David Attenborough on Creationist Critics

Nice David Attenborough response in The Guardian to the creationists who apparently send him hate mail,

Telling the magazine that he was asked why he did not give “credit” to God, Attenborough added: “They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.”

Attenborough went further in his opposition to creationism, saying it was “terrible” when it was taught alongside evolution as an alternative perspective. “It’s like saying that two and two equals four, but if you wish to believe it, it could also be five … Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact, every bit as much as the historical fact that William the Conqueror landed in 1066.”

Ah, the problem of evil — or in this case, the problem of banal cruelty.

At Boing! Boing!, You’ll Do What You’re Told, Understand?

This exchange at Boing! Boing! — in an item over companies lobbying against the stupid card check union bill that will almost certainly become law — left me giggling,

Libertarian fapping in 3… 2… 1…

Oh, wait.

They’ve already begun.

@5 Chris Tucker
“Libertarian fapping in 3… 2… 1…”
whats wrong with libertarians?

whats wrong with libertarians?

If anyone decides to answer that, the discussion needs to remain polite.

whts wrng wth lbrtrns?

f y wnt scty dtrmnd by blgcl mprtv ln, thn nthng.

Is that civil enough Antinous?

Dreaptha @16, Man on Pink Corner @17, OhhhSnap @67 if you have substantive complaints about the EFCA, fine. If you’re just here to dump lazy insults on labor unions, not fine.

MDH @83, I don’t know if it’s civil enough for Antinous, but it wasn’t civil enough for me. If you’re told a topic is off-limits, then the topic is off-limits.

Watching BB’s moderators is like witnessing some school yard insult contest.

CFI on Baylor Study of Religiosity in America

The Center for Inquiry has a press release announcing a new report criticizing the methodology of Baylor University’s ongoing look at levels of religiosity in America, recently published in book form as What Americans Really Believe.

The CFI report, available as a PDF download here, makes a fairly persuasive case that the Baylor reports are cherry picking data to exaggerate the extent of religious belief in the United States and diminish the growing level of skepticism about the existence of God (though that does not necessarily, unfortunately, lead to atheism per se).

Baylor outsources it polling to Gallup, which has long been asking Americans about their religious beliefs, the core of the CFI argument is that there is a lot of Gallup data that directly contradicts the Baylor claims. Essentially, the report alleges that Baylor is classifying a lot of people who do not believe in God or are agnostics as religious. In the process, a lot of fascinating data about religious belief and skepticism is prevented including this amazing chart based on Gallup polls,

2001 2004 2007
Believe in God 89.70 89.91 86.29
Not Sure About God 6.83 5 7.56
Don’t Believe In God 2.69 4.25 5.84
Don’t Know 0.7 0
Adding the last three together for total atheists and agnostics 9.52 9.95 13.4

As Greg Paul, author of the CFI report argues,

Just last year, more than 13 percent of Americans told Gallup they had significant doubts about the existence of God. This is the highest level of religious skepticism recorded by the organization over six decades. Nor does any recent Gallup survey match the extremely low levels of disbelief in God reported from the 1940s into the 60s. Gallup’s data shows clearly that popular atheism has not held stable over time. On the contrary, unbelief in God was far less prevalent in the mid-twentieth century than it is today. This forces the question: How could the Baylor team be unaware of a large body of findings made by the organization that is its partner in the current survey project?

The entire report  can be downloaded here (PDF) and is well worth reading in its entirety.

Another Adobe Reader Security Problem

Adobe notifies the world of a buffer overflow problem affecting all Adobe Reader versions beginning with v7 and on all platforms. But hey, no worries — they’ll get around to fixing it in a few weeks,

Adobe is planning to release updates to Adobe Reader and Acrobat to resolve the relevant security issue. Adobe expects to make available an update for Adobe Reader 9 and Acrobat 9 by March 11th, 2009. Updates for Adobe Reader 8 and Acrobat 8 will follow soon after, with Adobe Reader 7 and Acrobat 7 updates to follow.

Ah, another notch in Adobe Reader’s stellar security history.