Hello and welcome to Reckon, the Southern Skeptical Society Blog.

As the South contains a diverse range of people, this Blog will reflect this aspect.  We will have many contributors, and through these contributors we hope to provide a wider view of the issues that affect all of us.  If there are issues you would like to hear about, or if there are issues in your local area that you wish to be made known, please feel free to contact us.  Thank you for your interest, and we look forward to your feedback.  Please feel free to visit our Facebook page.

Inquisitively yours,

The Southern Skeptical Society

Creationism increasingly proving to be good science?

Stephen K. reposponds to this Marietta Daily Journal article.

Creationism increasingly proving to be good science?

Author: Stephen K.

An article appeared yesterday in the Marietta Daily Journal, a local publication for residents of Marietta, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta.  The article was written by Nelson Price, pastor emeritus of Roswell Street Baptist Church.  In this article he proposes that “Darwinism” is a religion and uses quote mining to argue his point.  Ironically, despite the title of his article, Price does not demonstrate how Creationism is increasingly proving to be good science; no he merely tries to poke holes in established scientific theory.

He starts off the quote mining with Isaac Newton.  Considering Newton died over a hundred years prior to the publication of Origin of the Species, the fact that he believed that a god created life and the universe is not all that surprising.  At the time of Newton’s death the modern Germ Theory of disease had not been fully established either, does that make it wrong?  He continues to quote other scientists including Einstein.  Unfortunately, Einstein’s quote that “God doesn’t play dice,” was a quote about quantum mechanics, not evolution or abiogenesis.  If Price enjoys quotes from Einstein so much, I wonder what he would think about this one:

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”

Albert Einstein in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas (Einstein’s secretary) and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.

Scientists are people too. Just because a handful of scientists are quoted as supposedly (I say supposedly because we don’t know the context of the quotes, as evidenced above with Einstein) believing that the universe must have been created or divinely designed does not invalidate the vast body of evidence that points the other direction.  Also, something to keep in mind when someone quotes “a scientist” is that scientists are very specialized in what they do.  A chemist knows more about chemistry that he or she knows about cosmology.  An astronomer knows more about astronomy than he or she knows about geology, and so on. Both Newton and Einstein were physicists, not biologists. One cannot simply lump all scientists together and assume they know everything about everything. There is only one quote used by Price that argues against abiogenesis that is credited to an actual biologist. All of the others are not biologist, geneticists, or paleontologists. The only other biologist quoted was Dawkins, who is not quoted for or against anything.  Again, a dissenting viewpoint does not invalidate anything.

The crux of Price’s argument is not on evolution, but rather abiogenesis, the study of how life began. Evolution does not touch on the origin of life, but rather how life developed once it was here.  Price brings up the probability question in regard to the question of life from non-life. The website Talk Origins has a few articles discussing this argument and why it is wrong, most notably that Creationists wrongly look at how probable it would be for a modern protein to spontaneously generate, instead of what abiogenesis actually theorizes, which is that the first proteins would have had much smaller numbers of amino acids.

Price ends his article by equating evolution with religion, stating that: “Darwinists are as religious as the ‘religious’ and live by faith.”  This is patently false on a few grounds, most notably the definition of faith. Faith is belief without evidence.  Unfortunately, for Creationists, the evidence for evolution grows every day.  The predictions made by evolution as to types of fossil we should find in a particular strata come true time after time.  Evolution is one of the most robust theories in science; however, as with any branch of science, evidence presents itself that contradicts previous conclusions, then those conclusions are abandoned or revised.  Science, unlike religion, is constantly changing, but the Creationists never seem to understand that just because some little pieces of the puzzle turn out to be wrong does not invalidate the entire theory.  Scientists actively seek to falsify previous findings.  That is how science works.  When was the last time a creation “scientist” attempted to falsify anything regarding creation?  I personally don’t know the answer, but I have a pretty good idea.

For further reading on the Creationism – Evolution debate, I cannot recommend Talk Origins enough.

The Santa Theory

Author: Brad Fusilier

We have all at least heard the phrase “God is Santa for adults”. I have decided to approach my 3 year old daughters education with that in mind. Let me explain. She is enrolled at a B- Ba- Bap- Baptist (there I said it) school due to the higher quality of the education. Also, because her birthday is in September, she falls into some knucklehead rule that says she will have to have completed 1st grade somewhere else before being admitted to public school or start school 1 year late. Of course my original objection was due to the indoctrination that she will be exposed to.   As I battled with none other than myself on the matter, it hit me.   In the same way that some of our parents did us and their parents did them and so on, we allow our children (at least I do) to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunnym and the Tooth Fairy.

Experiencing these “myths” resulted in some of my fondest memories of childhood. As children get older and really begin to ask questions about these myths, why should the discussion of a god be any different. It is up to us as parents to decide when and how we will help our children differentiate between real and fantasy and lead an evidence-based life. I found my way to rational, critical thinking after believing, going to church every Sunday, making my communion, attending catechism every Saturday and being confirmed. All of this led me to the realization that religion should not be a deciding factor in building a solid educational foundation for my child(ren).

God may not leave presents, candy or money when a tooth falls out (BTW, would that not be his fault since he designed it that way? – he should pay), but being around while my daughter gets a quality education and learns the fundamentals I can live with. On the other hand, my 8 year old son has critical thinking programs and exercises built into his 3rd grade curriculum. At least even in lower elementary, the school system is teaching them HOW to think. Bottom line, it is up to us as skeptical, critical thinking parents to equip them with the tools they need to assess the world around them. The rest is up to them regardless of where they learn their ABC’s.

APA Calls Gay-to-Straight Therapies Ineffective, Potentially Harmful

Author: Jon David Johnson

At the risk of cliché, the weather just turned from raining to pouring for the reparative (gay-to-straight) therapy community.  After having been panned in two nationally released movies in the last year, the community faces its most definitive reprobation yet in the form of a meta-study released by the American Psychological Association.  The study covered 83 peer-reviewed articles since 1960, and concludes:

Contrary to claims of sexual orientation change advocates and practitioners, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation…At most, certain studies suggested that some individuals learned how to ignore or not act on their   homosexual attractions…psychologists cannot predict the impact of these treatments and need to be very cautious, given that some qualitative research suggests the potential for harm.[1]

In 1975, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but that hasn’t stopped some reparative therapy advocates, like the overtly religious Exodus International[2] or the quasi-secular NARTH[3] from gaining traction in recent years, following the “culture wars” of the last two decades and a couple dubious and widely misrepresented studies in the early part of this decade.  Most notable among those studies is the Spitzer study[4] conducted in 2001 and reported incorrectly by many news outlets as reflecting a change of heart on the value of reparative therapy by one of the vocal advocates of removing homosexuality from the DSM.  As with many studies on the subject, the Spitzer study suffered both sample bias (two-thirds of his participants were referred by NARTH or by Christian advocates of reparative therapy) and lax questioning methodologies.  What is perhaps most eye-catching in the study is that in spite of the large sample bias in favor of proponents of reparative therapy, 86% of men and 63% of women reported the persistence of homosexual feelings and attractions.  Another prominent study in the same year by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Schroeder[5] suffered similar sample and question bias (seeking out participants harmed by the therapy, a large majority not surprisingly said they had been, while 3% said the therapy was successful) and has been misused by parties on both sides of the issue.

My Two Cents

I am no expert on this subject, and I don’t pretend that reading 10 or 15 articles makes me one.  That being said, what seems clear to me in reading some of the available literature is that a very large majority of “successful” gay-to-straight cases are actually cases of the suppression of behavior (many of which don’t last) rather than an actual psychological change.  Furthermore, while studies like Shidlo and Schroeder have their own problems, the number of people who have potentially suffered genuine harm or distress as a result of these therapies likely outweighs the number of people who have potentially made a genuine and happy conversion.  Finally, a lot of the material offered in support of reparative therapy by groups like NARTH is either self-referential or based on the recycled articles of a very few people (Joseph Nicolosi, the group’s founder, Mark Yarhouse, Warren Throckmorton, and the misrepresented Spitzer study noted above).  Given the number of people working in the fields of psychology and psychiatry, this is a pretty thin lineup and, combined with the setting up of gay activists or gay-affirmative therapists as straw men, reminds me of the pseudo-science Discovery Institute.

While it is certainly the case that there exist psychologists and counselors of all ideological persuasions who abuse their patient relationships to promote their own beliefs, it is not in my mind the case that there is a categorical problem with gay-affirmative therapy practices as there is with reparative practice.  The reason is pretty straightforward:  most anyone entering into gay-affirmative therapy is going to have significant pre-existing feelings of homosexuality or bi-sexuality, so that the practitioner is usually swimming with the current, so to speak – though there may be some who can be criticized for too strongly advocating a gay lifestyle to someone merely curious or confused.  With reparative therapy however, the practitioner is by definition swimming against the current of the patient’s feelings.  It seems to me intuitively obvious that the effort to fundamentally alter one’s emotional constitution is going to be much more jarring and potentially harmful than the effort to affirm it.  In the event of a severe mental disorder, in which one is an imminent danger to themselves or to others, the effort may be worth it.  Homosexuality, however, is neither a disorder nor a danger, though the advocates of reparative therapy are implicitly accepting one or both of those ideas.

The influence of conservative religion, even in supposedly secular groups like NARTH, cannot be underestimated here.  In much of the literature at the NARTH website and elsewhere, conflict with religious values is cited as a reason for seeking reparative therapy, as though when one’s feelings are in conflict with his religion, it must be his feelings that are wrong.  And, of course, the notion of homosexuality as a danger or disorder derives principally from religious texts.  At the risk of expanding the issue, it is easy to argue that reparative therapies are driven by the attempt of religion to exert control over the society around it.

Regardless, in all cases the job of the practitioner should be to provide support and help the patient feel comfortable, first with themselves, and then with the society in which they live.  The practitioner should do no harm.  There is too much reason to think that reparative therapy can do harm, and too little evidence that it works at any significant rate for the responsible practitioner to employ it.

---

[1] http://www.apa.org/releases/therapeutic.html

[2] http://www.exodus-international.org/

[3] http://www.narth.com/index.html

[4] http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_spit.htm

[5] http://wthrockmorton.com/tag/shidlo/ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1075

The Star Party and Skeptrack 2009 at Dragon*Con

Author: Stephen K.

Dragon*Con is coming up this Labor Day weekend in Atlanta, Georgia. Why should you, a skeptic, care about a sci-fi, pop culture conference? Two reasons; the Star Party and the second annual Skeptrack, both events taking place before and as part of Dragon*Con.

On Thursday, September 3^rd, the Atlanta Skeptics will be hosting ”A full Moon for Cancer” – a Star Party in memory of Jeff Medkeff, hosted by Phil Plait, also known as the Bad Astronomer, and Pamela Gay, professor, astronomer, and co-host of the podcast Astronomy Cast. Some other skeptical attendees will include: Richard Saunders (Skeptic Zone/Aussie Skeptics), Brian Thompson (Amateur Scientist) Ben Radford, a gaggle of Skepchicks, and probably more.

Then, starting Friday, September 4^th running through Monday, September 7^th, the second annual Skeptrack will run at Dragon*Con. Per Derek Colanduno, co-host of the podcast Skepticality and organizer of Skeptrack, the history of the Track stretches over the past five or six years. The Science Track had a skeptical panel that grew to include well known skeptics Phil Plait, Frasier Cain (the other co-host of Astronomy Cast), George Hrab, Pamela Gay, Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, and Jeff Wagg. Over the years, the panels garnered much positive feedback, and after the 2007 Dragon*Con, Pat Henry, chairman of the convention, approached Derek about creating an entire Skeptic Track, separate from the Science Track. In 2008, the Skeptrack was born. It was such a success that this year the Track has been given an even larger room, and the schedule is packed with interesting panels composed of Skeptics from around the world. Last year was a blast, and this year will hopefully be even better. If you didn’t attended TAM this year (and even if you did), swing by Atlanta, you won’t be disappointed.

Why?

Author: Ryan Gagne

“Why”

A simple word that is easy to say.  This simple, easy-to-say word, has led to several great and important advances.

Why did the colonies of bacteria adjacent to that mold dissolve?

Why are those celestial bodies behaving like that?

Why are there variations in those plants?

Why leads to how, what, when, and where.  These are the driving forces behind science.

I ask: Why only science?”

Why shouldn’t “why?” be asked more often?  Why do we, as a society, tolerate irrational, if not crazy and dangerous, notions?

Why do people listen to her?

Why is she still preying on the vulnerable?

Why are these even considered and given any attention at all?

Why are truthers still ignorant?

I know that many of you will read this and think: “hey, I ask “why?” all the time.”  That’s great; keep it up!  I ask you to encourage others around you to ask “why?” more often.  Asking why is important; however, there is a flaw.  If, when one asks why, and is provided solid, demonstrable, peer reviewed evidence, and still screams “why” with fingers firmly in ears, “why?” loses its power.  One becomes like the some of the people in the above links.

I feel the important thing to remember is to ask why and then LISTEN.  Listening is the key to asking why.  Without listening, why will never be truly answered, and in turn, the how, what, when, and where get lost.

So, ask why, and then listen.  One may never know where this simple, easy to say word will lead.

As an addition to this post, why not ask “what?”  As in what’s the harm?  What’s the Harm is a great site that asks this very question.

Atheist gives invocation…

Author: skepoet

Recently the President of American Atheists, and greater Atlanta-area native Ed Buckner, gave an invocation to the Cobb Commissioners. The whole case involving Cobb County goes back a few years to when Pelphrey v Cobb began. The ACLU’s take on the prayer invocations was that Cobb County showed favoritism to fundamentalist Protestant Christianity in their selection of invocation providers. Courts denied the claim saying it was not the Court’s place to decide what is and isn’t sectarian.

This gets to the recent problem with the “inclusion” activists. They have used this to expand the legitimacy of groups like HOPE and the Fellowship for Christian Athletes in Southern schools, under the premise that by including other religious groups, it gives equal access, and it avoids conflicts with the Establishment Clause. I, however, working for schools, know that many schools in the South do not allow Wiccan, Buddhist, or LGBT groups for technical reasons.

Sometimes, after a lawsuit has been threatened, counties will do what County Board of Commissioners Chairman Sam Olens did for Buckner, and allow a group, only to let it get harassed or complained out of existence, or they will require parental approval prior to anyone joining a group, which is current Georgia law. This can lead to students outing themselves to their parents.

I, however, agree with Buckner’s invocation against invocation, and I see it applying in other places. The State can’t be equal to all beliefs in all areas; therefore, it should not involve itself at all. The inclusive standard used by the ACLU is problematic for that reason.

15 Percent of Americans Claim No Religion

First of all, this is not an atheist or agnostic organization. It is a skeptic organization and you don’t have to be a nontheist to be a member. I did, however, find this interesting. The study, conducted by the American Religious Identification Survey, estimated a 0.8% increase in people claiming to have no religion since their last survey in 2001. We should be wary of reading too much into these numbers since ‘no religion’ doesn’t necessarily mean ‘atheist’ or ‘agnostic’. It could simply be that a person is spiritual but has no religious affiliation. On the other hand, atheists and agnostics might not answer correctly out of fear of being discovered (yes, even on an anonymous poll). So, what do these numbers mean? It’s hard to say, but I do think it indicates a trend.

The downside: non-denominational evangelical megachurches (think Rick Warren, Ted Haggard and Joel Osteen) are on the rise.

Source: MSNBC

Southern Skeptical Society Drink-Up

The Southern Skeptical Society is proud to host a ‘drink-up’ at the Old Absinthe House on Bourbon Street in New Orleans at 4pm on Saturday, March 21st.  Group creator Brad Fusilier will be in attendance as will I and a guaranteed few others.  Don’t drink?  No worries.  They serve soda and popcorn so you’re all set.  Come and enjoy being around like-minded people.  You’re sure to make new friends.

Mission Statement

The Southern Skeptical Society is an organization devoted to the support and understanding of science and reason.  We strive to objectively pursue the truths and fallacies behind pseudoscience and all claims of paranormal activities.  In addition to this, it is our goal to promote the freedom from religion, primarily within the Southern United States, where our lawful rights are challenged daily on both a personal and legal scale.  We believe it is our mission to promote critical thinking in order to enable individuals to use logic and skepticism to empower them to make decisions and live life based on science and reason.  We invite you to join us on our quest to make this world a more tolerant and reasonable one not only for our generation but for generations to come.

Please see our Facebook page here.