OMG, we survived another killer earthquake this afternoon

What's the world coming to when we keep getting these 4-point-something earthquakes in Melbourne of all places? Are the plagues of locusts and flies next? What about the deaths of our first-born?

My submission to the National Human Rights Consultation Committee

I've decided, for the sake of debate, to publish my entire submission to the National Human Rights Consultation Committee - all 55,000 words of it - on the internet. I hope this document is useful, especially for others who are concerned to defend freedom of speech and individual liberty. I'm arrogant enough to feel sure that it could be a valuable resource, if used well.

As I indicate towards the end, it is more a Green Paper than a White Paper - though I've settled on a nice yellow background for the moment. I.e., I am open to correction and to refining my views as this exercise continues.

In that sense, it's a work in progress. Still, I believe that it's worthwhile as a contribution to the debate and I hope that it attracts some readers. The various philosophical and legal principles, and the various statutes and cases, have been researched with as much diligence as I could manage at fairly short notice, and I believe that they are generally described accurately. Fortunately, I was not starting from scratch.

Do write to me if you think anything needs to be corrected as the debate goes on, or feel free to discuss it here.

This is not good enough - freedom of religion and belief project to publish "selection" of submissions

The freedom of religion and belief project has now announced that it received a total of 1937 submissions from organisations and individuals. That's a lot, so it's reasonable that it is taking some time for those concerned to check the submissions prior to publication.

However, they now say that they will publish all submissions from organisations that comply with their (vague and manipulable) guidelines. But they will only publish a "representative" selection of submissions from individuals. That is not good enough. We need a data base of all submissions to be available to the public so that we can do our own research on it and draw our own conclusions. It is not acceptable that the project can give its own, possibly impressionistic or biased, account of what was "representative". Openness and accountability require that all submissions be published unless they were expressly given in confidence.


=====
Edit: I've now sent the following (polite) email to protest the decision (with the usual galling typo or two corrected in this version):

Dear project members,

FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND BELIEF: DECISION ON PUBLICATION OF SUBMISSIONS

I am writing to express my dismay at the decision to publish only a selection of individual submissions that are considered to be "representative" of the opinions that have been expressed. This breaks faith with members of the public who provided submissions in the expectation that they would be published. In fairness, you might respond that this was probably not an important factor in people's minds. However, you can't be sure of this.

More importantly, your decision creates a situation where we must all take on trust what was or was not "representative". We need a data base of all submissions to be available to the public, so that we can do our own research on it and draw our own conclusions. I have read all submissions from individuals that have been published so far, and have been able to draw certain inferences (e.g. some submissions are very similarly worded, suggesting an organised campaign by evangelical organisations). I will not be able to continue to draw inferences such as this unless all submissions are published. If only a "representative" selection (as judged by you, with inevitable biases no matter how objective you attempt to be) is published, much of the value of the data will be lost. It will of far less value to other researchers, and your own eventual report will be less authoritative.

In the interests of openness and accountability, I urge you to reconsider this decision.

Yours sincerely,

Russell Blackford

Origins of natural evil (humour)

Now and then I find something over at Pharyngula that I just have to share. PZ Myers claims that this is the genuine abstract of an academic paper (apparently by an academic at a fundamentalist college in the US). I just love it, especially scenario 1., even if (contrary to information from the commenters at Pharyngula) it turns out to be a hoax. PZ loves the "Satan et. al.", which sounds like an article by the Prince of Darkness and his colleagues.

Here, for your enjoyment:

=================================

The Origins of Natural Evil
Gordon Wilson
New St. Andrews College

In a cursory survey of life it is obvious that a vast number of species spanning most kingdoms and phyla have features that are teleologically designed to deal out disease and/or death. Many pathogens, parasites, and predators have sophisticated genetic, morphological, and behavioral arsenals (natural evil) that clearly testify to the God's eternal power and divine nature (Romans 1: 20), i.e. they are not the result of mutation and natural mutation.

These range from the bacterial type III secretion systems, the cnidarian nematocysts, the toxoglossate radula and apparatus of Conus, the parasitic physiology of Wuchereria bancrofti, the piercing/sucking mouthparts of predaceous insects, and the solenoglyphous skull, pit organs, and venom apparatus of pit vipers. Scripture states that: 1) every green plant was given for food (Genesis 1:30), 2) death and disease are a consequence of sin (Genesis 2:17), and 3) creation was completed on the sixth day (Genesis 2:1). The following six scenarios attempt to explain the presence of natural evil in the biological world from a young earth creationist framework. I will then assess them in light of these aforementioned biblical truths.

At creation creatures that were to become pathogens, parasites, and predators:

1. had dual gene sets: (such as in holometabola: larva, pupa, and adult) one gene set for benign morphology and behavior (sinless contingency) and one for malignant morphology and behavior (Fall contingency) with only the benign genes sets expressed prior to the Fall.

2. had malignant morphological gene sets expressed for an imminent preordained (or fore-known) Fall, with no usage prior to the Fall. Malignant behavioral gene sets expressed after the Fall.

3. had the same malignant morphology before and after the Fall, however benign usage was normative before the Fall. After the Fall micro-evolutionary factors altered benign behavior into malignant behavior.

4. were morphologically and behaviorally benign and then subsequent to the Fall malignant genes were designed, created, and incorporated into the genome of certain creatures transforming them into pathogens, parasites, and predators.

5. were subject to random mutation and natural selection after the Fall transforming their benign gene sets into malignant gene sets. The latter were not designed by God.

6. were completely benign in all respects but at the Fall the enemy (Satan, et. al.) engaged in post-Fall genetic modification and/or bestiality that resulted in creatures with malignant behavior and morphology.

I will argue that the two scenarios that are the most harmonious with both scripture and the scientific data are 1) and 2). Any scenario attributing the presence of these highly complex morphological and behavioral arsenals to random mutation and natural selection is granting creative powers to mindless processes (this is no better than atheistic evolution). Any scenario that attributes these complex arsenals to God's creative power yet shifts their time of origin to a post-Fall creative act, contradicts the finished creation on day six. Finally, any scenario that attributes these complex arsenals to Satan et. al., attributes too much creative power and intelligence to the powers of darkness.

============

So now you know how to reconcile the existence of a loving and providential God with the existence of all those pesky parasites and carnivores. Easy, wasn't it?

Short report on Watchmen - and an open thread

I loved the movie version of Watchmen, which Jenny and I saw yesterday. I loved the characters, the cinematography, the soundtrack, the substantial fidelity to the original graphic novel (though the changed ending was actually better ... without really changing the tone and structure in any way), the uncompromising (if, perhaps, unduly pessimistic) vision of human nature and of what superhuman individuals would be up against if they wanted to make real change.

Random observations:

It's often said that Dr Manhattan is the only character with real super powers - but that wasn't how it looked in the movie. Many of the moves made by Rorschach and the other less powerful superheroes were beyond what even an Olympic athlete could do, and this wasn't just a Hollywood convention. It was made quite explicit in the way stationary jumps, for example, were filmed. At a higher level of power, Ozymandias, the Germanic ubermensch, was clearly far beyond any human level in his strength and speed (leaving aside his claim to be the most intelligent man in the world).

There was no explanation of this, although it didn't worrry me. I'm happy to accept that there are human beings with superhuman levels of strength, agility, etc., within the diegesis of the movie.

I'm seriously wondering how a movie like this could have received an R rating in the US. Sure, there's a darkness of vision that may not be suitable for little kids, but a PG rating would have been more appropriate. There's one very low-level sex scene, some anodyne nudity, and a lot of comic-book-style violence. So?

I loved the moral ambiguity that surrounded all of the main characters ... for different reasons. Dr Manhattan, Ozymandias, Rorschach, Silk Spectre (both senior and junior), Nite Owl, and the Comedian are all morally ambiguous.

I adored the genetically-engineered lynx! I want one.

I'm wondering whether anyone else has noticed a resemblance between Dr Manhattan and Winston Niles Rumfoord in Kurt Vonnegut's The Sirens of Titan. I'm sure a google search would tell me, but I'll let Blake Stacey or one of my other regular readers do it.

I totally loved the soundtrack. It really brought back the 1980s.

This is just a quick post, in lieu of a more considered one. lol Please discuss this or anything else that's on your mind.

Freedom of religion and belief site

I see that, as of today, this still has not been updated beyond the submissions received as of 9 January 2009. I've heard around the traps that the project ended up receiving an enormous number (as in 1500, or something) of submissions, though I imagine that a lot of them were only a page, from what we've seen so far.

Formally graduating on 26 March

I'll be formally graduating (in absentia) on 26 March 2009 - this is now confirmed on Monash University's graduations page. So I'll soon be out of that limbo where I sort of have my PhD in philosophy ... but not strictly speaking because I haven't yet graduated. That'll be nice.

New issue of JET taking shape

Over the next few days we'll be publishing another two articles in The Journal of Evolution and Technology: a piece by Austin Corbett on the complex Ghost in the Shell mythos; and an article by Nietzsche scholar Stefan Lorenz Sorgner on the relationship between Nietzsche and transhumanism.

I'll report further as these are published. With some other promising material under discussion, issue 20(1) will be both strong and diverse.

We've almost caught up with ourselves at JET! While we're still not as timely in reviewing articles as we'd like to be, and we apologise to one or two people who may be feeling a bit frustrated by now, we're gradually getting this under control. Importantly, we're very close to clearing our backlog of work, which will make things much easier, and we're normally publishing material as soon as it's ready ... as opposed to waiting until an entire issue is ready to be published at once.

I'll take another opportunity to urge interested authors to have a good look at our website - http://jetpress.org/ - and consider JET as a possible home for your best work on the human or posthuman future.

My name is NOT "Russel Blackford"

Publishers take note. My name is "Russell Blackford". That's "Russell" spelled in the ordinary way with two L's.

For the third time in the past year or so, I've just had a publication of some importance - and that I would otherwise have taken pride in - ruined when the publisher, for some totally unknown reason, decided to spell my name as "Russel Blackford" ... despite my name being spelled correctly on all the correspondence, the copy, etc. I have no idea how this happens, but I'm fed up with it. I'm not going to name the culprits, but PLEASE, from now on, all publishers, spell my goddamn name correctly.

I do not want my hard work thrown away. I don't want it attributed to some other person who does not exist; I do want my work to be discoverable if somebody googles for my name; I do want my name to come up correctly if somebody searches on terms relevant to the subject matter; I don't want confusion about my identity (or whether there may be two people with similar names, or whatever people are thinking by now).

It's just not that difficult. It's not as if it's a rare spelling or that unusual a first name. Is it asking too much for professional people in the publishing industry to get such an important and easy thing right?

Gig reminder - "Voices of Disbelief"

Reminder to self (and anyone else): I'll be speaking tomorrow night at the Unitarian Hall in Grey Street, East Melbourne, on the topic "Voices of Disbelief". This gig is for the Atheist Society, and is a first opportunity to do some public promotion of 50 Voices of Disbelief: Why We Are Atheists. It's also an opportunity to do a bit more, such as asking why such books are currently needed and whether they just preach to the choir.

Come along if interested.