The schizoid behaviour, as well as the creationist, are both side-effects of our most valuable cognitive posession: we constantly strive to orgenize our world, spot patterns and find order. We can't really help it, that's the way we've been designed - by eons of evolution. Our pattern spotting obsession is what gives us our edge over the competition, lets us stay one step ahead by pridicting the next signal from the environment. Unfortunalty, it comes with an inate avesrion to the random, unexplainable and unpredictable.
Still, even if you can't convince an "intelligent designalist" of this logic, maybe you can hit him with an inverted Pascal's wager. Let's assume there is a supreme being who designed it all. Unfortunatly, she seems to be sending us many conflicting messeges, or else there's a lot of noise on the line. After all, the human race holds about 4 million differnt versions of the Gospel. So, the best you can do is randomize over all systems of belief.

What immediately springs to mind for me are the 1980's Bloom County strips where Bill D. Cat, at that point working as a fundamentalist preacher and calling himself 'Fundamentally Oral Bill', starts a crusade against "Penguin Lust" and has Opus run out of town.
"If god had intended for their tobe Penguin Lust he would have made Penny and Poppy the penguin!"

Along a similar line Wonkette.com reminded me of the gay penguins in the central park zoo. What ever do the right wing penguin supporters think Roy and Silo?
http://tinyurl.com/35o5f

From that article, here is a excerpt that even made a cynical monster like myself say: "aaawwwwww.... isn't that just the most wonderful thing."

"At one time, the two [Roy and Silo] seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.

For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said."

ps - the sign-in process is kinda funky today, I could only get in through IE. Both FireFox and Safari wouldn't load either the login page, or if I got through that, the comments page itself.

Yish -- well put! Indeed, the human ability to spot a suspicious coincidence in streams of data is crucial to science, because it gives a scientist a place to start: You think you see a pattern, so you hypothesize what the governing rule would be that produces that pattern. And then of course comes the scientific method takes over -- and you have to design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Intelligent design harness the first part of the process, and entirely neglect the latter.

Will, that is the cutest penguin story ever.

I was so smitten by the penguin story that I utterly neglected to grammar-check my last post.

Did you see what the cuteness of that story did to my spelling?

"...had intended for their tobe..."

....geez, I gotta get more sleep.

I feel you're a little too hard on the creationists - their beliefs aren't harming anyone, provided they aren't trying to dictate that other people must believe the same way, which of course some creationists do attempt... It's a problem faced in the US, but not even remotely a problem here in the UK or the rest of Europe. Is it only a problem in the US, perhaps?

I find many attempts to convince creationists that they "are wrong" to be slightly hypocritical... Attempting to dictate how other people should believe seems a worse offense than believing something that is patently untrue (or at the very least, that is untestable).

The trouble with science is that it doesn't really show us "how everything actually works", it just improves (in an infinite and ongoing process) our models of how *testable* things work. Mistaking this process for truth, and then insisting that other people share the resultant (often transitory) beliefs - not that I'm saying anyone here is doing this, but there are people who do - seems to me to be equivalent to an overly zealous creationist pushing in the opposite direction. Perhaps this is merely action and reaction at work.

Life is full of surreal tautologies; to stamp on those who are enjoying them in private seems somewhat mean spirited. :)

Chris, you're quite right -- the world is filled with untestable beliefs. I hold many of 'em myself. And most of them are, as you point out, thoroughly unobjectionable -- doing no real harm to anyone. Astrology, for example.

Creationism and intelligent design, alas, do appear to be inflicting damage on America. In states where a majority of people polled state that they believe doubt evolution -- and believe in creationism or intelligent design -- the number of high-school students who are going on to major in science at college and university are dropping. (This is a significant chunk of America, BTW.) And when they do pursue science, their scores in standardized science tests are much worse than in non-creationist parts of the country.

Why? Possibly because they're not being taught well -- because highly qualified science teachers simply don't want to take jobs in schools where they'll be forced to teach that evolution is wrong. (Or they do take the jobs and are fired because they teach evolution strictly.) Or possibly because if you're a science student who is unwilling to believe the astoundingly well-verified hypothesis of evolution -- because it contradicts your spiritual beliefs -- you probably do not have the sort of mindset that produces first-rate scientific research. And science is a numbers game: You need to throw a lot of people at a problem before you find a solution. The more scientists, the merrier; whichever society produces the most well-trained scientists will produce the biggest and most wonderful scientific advances. The more creationism spreads in the US, the more it will decline in scientific prominence; indeed, measuring America's sheer output of papers -- and measuring the prominence of those papers, by counting citations -- the US has apparently been in a freefall for a few years now, losing ground to China and India.

The point is, a population that increasingly imposes a literalist readings of spiritual texts on its population is pretty much doomed to kill of the scientific urge. Middle-East countries where radical Islam currently flourishes aren't producing a crapload of Nobel laureates either, these days. On the contrary, Christians/Jews/Muslims who take a non-literalist approach to their religion tend to have no problem with science, and indeed many famous scientists fall into that category.

So you're quite right that our societies are filled with plenty of irrational beliefs, most of which do no harm. Unfortunately, creationism isn't one of them.

Chris,

I have no problem with beliefs. My son still believes in the tooth fairy, and I respect that (well, I figure that one can't possibly cost me more than £30). My issue with intelligent design is that it tries to portray itself as science.

In fact, to me it seems closer to blasphemy than belief. If you attempt to prove something than you've taken it out of the realm of the metaphysical.

Speaking of patterns, all this remind me of the big bible codes racket some years ago. In the end, it turned out to be plain old bad science (http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/StatSci/MBBK.pdf)

- Yishay

p.s.
Kudos for the penguins, Will!

Yeesh. Typo-o-rama on my part ...

"In states where a majority of people polled state that they believe doubt evolution ..."

... should read ....

"In states where a majority of people polled DOUBT THE VALIDITY OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY ..."

Wow - fast turnaround on comments on this blog! :)

Thanks for the perspective - I appreciate that as a European resident, I have the luxury of not needing to see creationists as a "political enemy". It does seem, however, from an outside perspective, that the rise in reactionary literalist creationist politics might in fact be reaction to the rise in reactionary literalist materialist politics. As recently as the 1950's, the US burned books for going against what could be considered "scientific dogma". Now, perhaps, the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

If there really is no middle path for the US, can a creationist versus materialist civil war really be that far away? :)

Off we go on a tangent! Wheeeee…

A lot of people want to describe the difference between those with a strong religious viewpoint and those with a science based viewpoint as two sides of the same coin. As if the religious types have accepted one body of beliefs and the science types have accepted another. Their book is the bible, ours is an encyclopedia. Both groups, this argument goes, are simply accepting a body of explanatory knowledge in a blind and unquestioning way. "Science," they say, "is just another form of religion".

Here's the problem: That is wrong.

Science, empiricism, post-enlightenment western thought – call it what you like – is NOT a body of knowledge. It is a process of investigation. It is a system of examining the world around oneself and reaching conclusions. What is central to a science-based view of the world are not the conclusions that scientists reach, but rather the PROCESS they use to reach those conclusions. The conclusions may very well be wrong, and often they are, but the process is what’s important as it allows for past conclusions to be re-evaluated and tossed aside if necessary. Religion simply doesn’t function like that.

Evolution could be dead wrong, and I would not have a moment’s problem with that. Provided that whatever replaced it was determined through rational investigation of observable phenomenon and the application of established tested laws of nature.

I do understand that Europe is different, but seriously – come to this side of the pond and check out our problems. There are a lot of people who are perfectly willing to throw aside the results of rational investigation simply because it does not accord with an inflexible body of knowledge that they have been instructed is unquestionable.

Religion in America is more than a private belief held in the comfort of one’s own home (I think most religious Americans would be offended if you suggested that is its proper role). It is public and a large part of many people’s lives. The difference between science and religion is a difference of two visions regarding how problems in the world ought to be approached and how we ought to address future issues.

I actually think that the two can get along, provided people are willing to hold contradictory opinions in their heads - something we are certainly capable of. I would insist though, that in the public sphere (govt., public schools, etc.) religion take a back seat, or just get out of the car altogether.

----------------------
And finally, I'm not so familiar with the '50s book burnings of materials against certain scientific dogma. I think I missed a reference there. Which event are you talking about?
(And in a knee-jerk defense I would argue that says a lot more about human nature than it does about scientific thought.)

Just one point Will, religion is also a method of investigation. Or, rather a set of methods. The axioms are different from science - and more important, the rules of inference are radically different. Perhaps that's why some extraordinary thinkers have no problem holding both. The dissonance starts when you try to mix them.

As for the Europe - US thing. Interestingly, the UK never fully separated religion from state. Still, its politically secular for generations. The US, on the other hand is officialy secular - but can you imagine a Presidential candidate declaring agnostics?

Heh. Good point about the relationship between the state and religion, Yish. I believe there's a book out there now by a scholar arguing that America's legalistic prohibitions against the use of publicly funded organizations for religious proselytizing is the precise reason fundamentalism and Biblical literalism are so big in the US: The fundamentalists feel they're fighting for their life. Relax the laws, the author (sorry, can't remember his name right now and too exhausted even to Google him after my workday, heh) argues, and fundamentalism will instantly lose steam.

Not sure I buy it, but it's an interesting argument.

On a side note: Religion is a method of investigation in the same sense that philosophy is a method of investigation -- but neither are really anything like scientific investigation, are they? After all, while each might have terrific descriptive power, they lack the crucial thing that scientific hypotheses have: Predictive power. Or rather, the idea of predicting things is not the germane goal of philosopher or religion.

umm. A few years ago the Economist made simmilar argument >re: heroin. Basicaly, that the fact that it was outlawed made the profit margins higher, and thus created an incentive that keeps the market thriving. I was convinced then, but not sure in the case of religion. I think Neal Stephenson makes a much more subtle argument in Quicksilver. In a nutshell, he claims that the founding fathers were religeous fundementalists who were driven out of Europe, and that their zeal is the root of American political tradition. In England, Henri VIII started his own church when he got pissed with the pope.

As for religion vs. science. Did you say prediction? Isn't that what monotestic religions are all about? Afterlife, prophacy, armagedon...
Although the stress differs across religioins and eras. I think the crucial distinction (at least, according to Poper) is falsifiability.

"And now for something completly diffrent. Its time for the penguine on top of your television set to explode"

I think it is a Sign form God that creationists need to immediately move to the South Pole and join their brethren penguins.

>re: European vs. American attitudes (to penguins), Marbel (http://www.marbel.info/blog/) pointed me to this:

"Zoo bosses in Holland are taking gays and lesbians on guided tours to reassure them that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon that happens throughout the animal world."

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_43383.html

Ahahhahaa!

yup. so now I challenge you to find an item about homosexual giant squid.

If Flying Spaghetti Monster wanted there to be a homosexual giant squid, there would be one. And Clive would find us an article about it.

Thus endeth the lesson, Ramen.

---------------

And just to add a point, cause I can't help myself:
"religion is also a method of investigation. Or, rather a set of methods. The axioms are different from science - and more important, the rules of inference are radically different."

- Is it still rational, or logical investigation though? In my opinion, when seriously looking at the world that's the sort of investigation that matters. I suppose that in my post I intended "rational" to preceed "investigation" in a sort of unstated way.

...and to be clear. I'm a big fan of looking at, and talking about, the world in unserious ways. It's just that when public policy is the arena I tend to have higher standards.

Dear Clive

It's what Hacking described as the "Inverse Gambler's Fallacy." You shuffle a deck and get a Royal Flush on your first hand. You say to yourself, "Wow, there must be some kind of long-run series of trials going on here, and this incredibly unlikely result has finally come around." Or, "the only way to explain this incredibly unlikely events must have been made to happen by some guiding hand that I cannot see."

T'ain't necessarily so.

You just might be one out of 1/2 a million people pulling cards and you pulled an improbable hand -- but in all likelyhood, everyone else is holding junk.

In other words, if you happen to be an intelligent being with a 1 in 52 quintillion chance of existing, congratulations ... you beat the odds! Collect your bonus prize! The next time the universe is run through, it's not likely to be repeated. So enjoy your intelligence while it lasts.

Also: the only way for people to notice that their minds and bodies work well with their universe is if they happen to be sitting in a universe in which their minds and bodies work. You couldn't have a mind operating in a universe where it was physically impossible to think. Humans would not be able to ask questions in a universe where invisible demons ate all bipeds.

I am so now looking out for stories on gay giant squid.

Erik, good points, and the final one was the anthropic principle, am I right?

Correct.

Hacking was applying a concept he introduced in the textbook to the Logic of Induction and Probability. In the 80's he criticized cosmologists, particularly those who were enamoured of the Wheeler interpretation of quantum mechanics which sees the creation of alternate universes every time an uncertainty regarding a subatomic particle is resolved, and who argued that many shuffles of the cosmic deck had produced us, the best of all possible fits to the most intelligence-friendly of universes.

Some papers on the Antropic principle here.

Another factor is bad judgement of probabilities. Humans are really pathetic in this game. See for example "Maya Bar-Hillel, Subjective Probability Judgements". I once heard Prof. Bar-Hillel (may have been this very talk), and she gave the example of meeting a high school friend in a small town on the other side of the world. Her immediate reaction was "what an unbelievable coincidence". A creationalist would see this as proof of design, but Bar-Hillel took it as a mathematical puzzle. The catch is that instead of computing the probability of meeting that person in that town, she computed the probability of meeting anyone she hadn't seen for 20 years in any one of the small towns she'd been to that year.

By the way, there's a good evolutionary reason why we don't do well on probabilities. They're too hard to compute. In order to survive you need a cruder, quicker mechanism.

I have a novel theory as to why people go crazy, and it comes from first hand observation after working in an insane asylum (the Oregon State Hospital where One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest was filmed, to be exact). Almost everyone there had significant religious ideation. Was this because insane people are attracted to the fanciful beliefs of religion, I wondered, or do religious beliefs have a role in driving people insane. After a lot of thought on the matter, I concluded that it is religious beliefs that drive people insane. Why? Because we live in a world where great emphasis and value is placed on rational, objective thought, and trying to reconcile religious thinking with rational thinking causes so much dissonance for some people that they are actually driven insane. Bear in mind that rational thought is a rather recent introduction to human cognition. I beleive that religious thinking comes much more naturally to our brains (which would explain why so many people believe in one religion or another even though no religious belief stands up to rational scrutiny). In an environment where ones religious beliefs are not constantly challenged by the prevailing current of human thought, I would conjecture that fewer people would go insane. One could then logically conclude it has been the introduction of rational thinking that has really caused the problem.