I came across an example of Poe’s Law in practice today. as described on RationalWiki:

Poe’s Law relates to fundamentalism, and the difficulty of identifying actual parodies thereof. It suggests that, in general, it is hard to tell fake fundamentalism from the real thing, since they may both espouse equally extreme beliefs. Poe’s law also works in reverse: real fundamentalism can also be indistinguishable from parody fundamentalism.

PZ Myers link to this post on the discussion forums of the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry:

So moms are everywhere in nature. Females often go to great lengths to feed, save, and protect their young. Many construct homes and shelters…(all without knowing/understanding she’s even pregnant) and do so with great care and attention to detail.

So I’ve got two questions about this:

1) What is the evolutionary advantage of mothers doing everything they can to feed/protect their young? And remember, mothers often give food to their young that they might otherwise eat. And going out into the world to look for food is often dangerous — she could be killed looking for food. Wouldn’t there be an advantage to her personally just to forget about the kid and go about her own business of eating and finding a mate? Why the unnecessary risk? Why go to the trouble of building a nest to protect the young? Wouldn’t it be easier just to skip all that? I thought evolution was all about being selfish……….so why do so many animals put others’ needs before themselves? What’s the advantage to that?

2) Why wouldn’t it be an evolutionary advantage for mothers to eat their young? I know it sometimes happens in nature…..but not as a general rule. As a general rule, mothers and fathers very rarely eat their young…even when they’re hungry. But wouldn’t an animal be more likely to breed if it didn’t starve? Mothers should be consuming their offspring everywhere in nature — afterall, it would advantageous getting that extra nourishment.

How do the evolutionists here get around this? Where does this “love” or devotion for child come from? Got a gene you can show me? What’s the evolutionary advantage for all this? And remember — evolution cannot plan ahead.

Now the answer is fairly obvious just through think about how natural selection works, the mothers who look after her child will be more likely to have their children survive, and thus will more likely pass on their genes. That is why it is called natural selection. As PZ says “Wouldn’t an animal be more likely to breed if it ate its own babies?”.

But the interesting thing is that this is a great example of Poe’s Law. For there were a number of responses to the post. Including:

Ur…survival of life….?

Oh wait—you just posted this to get a rise out of scarlets! He thinks you’re serious!!

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Well done, sporty!!!11!!1!11!

You can’t know if the post is true or a parody of the truth, hence poe’s law!

The Big Picture Has a series of beautiful photos from the Cassini mission as it passes Jupiter.

My favourite picture is of the storms on saturn:

But check them all out!

In a recent article in the Spectator, journalist Melanie Phillips criticizes Richard Dawkins for sloppy quoting during a discussion on the case for deistic god.

In essence the article argues that there had been a bit of a gotcha moment when Dawkins, in a debate with John Lennox, had said: “…you can make a respectable case for deism – not a case that I would accept but I think it is a serious discussion that you could have.” Dawkins then subsequently claimed that he had been misquoted by Lennox later on when Lennox only quoted the first part and not the following qualification.

Melanie Phillips then accuses Dawkins of misquoting her, of using text from a website that discussed her, rather than her actual quote, and that by doing so he does not acknowledge that she had acknowledged the second part of his point about deism as well as the first. This appears to be the substance of her argument in the article. It should be noted that the thrust of the text Dawkins quoted and Phillips own argument are pretty much the same.

Now, as described it does look like an error on Dawkins part, I am not sure it warrants a whole article. But some people have got hot under the collar about it, including the author who Dawkins actually quoted:

Indeed, we are left with only two possible explanations for all this. He is either incompetent as a writer and researcher, or he has deliberately set out to misinform and deceive his audience. Either option is not very pretty. Considering that this guy actually calls himself a “Bright”, he does not seem so bright after all. He is either quite a dolt who cannot even do the most basic of quotations and referencing, or he has deliberately and maliciously made these gross misrepresentations and distortions in order to promote himself while he seeks to demonise Phillips.

In the end it was an error and Dawkins apologised in this post:

In my Atlanta talk, I briefly quoted the journalist Melanie Phillips, as a possible source of John Lennox’s ‘stunning revelation’. Unfortunately, I also attributed another, similar quotation to her, which was in fact from another blogger who had referred to her. This was inexplicably slipshod on my part. I apologise, and have asked Josh to remove the brief section of my talk where I spoke about Melanie Phillips. Richard

Of course Melanie Phillips is not quite, well, I would say accurate, in her article. For a start she states that:

In a lecture earlier this month to the American Atheists’ Convention in Atlanta, Georgia, Dawkins chose to attack Lennox …describing Lennox belittlingly as a ‘Christian apologist’ and an ‘Irish mathematician’

It is not quite clear why these are belittling comments. He is a Christian apologist, and this is not a term of derision, this is the term Christians use themselves. See for example the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry.

As for being called an Irish Mathematician, well I guess it could be a racial slur, but I suspect, given that he is, in fact, Irish and a mathematician, that is just a description of him.

And to some extent Phillips put words in the mouth of Dawkins, for example saying:

…given his previous absolutism in stating that anything unsupported by evidence is superstitious mumbo-jumbo and that anyone who believes that matter must have had an original creator is a cretin…

Now I know from Reading him that Richard Dawkins does not have great respect for religious belief, but I don’t think he has described all religious people as cretins.

She also subtly changes Dawkins argument. So while Dawkins is quoted as saying “…you can make a respectable case for deism”, a few paragraphs down it is changed to “a respectable scientific case could be made for deism”. This is a completely different proposition, and one I am sure Richard Dawkins would disavow.

And this gets to the the actual core of the issue, one that the article dances around – there can be made a respectable case for deism. I saying this I mean deism of the most general kind, that behind everything thing there might be some god, or creator, or mystical force (which is a quite different proposition that any earthly religion puts forward, which is for a much more involved deity).

I have no problem with that proposition, that accepting all the scientific evidence for the big bang, for evolution, for the universe as we understand it, behind it might be some, well supernatural force. It is not an argument I would make or would accept, but I can see how a reasonable argument for it might be made, as there really are mysteries as to why the big bang occurred.

Of course this is of no use to any christian or creationist argument, since that is not the case that any of them put forward. There proposition is for theism, for a much more invovled supreme being.

But it is an interesting proposition, and one worth discussing, and while I think Melanie Phillips has the right to defend her position, I don’t think the article moved the debate forward.

It has not be pleasant writing this, these kind of nit-picking arguments are not really enjoyable. Despite that I definitely support Richard Dawkins, his forthright approach is needed. Atheism has often been a silent voice drowned out by religious views and I appreciate that there are individuals out there taking the debate into the public sphere.

This is certainly necessarily when you have individuals, such as Cormac Murphy-O’Connor claiming atheists are “not quite human”.

Another bombing in Afghanistan has lead to civilian deaths.

Western air strikes sparked fresh controversy in Afghanistan on Wednesday as NATO said a bombing killed eight civilians and the US military estimated that up to 30 villagers died in an attack this month.

NATO soldiers on patrol in the southern province of Helmand on Tuesday came under attack from about 25 insurgents, the alliance’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) said.

“Finding it difficult to extract themselves from this dangerous situation, ISAF troops resorted to calling for close air support,” it said. A plane dropped a bomb. “Tragically, it is believed that eight civilians were killed as a result of the air strike,” it said.

ISAF accused the attackers of sheltering among the civilian population.
The soldiers “were not aware that the insurgents were once again using civilians as human shields,” the statement said. “If this information had been known by ISAF troops, no ordnance would have been used.”

The ongoing war in Afghanistan has been in progress for many years nows and it is not clear when it will end, partially because it is not clear what the end goals is. The initial invasion was to overthrow the Taliban Government which was providing refuge for Al-Qaida. Since then there doesn’t appear to be clarity over the aims of the war. Is it to ensure Afghanistan women can attend schools? To create a functioning liberal democracy in Afghanistan? To eradicate poppy growing?

It is sometimes difficult to evaluate actions in Afghanistan because all the battles seem to be against the ‘Taliban’, yet one gets the sense that the term Taliban is used to describe any forces fighting western troops, even when they are simply Pashtun fighters opposing forces invading their homeland.

The border areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan are home to millions of ethnic Pashtun who have traditional fought any foreign forces invading their homeland, whether they be British, Soviet or US forces. What is the war aim regarding the Pashtun tribes? Can they be subdued by force? If the desire is to bring them around to a more pro-western, or at least neutral position, then using force seems to be the wrong way of going about it.

It is this lack of clarity that makes assessing the war in Afghanistan so difficult. However, Graham Fuller, a former CIA chief in Kabul has written evaluated the situation with admirable clarity in an article for the Huffington Post. His main points are:

– Military force will not win the day in either Afghanistan or Pakistan; crises have only grown worse under the U.S. military footprint.

– The Taliban represent zealous and largely ignorant mountain Islamists. They are also all ethnic Pashtuns. Most Pashtuns see the Taliban — like them or not — as the primary vehicle for restoration of Pashtun power in Afghanistan, lost in 2001. Pashtuns are also among the most fiercely nationalist, tribalized and xenophobic peoples of the world, united only against the foreign invader. In the end, the Taliban are probably more Pashtun than they are Islamist.

– It is a fantasy to think of ever sealing the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The “Durand Line” is an arbitrary imperial line drawn through Pashtun tribes on both sides of the border. And there are twice as many Pashtuns in Pakistan as there are in Afghanistan. The struggle of 13 million Afghan Pashtuns has already inflamed Pakistan’s 28 million Pashtuns.

– India is the primary geopolitical threat to Pakistan, not Afghanistan. Pakistan must therefore always maintain Afghanistan as a friendly state. India furthermore is intent upon gaining a serious foothold in Afghanistan — in the intelligence, economic and political arenas — that chills Islamabad.

– Pakistan will therefore never rupture ties or abandon the Pashtuns, in either country, whether radical Islamist or not. Pakistan can never afford to have Pashtuns hostile to Islamabad in control of Kabul, or at home.

– Occupation everywhere creates hatred, as the U.S. is learning. Yet Pashtuns remarkably have not been part of the jihadi movement at the international level, although many are indeed quick to ally themselves at home with al-Qaida against the U.S. military.

– The U.S. had every reason to strike back at the al-Qaida presence in Afghanistan after the outrage of 9/11. The Taliban were furthermore poster children for an incompetent and harsh regime. But the Taliban retreated from, rather than lost, the war in 2001, in order to fight another day. Indeed, one can debate whether it might have been possible — with sustained pressure from Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia and almost all other Muslim countries that viewed the Taliban as primitives — to force the Taliban to yield up al-Qaida over time without war. That debate is in any case now moot. But the consequences of that war are baleful, debilitating and still spreading.

– The situation in Pakistan has gone from bad to worse as a direct consequence of the U.S. war raging on the Afghan border. U.S. policy has now carried the Afghan war over the border into Pakistan with its incursions, drone bombings and assassinations — the classic response to a failure to deal with insurgency in one country. Remember the invasion of Cambodia to save Vietnam?

– The deeply entrenched Islamic and tribal character of Pashtun rule in the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan will not be transformed by invasion or war. The task requires probably several generations to start to change the deeply embedded social and psychological character of the area. War induces visceral and atavistic response.

– Pakistan is indeed now beginning to crack under the relentless pressure directly exerted by the U.S. Anti-American impulses in Pakistan are at high pitch, strengthening Islamic radicalism and forcing reluctant acquiescence to it even by non-Islamists.

From this it is not clear that there is an easy way forward with Afghanistan. All these aspects of the situation mean that it may not be possible to impose a liberal democracy in Afghanistan.

However the one tool the US does have is a powerful military, and they are using that in Afghanistan. But that does not mean it is the right tool. The way forward should be to recognise the cultural and political situation in Afghanistan and realise that we will not create a democracy by bombing villages. We must accept more limited aims, work work with the local culture, not against it, and find a way forward that involves more humanitarian work and less bombing of civilians.

The Red One is a recent digital camera produced by the Red Digital Camera Company. The camera shots at greater than HD and at up to 120 frames per second, which allows the production of great slow-mo video.

As an example, here is a clip shot on the Red One.

skate – shot on red #1347 – 120 fps from Opus Magnum Production on Vimeo.

The music is ‘It’s Alright’ by Bang Gang and the site appears to be the Trocadéro in Paris.

The World’s Best Optical Illusion.