Better Right Than Happy

Miss me?

This blog has been quiet for the past few months. The reason is it has just been difficult for me to find time to add to it because of life events (Nothing major or catastrophic, just regular life stuff, or at least whatever passes for “regular life” during a global pandemic.) But I’ve managed to get things together enough to finish some of the articles I have been working on and, while they may not be as timely as they were when I begun them, I’ll be posting them regardless.

However, the first few articles to follow will be timely, in that they touch on an event in recent history that is marking a significant anniversary.

Hidden wilderness: The ravines of Toronto

Last month I told you about an unusual geographic feature of Toronto, the Leslie Street Spit. Today, I’d like to introduce you to another interesting local ecosystem.

J.P. Moreland tries to defend substance dualism – and anti-gay bigotry.

In the above video from Peaceful Science, philosopher JP Moreland argues for the existence of immaterial souls and minds, and is challenged by the scientists S. Joshua Swamidass, a Christian, and Nathan Lents, an atheist. Despite the fact that all three participants hold quite different views on the subject, the discussion is respectful and collegial. And I’m not entirely sure it should have been.

Is teaching natural selection “a mass-mind tool of financial interests”?

(The following is a slightly edited version of an article that appeared previously on The Panda’s Thumb.)

Have a look at this article from the Khan Academy, in particular the section entitled Natural Selection:

Darwin, evolution, & natural selection

What do you think? Is it a reasonably accurate and informative, if perhaps a bit bland and prosaic, summary of some of the key elements of the theory of evolution, suitable for the average high school student?

What if someone was to tell you that it is, instead, a “mass-mind tool of financial interests”, designed to indoctrinate unwitting students into accepting an outdated concept that is no longer accepted by modern science? That is the view of Suzan Mazur, who has written a scathing response to this seemingly benign article on her blog.

Music Reviews #2

Some listening suggestions to help pass time in quarantine:

The resilience of nature: Toronto’s Leslie Street Spit

It’s been a while since I’ve posted anything here. I have been mostly preoccupied with the COVID-19 pandemic, and the measures we have had to take to prevent its spread, as I suspect you have been as well. However, yesterday was a lovely spring day so my wife and I decided to take a bike ride to one of our favourite spots in the city: Tommy Thompson Park, located on the Leslie Street Spit. (While observing physical distancing precautions, of course.)

Book review: “The Genealogical Adam & Eve” by S. Joshua Swamidass

Are science and religion compatible with one another? More specifically: Can one accept the scientific fact that human beings are the result of the 4 billion year process of evolution in which we share common ancestry with all other organisms that inhabit the earth, and at the same time believe the Biblical and Quranic accounts according to which we are all descended from a single couple who were directly created by God? For many the answer is an unequivocal “No”. This includes the members of creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research and the Discovery Institute who try to discredit the theory of evolution in favour of the belief that humans are a special creation of God. On the other side are atheist scientists such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne and PZ Myers who argue that acceptance of scientific ideas like evolution renders belief in God untenable.

However, there remains a number of people who take an in-between position. In fact, I suspect a majority of people, professional scientists and laypersons alike, simply hold to their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) with little or no thought given to how these relate to the scientific principles which they accept. But there exist a group of people, often referred to as theistic evolutionists or evolutionary creationists, who are equally as devoted to theism as they are to science and actively work to create a reconciliation between the two.

Is panpsychism as crazy as it sounds?

Panpsychism is the idea that mental properties are not restricted to humans and other organisms with highly developed nervous systems, nor even to living things. Rather, according to panpsychism consciousness is a property of everything in the natural world. That is to say, in addition to possessing physical properties such as mass, energy and charge, every constituent of the natural world also possesses mental properties.

Nathan Lents on our imperfect body

Nathan Lents, professor of biology at John Jay College, has written a book which describes some of the imperfections of the human body. Beyond being entertaining bits of medical trivia, these are also part of what prompted Charles Darwin to formulate his theory of evolution. The idea that much of our biology demonstrates what can only be considered “stupid design” not only serves as an effective counterargument to the claims of creationism. It also helps correct the misunderstandings of many people who accept evolution, but view it as primarily driven by natural selection and constantly seeking the best possible design for an organism. The truth is that evolution largely proceeds by accident and luck, both good and bad, and rarely if ever arrives at a solution of the sort that would be found by careful advanced planning.

Michael Egnor gets neuroscience wrong again.

Yes, I know. Not him again. But I’ll make it quick this time. Michael Egnor, neurosurgeon and apologist for the creationist Discovery Institute, has taken umbrage with Jerry Coyne’s interpretation of split brain research. On the DI’s “Mind Matters”blog, Egnor writes: