In reponse to the latest crawling from a Student Union over the recent Jesus and Mo fracas, and indeed the recent example of intimidation at an event featuring a dicussion of sharia law and women's rights:

The 2011 UK census forms are being mailed around now.Visit the Census Campaign to find out why you should check the "No Religion" option if you have no religious belief.

[caption id="" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="If you're not religious, say so in the 2011 UK census!"][/caption]The British Humanist Association has been campaigning for UK citizens to accurately respond to the census question on religion.Why should I answer the question at all? Well, this is a personal thing and I wouldn't pressurise people into any specific answer or none. But census data get used for all sorts of policy decisions, among them the role of religion in our everyday lives. What tends to happen is that people confuse the cultural heritage with religious beliefs they do not hold to.Why does it matter? The BHA has prepared a concise summary of how the 2001 census data on religious belief were used (or misused may be closer to reality. We should not be logging ourselves as Jedi Knights as some kind or prank. We should not say we are christian if we not longer practice the faith. We should be upfront and truthful about our religious faith.

The flies&bikes blog has been a bit quiet lately.  This has been partly because I've been rather distracted by events and activities at work, partly because much of what I write about relates to my bike racing (which is seasonal), and partly because I write on a few blog sites.My blog 'Wonderful Life', which is hosted at this site, is where I blog about biology and atheism, frequently on topics such as creationism and its deviant offspring 'intelligent design'.  This has lead me to accept an invitation to join the committee of the British Centre for Science Education (website, forum and blog).  So a bit more effort has gone towards 'Wonderful Life' lately..Normal service will be resumed...

The New Humanist blog is one of many web sites reporting on a fracas involving criticism via Twitter of Scientology (Welsh councillor in trouble for calling Scientology "stupid" on Twitter ). The synopsis of this story is that

When Cardiff councillor John Dixon visited London last year to buy a wedding ring for his wife to be, a stroll past the "Dianetics and Life Improvement Centre" on Tottenham Court Road (just round the corner from our office, as it happens) prompted him to make the following quip on Twitter:“I didn’t know the Scientologists had a church on Tottenham Court Road. Just hurried past in case the stupid rubs off.”

This has appeared to generate a bit of a problem for poor John Dixon, as the "Church" of Scientology made a complaint to the Welsh public service watchdog.  As a consequence Dixon's facing disciplinary action.Problem is, as someone who's read Russell Miller's biography of Scientology's founder L. Ron Hubbard (the wonderfully titled Bare Face Messiah), I rather inclined to agree with Dixon.  It's also why I place quotation marks around "Church", and why I believe Scientology is complete claptrap and an exercise in generating a huge income.  Herewith my modest contribution to the Streisand Effect.On the other hand (and in a spirit of even-handedness), I suggest the core beliefs of most established religions are equally loopy.

The website Christian Concern for our Nation takes up their cudgels to stand up for a sacked housing officer Justice for Duke Campaign. In common with many religious sites, there doesn't appear to be a comment feature for curmudgeonly atheists such as I to respond. Any road, the article describes how

Bible-believing Christian Duke Amachree, married and father of 3 children who had served Wandsworth Council as a Homelessness Prevention Officer diligently for 18 years, was dismissed in circumstances Christians and non-Christians alike across the country rightly view as completely outrageous.

Well this non-Christian (actually atheist) doesn't find it completely outrageous, at least based on the evidence presented by CCfoN.

Been a bit busy over at Wonderful Life, and at work this week to maintain the accelerating pace of blogging.  Here's an amusing little website animation for your amusement.  Thanks to the excellent PZMyers for the headsup.

Over the weekend I've been playing around with Wordpress, having set up a blog over at wordpress.com, where you can set up a blog spectacularly quickly (as you can over with Google's blogger.com).  As a fairly experienced Joomla! user, I found the hosted blog slightly restrictive (for example I would have to pay a daily rate of $0.04 just to be able to edit the theme's css file).

I ended up doing a test installaion on my notebook, firstly using a dedicated database, then trying out incorporating its database within my main Joomla! database.  It turns out to be pretty straightforward to migrate content (though I imagine one would exceed the import limit quite quickly on an active blog).

Another broadsheet blogger rails against the atheist bus adverts, this time it's one Gerald Warner, blogging at the Daily Telegraph.

I've moved this post over to another blog.

The Wordpress blog I described the other day has been fully launched - Wonderful Life - and is hosted here rather than at Wordpress.com.  I wanted to be able to do some css tweaking, and that proved a bit easier I installed it in my own domain.  I'm rather pleased with the clean and uncluttered layout of the template I chose.

I've entitled the blog Wonderful Life because it's the sense of wonder and excitement I gain from observing and explaining the world around me that motivates me as a biologist.  It's a forum for me to sound off on atheism and related matters.  Of course, it remains to be seen whether I keep it (the blog, I mean, not my biology!) rolling after the initial excitement.  And of course this blog will still be needing attention, as does the Team Grumpy blog (though that's more of a joint effort). 

Christian Voice are an evangelical christian lobby group which is a bit cross about the atheist bus advert campaign.  From their website, Christian Voice...

...is a ministry for those Christians who are fed up with the way things are, who have had enough of secularist politicians imposing wickedness on the rest of us and who are not satisfied with trying to get ‘Christian influence in a secular world' because they know ‘The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof; the world and they that dwell therein' (Psalm 24:1). If you want instead to lift high the Crown Rights of the King of kings, you have found the right place!

Here's another attempted broadside from religious wackos. A comment article on the Guardian website from Andrew Brown presents a statement that "distinguished religious affairs commentator" Clifford Longley (who? Presumably this Clifford Longley, who's website hasn't been updated in a while) has made, in addition to the crackpot Christian Voice, complained to the ASA about the atheist bus advert.

In an astonishingly inane piece, Longley maintains

it would be honest and true to say the opposite - "There probably is a God."

The ASA complaint about the Atheist Bus ad campaign, as reported in the Guardian website supposedly emanates from one Clifford Longley.  In fact, the complaint is largely plagiarised from a religious website, and makes the same strategic cock-ups as many a creationist tract does: old quotations, out of context quotations, quotations incorrectly attributed, quotations that may never have been made.  Add to the mix an argument from authority, presumably right up the street for someone who can accept the most improbable drivel from an priest figure, and you have a classic set of misapprehension masquerading as an academic exercise.  Perhaps the whole thing is a hoax?

I read in the blogosphere that over 50 complaints have been made to the ASA - if they are all as pathetic as this one and that of Stephen Green, I say bring them on!

I was interested to know more about Stephen Green, the man who has filed a complaint with the Advertising Standards Authority against the Atheist Bus ad campaign.  The blog site mediawatchwatch has an interview with Stephen Green, dating from June 2005.  In it, he demonstrates an astonishing lack of understanding of biology and evolution by natural selection.  For example, on one of the classic examples of sexual selection, the peacock's tail:

Why does the peacock have such a magnificent tail? ‘So he can attract a mate', the evolutionist replies. So how does the hedge-sparrow do it? 

It's a few days now since Clifford Longley's supposed complaint to the ASA was released on the internet via the wonders of blogging (for example search Google for the string "According to growing numbers of scientists, the laws and constants of nature are so").

I did just that search, along with a few others to see whether Clifford Longley had indeed made that complaint to the ASA with the plagiarised text.  (See my post Rebutting Clifford Longley), and I'm unable to see any  evidence that (a) the complaint has been made and (b) that it is anything to do with Clifford Longley.

Well, Andrew Brown (in who's blog at the Guardian I first read Clifford Longley's dopey ASA complaint) has written a little bit more about the affair, and judges that "Clifford Longley has been silly".  At least it would seem that the text that Longley appears to have sent to newspaper columnists up and down the country was sent by him.

His defence is that the quotes are genuine even if he did not collect them and he that he never claimed to have collected them himself. It didn't seem to him the important thing about them. Some of them he had in his own library, or could remember reading; others were new to him, but all seemed germane to his general point, that there are distinguished scientists who take the strong anthropic principle seriously as evidence for design in the universe. This was the point he wanted to make to the ASA, which offers a web form for complaints on its web site into which he cut and pasted what he had found. 

Now, another protest against the atheist bus, this time from a christian bus driver, who is taking exception to the phrase "There's probably no god...".

The bus company apparently will endeavour to ensure that Mr Heather won't have to drive one of these buses.  So, I suppose end of story.  Except of course, I spend much of my atheist existence being popped at by bizarre religious ramblings, not least via my morning radio listening, which is invariably polluted by "Thought for the Day".  If you are really keen to listen, you can do so here.

Via the excellent Pharyngula blog, I came across this ridiculous article by Bryan Appleyard in The Times:  For God's sake, have Charles Darwin's theories made any difference to our lives? - published on 11th January (so I got to it a little late - I'm more of a Guardian reader!).

Yes, Bryan, they have made a difference, and not the spurious negative ones you build up to in your article.  To be charitable, one must suppose the point of Appleyard's article is to point out that many (usually from the under-educated religious wing) do not accept evolution by natural selection (and I come back to the difference between comment and reportage later).

The Daily Telegraph today has a report on the British Humanist Association's atheist bus advert (which I posted about back in October: Humanist message on London buses).  It's a peculiar article from the religious affairs correspondent that seems to emphasise the existence of the buses bearing the advert, rather than what I take to be the significant aspect of the story - that enough cash has been raised to fund 800 buses across the country (not just London).  Amusingly, one of the links on the sidebar is to this story from August entitled Atheists fail to cough up for London bus ad, while another, from October is entitled Atheist buses ready to roll across country after making £31,000 in a day.

I guess I must have missed the initial unsuccessful phase of the fund-raising campaign, and merely contributed to its resurrection in October!

So, is a belief in Santa Claus (he of the Coca-Cola-inspired red outfit) any less resonable than a belief in God (any God)?  The Unreasonable Faith blog thinks not: