Monthly Archives: September 2005

Dover PA, Intelligent Design Court Battle, Highlights

Posted on by
2

Here's a cluster of news stories and testimony excerpts from this very important court case in PA.  I can't take my eyes off it, if intelligent design wackos win, they could be coming to my school next…

Mon 9/26

From 'Intelligent Design' Court Battle Begins (AP via Yahoo News):

…”It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process,” said Brown University's Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday…

…”This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda,” said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., in his opening statement. The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.

“Dover's modest curriculum change embodies the essence of liberal education,” Gillen said…

…”I have yet to see any explanation advanced by any adherent of design that says we have positive evidence for design,” [Miller] said.

The statement read to Dover students states that “because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact.” Miller said the statement is “tremendously damaging,” falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution…

“There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory,” he added. On the other hand, he said, “Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community.”…

…During cross-examination, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked Miller whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.

“Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?” Muise asked.

“We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth,” Miller said…

Science isn't about “Absolute Truth” and any scientific theory is up for revision or abandonment as observations come in.  Can the same be said of intelligent design?  Doesn't look like it, because as the evidence for evolution literally POURS into the domain of science, the intelligent design wackos refuse to reconsider their theory.

They just point out the gaps in the evolutionary record or the aspects of evolution we haven't explored yet as if that somehow makes intelligent design a better candidate.  If it were a valid scientific theory intelligent design should be able to stand up to testing on it's own.  But intelligent design can't be tested, ergo it is not science, and doesn't belong in the classroom.  If you want absolute truth, go to church, dammit and quit trying to worm your shit into public schools.

Tue 9/27

From Witness Says Pa. Board Was Anti-Evolution (AP via Yahoo News):

…The school district argues it is letting students know there are differences of opinion about evolution, not endorsing any religious view.

[Plaintiff and former Dover School Board member Aralene "Barrie"] Callahan testified that board member Alan Bonsell — during a retreat in 2003 — “expressed he did not believe in evolution and if evolution was part of the biology curriculum, creationism had to be shared 50-50.”

At a school board meeting in June 2004, when she was no longer on the board, Callahan recalled board member Bill Buckingham complaining that a biology book recommended by the administration was “laced with Darwinism.”

“They were pretty much downplaying evolution as something that was credible,” she said.

In the lawsuit challenging the intelligent design policy, Buckingham was further quoted as saying: “This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such.”…

…In other testimony Tuesday, plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller said that in January, her younger daughter chose not to hear the intelligent-design statement — an option given all students — putting her in an awkward position.

“My 14-year-old daughter had to make the choice between staying in the classroom and being confused … or she had to be singled out and face the possible ridicule of her friends and classmates,” she said…

“Laced with Darwinism”… like Darwin is a drug, yo. Sounds more like the school board was “laced with fundies”.

Wed 9/28

From Professor Testifies in Evolution Debate (AP via Yahoo News):

…Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified … “As scientists go about their business, they follow a method, … Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science.”

Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses…

Yeah, like MYTHOLOGY 101.

Thu 9/29

More from Pennock (I love this guy) and a scary tidbit from one of the parents.

From Intelligent design a religious notion, scientist testifies (Kansas City Star):

…”Even if [proponents] don't explicitly say 'God'… and simply say a 'transcendent power,' intelligent design is a religious concept,” said Robert Pennock…

…Pennock said that if intelligent design, which promotes the idea that the universe is so complex it must have been created by an intelligent being, was accepted as a legitimate part of science education, it would “turn us back to an earlier era.”…

…”Intelligent design is a form of creationism,” he said. “It cannot have natural explanations.”…

…[Some] plaintiffs said their families had been harmed by the effects of the new policy.

“Intelligent design is not a scientific concept, it's a religious concept,” [Dover resident Christy] Rehm said. “I reserve the right to teach my children about religion, not the school system.”

Plaintiff Julie Smith of York said she became alarmed when her 10th-grade daughter came home from school last year and said: “Evolution is a lie. What kind of Christian are you?”

She said she asked her daughter why she had said that, and her daughter responded that as a Christian, she could not believe in evolution…

Yeesh.  This is what happens when you equate science with “belief” or science with “politics”… you get a society woefully ignorant about what differentiates science from other (less credible) forms of belief.  Science just becomes another kind of hoodoo.  Spooky shit.

You know this one will go to the Supreme Court… neither side is going to give up if it loses.  Oh yeah, the Supreme Court, remember them?  Bush's other second-term project?

Get Your Asses Out There and Protest!

Posted on by
Reply

Now here's a protest I could really get behind!

From Sheep lovers going naked at Australian embassies (AFP via Yahoo News) (possibly NSFW):

Animal rights activists will reportedly go naked outside five Australian embassies around the world in a bid to force Australian sheep farmers to stop a controversial farming practice…

…with the Australian flag painted on their buttocks and fake blood on other parts of their bodies…

…We don't mind showing a little of our behinds if it will save lambs from having chunks of flesh hacked off of theirs…

The Ecosystem Shudders

Posted on by
Reply

Scientists are observing an unprecedented level of melting in the arctic ice cap.  For the last four years the summer melt has been more and more extensive, and with each successive melting, the arctic grows warmer causing even more melting.

From Satellite Data Shows 'Stunning' Arctic Ice Retreat for 4th Straight Year (Voice of America News):

…Since 2002, U.S. satellite data have revealed unusual springtime melting in areas north of Siberia and Alaska. Now, the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado says the trend expanded this year to include the entire Arctic ice pack.

“What it's telling us is that the pace of retreat of ice in summer is accelerating,” said snow and ice data center researcher Ted Scambos…

The cause?  Well according to these scientists, global warming brought on by overuse of fossil fuels.  So therefore, it's nothing to worry about, because as you know, Fox News files Global Warming under the heading “junk science”.  Which is one of the many reasons I file Fox News under the heading “shit”.

We're gonna need a bigger boat.

Alabama Senator Says of Katrina Victims, They Deserved It

Posted on by
2

Just the other day I was remarking to James how sooner or later some evangelical moron was going to say that God sent Katrina to punish the wicked, and within 24 hours someone did, Senator Hank Erwin (R-Alabama)…

From Senator says storms are punishment from God (The Birmingham News):

…”New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast have always been known for gambling, sin and wickedness,” Erwin wrote this week in a column he distributes to news outlets. “It is the kind of behavior that ultimately brings the judgment of God.”…

…”Warnings year after year by godly evangelists and preachers went unheeded. So why were we surprised when finally the hand of judgment fell?” Erwin wrote. “Sadly, innocents suffered along with the guilty. Sin always brings suffering to good people as well as the bad.”…

This is disgusting on so many levels it's hard to touch on them all, so instead I'll just touch on two and let you explore the rest on your own.  However I'll warn you that thinking about such ugly things feels like swimming in raw sewage.

Let's start with the ugliest message of all, Thou shalt not suffer a sinner to live. How'd I get that?  Bear with me. Apparently, according to Erwin, God is a petty and vengeful god that cannot single out individual sinners for punishment, but instead in his clumsy outbursts of rage smites the sinners and righteous alike.  According to Erwin, the wrath of God incurs collateral damage.  The message is clear, even if you live a righteous life, you are in danger if your next door neighbor is sinning, and therefore, you'd damned well better do something about it… before God destroys your whole block because the guy next door is a homosexual (for example).

This is not the sort of thing we want our elected officials saying, and any Christian worth a damn knows that it isn't true.  Yes, I just said Senator Hank Erwin isn't worth a damn.  For the record, I don't think he's much of a Christian either.  The Christian belief system rests heavily on the Bible, and the Bible established very early on how just and fair God is supposed to be.  In the book of Genesis (that's the first book of the bible), chapter 18, Abraham quizzes God on the impending destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:

GENESIS 18:23-33 (BibleGateway.com):

    23 Then Abraham approached him and said: “Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thing—to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

    26 The LORD said, “If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”

    27 Then Abraham spoke up again: “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?”
      ”If I find forty-five there,” he said, “I will not destroy it.”

    29 Once again he spoke to him, “What if only forty are found there?”
      He said, “For the sake of forty, I will not do it.”

    30 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?”
      He answered, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

    31 Abraham said, “Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?”
      He said, “For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it.”

    32 Then he said, “May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?”
      He answered, “For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it.”

    33 When the LORD had finished speaking with Abraham, he left, and Abraham returned home.

Once again the message is clear.  According to God, he does not sweep away cities even when the number of righteous inhabitants are vanishingly small.  It disgusts me that I, as an atheist, am more informed about the religion which Senator Erwin supposedly practices than Senator Erwin himself is.

Secondly, those that believe in God believe that he is all-powerful, all-knowing, (not to mention all-loving and all-forgiving), and that his plans and designs are far beyond human understanding.  Therefore to say of any modern occurrence ”God did this because…” is to commit blasphemy.  How so?  If you say “God sent Katrina because New Orleanders are wicked.” you are basically saying that you know and understand God's mind, which puts you on equal footing with God.  What's next?  Will you give God pointers on where to send the next hurricane?  Sit down and shut up, stupid human.  The Bible is very clear that those who follow God follow, and if he has use for them in his plans he'll use them and on rare occasions he may even let them know.  To act as if you know the mind of an all-knowing being is an act of unparalleled hubris and arrogance.  Christians believe that God values humility.

I for one do not believe in an all-powerful being.  To me Katrina was the result of natural processes the behavior of which are changing as the globe warms.  I find mind-boggling the idea that someone who believes in an all-powerful, all-knowing being, would think that a being that great and sophisticated would actually care how many women flashed their boobies at Mardi Gras and whip up a category 4 hurricane in response.

If Senator Erwin wanted to encourage Christian morality among his readers, he might want to consider acting Christian, and encourage the donation of time, housing, food, and money to victims of hurricane Katrina.  Just a thought.

Alabamians should hang their heads in shame that the man they elected to represent their values to the nation speaks in this way of those who suffered this natural disaster.

James did a far better job than I writing about this over on Thing of Ugly. Check it out!

Religion Dangerous? On the Wane?

Posted on by
Reply

Here's a pair of interesting items James pointed out to me recently…

The first, Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side' describes a new study which indicates that the more religious a society is, the more damage it will suffer:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

If you want to read the study itself, feel free to check it out.  One thing to keep in mind is just because there is a correlation doesn't mean there is causality.  Sometimes facts can lead to the wrong conclusions if you don't investigate the causality.  For example the facts might be that in 2000, 35 people died at 23 South Street and 1 died at 14 Arbor Way.  Sounds like 23 South Street is a dangerous place.  But if 23 South Street turns out to be a hospital, and 14 Arbor Way a toxic waste dump, we'd look a little silly concluding that hospitals are very dangerous places that cause people to die at alarming rates.

The study notes causality is not addressed itself:

…Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions…

The study describes itself as an “initial look” which hopefully means we can see a more detailed study in the future.  The thing I found most interesting about the study was the graph showing religiousity versus belief in evolution.  Of all the countries on the list the US was markedly less accepting of evolution than any other.  How depressing.

Religion in Decline?

The other item James highlighted for me was a report from ReligiousTolerance.org entitled “RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION IN THE U.S.“.  This report seems to be largely based on polls, so I wouldn't put too much faith in it (pun intended).

However if it is to be believed, currently Christianity is in a downward slide in the US, while both nontheism and paganism are on the rise:

…[As of 2001] 76.5% (159 million) of Americans identify themselves as Christian. This is a major slide from 86.2% in 1990. Identification with Christianity has suffered a loss of 9.7 percentage points in 11 years — about 0.9 percentage points per year. This decline is identical to that observed in Canada between 1981 and 2001. If this trend continues, then by about the year 2042, non-Christians will outnumber the Christians in the U.S….

…14.1% do not follow any organized religion. This is an unusually rapid increase — almost a doubling — from only 8% in 1990. There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together…

So if religiousity is directly proportional to misfortune, things ought to be getting better!   Right?  Right?

Anyway, both of these items make for interesting reading.  Check 'em out!

Lost Season 2 Episode 2

Posted on by
5

I figure this one is going to be only about the raft people and we won't hear a peep about the hatch.  Wait and see!

9:17 PM: looks like we're getting to see some of what is going on in the hatch.  Cool.

10:17 PM: well looks like we found the others!  And from the previews I see that Michelle Rodriguez will be joining us next week!  Woohoo!  I'm glad they found Jin.  I was worrying about him.

Funny how we manage to have revisted the folks in the hatch and not moved past the point we were at in the previous episode!  Ha ha ha!

I've watched about 20 minutes of “invasion”.  Yeah I'm just not interested in this show.  Is anyone enjoying it?

How to Piss Off a Busy Person

Posted on by
1

I'm working from home today on a rather complicated modification to the software we are building at work.  How complicated?

Well it is requiring me to make changes to something on the order of 30+ files (java files, jsp files, js files, xml files, and Crystal Report rpt files) and I warned my boss that it would take all day.  I told him I was going to work from home to cut down on the interruptions and also to be able to keep an eye on my landscapers insomuch as they need an eye kept on them.

Since that time my boss has sent me SEVENTEEN e-mails that all needed reading and then research to respond to.  The first came at 6:47 AM this morning and the last came at 5:44 PM.  On the one e-mail I simply responded “I'm busy trying to get the report options changes done.  I'm not going to read this email until tomorrow.”

Yes I realize that sounds a lot like “fuck off”.

My boss was nice enough to respond with another e-mail to let me know that it was okay to wait until tomorrow to read the previous e-mail.

Thanks boss.

Okay, all bitchiness aside, I really like my boss.  He's a nice guy and generally good to work for.  The problem is he multitasks very well and I do not.  So a slew of e-mails is a real hassle for me but not for him.  But then again communication (as in a lack thereof) has been a problem in the past, so more is definitely better.

Just annoying when I'm so busy.  Ah well, minor woe. 

Yes, I'm well aware that I took time out to write this quick blog article.  If anyone wants to give me a hard time about it my response will be slightly more direct than ”I'm busy and I'm not going to read this until tomorrow.” 

Just an Excuse

Posted on by
1

Well my landscapers left for the day about 20 minutes ago.  They worked from about 8:30 AM to 12:30 PM, and then again from about 2:00 PM until about 3:20 PM.  Of the 5 rolls of weedblock, the crucial factor that kept them from working yesterday, guess how much they put down.  If you guessed NONE, you're right! It turns out that before they could put down the weedblock they had plenty of other work they needed to do, digging out areas, removing the stumps of old plants, etc.

Obviously the annoying thing is that if they needed to do all this, they needed to do it before I got them the weedblock that they should have gotten themselves.  Which means they could have worked a “full” day yesterday and never have needed to touch weedblock.  The “we don't have weedblock” excuse was just that, an excuse.  I don't know what the real reason was for them not working, but it wasn't because they didn't have weedblock.

For the record, they *still* aren't ready to put down weedblock in front of my porch (stumps are still there), or on the side of my house (there is still a lot of old mulch and old weedblock there that needs to be removed first).

Tanks for Nothing

Posted on by
1

This kills me.  Dubya is asking Americans to conserve gas (don't take nonessential trips, etcetera) in the wake of the Katrina/Rita impact…

From Bush asks U.S. to drive less, conserve gas (Science Daily):

…President George Bush is asking the country to drive less and save gas in the wake of two hurricanes that hurt Gulf coast production.

Speaking in Washington on the eve of a visit to Texas and Louisiana Tuesday, Bush also said he had issued a directive for all federal agencies to cut their own energy use and to encourage employees to use public transportation…

This is a stark contrast to George's apparent belief that burning lots of fossil fuels is some sort of blessed right of Americans simply because we are American.

From Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer 5/7/2001 (WhiteHouse.gov):

…Q: Is one of the problems with this, and the entire energy field, American lifestyles? Does the President believe that, given the amount of energy Americans consume per capita, how much it exceeds any other citizen in any other country in the world, does the President believe we need to correct our lifestyles to address the energy problem?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's a big no. The President believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one. And we have a bounty of resources in this country. What we need to do is make certain that we're able to get those resources in an efficient way, in a way that also emphasizes protecting the environment and conservation, into the hands of consumers so they can make the choices that they want to make as they live their lives day to day…

The thing that kills me though is that this is the same administration under which the government was offering $38,000 tax breaks to people who buy hummers… a freaking tank of a vehicle which gets about 13 miles per gallon.

And now they want us to conserve gas.  Huh.  I keep thinking of all those tax breaks for gas guzzlers.

Tanks for nothing, George.