nothing, and that there was no awakening or resolution – ”

“Precisely,” said Richard. “Well, I heard that he deconverted on his deathbed.” We both chuckled, and at this point, someone entered the library and announced the news. “Yes, Kristine just told me,” Richard continued to prod me, “with tears in her eyes!”

Well, let me say that I did shed some tears later – not for the man, Jerry Falwell, but for the person that he could have been. How dare he outlive the people that I care about who thought he was so wonderful. How dare he prey on gullible people who cannot see how dangerous this nutjob was and remains even in death. How dare he polarize this nation in such a disgraceful manner and push creationism in our schools and paranoia in our society. How dare he condemn to hell - and he did do so - anyone, including people of faith, who didn't believe his cartoonish superstitions. How dare he tell lies to children! Sean Hannity notwithstanding, someday this nation's grandchildren will ask their grandparents what anyone could have seen in this repulsive huckster.

Later that night, I was at Richard’s table [Edit: now I think this was wrong; I had dinner at Richard's table on Sunday night, and Falwell died on Tuesday. My memory is waterlogged, but at any rate, I was somewhere with a group including Richard] when someone asked how Jerry Falwell died. And if there was one moment in my life when I was ready with a clever answer, this was it.

“He had an attack where his heart should have been,” I replied.

I think that’s as good a diagnosis as any.

UPDATED: People forget Falwell’s legacy, the Moral Majority, who opposed women’s rights and equality, child abuse laws, and universal sufferage, and advocated the death penalty for homosexuality, and burned books and records. Want me to shed crocodile tears for Falwell? Sorry! Watch this video if you think that I should - it will show you of the birth of Christian fascism in America. I always knew Falwell would die; he is the one who didn’t think that he would, but he thought he would be snatched into heaven in the Rapture. I knew death would come for Jerry Falwell, since it comes to us all. May it come to Falwell’s dreams as well! May Falwell's movement die with him!

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 26, 2007

The Extended Phenotype: Organisms, Groups, and Memes, Part 2

At the Triumvirate.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

The Extended Phenotype: Organisms, Groups, and Memes

Head on over to the Triumvirate for the latest in this series.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The Active Germ-Line Replicator

This is the continuation of my ongoing summation of Richard Dawkins' seminal work, The Extended Phenotype. I'm going to direct readers to the Triumvirate for the rest of my posts in this series.

What is a "gene"? Dawkins admits to using the term loosely. In this chapter he tries to nail down the term more precisely, in order to give a clearer, "gene's eye-view" of the replicator as the unit of selection. (Continue reading...)

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

End of the Year Post: Sexiest Man Living!

According to Salon.com (this is old, but a goodie) it's Richard Dawkins! Sorry, Bill. But you sure make a cute Cowardly Lion.

(Shimmy plums and snake arms to Pharyngula and RedStateRabble. And to Bill.)

P.S. Fix that linky! Ahhhh!

Labels: , , , , ,