UCONN acted swiftly in holding a hearing and ordering expulsion.  Miles' guardian, Sean Patterson, was quoted as saying that Miles was "railroaded". Regardless of the propriety of the expulsion or the administrative hearing, the Miles case highlights the often uncomfortable interplay between universities and the legal system.  Rules in the criminal justice system differ from those on campus.

Miles' court case was continued until November, and there is a strong possibility that charges will ultimately be dismissed if Miles fulfills counseling requirements.  The potential of such a seemingly innocuous resolution didn't prevent UCONN from moving swiftly from expelling Miles.  One can at least wonder whether UCONN would have reacted differently if Miles was considered an important piece for the upcoming season.  At least one commentator suggests that Miles won't be missed at Storrs.  http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3623640&name=katz_andy

Miles can still appeal the University's decision, and rumors suggest that he will.  Commentators have been quick to dismiss Miles as a bad apple and have repeatedly cited to his attending at least five high schools as evidence of his instability.  http://www.courant.com/services/newspaper/printedition/sports/hc-jeffcol1003.artoct03,0,5622474.column.  However, his side of the story has not yet been publicized, and under the University code, it need not be.

Jim Calhoun's program has come under increased scrutiny in recent years after a string of disciplinary and legal incidents have lead to multiple expulsions and suspensions.  The University acted decisively this time and avoided the controversey that surrounded the Marcus Williams decision.  ctsportslaw.com will continue to monitor Miles' efforts to appeal and any further legal proceedings.  In the interim, we welcome your thougts on this case and the legal woes of the team.

Art imitating life - Young Adult novel "Boxed Out" about a Catholic teen who's uncomfortable with his coach the team in Protestant prayers mirrors the real life story of atheist teen Nicole Smalkowski.

Religulous vs. Expelled regarding their opening weekends - Which is the greater success so far? Also, Orlando Sentinel’s Roger Moore compares the content of the 2 films.

AND NOW FOR A MOMENT OF SCIENCE:

Pterodactyl-inspired Robot To Master Air - "Scientists have reached back in time 115 million years to one of the most successful flying creatures in Earth’s history, the pterodactyl, to conjure a robotic spy plane with next-generation capabilities."

Antisocial Behavior: Blame Low Stress Hormones? - "A link between reduced levels of the 'stress hormone' cortisol and antisocial behaviour in male adolescents has been discovered by a research team at the University of Cambridge."

After explaining some scientific arguments against intelligent design (ID), as outlined in the book he co-edited, Why Intelligent Design Fails, Edis concluded with his thoughts on the present and future of ID. He conceded that ID does capture common intuitions about design and complexity and should be subjected to scientific criticism. However, ID proponents have failed to respond to the scientific criticisms he and others presented four years ago, and therefore ID has lost significance in the scientific community. 

At the same time, Edis recognized that ID is still an interesting object of study in the intersection of science and religion. He compared ID's current role as a "rerun of creationism." Its proponents rely on the flaws of Darwinism, pressure including its tenets in public schools and claim a crisis of persecution. 

He further stated that culturally, what scientists say about ID will simply serve as a "side show" and that the theory will remain "alive and well." In June Louisiana state government officials signed into law a bill providing for public schools to maintain supplemental materials on intelligent design and to present the strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Taner suggested that other states including Missouri may adopt similar laws. Also, Edis brought up Ben Stein's 2008 film, Expelled, which will be released on DVD on October 21, as an example of how intelligent design is framed as being a victim of persecution.

On another note, did you know that the strongest creationist movement in the world is that in Islam? I certainly had assumed that it was mostly a Christian movement until the question was raised after the lecture. Edis also cited how Jews and sometimes Buddhists argue for creationism.

And, Joe doesn’t get off the hook either for this snore fest.  As I stated before, Joe has lost a bit on his fastball, witness how he tried to “characterized” John McCain.  Thought for a moment he was having a stroke but Joe Biden soon recovered to “bore again”.

So what’s the final scorecard on Sarah?

Round 3:  The VP  Debate

Here are my running comments as this debate bores on:

Some sample Sarah comments: “They don’t like America!” she said of foreign oil producers.  Well, they like our money.  About global warming, “Climate change is occurring but there are cyclical changes.” (paraphrase)  She doesn’t want to argue about it , but we got to “clean up the problem”. Huh?

Sarah’s answers are a long, rambling, run-on sentences, I mean does this woman ever take a breathe? Please, get some oxygen to your brain, Sarah! Take a  breath will you?

Same sex couples?  She’ll be tolerant and, get this, she digs diversity! She doesn’t support anything but one man and one woman. But then again Joe and Obama weaseled out on the gay issue.

As to Iraq, remember that Bush money pit? “We got to win in Iraq” and then it’s off to Afghanistan, she said. Who’s Talibbany by the way?  Iran, guess what, no nukes says Sarah. Why?  They hate America! Okay but where’s the beef?  And don’t bother looking Joe’s way.  He and Obama look like they are content to run the clock out thinking they have a lead. Hey, there are 30 plus day left in the election!

So far, no major faux pas from Sarah but I think I fell asleep at one point.  Boring!  But nuclear weaponry sounds so annoying coming from her.  Still, better that Bush’s pronunciation of nu-cu-ler.

I think the audience either passed out or left the debate out of indifference it was so quiet. I’m not into the moderator, Gwen either.  I understand she is a black conservative but hey she’s boring.  Think there’s a common thread here?  Where’s Tina Fey when you need her or for that matter Hillary?

Oh no, Sarah’s pushing that Washington outsider crap.  Please you’re a politician, that’s the very definition of an insider. Opps, did she just make a comment about changing the VP role?  Who does she think she is? Dick Cheney?

Oh no, Joe just had another senior moment, he seems to skip every so often like an old warped record! Ah, he just restarted and is attacking McCain's maverick credentials! Good for him, I thought we would have to ge the paddles out to resuscitate him.  Then at one point Joe gets verklemptwhen talking about raising his family.  Way to show your softer side Joe!

Final comments:

Sarah is going to fight for the middle class! We are blessed and she is proud to be an American. Yikes, what a cliche fest!

As for Joe...zzzzzzzz

That's it?  No knock out but are Sarah's scoccer Mom values enough as we near a financial meltdown?

Round 2: Katie Couric Interview

I sat down sat again with my wife to watch the Sarah Palin interview with Katie Couric. As Sarah mumbled a bizarre answer, my wife turned to me and said “What the hell? What a dope!”

I had to agree, it was another embarrassing train wreck of an interview. The woman can’t put two thoughts together, never mind express them in a coherent fashion. As Sarah was talking or should I say stumbling, I was saying to myself, okay this is how you should respond. Instead she gave a long rambling, incoherent commentary about Alaska, national security and her Russian neighbor. Then I had my epiphany: Sarah’s like Dan Quayle, only not as pretty. Really, it was Dan Quayle and losing one's mind speech all over again. Doesn’t matter though, neo-cons like Silly little Freak still love Sarah because she has "values". I just guess that intelligence is not one of those shared values. No wonder why this country is sinking so fast!

I am not saying Sarah is stupid like George Bush stupid, really somebody please do a brain scan on him, but she was clearly coached and if I was Vladimir Putin I would definitely want to invite her to my next poker party. If Bush got all weepy looking into Putin's eyes you can only imagine what Palin's response will be to the Russian dictator.

So what of Sarah Palin and her religious beliefs? Well, five to six years ago she was a member of a Pentecostal church, the Assembly of God to be exact. Now these rocket scientists believe in a literal bible, talking in tongues, faith healing and, how can we forget, the ever popular end-of-times. We have had so many end of times I don’t were to begin. This type of inspired lunacy leads to such clear thinking as “it’s God's will that is being done in Iraq.” Funny, I thought that was the work of a mediocre son looking to clear his daddy’s historical record but, hey, what the hell do I know? I mean we went in there to separate those heathens from the WMD’s right? Eh, okay the weapons weren’t there but we did bring freedom to the Iraqis, right? You know freedom from boredom as the local militia executes the men in your family but hey that’s God’s plan and you can’t argue about the big picture, right?

The good news is that God’s plans are not just relegated to simple matters of war. No way! Did you know that a new pipe line is a task from God? Me, I was thinking Exxon-Mobil but I guess I think way too small. Really, Palin said this. God's will is to be done developing our natural resources, never mind all we are doing is feeding a nasty oil habit and that the sooner we can move to something alternative the sooner we can tell the idiots in the Middle East what they can do with their oil.  Ask Sarah about Creationism and she'll reply sure Creationism should be taught in school!  We don’t have a lick of proof that it can’t stand up to rigorous scientific review but hell proof didn’t stop us from invading Iraq.

Round 1: Charlie Gibson Interview

Being independently minded, I sat with my wife and we watched the first interview on ABC first hand before anybody had an opportunity to tell us how to think about the interview. I’m sorry but as I sat there I found it be both embarrassing and uncomfortable to watch. I replayed it several times on the DVR watching their facial expressions and their body language and it reeked of pure train wreck! Charlie looked like a pained, almost constipated school teacher and Sarah Palin resembled the proverbial moose caught in the headlights.

I’m sorry but the look on her face was priceless. It’s amazing how the Ben Stein fundamentalist creationist crowd regurgitates everything that is thrown at it by the cynical Republican conservatives, by the way the very same conservative wing that was all but ready to throw McCain under the bus. Then McCain goes out and drafts the fundamentalist Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential trophy candidate and she say goes around saying “god tasked us to do this and god speaks to us” and the next thing you know McCain is called “McBrilliant” by the vicodin-laden gas bag named Rush Limbaugh.

The Sarah Palin Files:

More: Palin and the Charlie Gibson Interview: She's No Hillary!

More on Hillary: No Political Catfight with Palin

More on Palin "Governor Palin You're No Hillary Clinton!"

More on Palin with this story,"Apparently-Bristol-Palin-is-no-Chelsea-Clinton-Either"

Elles, author of the blog Splendid Elles, wrote this about the PZ Myers presentation we hosted recently, so I though I would share.

"So, after the Metro-State Atheists went through much stress and annoying bureaucracy stuff involving the student government, I got to see PZ Myers give an epic speech that was made of win!

After having heard the majority of my non-science teachers pussyfoot around having to say the “E word”, it was refreshing hearing somebody say that we shouldn’t avoid talking about evolution just because the creationist “has a big rock”.

Most refreshing was hearing somebody say that science and religion are in fact competing worldviews. One relies on faith, while the other asks for evidence. Now, that doesn’t mean that people can’t be compartmentalized and use faith in one situation to make them feel warm and fuzzy on the inside and science when they end up in an emergency room, but they’re really not the same.

PZ gave a very good summary of the present state of science education in our country, loaded with all those juicy statistics and stuff. He also pointed out that a certain vice-presidential candidate is a creationist and thinks that creation should be taught along-side evolution.

He then divulged his evil plan for when he becomes Emperor of the world by showing us a clip from Expelled with him saying that he wanted religion to become like knitting. But of course, after saying that quote a bunch of knitters (including myself… er… not really… I’ve knitted a few scarves and stuff) because upset that he had vilely compared their hobby to religion so he made a new analogy (and I will paraphrase and plausibly severely misquote him here)

I want religion to become like masturbation. Something that everybody does, doesn’t talk about it that much, doesn’t affect their lives… but it feels good and it doesn’t harm anybody…

I don’t want it to become a deciding factor for president of the United States though.

He then talked about the whole cracker incident and shared a few of the e-mails he had gotten from it, and as entertaining as it was to hear him tell the tale in person, I frankly felt he spent more time on it than he needed to… and I don’t think he tied it in to the talk very well. Actually, I still have no idea how it related to science education. I loved listening to it and all but…

Sorry, PZ. You’re still made of win. Just a touch of constructive criticism…

He ended with a quote from Lawrence Krauss…

I wonder which is more important: using the contrast between science and religion to teach about science or trying to put religion in its place?

He said “why can’t we do both?” And I agree. The better a person understands the scientific method, I’ll bet the more likely they are to apply it to everything.

Education needs to be about freethought. It needs to be about teaching kids skepticism and not telling them “apply this to everything! But not your religion.” We can’t make conclusions for them, but we can give them the freedom and the tools to get to their own conclusions… if they choose to use them.

So, in conclusion, when PZ becomes emperor of the world it’s not going to be that bad of a place. If you don’t like cephalopods, though…

Anyway, still a pretty awesome talk."

I bring this up because of the latest move by Creationists (under the guise of Intelligent Design proponents, of course) to get their psuedoscience into American classrooms. Meet the Academic Freedom Petition. What is it? 'Teach the Controversy', basically, but dressed up in the garb of 'freedom' and (surprise, surprise) further from religious funamentalism than any previous push to get ID into schools. From the website:

Across America, the freedom of scientists, teachers, and students to question Darwin is coming under increasing attack by self-appointed defenders of the theory of evolution who are waging a malicious campaign to demonize and blacklist anyone who disagrees with them.

This seems pretty innocent at first glance - after all, everyone should have the right to question whatever they like. Of course, it's not that simple, and I'll explain why.

The first thing to keep in mind is that this is very obviously a Creationist initiative. The Petition website contains links to IntelligentDesign.org (which itself seems to be a product of the Centre for Science and Culture, the science branch of the infamous Discovery Institute) and, of all things, the Expelled website. If you think advocating Stein's 'documentary' should be enough to destroy any credibility this movement may have had, you'd be wrong. The people behind this latest ploy do have a point, but (as always) they're twisting it out of shape to further their own agenda.

It is true that most high school teachers either can't or won't discuss Creationism in their classroom, for a variety of reasons. As Airtightnoodle has pointed out, the laws preventing Creationism from being taught are something of a double-edged sword, in that they also prevent teachers from refuting it. Even where this isn't explicit school policy, a teacher can put his or her job in danger by discussing what everyone knows is a religious topic. In high school, Creationism is a no-go area. I wish this wasn't the case, if only to silence claims that biology teachers are incapable of replying to Creationist myths (again, Airtightnoodle goes a long towards debunking that one, but at the moment those are the rules that teachers must play by.

The Petition goes further than that, however, by implying that everyone involved in education or science is being prevented from questioning evolution. This goes hand-in-hand with the implication that the arguments presented in the likes of Expelled are actually valid and worthy of being taught to students. This is obviously not the case (you'll know what I mean if you've ever heard Stein trying to talk about science), and the Petition falls apart when you realise that they're backing the same refuted arguments that 'evolutionists' have been fielding for decades.

If there actually was significant scientific debate over the validity of evolutionary theory, and if Creationists actually did have something meaningful to say on the subject, then I might be more sympathetic to projects like this. As it stands, 'academic freedom' is a dressed up phrase for 'psuedoscience, delivered to students by teachers'. Letting biology teachers point out imaginary weaknesses in evolution would be like letting history teachers point out weaknesses in the idea that the Holocaust was a real event, or that the moon landings were genuine. Rather than strengthening academic freedom, it would make a farce of academic integrity, at a stroke lowering the standards for what should and should not be allowed into a classroom dramatically. Creationism is laughed out of third-level institutes because it's wrong, and it's banned from high schools because it's blatantly religious.

It's also interesting that evolution is the only theory being targeted here - if this is a genuine push for better education, why does it only focus on what has historically been the whipping boy of the Creationist movement?

As always, the Discovery Institute and its ilk are attempting to smuggle their myths in through the back door. Having utterly failed to make any headway in the scientific community (this is what they mean when they whine about being 'censored' or unfairly ignored), they're bypassing the whole bothersome process and going straight for legislation - again. Which leads to the disturbing question of how many times they have to throw their crap at the wall before some of it sticks.

Referring to teaching 6 day creationism to children he says: "Let’s say that I taught my children a lie. But that lie gave them hope and joy and purpose to their dying day. What have I done wrong?"

Now, I think there are several issues here:

• The assumption that "6 day creationism" will somehow give "hope and joy and purpose to their dying day."
• The assumption that a real understanding of our world, and humanity's endeavours to understand it somehow doesn't give hope joy and purpose. My observation and experience is exactly the opposite.
• Alongside these lies about science go lies about fellow humans. Scientists are presented as delusioned, if not outright evil atheists. Great thinkers like Charles Darwin are presented as responsible for the evils of Nazism. Scientists are presented as suppressing the truth - as in videos like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. This creates a dangerous "Them and Us" situation for children (unfortunately not uncommon with religious traditions).
• How will children judge such parents? It's one thing to recognise that a parent was honestly prejudiced, misinformed or blind on scientific issues. It's another to realise that one's parents were dishonest and actively set out to deny you access to science, to an understanding of reality, as a child.
• The belief that children remain children, and therefore gullible to believing fairy stories, for the rest of their lives is silly. Our children do, in fact, grow up to become completely autonomous human beings. They think for themselves. Parental beliefs and prejudices are only one amongst many inputs to the opinion-forming processes of individuals.

You know, one's children may even grow up to accept scientific knowledge, while at the same time preserving the better parts of the religious tradition. They may even value the creation mythology of that tradition.

But I can't help feeling that they will resent parents who attempted to use that tradition and its myths to deny them access to the great wealth of humanity's scientific knowledge. They might even feel that they have been a little but abused.

Similar articles

At least, that's what the AFA would have us believe. The latest from their action alert newsletter:

Ben Blows the Horn on Censorship!

Dear ____,

When I saw this movie I wanted to jump up and down in joy. Ben Stein shows the Evolution Only crowd for what they are. This is the best expose' of the educational bureaucrats ever. See how the leftwing liberals have captured higher education and will not allow any view but theirs to be discussed. See how they punish those who don't think like they think. Ben Stein embarrases them intellectually. The liberals would like to ban this movie. They can't do that, so they did the next best thing--they simply ignored it when it was shown in the theaters. The media critics also ignored it. The movie shows how they refuse to allow any discussion concerning creation. It shows how the liberal educators deal with their peers who do not agree with their Evolution Only stance.

Please watch this movie, then share it with others. I wish it could be shown in every classroom and every church in America.

In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter,
economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best
scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing
all Americans today:

Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life?
Or has the whole issue already been decided…
while most of us weren’t looking?

I haven't seen Expelled yet, although I've read enough about it (and seen enough individual clips) to think that it's probably as stupid as everybody keeps saying. This e-mail is worse.

I have no idea why this jackass thinks us 'liberals' ignored Expelled - there's an entire website devoted to cataloguing its flaws, and it has receieved many (overwhelmingly negative) reviews. If the movie hasn't set the academic world on fire, it's probably because it sucks.

The entire point of the e-mail is that this turd is coming out on DVD, which means that I will almost certainly end up watching it if the local video place decides to stock it. (Bringing it to the counter is going to be the most embarrassing experience of my life.) Expect a full review as soon as that happens, assuming it doesn't leave me a shrieking, mindless wreck.

Sam Harris rips Sarah Palin a new one in Newsweek

Islamic assault on human rights

Jewish 'ultras' defend morals with menace

Gianna Jessen survived an abortion attempt and is now a pro-life advocate shamelessly attacking Barack Obama - As to why this constitutes as news on Faux News is even more shameless:

Sometimes the harm done because of magical thinking is done to the pseudoscientists themselves - "Biologist-turned- nutty-parapsychologist Rupert Sheldrake was stabbed in the leg earlier this year by Kazuki Hirano, a Japanese day laborer who had been stalking Sheldrake after believing he was the victim of mind control experiments."

CREATIONIST NEWS:

A review of Christopher Hitchens' most recent theist-crushing - Hitchens debated against Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, a physicist, theologian, and author of God at the Ritz: Attraction to Infinity. And it seems that unsurprisingly he kicked his Albacete's ass. I expect the debate will probably make it to YouTube soon enough.

Last week, I mentioned that creationist Bill Lucas was going to be speaking at Virginia Tech. Well he gave his talk and guess what? It turns out he's at best totally full of it and at worst, crazy.

New excavation reveals Stonehenge was once a miracle healing destination - Not surprisingly, no real healing actually seems to have taken place there.

UK Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Atheists reading holy tests out loud for charity

Cleanliness is far from godliness - A little dirt is a good thing

Did Neanderthals Pray? part 2

Will anyone buy Expelled on DVD? Anyone? Anyone? - That's right, the little creationist propaganda film that proved that Ben Stein doesn't use "Clear Eyes" that nobody saw is coming to DVD. Jimmy cracked corn and I don't care. But I figured I use this as yet another opportunity to plug the website that totally debunks the claims in the film, ExpelledExposed.com

EPIC FAIL:

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway's logical fallacy in The Wall Street Journal - Hemingway's idea of a logical argument is to cite a Baylor University study that vaguely suggests religious people are less likely to believe in other pseudosciences or paranormal claims to make her case that skeptics and atheists do more harm than good by trying to teach people how to think critically. Of course it doesn't seem to occur to her that the reason the religious tend not to believe in other forms of pseudoscience or paranormal claims is because often the specific beliefs of the religion demand mutually exclusivity. For instance, fundamental Christians must reject psychics as at best charlatans and at worst devil worshipers. Religions are very good at keeping their parishioners away from the competition.

NEWS I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED BEFORE NOW:

James "The Amazing" Randi is giving a talk in NYC - I will definitely be there with bells on (I haven't decided whether these are to be literal or figurative bells yet). If you can come, this is not to be missed. There's a reason they call him "The Amazing." Oh, and it's FREE.

New skeptical-friendly show, The Mentalist, coming to CBS - The main character is a guy who uses his keen observational skills to solve crimes. He used to make money pretending to be a psychic but then went straight. Sounds a little like the show Psych. Though it's also received lots of comparisons to House.

AND NOW FOR A MOMENT OF SCIENCE:

New Optics Technology To Study Alien Worlds - "NASA Goddard scientist Rick Lyon has been working on potential missions and technologies to find planets around other stars (called exoplanets or extrasolar planets) since the late 1980s. Only recently has he begun to believe that NASA may actually fly a planet-finding mission in his lifetime."

Why Chemo Works For Some People And Not Others - "MIT researchers have shown that cells from different people don't all react the same way when exposed to the same DNA-damaging agent — a finding that could help clinicians predict how patients will respond to chemotherapy."

Primordial Fish Had Rudimentary Fingers - "Tetrapods, the first four-legged land animals, are regarded as the first organisms that had fingers and toes. Now researchers at Uppsala University can show that this is wrong. Using medical x-rays, they found rudiments of fingers in the fins in fossil Panderichthys, the “transitional animal,” which indicates that rudimentary fingers developed considerably earlier than was previously thought."

Just over a week from now, these words from Sir John Vanbrugh (1664-1726) may very well ring true when avid atheist and irreverent comedian Bill Maher hits the big screen with Religulous.  The documentary follows Maher on a pseudo-spiritual journey as he interviews people from across the globe about God and religion.  In the wake of Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, it could be Religulous that gets the last laugh.

Religulous Trailer

Expelled Trailer

Maher and the director of Borat could be banking on having the last word.  So, before rushing to boycott this film (as religulous people often do), please consider the possibility that the release of this faithless mockumentary may actually open yet another door for discussing one's faith.  Rather than renting Facing the Giants for the eleventeenth time and retreating to your faith-based bubble, get out and proclaim the gospel.  On your faces, Christians, and to the theaters!

Besides, evolution doesn't get any better than this...

Richard Dawkins clip from Expelled

I think this smearing is commonly used by religious fundamentalists. Just check how often scientists are discredited by labelling them "atheists" in the intelligent design/creationism vs evolutionary science debate. Very often the issue of atheism is exposed as the main concern. And it seems that this label is the most effective way of discrediting any opponent amongst this conservative Christian constituency. And yet, the 'atheist' label says hardly anything about a person or the reliability of their knowledge - and, of course, may be completely wrong.

For example, one contributer to recent discussions on this site referred to his role in "debating some atheists in New Zealand." That got me thinking. The only participant in these discussion I know to be an atheist is me and that is a "very limited ... description" of me. Several of the other participants have identified themselves as Christians, none as atheists. It's clear that most of the participants are scientists, professionally, or strong defenders of science. Yet we all get labelled atheist! This contributor appears to think that science and atheism is synonymous!

Only one science

It's surely salient that within the scientific community such ideological labelling is very uncommon (although it certainly went on in Russia during Stalin's reign and in China under Mao Tse Tung). We can have quite fierce debates but evidence and interpretation are the usual weapons, rather than ideological labels.

The fact is that science is done by people who may have quite diverse ideological beliefs. And there is only one science. There is no atheistic science, Christian science, Islamic science or spaghetti monster science. As Richard Dawkins points out we can colour different countries on a world map differently according to predominant religion - but we can't do that with science.

Anyway I like this cartoon (from Atheist Cartoons - check them out). It shows that preoccupation with an ideological label can mean that really important information is ignored.

Similar articles

There has never been a more exciting time to be pro ID. The more scientists they muscle out at the merest sniff of creationist sympathies, the more they're providing fodder for the history books to compare the early millennium's science vs. religion debate to the 1950s Red Scare. Oh how sweet it will be in 100 years when GCSE students learn about witch hunts through history, from Salem in 1692 to HUAC in the 1950s to the Creation Witch Hunts of the early millennium. I wish I was around to see it but I'll be dead by then. Maybe this blog will survive and show that some people recognised mass hysteria for what it really was. The similarity is striking.

Full story here.

TRF

The arrogance of science bashers

1: There is a certain amount of arrogance in ideologically motivated outsiders telling scientists how science should be done. Or misrepresenting and slandering the way science does happen.

I have images of theologians, intelligent design (ID) proponents and post-modernist philosophers of science (e.g. Steve Fuller) telling their motor mechanics, plumbers or dentists that they are doing their job wrong. That they are just going along with the ‘dogma', ‘religion' or ‘faith' of their profession. Even that the professionalism of these people somehow makes them evil and leads to Hitler and Nazism.

But, at the same time, these critics regularly do rely on their mechanics to repair their cars, their plumbers to clear their drains and their dentists to fill their teeth. Similarly they also make regular use, in their day-to-day lives, of the technology and knowledge that the scientific endeavour has provided, and continues to provide, humanity. (I doubt they would be foolish enough to board a plane which had been designed and built using ideas or inferences derived using the "scientific" methodology they are advocating).

There is an abrupt discontinuity between their ideological science-bashing and the practical and unquestioning acceptance of scientific knowledge when it really does matter.

Playing with words

2: Attempts to give ID scientific credibility often amounts to playing with words in a way that just doesn't happen (and is certainly not required) in the honest scientific process. One can go on about ‘induction', ‘abduction', ‘deduction', ‘inference', ‘a postiori', ‘a priori' and ‘philosophical process' but this doesn't change the facts about ID - although it may cloud or confuse those facts.

The idea "that the universe, or some part thereof, was designed" by some sort of intelligent being is only an idea, only a belief.  Calling it an ‘inference' is just a ploy to give it a higher status than it deserves. And the real status is the same as the idea (belief) that the moon is made of cheese, thunder, lightning, earthquakes and disease are caused by the anger of gods, the seas on the moon are made from asphalt, etc. etc.

We can deduce or infer these sorts of ideas (OK the lunar cheese is facetious) but, by themselves, they are only ideas. They may "start from empirical data" (the facts of thunder, lightning, earthquakes, disease and the dark appearance of lunar seas) but without further work they remain only ideas, or maybe only beliefs.

After all, don't superstitions "start from empirical data" (usually anecdotal, subjectively interpreted and not critically analysed). Even pigeons have been shown to make such 'inferences', exhibiting superstitious responses based on their experiences (empirical data).

And we might call these ideas, inferences, suspicions, speculations "scientific". But, it seems to me, such a description can be warranted only if there is a genuine desire and effort to then do some science. To test these ideas (inferences), develop hypotheses and theories, and validate these by mapping against reality.

Making "inference" respectable

So what do we do if we don't want to, or can't, test an idea (inference) but want to claim that it is respectable? Why, we call it "scientific". But to do that we have to change the meaning of that word - we have to remove the requirement for proper evidence and experiential validation. So we call our idea (really just only a belief or even a superstition) an "inference"!

And them we try to give the concept of "inference" the same respectability, the same status, as "scientific theory." We need to work on this because a simple Google trends search for "scientific theory" and "scientific inference" does indicate the later term has no real provenance. But we can use a lot of fine sounding words and philosophical concepts to blur the difference between "inference" and "theory".

So now we can claim that ID is "scientific" and demand that it is treated with the same respect as evolutionary science. After all we have empirical data - the obvious patterns (design - noun) in nature, life and the universe. We can make an inference from those patterns. We can treat them as "empirical data."

Poverty of "inference"

But, of course, that's where things start to break down. We don't really want that inference to be tested by the normal scientific process of formulating hypotheses, collecting data, developing theories and further testing and validation against reality. After all, this might destroy our dearly held beliefs (an occurrence commonly experienced by those involved in real science).

So we resort to all sorts of tactics to cloud the issue and divert attention (a bit like magicians and illusionists). We attack the "scientific establishment" and academia. We label science and scientists as atheistic (which does scare some of our constituency). We raise all sorts of moral fears about "materialism", "naturalism", racism, Nazism and Hitler.

We attempt to cloud the public and political understanding of science with tacky videos (e.g. Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ). We even go so far as to campaign for the definition of science to be rewritten in Education Board standards to remove the requirement for experiential validation (as in Kansas, USA). And we try to divert discussion of evolutionary science by using terms like "inference". Attempting to create a new scientific concept with the same authority as theory.

We attempt to discredit the findings and theories of evolutionary science. We use "reinterpretation research" to desperately search for alternative explanations for the huge amount of factual evidence in evolutionary science.

But one thing we never do is advance an ID hypothesis or theory capable of testing, of mapping against reality. We never allow the "ID inference" to be exposed to the normal critical scepticism of the scientific process.

Disclaimer:

My use of 'we' in the later part of this post is, of course, satirical. I certainly don't think this process, commonly used by ID proponents, is at all scientific.

Similar articles

What has been amusing is to watch the Limbaugh conservatives and the fundamentalist fringe of the Republican party fawn over her and rushing to her defense anytime somebody in the liberal media says anything aobut her.  As a politician all you have to do is utter the word "God" and you got this gang melting in the palm of your hand. They are like groupies around a pop star. I really do believe these people are more accepting of, and definitely more comfortable with, a murderous, lecherous but self-professed Christian than they are with a peaceful, law abiding atheist.  They love Sarah for saying Iraq is a task that is from God and if she spoke in tongues in the past so much the better for this crowd.  The fact that we are also fighting religious extremists who also believe they are on a mission from God or Allah seems to escape this simplistic fundamentalist gang but you know it's never too late to put together an old-fashioned crusade. Oh, yeah, we kind of did that in Iraq, didn't we?

During the interview Sarah told Charlie "I'm ready." However, if you are going to look like the proverbial moose in the headlights because of a tough (?) Charlie Gibson question what the hell are you going to do when planes smash into the twin towers?  Why, you'll look dumbfounded like George Bush did in front of those pre-school kids, of course.  Alright, that's a bad example but you get my drift. I have to say that at least Sarah Palin is more articulate than George Bush but that's not saying much when you realize his most common utterance is "um, duh" (I started counted these anytime the president speaks, it helps me to stay awake).  Nor has Sarah shown that she has done much yet. Okay, Obama hasn't done much either other than a few good speeches but at least he has two years of campaigning and all of that public scrutiny under his belt.

By the way Hillary Clinton continues to actively campaign for Obama in some key battleground states. Not surprisingly, she has drawn a line against making personal attacks on Palin and the Clinton insiders insist she doesn't want a political cat fight with Sarah. Sarah, of course, when she is not complaining about Hillary's whining, is nothing but complimentary about Hillary, all the better to steal Hillary's voters.  So Hillary will attack the Republicans on policy, but nothing personal about Palin. Hillary did defend Obama who has been under attack his "lipstick on a pig" utterance to describe McCain's tired Bush policies. In case you were retiring in a cave with Bin Laden this past week, the Republicans have accused him of personally insulting Palin.

"Barack has made this clear," Hillary said. "It was in no way meant as an affront."  Hmmm, I don't know, she is doing just enough campaigning to avoid party criticism but not enough to make much of a difference.  Let's face it, Hillary's political clock continues to tick and all she can do is hope for a McCain win in November.

The Sarah Palin Files:

Imagine Sarah Palin and Putin Playing Poker Together

More: Palin and the Charlie Gibson Interview:  She's No Hillary!

More on Hillary: No Political Catifght with Palin

More on Palin "Governor Palin You're No Hillary Clinton!"

More on Palin with this story,"Apparently-Bristol-Palin-is-no-Chelsea-Clinton-Either"

The theory of childhood, also known as child origin, is a damnable, loathsome and indefensible lie. How can any thinking person suppose all humans used to be babies once? Just consider these arguments:

There is no development path from babies to adults, no transitional forms between these two species. Show me even one baby with the head of a grown man on his body. Can you? No? Not even a bearded toddler? No adults with unfused skull bones, outside unfortunate disorders? Not even a tiny little newborn girl suddenly sprouting a respectable bosom? You can't find them, because they don't exist. There isn't a single transitional form between children and adults, and you will never find one because the theory simply is an unscientific lie.

There is no consensus on the theory of childhood in the scientific community. We should teach the controversy. Our children will be served well to learn that the prospect of them becoming adults is merely a theoretical idea. Many children come from families that do not subscribe to the theory of childhood, and they could be disturbed if the theory were taught as fact.

The development of children has been well-researched in our six-month study following a sample of one thousand children and adults of various ages. We have conclusively proven that while there are minor changes in features like height and body fat, and replacement of deciduous teeth with permanent teeth, incontravertibly still every creature in the study that started out as a child had only slightly more adult features at the end of the observation period than at its beginning. Children and adults are separate kinds and there will never be sufficient changes to change one into the other. We reject any evidence from longer-term studies as we believe the laws of physics have changed within the last year.

To claim people come from children is demeaning and morally degrading. We have observed how children behave. If we acted like small children we'd all be demanding and impatient, and we'd be cheating, lying, and stealing from each other all the time. If the theory of childhood were true there would be no morality, and with no morality to build one on, no society. Childhood is a wicked lie used by charlatans to justify evils such as public schools.

Similar articles

Help Us Get Lawmakers Expelled

Dear friends,

We're excited to be able to tell you that on October 21st Expelled: No Intelligence Allow, starring Ben Stein, will be released on DVD. In Expelled, Stein brilliantly exposed the widespread persecution of scientists and educators who are pursuing legitimate science that challenges Darwin's theory of evolution.

Rush Limbaugh called the movie "powerful" and "fabulous" and said Stein's "interviews with some of the professors who espouse Darwinism are literally shocking."

"It is surely the best thing ever done on this issue, in any medium," wrote journalist Tom Bethell in the American Spectator. "At moments it brought tears of joy to my eyes. I have written about this controversy for over 30 years and by the movie's end I felt that those of us who have insisted that Darwinism is a sorry mess and that life surely was designed are going to prevail."

Expelled had one of biggest opening weekends ever for a documentary film and is one the top 5 all time most successful political documentaries ever produced. Now that it is coming out on DVD we want it to be even more successful. We want it to be possible for even more people to see this important film.

To accomplish that we need your assistance and have two options for you to consider...

First We would like to widely distribute the DVD to key policy makers, opinion makers and leaders throughout the country. Such distribution takes more money than we have budget for right now. So, we're looking for donations to help underwrite the cost of sending the DVD to these individuals. Donations of any amount are welcome. The cost of purchasing and distributing one DVD is about $25, so your donation of $100 will help us to send 4 DVDs. We want to send out as many DVDs as possible Click here to donate now .Second If you run a church or school bookstore and would like to stock Expelled we can help you get a special wholesale price, if you pre-order 25 copies or more. By ordering together in quantity we may be able to get the cost per DVD reduced up to 50% off of the retail price. This is a limited one time offer and we estimate the cost of 25 DVDs to be $300, plus shipping. For bulk orders contact us at the e-mail or phone number below.

We have to move quickly to guarantee that the costs don't go up. The DVD is going into production soon, so orders must be placed and paid for by Wednesday, Sept. 17th. Please contact Janine Dixon at jdixon@discovery.org, (206) 292-0401 x108 to start the order process.

Thank you for your support,

Robert Crowther
Director of Communications
Center for Science Culture

Where to begin?  That the title of the e-mail implies that they want to expel lawmakers?  That they couldn't even get the name of the film right? That Rush Limbaugh thought the movie was "FAB-u-LOUS", or the mental image of him being "literally shocked"?

And why so expensive?  $25 per DVD? $12 if bought in bulk?  Even at $12, it's about $11.99 overpriced.

HT: ERV

Lately however, it seems it's very easy to see that I, as a Christian am very different, and I am convinced more now than ever that the current North American culture is completely and utterly evil.

I can not think of a more evil scenario than the one being played out in the States where Sarah Palin has been condemned repeatedly, at least as a hypocrite and at most as evil, for not aborting her Down Syndrome child.  I can't understand how they come to this conclusion other than to say that they have fallen for the snares and trappings of an evil culture;  a culture that values convenience more than life and ability more than personhood.

At the same time there is much furor over the movie 'Expelled' because it states evolution as more of a philosophy than the complex workings of how the universe could have come into being.  And I know most scientist would not hold evolution as a 'philosophy' (that's how they hold their distance from people like Hitler, who supported eugenics) but at the same time, what you believe deeply effects how you behave - there is no getting around it.

For example, if you believe that every life is from God (and is a gift from God) abortion becomes a wretched act, no matter what prenatal screening tells you.  If, however, you believe that we evolved, apart from a Creator, than abortion becomes a right and a duty.

The final, logical outcome of such thinking is horrendous (and no doubt, it's where our culture is headed).

I have been studying evolutionary theory and debating anti-evolutionists for quite awhile. One thing that continually impresses me is the overwhelming amount of evidence that points to evolution. Each piece of evidence can almost stand on its own for the credence of evolution, but the real power comes from their combination. These evidences even come from such diverse disciplines as molecular biology to paleontology. Although not perfect (but what really is), these forms of evidence compliment each other so strongly that it is nearly inconceivable that evolution is not real.

So what about intelligent design? Surely it also has evidence pointing towards it, right? After all, the Discovery Institute was founded on the idea, and it was the focus of Ben Stein's Expelled. Well, the simple and accurate answer is a resounding "No". There is not one piece of evidence that supports the idea. Irreducible complexity is just an argument from personal incredulity. Plus, the structures that are often pointed to as examples of irreducible complexity have had their evolutionary origins identified. The idea of complex specified information theory proposed by William Dembski is simple pseudoscience. Even the ideas that do not directly contradict intelligent design are neutral to the idea.

Take a look at the figure that I have included in this post. It is by no means a complete representation of all the lines of evidence for evolution, but it does show the abundance of evidence. Why do intelligent design proponents ignore all this evidence? Willful ignorance? Distrust for Science and scientists? Either way, it should be obvious that no more time or brain power should be wasted on the idea. And for crying out loud, this pipe dream should not be taught in schools.

The Discovery Institute Center for Science & Culture is currently leading this campaign. A email from its director Robert Crowther (subject title Help Us Get Lawmakers Expelled) reveals two targets for the campaign: "key policy makers, opinion makers and leaders throughout the" USA and churches and schools, including "church or school bookstores."

Discovery Institute is appealling for donations to "underwrite the cost of sending the DVD to these individuals."

Expelled never made it to New Zealand theatres. However, I am sure there will be an effort to sell and distribute the DVD here and to organise screenings in church basements. There may even be efforts to get the DVD into some schools (as has been done by by Focus on the Family with other creationist material - see Christians challenge teaching of evolution).

Christian News New Zealand wasted no time kicking off the New Zealand campaign by excitedly posting the Discovery Institute email within minutes of its distribution.

Similar articles

So, seeking revenge and some personal amusement, I decided to go off on that craptacular movie called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” from Ben Stein. After a while, I became less amused with the blog and tired of the pointless arguments with people who read exactly two books in their lives: the bible and the instruction manual to their trailer home. So after failing to find an Expelled bootleg, I boldly pointed out that nobody cared about ID and creationism since there was a presidential election going on and that a crappy Bush-inspired war economy had everybody more worried about foreclosure. Furthermore, the creationist creeps were going to have a tough time choosing between Obama or McCain since neither one was particularly accommodating to their simplistic world bible views.

Boy, was I wrong on that prognostication! Nostradamus I am not! No sooner did I make that stupid forecast McCain goes out and adds some Alaskan Creationist- Secessionist- Pro-Life-Pro-Gun-MILF to his ticket as his VP, all after an incredibly long vetting process that must have transpired during the duration of a single bowel movement. And I should add that I am a McCain supporter!

So what of Sarah Palin and her religious beliefs? Well, five to six years ago she was a member of a Pentecostal church, the Assembly of God to be exact. Now these rocket scientists believe in a literal bible, talking in tongues, faith healing and, how can we forget, the ever popular end-of-times. We have had so many end of times I don’t were to begin. This type of inspired lunacy leads to such clear thinking as “it’s God's will that is being done in Iraq.” Funny, I thought that was the work of a mediocre son looking to clear his daddy’s historical record but, hey, what the hell do I know? I mean we went in there to separate those heathens from the WMD’s right? Eh, okay the weapons weren’t there but we did bring freedom to the Iraqis, right? You know freedom from boredom as the local militia executes the men in your family but hey that’s God’s plan and you can’t argue about the big picture, right?

The good news is that God’s plans are not just relegated to simple matters of war. No way! Did you know that a new pipe line is a task from God? Me, I was thinking Exxon-Mobil but I guess I think way too small. Really, Palin said this. God's will is to be done developing our natural resources, never mind all we are doing is feeding a nasty oil habit and that the sooner we can move to something alternative the sooner we can tell the idiots in the Middle East what they can do with their oil.  Ask Sarah about Creationism and she'll reply sure Creationism should be taught in school!  We don’t have a lick of proof that it can’t stand up to rigorous scientific review but hell proof didn’t stop us from invading Iraq.

That said, Sarah Palin is not stupid. Unlike Obama, she had the good sense to realize that once she became a mainstream Republican she had to leave behind the small town church that inspired a thousand tongues. In fact, she does not does not consider herself Pentecostal anymore but I do wonder if she feels that God can still be accessed? And what about the view that Alaska is the preferred shelter for Christians in the end-of-times? There has been some talk that she is also anti-Israel but really has she ever met a Jew? Ben Stein for example? I mean really, has she?

All I know is the Expelled crowd is really charged up again and we have McCain to thank for this madness. Soon we’ll get all sorts of new home school and ID initiatives coursing through the mediocre halls of Congress. I’m thinking of voting for Obama now just for spite but damn I don’t want my taxes to go up again! What’s a thinking evolutionist to do? And where is Hillary in all this mess? Can’t she remind women not to cast their vote based on their chromosomes but to vote instead on the issues? After all, who do they think they are? Men? Someday, perhaps after the election, I hope to get back to writing about writing rather than about politics and fundamentalists. And to think, if they had just left me alone this all could have been avoided!

More on Hillary: No Political Catifght with Palin

More on Palin "Governor Palin You're No Hillary Clinton!"

More on Palin with this story,"Apparently-Bristol-Palin-is-no-Chelsea-Clinton-Either"

A sneeze can exceed the speed of 100 mph

I really hadn’t given this much thought. But, an article I found at www.soundmedicine.iu.edu gave me the information I was looking for.

“WHY DO WE SNEEZE? Once that tingling and twitching starts in your nose, there's no stopping it. A whole-hearted sneeze makes us feel so much better and there's a reason behind it. Sneezing is one of the body's ways of expelling harmful substances that enter our body. The nose works as an air purifier, cleansing the air that enters of bacteria and other particles. So when viruses and bacteria multiply in our nose during a cold, or a cloud of dust blows in our face, or even when we have an allergic reaction, the nerve endings in our nose get irritated and with a blast of air, the nose sweeps its passageways clean.

A sneeze is formed by the spasm of the chest and of the pharynx that connects the esophagus and the nasal cavity. When the nerve endings in the lining of the nose detect the irritating substances, they send impulses to the part of the brain that controls involuntary actions. The brain then sends signals to the chest muscles to squeeze the lungs. The pharynx also shuts to prevent the air being squeezed out of the lungs into the mouth. And so, with a loud blast, the air is expelled through the nose in the form of a sneeze.

Interestingly, some people sneeze when they walk into bright sunlight. It is said that this is a reaction to the ultraviolet rays of the sunlight irritating the nose lining. Whatever makes you sneeze, just be sure to cover your nose so bacteria don't passed to the person standing next to you.”

O.K., this explains the sneezing part, or most of it anyway. I have a tendency to sneeze (very loudly and with enthusiasm) three times in a row at least once a day. It doesn’t matter if I’m indoors or outdoors, and I can be anywhere – so I don’t know about allergens or light. I just tell myself and everyone else who complains of my loud sneezing that I just needed to clear my sinuses.

This, however, doesn’t explain the speed of the sneeze. Here is what I learned about why a sneeze moves at a rate of 100 mph. Sneezing is a result of a sudden relaxation of the diaphragm together with the intercostal muscles that expand our lungs and abdominal muscle contraction. This results on a mass compression effect of the lungs on a short onset and causes a violent expulsion of air in the form of the sneeze.

And the closest I can come to tying sneezing in with a good weight reduction program and the food you eat is PEPPER.

An article found at www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/pepper ” Pepper, be it white, black, or green, contains an alkaloid of pyridine called piperine. Piperine acts as an irritant if it gets into the nose. It stimulates (or irritates) the nerve endings inside the mucous membrane. This stimulation will cause you to sneeze. Actually, the nose wants to kick out this irritant and the only way it knows how to do this is by sneezing."

As a dietary supplement, pepper is an excellent choice. It seems that pepper contains a substance called piperine which, amongst other things, helps our bodies absorb the nutrients derived from the food we eat. So peppering your salad not only adds flavor but it also enables your body to obtain more of its vitamins and minerals

Unfortunately, if you don't like black pepper then you're out of luck because there s very little piperine is white pepper. And in case you were wondering, peppers and chilies don't contain it either. However, these other peppers do contain another substance called Capsaicin, the hot pepper’s natural heat-causing component, and it has been proven to kill cancer cells, prevent sinus infections, serve as an anti-inflammatory agent, provide gastric relief and produce fat oxidation.

A daily dose of hot peppers lets people breath easier, feel less pain and lower their body fat. Now, we’re cookin! Let’s add a little jalapeno or red hot pepper to our eating plans and we can benefit from not only the taste but the burning of fat also. Funny how a sneeze can lead you to a fat burning product!

Think Thin Thoughts!

Adinear

Suffice to say, it's not encouraging stuff.

GOV. PAWLENTY: In the scientific community, it seems like intelligent design is dismissed. Not entirely, there are a lot of scientists who would make the case that it is appropriate to be taught and appropriate to be demonstrated. But in terms of the curriculum in the schools, in Minnesota we've taken the approach that that's a local decision, but I know Senator Palin, or Governor Palin, has said intelligent design is something she thinks should be taught along with evolution in the schools, and I think that's appropriate from my standpoint.

This is, of course, all in line with the basic creationist gameplan: statewide "freedom" legislation and a standards-free permissiveness towards local attempts to introduce creationist talking points into science classrooms.

Note, of course, the ever present irony of the stance that kids should hear "all sides" when it comes to science: even complete psuedoscience... but when it comes to learning about basic realities of human sexuality and contraception, kids should remain as ignorant as possible.