Secular Skeptic

In which I summarize my experience of getting into grad school, and sign off

2008-04-06T12:34:00.000-07:00

This is planned to be my last post in this space.

I have decided which school I will be attending this fall, and couldn’t be more excited about beginning my new life as a graduate student. For those interested in the process, I summarize it here.

I decided to go back to school in July of last year, only several weeks before the start of fall classes. I assumed that I’d have to go to Colorado, Colorado State, or Denver University, since those are the only anthropology programs nearby and I didn’t think that moving was an option. It turned out that Denver University doesn’t have a biological sub-department so that reduced my options to two. CSU only offers a master’s degree, but I figured that could have been a sufficient jumping-off point if necessary. I emailed professors at CU and CSU for advice, and they recommended that I enroll in some graduate-level classes that Fall.

This made sense to me, since even if these classes don’t end up being transferable to my program (not sure about that yet), they would allow me to get to know some professors well enough that I might be able to solicit some letters of recommendation from them, and it might compensate for my mostly irrelevant undergrad work. It would also give me another opportunity to decide if this is really what I want to do before I dedicate a large portion of my life to it.

I ended up taking two classes at CU last semester from two different professors. I was lucky in that both classes included a great deal of group discussion and teacher-student interaction. Professors generally prefer to get to know a student over the course of a few classes before writing a recommendation, but both professors felt comfortable enough after only one semester because of the great deal of discussion and interaction that they had with me. I also made sure to produce the best work possible, and with both classes requiring a lot of writing, I had ample opportunity to impress. I also went in during both professors’ office hours in order to discuss various concepts introduced in the material, as well as my situation as a potential grad student. I didn’t want to be a bother, so I avoided showing up too often, but I wanted to make sure they had a chance to get to know me pretty well.

In the course of these discussions, I decided that I would really like to apply to a few schools outside of Colorado. The competition for spots seemed fairly fierce, and the one professor at CU that would have been an adequate advisor for me had just published some revolutionary research that led to him receiving dozens of applications, all competing for perhaps a single spot -- I got the impression that he’d prefer to not take anyone this year.

I took the GRE in November after studying off and on all semester, and ended up doing a bit better than I expected. I took several practice tests beforehand, and my actual score ended up being only slightly below my best practice score. By this time my relationship with my professors and my grades in the classes were good enough that I began to gain some confidence. About this time I also worked out with the wife that moving might even be an option, so I decided to just apply to a whole bunch of programs and see what happens.

Selecting the schools was a difficult process. It basically involved a list of all of the best working scientists that share my interests. These people came from a diverse range of schools, so it worked out well. I decided on 14 different programs. This is a number more fitting of a medical or clinical psychology applicant, but between my less-than-germane undergrad degree and not knowing exactly what schools are looking for, I cast a wide net. I wasn’t sure how well the best schools would like me, so I applied to several of those, with enough lower-ranking schools to give me a good chance to at least get in somewhere. At one point I had decided to pare the list down a bit, but I was ultimately unable to do so. One of the professors I’m now in contact with and whose work interests me greatly is from a department that at one point I had cut from the list.

Knowing which schools are the best is more difficult that I thought. The anthropology program rankings are fairly out-of-date, and rankings are so subjective that one wonders how much any of them really mean. Because biological anthropology is so very different from socio-cultural anthropology, archeology, and linguistics, the rankings of overall anthropology programs become even less reliable. My concept of which schools are the best was informed by these rankings, but input of various professors working in the field and their opinions on which programs were the most prestigious and offered the best chance of a quality education and future employment were my main source. I eventually decided on a list of 14 schools, 7 of which were “top 5” according to some reasonable measure or another, a couple others which are top 15 or 20, and 5 more that were not highly ranked but that employed professors that were doing interesting and important work in my chosen areas of study.

I started working on applications the third week of November, and finished up in January. The main thing that took so long was hounding my three referees to get their letters submitted.

I got rejected quickly from one of the top schools, as their combination of early application deadline and impatience made me an easy elimination when they hadn’t received my 3^rd recommendation yet.

The next thing that happened was that I started hearing from individual professors. This was unexpected, as in my reading about what to expect I had not encountered this phenomenon. The first one I heard from wanted to get to know me better, but the next one I heard from actually announced that he wanted to work with me and began trying to sell me on his school and research program. A third did likewise.

My confidence increased immensely at this point, as by mid-February 5 of the 6 schools I’d heard from had accepted me. However, there followed a long lull ending about mid-march, when the rejection letters began to roll in. This makes sense now, but at the time it was a bit disappointing. Ultimately, I got into 5 of the 14 schools, so there were 8 rejections in a row after the initial outpouring of interest. This makes me even more grateful that I chose to apply to so many different schools, as it is very clear that different schools are looking for completely different things. I was accepted by the school that the most cited ranking lists as #1 in the nation, but was rejected by a couple schools that barely rank in the top 100. This could be attributed to how well the potential student fits with available advisors, but near as I can tell, I would have fit in just fine. I certainly can’t blame them, as a kid with a lifetime total of two relevant classes and an irrelevant undergrad career wouldn’t knock my socks off either.

Of the five schools that accepted me, one offered no funding so they were quickly eliminated from consideration. Another offered enough to cover tuition plus a little more and was local (I actually did get into Colorado), and the other three promised a full tuition waiver, a nice stipend, and healthcare. They all wanted me to come visit their campuses, and I wish I had more time and money to do so. I did visit the only one that had an actual recruiting event, which I thoroughly enjoyed. While there, the person in charge of funding informed me that the situation wasn’t quite as rosy as I’d been led to believe, due to last year’s large cohort and the departure of a lecturer (and his accompanying TA slots).

This was a source of much grief for me, as the visit to their campus convinced me that this was the school I must attend. When I confronted my potential advisor with this, she told me to remain optimistic and that they would try to get something together for me.

Three weeks later, and my funding just came through in the form of a teaching assignment. I’ll be teaching a 300-level class, so it’ll be mostly junior and senior anthropology majors. I should remind you at this point that the average junior or senior anthropology major has taken many more relevant classes than I have, and is likely to know quite a bit more about the subject than me. I can’t wait.

It still seems possible that I will not have to teach, as there’s a fellowship that could pass to me if a specific person gets an NSF grant (They have one fellowship to offer per cohort, and I'm second in line), but I’m not counting on that. The other two schools offered me fellowships that would allow me to not work my first year, but funding becomes a secondary consideration once it’s available.

I must recap how unpredictable this process is. Not only did I get accepted to arguably the most prestigious anthropology department in the nation during a year when they were accepting far fewer students than they normally do, but they even fought to create a funding package for me to ensure that I would be willing to give them full consideration as I made my decision. All this, while being rejected by a bunch of schools that, had they accepted me, I wouldn’t have even considered. Maybe some day I’ll gain a better understanding of all the ins and outs of this crazy process.

Before anyone gets the impression that it’s all “happily ever after,” it is very much up in the air whether my wife will be making the move with me. This fact may, in some ways, be considered a continuation of my deconversion saga, although that is certainly not the only issue at play.

Writing this blog was instrumental in my decision to go back to school, and I thank the readers who submitted encouraging emails and comments. I hope that my little experiment in the blogosphere has encouraged or informed someone in some meaningful way, but even if not, it has inspired me to begin a new life that I hope will lead to furthering our understanding of nature and our place in it. Thanks for reading.

Go look at the moon!

2008-02-20T18:05:00.000-08:00

The lunar eclipse is in progress, will reach totality in a little over an hour (8:26 Mountain time), and will remain in totality for 51 minutes. Unfortunately, it's very cloudy here. Perhaps even more unfortunate is that Phil Plait lives down the road from me and I don't imagine his viewing conditions will be much better than mine. Hopefully things clear up in the next hour or so.

Charles Darwin and Racism

2008-02-10T12:30:00.000-08:00

Ken Ham is well known as a "liar for Jesus." He's been among the worst for some time now. He's got a new book out, in which he attempts to smear evolution as being racist. Such an assertion is absurd on its face (Plate tectonics is also racist, and I heard the germ theory of disease hates the Dutch!), but it's typical of the creationist crowd. Despite the long existence of this sort of thinking, they have yet to come up with any actual argument (other than "God did it!"), so they invariably resort to bashing evolution.

Ken Ham's argument seems to boil down to two things: Evolution itself is racist, as judged by the title of Darwin's book, and Darwin himself was a racist.

The former is a very old chestnut that has no basis in reality. The name of Darwin's book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, seems to many to refer to some sort of argument for racial superiority. Someone who has actually read the book will know that Origin does not contain discussion about human evolution. Darwin was very concerned about the reception his ideas would receive in the scientific community and in the public forum, and wanted to make sure that he published them in an expansive text so that he could explain his ideas carefully and add preemptive defenses for the criticisms he knew he would receive. He decided therefore to discuss only the principles of and arguments for natural selection in a general sense, not as it applies to humans. Therefore, Darwin could not have been referring to "races" in the way many refer to them today.

In biology, the term "race" refers to a subspecies. "Race" in the colloquial sense is wholly without biological foundation and is useful for convenience only. When Darwin talked about race, he was referring to differential sizes and shapes of bills among otherwise similar finches, subtle differences within species of coral, etc.

So clearly, the idea that the title of Darwin's book has any relevance in a modern discussion of race is completely unfounded. Darwin did eventually publish a lengthy volume dealing with human evolution. It was published in 1871 and is called The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. From that title we learn that Darwin must have been a sexist. Just kidding.

In reality, Darwin was actually quite enlightened for his day. He did suffer from a very mild form of racism, but compared to the writings of many of his famous and much-beloved contemporaries, he was well ahead of his time. I assume that if he were alive today he'd be just as racially tolerant as anyone. It wasn't until well into the 20th century that Biblically-justified racism began to decrease substantially, so we should be careful judging historical figures according to contemporary morality.

It should also be emphasized that Darwin was absolutely not a "social Darwinist." That certain evil men chose to take Darwin's brilliant observations of nature and artificially apply them to society does not speak to the character or credibility of Darwin.

On a related note, I consider "Darwinism" to be an outdated and somewhat silly term. Many Britons still refer to natural selection in this manner, perhaps because they are proud to have produced such a great thinker, but I think it does a disservice to the field. It causes creationists to think that evolution is all about Darwin, when that is clearly not the case. Referring to natural selection as "Darwinism" is like referring to gravity as "Newtonism." The theory of gravitation, like the theory of evolution, has become much more refined in the last few centuries, and is a far cry from what it was in Newton's day, but we certainly are in debt to Newton for laying the foundation. The character of Newton, at least according to modern standards, was far more suspect than the character of Darwin, but that does not change the contributions Newton made. If a principle is correct, it stands on its own merits, regardless of who discovered it. Newton is considered by many to be the greatest "scientist" who ever lived, and his various contributions remain important today.

Darwin was reluctant to publish his findings for many reasons, including the religious furor he knew they would cause, and uncertainty of how it would affect his relationship with his devoutly Christian wife. He was finally forced to publish Origin because Alfred Russell Wallace had independently conceived the theory of natural selection and had written up a very concise summary. He contacted Darwin to get his thoughts on the matter, and Darwin knew he would have to publish or risk wasting his life's work. While Darwin's idea may have been the single greatest idea ever conceived, had he decided to enter the ministry or become a doctor as his father hoped he would, evolution and natural selection would likely be just as universally accepted today. To assume that impugning the character of Darwin is somehow evidence against evolution is supremely ignorant.

We are pleased to inform you...

2008-02-08T16:27:00.001-08:00

...that you have been admitted to the PHD program in the Department of Anthropology for the Fall semester 2008.

Woot!

It's from one of the 3 schools I'd already been talking with through email/phone so it wasn't a big surprise but it's quite a relief.

Of the 14 schools I applied to, I considered 7 of them to be tier 1, 5 to be tier 2, and the remaining 2 to be tier 1.5ish. My first acceptance is from one of the 1.5s.

I'll be writing up a summary of the whole process before too long, as I wasn't sure how it would really go and someone else might find it useful to have an idea of how the process works.

OMG he knows my name!

2008-02-01T09:06:00.000-08:00

Phil Plait from Badastronomy.com linked to my last post and I had a bit of a teenage schoolgirl moment. He is a warrior for truth and whacker of anti-science moles wherever they pop up. He has a mancrush that I share. He also has quite a large telescope. Just sayin'.

I'm over it now and am totally manly again.

ID Beatdown

2008-01-31T15:56:00.000-08:00

So I realize that claims of "[the guy I support] totally laid the smackdown on that [guy I don't support]!!" are all too common and often exaggerated, but PZ Myers debated a senior fellow from the Discovery Institute this afternoon and it really was a gory display. Dr. Simmons, the Intelligent Design advocate, really did come off as being completely clueless, and PZ was quite masterful indeed. Even the folks at Uncommon Descent (link removed due to the page being taken down, see update below) were lamenting the beating that their guy took. The hour-long (minus commercials) show should be up shortly on the radio station's website.

In the aftermath, this exchange was solid gold:

Dr. Simmons, presenting evidence of design:

The mouth, vagina (sic, we can only hope he's talking about the uterus here), urethra, and anus are sealed by mucus when not in use and yet can open and close in controlled ways as needs arise.

PZ:

This is a man who thinks the fact that he isn't drooling and feces aren't dribbling down his leg is a miracle from god. After reading his book, I kind of agree.

In addition to all the nonsense PZ shot down, there are various other areas in which Dr. Simmons' ideas were absurd that had relevance to my own field. For instance, he pointed to the existence of menopause in women as being unexplainable by natural means, and that it therefore must have been implemented by an intelligent designer. That's news to me, as in my often vigorous debates with peers, the issue with menopause (what we like to call reproductive senescence) is that there are so many evolutionary hypotheses that fit the evidence it's difficult to determine which among them is most likely to have presented the strongest selective pressure.

On an unrelated note, I got an email from the department chair of a top 5 school wanting me to call and have a chat, as they're strongly considering me and would like to get to know me better. That was stressful to say the least. I think it went pretty well. Even if I don't get into their (outrageously prestigious) program, it's good to know that my application was strong enough to merit some consideration, and that I ought to be able to get in somewhere, which is still my low-bar main concern.

Update: The link to the debate is now available here. The thread I referred to above wherein various ID advocates lament the thrashing their guy received at the hands of science was taken down. This should have been expected, as it's typical behavior from Uncommon Descent, who have long disallowed any rational folk from posting on their site, and apparently have now gone so far as to delete even momentary lapses of unreason from their normally ever-so deluded flock.

New NAS book, and more about secondary altriciality

2008-01-05T13:24:00.000-08:00

The new book from the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, is now available for download here. Click the blue "sign in" link below the book's cover, provide a little bit information (zip code, country, email address, as I recall) and then download the 3.2mb file on the subsequent page.

I haven't read it yet, but a quick skim reveals a great resource. It's 50-60 pages long, and seems like a very good summary. There is one small problem in the book, their shameless nod to the pious, but not a big deal. There's also an 8-page summary available for download for those who don't want to sign in, and it's available in bound form for $11.65 on that same site.

In response to a previous comment, secondary altriciality has its roots in our pelvic adaptations for bipedality, but didn't actually result in any significant altriciality until after the massive acceleration in encephalization that occurred after 2 million years ago.

For those not familiar, altriciality refers to offspring that are helpless at birth and completely dependent on others for their care. This is the rule among animals with large litter sizes, and is generally not found among animals giving birth to only one or two offspring at a time. Humans are "secondarily" altricial because we evolved within a precocial (the opposite of altricial, referring to offspring that can walk, find food, or at least cling to their mothers shortly after birth) phylogeny. Humans are still somewhat precocial, having hair, open eyes, and relatively large body size at birth, but much of that body size is represented by brain tissue and fat, neither of which are terribly helpful when it comes to walking around.

I tried to pin down the general time period in which secondary altriciality emerged, but was unable to do so due to insufficient sample size in the fossil evidence combined with our still as-yet inaccurate methods for determining an fossil individual's age at death. It probably started in Late Homo erectus but may have begun as late as archaic Homo sapiens, so something like 1.5m to 500k years ago.

Our pelvic adaptations require a series of turns by the fetus on its way through the birth canal, which also end up with the baby facing the wrong direction (towards the mother's back), which would have led to the requirement of a midwife during childbirth as early as 3 million years ago. This did not lead to altricial infants on its own, but exacerbated the altriciality of infants after cranial size increased to the point of filling up the entire birth canal. There is significant evidence of coevolution between infant cranial size and female pelvic inlet size since that time, allowing for more in utero brain development without further increasing altriciality.

The immediate cause of secondary altriciality is not so much the brain growth during gestation as it is the continued emphasis on brain growth during the early years of life, at the expense of somatic growth and muscle development. Particularly during the first year, the brain continues to grow at an incredible rate, while the rest of the body keeps up only enough to support that brain growth.

Its quite a bit more complicated than that, but my paper was 23 pages long and could have been much longer so I'll spare you the details. It's certainly an interesting topic.

Mathemagic and Update

2007-12-30T13:36:00.000-08:00

Posting a TED talk on a blog is like saying something nice about our military at a sporting event: it happens constantly, and always gets applause. Still, this guy is awesome.

In other news, the fall semester went well. I ended up writing two term papers. The first deals with secondary altriciality (humans' unusual helplessness during infancy) and the interplay between adaptations for bipedality and the massive encephalization (brain growth) that occurred over the last 2 million years or so. The second is an analysis of competing "prime releaser" hypotheses, which attempt to explain the sudden acceleration in brain growth only after that time.

I've also applied to 14 biological anthropology programs throughout the nation, just to see where I can get in. One of my recommenders is slacking, though, so he might end up screwing me, as some of the deadlines have already passed. I'll call him again tomorrow if he doesn't do anything today. It cost about 1200 bucks or so to apply to that many schools, so I might have to egg his house if he ruins it for me (not really, but grrrr).

I'm trying to get through 12 books during the month between semesters and am on pace so far. I might have some quick thumbs up or down on all of them at some point.

The last couple years of sitting at a desk has reduced my brain/body mass ratio (anthropology joke!) significantly, so I'm also trying to lose some weight. I've been watching Bones while I work out, which is actually a very cool show. It's loosely based on the life of a real forensic anthropologist, and other than vastly compressed time, it seems to stay accurate a good amount of the time.

"Judgment Day" on PBS

2007-11-13T22:54:00.000-08:00

PBS just aired an analysis and reconstruction of the 2005 Dover trial, in which some concerned parents sued the local school board for trying to force religion, in the form of intelligent design, to be taught as science. pbs.org will have it up for online viewing later this week here if you missed it tonight. I highly recommend it. Both sides are presented, but the clear religious foundation of intelligent design is exposed, and a good amount of evidence for evolution, particularly the link between humans and other apes, is presented.

The presentation of one of the key witnesses for the prosecution in that case, UC-Berkeley paleontologist Kevin Padian, is available here. It's long, but presents a good case for macroevolution (more properly called speciation, referring to the process by which new species of animals arise through natural selection), complete with the slides he used at the trial. It was intended for a lay audience consisting of lawyers and a judge, so it's great reading for someone who doesn't have a scientific background or who wants to better understand the science of evolution without slogging through a lot of jargon.

Uber Cool Nerd King

2007-10-14T16:42:00.000-07:00

Carolyn Porco TED talk

2007-10-05T14:40:00.000-07:00

Rather than going into too much depth, I'll direct you over to BA, who has the link and some background. Even as someone who was already familiar with the Cassini probe and who had already seen many of the pictures, this talk was incredibly moving for me. I strongly recommend taking the 17 minutes required to watch it.

Grad School is Awesome!

2007-09-17T13:44:00.000-07:00

I can't believe how much I'm learning. Since I got my undergrad degree 4 years ago, my attitude has been something like "No matter how interesting a subject, school will make you hate it," but that hasn't been the case at all so far. I'm studying exactly what I had in mind, and am discovering amazing facts and concepts every day.

It seems as though many of the best blogs are written by graduate students, so perhaps when I get caught up a bit I'll be able to start blogging again. Since my undergrad work was in an unrelated field, I still have a lot of catching up to do.

I've been debating whether I should go into paleoanthropology, primatology, or some sort of osteology/comparative anatomy. Today and tomorrow we have one of the more eminent professors of paleoanthropology in the world visiting, and he does all three of those, in addition to some work with dinosaur fossils and all sorts of other cool stuff, so hopefully I can end up including such a wide range of disciplines in whatever work I pursue.

My latest studies include the evolutionary reasoning behind humans' unique adolescent growth spurt, and primate digestive mechanisms and how they relate to primate ecology, but at this point I'm not going into too much depth, as I'm still trying to build a good foundation.

We'll see if I'm still this happy when projects start coming due, but for now, going back to school was a great decision for me.

The Monkeysphere

2007-09-16T17:02:00.000-07:00

In another edition of my continuing "Yes, it's old but I missed it" series of awesome articles, everyone simply must read Inside the Monkeysphere by David Wong. You'll be glad you did.

Christopher Hitchens C-Span Interview

2007-09-05T09:19:00.000-07:00

Christopher Hitchens was on C-Span a few days ago for a 3-hour "in depth" interview. I often disagree with him, but respect him immensely for his reasoned approach to all of the issues on which he opines. Due to Youtube rules, the 3-hour session is chopped into 19 pieces. The first piece is embedded below, and the rest can be found either by visiting the youtube page home to the first clip and following the video response links, or by visiting Hitchens' website .

Reason for Optimism

2007-09-02T18:32:00.001-07:00

The wife and I visited the Denver Museum of Nature & Science this afternoon. Next to the museum there is one large main parking lot, 2-3 auxiliary lots, a fairly large underground parking structure, and lots more parking along the various streets connecting the lots together. Every spot was full. We ended up parking a half-mile away in an also-full lot.

The creation museum, on the other hand, recently decided that its small, 500-spot parking lot wasn't large enough and that it needed to be roughly doubled in size. Taking into consideration my (admittedly single, anecdotal, and on a holiday weekend, no less) experience of the attendance of the local science museum, along with how much attendance at the creation museum has already declined since it opened, along with the fact that real science museums far outnumber fake science museums, it seems as though there is reason for optimism.

At least as long as I don't compare museum attendance to church attendance.

College Football 2007

2007-09-01T00:45:00.000-07:00

Football season is finally here again, and as much as I've tried to avoid getting sucked into football again, I'm as excited for it this year as I ever have been. The following video captures that excitement really well. Last season was perhaps my favorite ever, and not just because we beat our rivals on the last play of the game. It's hard not to feel happy for a group of people who work so hard for so long and achieve their goal. It's why Rudy still gets to me after all these years.

This video is also a good example of the "spiritual" feelings that can be duplicated through emotional response, if you weren't sure what I was talking about in my disabusement story.

"The Answered Prayer"
Uploaded by tcoug

The Worst Part about Creationist Influence

2007-08-30T10:33:00.000-07:00

The scientific validity of creationism and intelligent design is so obviously weak that I really do feel optimistic about these movements being widely considered as quackery within the next several decades. I still enjoy pointing out the vacuity of their arguments anyway, possibly in order to help that process along, and more likely because it's amusing to me.

Still, what bothers me the most is how their style of argumentation rubs off onto science. Most of us are aware of how little we know about our universe. Astronomy is an exciting field largely because we know so very little about things outside of our immediate surroundings. Similarly, when it comes to human evolution, I'm consistently reminded of just how little we know. Anthropology is still very much in the "data gathering" stage. Sure, we have drawn some tentative conclusions, but the emphasis is very much on the "tentative," and not so much on the "conclusions."

We think it's likely that Australopithecus Africanus evolved from Australopithecus Afarensis, but it seems likely that Afarensis actually branched into 2 species and that the Africanus line is not the one leading to Homo, but we're not sure. We're pretty sure that the Neanderthals went extinct between 20 and 40,000 years ago and didn't succeed in passing their genes on to anyone else, but we're not sure where they came from. We're pretty sure that Homo Habilis became Homo Erectus who became Homo Sapiens, but even that line is in doubt to a certain extent, and we certainly don't know where Homo Habilis came from. There are giant gaps within the fossil record, and the record itself is so sketchy that in many cases it's very difficult to tell whether we're dealing with different species or variation within a single species, and there are areas in the timeline where we have absolutely nothing to work with and where there are very likely entirely undiscovered species.

We haven't even looked for fossils in well over 99% of the world. The reason we are dealing with these fossils and not a completely different set is because our digging has been focused in East Africa. If we had started elsewhere we'd likely be dealing with a whole different set of species, and certainly with different terminology.

And yet, because of this political issue that religious fanatics have created, it is often very tempting to seem too confident in the science. Similarly, when a moderate or even weak believer's beliefs are attacked or questioned, they will often temporarily become an extreme zealot for the length of the conversation, just out of defensive response.

I've even found myself falling into this, and even as I type I feel like I need to qualify it by reminding everyone of all the other ways in which we know evolution is real and of the myriad problems with the creationist approach. This may be why I haven't been commenting as much on the creationist articles lately (and there've been some doozies, let me tell you). Their arguments are just so mindlessly crackpotted that I get bored even thinking about their fantasies. The seduction of the actual mysteries tugs at me so strongly that I wonder why we even pay these clowns any attention. Then I remember their agenda to take over our nation and school systems and I am reminded of how grateful I am for those fighting the good fight.

I will still likely comment from time to time about religious fanaticism in its various forms, as once in a while it still catches my fancy, but I hope to post a bit more about other issues going forward.

Back to School

2007-08-28T08:02:00.000-07:00

This is my first week back at school in about 4 years, as I've decided to pursue a Master's Degree in biological anthropology. It figures that somebody would get stabbed on the first day of school. Apparently the perpetrator is a former employee of the UMC (student union/bookstore building). He got that job through an association that the University of Colorado has with the "Chinook Clubhouse," an organization that deals with the rehabilitation of the mentally unsound. This guy had previously been accused of various crimes including "criminal intent to commit first degree murder," but was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

They sent out an email to everybody yesterday afternoon explaining all this stuff and assuring us of all the extra precautions they'll be taking from now on. I tend not to get freaked out by things like this, and it sounds like the victim will be able to return to school as early as today, but it's still pretty odd. I'll be walking from one far end of campus to the other every day so I'll keep my guard up.

Daisy and Bodhi

2007-08-26T22:29:00.001-07:00

Daisy is the short one on the left. She's almost 3 months old. The tall guy on the right weighs a good three-and-a-half pounds. He's still recovering from a bad haircut so isn't as cute as he otherwise would be. Today he's been barking a lot. My wife bribed them with treats to get them to sit still long enough to take this relatively non-blurry picture. Otherwise they'd probably be fighting each other. It gets bigger if you click it.

Also, this picture was taken with my new blackberry. It's my first smart phone, and has been an adventure. It's amazing how a guy who used to pride himself on his technical savvy can become so out of the loop so quickly.

Rationalism Doesn't Lead to Genocide, and other Shocking Insights

2007-08-24T23:40:00.000-07:00

Via TPT: Creationists love to use the Nazis' evolutionary justification of eugenics against today's scientists, as if to say that evolutionary thought inevitably leads to Nazism or Nazi-like behavior. Now comes a response by Hector Avalos, in which he turns the tables on the creationists. He traces the precursors to eugenics in religious thought over the last few centuries, and further, points out that religion is actually much more likely to give rise to this sort of evil today than is rationalism.

In other news, a former Orthodox Jew now writing about his experiences, was asked "You deleted your manuscript several times out of fear that God would strike down your family. What about now that it’s being published?" He responded:

When I was writing it for myself, anything could happen and no one would know. Now it’s out there, so if He tries any shit, people are going to know. They’d be like, “Wow, he’s right, that Guy’s a dick.”

And finally, Brian May, who turned his PhD thesis in a couple weeks ago 36 years after discontinuing his studies in order to make a hojillion dollars playing music, has successfully defended his thesis and will be awarded his PhD. I find this story quite inspiring, to say the least.

More Media Shenanigans

2007-08-23T12:45:00.000-07:00

John Hawks and PZ have good reactions to the latest in media ignorance and inaccuracy, namely, a story in National Geographic about the recent discovery of the remains of what could be a new and ancient species of gorilla and how said discovery "may shatter human evolution theory" and might also "demolish a working theory of human evolution."

Here's the situation: Scientists have tentatively put the concestor (most recent common ancestor) of gorillas and humans back about 7-8 million years. This new finding (which consists of a few teeth) may or may not prove that the concestor lived at least 10 or 11 million years ago. While this may turn out to be an important discovery that requires minor but significant adjustments to the overall timeline of hominid evolution, it does not present anything close to a foundational challenge. Rather, it provides more evidence of how effective the scientific process is, as science tweaks its theories as new evidence becomes available.

I suppose that such a ridiculously inaccurate assessment of the new discovery can likely be attributed to standard media sensationalism, but on this topic I always wonder how much of it is due to the weakening trust of science caused by the religious disinformation campaign. Coming from National Geographic, I assume that my fears are unfounded, but I am still quite disappointed by the sensationalism.

PZ brings up a related point that I have long found to be true: Reputable science blogs tend to be much more accurate in their reporting than even the best mainstream news outlets. In my discussions about various scientific issues, I will often refer to blogs, particularly when dealing with recent events for which there is little or no peer-reviewed research available. I have occasionally been criticized for doing so from those who would prefer a news article. Knowing what we know about the biases and general incapability of the major news outlets to report actual news accurately, why would we trust them to report science?

Other than peer-reviewed articles and books, blogs really are where the science is. I'll trust a Badastronomy or Afarensis article over one from CNN.com any day of the week.

A Quote for my Wife

2007-08-23T12:31:00.000-07:00

Of course anyone who truly loves books buys more of them than he or she can hope to read in one fleeting lifetime. A good book, resting unopened in its slot on a shelf, full of majestic potentiality, is the most comforting sort of intellectual wallpaper.

- David Quammen, The Boilerplate Rhino
(via Book Dragon)

I couldn't have said it better myself. While I do try to eventually read all of the books I buy, I don't feel too bad if I don't get around to a few. So, the next time you see me buying a book only to place it at the bottom of the ever-growing "to be read" stack, just think of it as cheap decoration.

Books, Shermer, and Dawkins

2007-08-22T17:49:00.000-07:00

Having evinced my ardor for books, imagine my chagrin (if not surprise) in learning that 1 in 4 Americans didn't read a single book last year. If anything, I'm surprised that the number isn't higher. What troubles me the most is that of the 3/4 of us who read a book last year, most of us read religious works, including the Bible (actually, I really doubt that very many people read the whole Bible last year), pop fiction, and romance novels. Biographies and histories were read by quite a few, which is good to hear, but "politics, poetry and classical literature were named by fewer than five percent of readers." Science isn't even mentioned.

Speaking of books, I just finished Michael Shermer's Why Darwin Matters, and loved it. He's a good representative of the less-acerbic, more tolerant school of scientific thought, and if I were to guess, I'd say he's better at winning converts than Dawkins and the gang are. I love what the popular new-atheist writers are doing, but feel that they are likely better at getting doubters and fence-sitters to come to our side than they are at convincing true believers.

Nevertheless, I do find myself identifying more closely with Dawkins than with Shermer, particularly after Shermer's recent open letter, which I found uncharacteristically lame. He conflates passion with militancy in the same fashion that the fundies do, which is confusing coming from such an accomplished advocate of science.

Was anyone else somewhat disappointed by The Enemies of Reason? Granted, it was all old news for me, but I didn't think it was as effective as Derren Brown's entry in the same category. Perhaps if it reaches a wider audience it will be for the greater good. I do hope that Dawkins moves on to something more substantive now and doesn't do anything rash like write a book about this sort of thing.

Richard Dawkins: The Enemies of Reason, Part 2

2007-08-21T19:44:00.000-07:00

(Part 1 is here)

Oh the Ignorance of the Masses

2007-08-21T19:33:00.000-07:00

I read a lot of editorials from various local papers throughout the country, and generally don't have much to say about them, since there's sufficient ignorance among the national media to fuel my outrage. I think I'll make an exception. What sort of indoctrination do you suppose is requisite in a person in order for them to think this?

On a lighter note, Pat Condell has produced another rant about Islam, which is worth checking out. His entire collection can be found here, and I strongly recommend it.

$15,000,000!

2007-08-21T17:50:00.000-07:00

Yep, fifteen million dollars is the cost of the emotional damage inflicted upon poor Mr. Pivan by the terribly mean PZ, according to the official complain t. $5 million of that is for the purpose of compensating actual business losses caused by PZ, as apparently, if not for PZ's poor review, the book would have become one of the most profitable works of "science" ever written. The Panda's Thumb has more.

SciVee: Youtube for Science

2007-08-20T19:44:00.000-07:00

There isn't much in the way of content so far, but the potential here is exciting. Anything that allows for accelerated dissemination of scientific thought to other scientists and perhaps particularly to the layman can only be good for society. Check it out.

PZ Myers Sued for Libel!

2007-08-20T19:14:00.000-07:00

Another anti-science cretin has produced a book of pseudoscience, which has, shockingly, been panned by scientists. The author of the book, one Stuart Pivar, was so upset by the reaction to his book, that he has chosen to sue the author of one such crique, PZ Myers, for libel.

I don't get it. How can you pretend to be offering scientific argumentation, while at the same time attempting to squelch criticism, which is itself such a large part of the scientific process?

Check out what PZ wrote. Does that seem exceptionally harsh? His critiques are certainly robust, perhaps even passionate, but there's nothing there that you don't see commonly in response to a bad movie, for instance. This certainly isn't the harshest rhetoric he's personally used when discussing pseudo-science either.

It seems as though Mr. Pivar has a history of this sort of thing, as he's been named a plaintiff in 25 different cases now. I suppose this tactic shouldn't be unexpected, as various opponents of science have long sought to silence their critics, rather than debate them, perhaps knowing the inevitable result of a fantasy vs. science debate. Still, this seems an incredibly weasely thing to do.

Links

2007-08-19T23:24:00.000-07:00

I enjoyed this article concerning the "fundamental question of philosophy," which concerns the issue of where the laws of physics comes from. It's a shame that the author came to such a non sequitur conclusion. The comments do a good job of explaining the reasons why his conclusion has no merit.

Meanwhile, boo hoo. Another "sure the atheists have some good points, but they hurt my delicate sensibilities so I don't approve" article. For one thing, he's just plain wrong about Dawkins and Harris. They don't refer to religious people as imbeciles every 30 seconds. They're actually quite nice about it most of the time, and any offense is likely due to warped expectations. Second, even if they did spend most of their time engaging in ad hominem, marginalization is a perfectly valid technique when dealing with people who don't care about reason.

For a classic example of marginalization, go here.

Jokes and Quotes

2007-08-18T08:34:00.000-07:00

Here are a few jokes and quotes that struck me as funny or insightful. If there's no attribution it means that either I wrote it or that I stole it from an anonymous forum poster.

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off.

So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!' 'Why shouldn't I?' he said. I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!'

He said, 'Like what?' I said, 'Well... are you religious or atheist?' He said, 'Religious.' I said, 'Me too!

Are you Christian or Buddhist?' He said, 'Christian.' I said, 'Me too!

Are you Catholic or Protestant?' He said, 'Protestant.' I said, 'Me too!

Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?' He said, 'Baptist!' I said, 'Wow! Me too!

Are you Baptist church of god or Baptist church of the lord?' He said, 'Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too!

Are you original Baptist church of god, or are you reformed Baptist church of god?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist church of god!' I said, 'Me too!

Are you reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915?' He said, 'Reformed Baptist church of god, reformation of 1915!' I said, 'Die, heretic scum,' and pushed him off.

- Emo Philips

You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.

- Anne Lamott

The answer to the question "Why are you an atheist?" is "Why shouldn't I be?

If there is a god, I bet she’s an atheist.

Could god make a burrito so big that even he couldn’t stand the smell of the resulting flatulence?

The first law of thermodynamics is: You do not talk about thermodynamics.

Micro-evolution: evolution for which the evidence is so
overwhelming that even the creationists can't deny it.
Macro-evolution: evolution which is only proven beyond
reasonable doubt, not beyond unreasonable doubt.

We all pay taxes. Some people get healthcare; others get dead Arabs. What am I going to do with dead Arabs? I would much rather get healthcare.

Christopher Hitchens' Book Tour

2007-08-18T08:25:00.000-07:00

I rather enjoyed this essay from Christopher Hitchens in which he reflects on some of his experiences from his recent book tour. His wit is impressive as ever. As I was reading his book a few months ago I was struck by how wonderful a writer he is. I can't say that he's my favorite of the new atheist authors, as he plays fast and loose with the facts at times, but it's apparent that he is the literature professor of the bunch.

A Call for Submissions for the Republican Youtube Debate

2007-08-17T18:54:00.001-07:00

This post over on slashdot brings up a good point. I hope that someone with the means to do so will submit a question according to these guidelines. The thread accompanying the proposition provides sufficient reasoning why it's important that we not elect a creationist president, and therefore why this is, in fact, a very important political issue, so I won't comment further.

Off Topic

2007-08-17T11:10:00.000-07:00

So I bought a new car yesterday, and learned a good lesson: Borrow a nice car from one dealership and drive it to a different dealership. I didn’t really mean for it to happen this way, as I actually was planning on buying the used car that I borrowed, but it ended up netting me a new car for slightly less than I was planning to pay for said used car, even though they were the same make, model, trim, and year.

Of course, the best way to do it is usually to patiently look through the classifieds every day until a great deal comes up, but I’m not that smart.

Attention, Critics of Atheism

2007-08-17T08:21:00.000-07:00

Most recently, this poor man at the Jackson Sun:

As for Christopher Hitchens, the "L'enfant terrible" of the talk-show circuit, his book "God is not Great" is more rant than well-thought out argument, more scare tactic than responsible journalism. He describes with great seriousness how "religion kills," but amusingly refuses to admit that the same argument works in reverse when applied to the atheistic totalitarian Communist regimes of the 21st century that slaughtered well over 100 million people - far more than the Crusades, the European wars of religion and the much-ballyhooed Salem witch trials, combined.

So Hitchens "refuses to admit" that 20th (not 21st, smart guy) century totalitarian regimes killed lots of people? You mean other than the entire chapter he devoted to it, right? I swear these idiots don't ever read the books they're criticizing.

Religionists of every persuasion, please understand: Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot represent no challenge to atheism. Hitler was a Catholic, so it's ridiculous that he is even mentioned, and although the other two were certainly atheist, they slaughtered people in spite of their atheism, not because of it.

The distinction here is extremely clear. On one side you have people who talk endlessly about their religion and use it specifically to justify committing all sorts of atrocities. Their most faithful are known to shout "God is great!" as they blow themselves up in crowded markets. There is no question what their motivation is. The issue in the middle east is religious fanaticism, whether it's politically correct to say so or not. On the other hand, you have totalitarian dictators who use the religious gullibility of their citizens to set themselves up as gods to their people. Stalin wasn't so much atheist as he was Stalinist, just as North Korea today is led by Kim Jong Il's dead father, who is a god.

Richard Dawkins pointed out on Bill O'Reilly's yelling show that Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches, so you might as well blame their deeds on that. It's a light-hearted point, but a good one. Stalin never killed anyone in the name of atheism.

As Sam Harris likes to say, there has never been "reason run amok." Stalin and Hitler didn't kill all those people because they became "too rational." They killed all those people because they believed in different sorts of morally bankrupt dogma. That their dogma didn't happen to have anything to do with God is irrelevant. Dogma is the problem. Religion isn't evil because it teaches about impossible sky-gods and demons; it's evil because it refuses to allow society to progress and oppresses individual thought under the jackboot (pardon the expression) of obsolete ideas.

Every one of the popular atheist writers has covered this issue in excruciating detail, so for this man to declare that they refuse to address it is simply false. It is not an issue for atheists. If anything, it is an issue for religionists. How can you, Gregory Alan Thornbury, be sure that you won't fall for believing in the next dictator that arises, when you've so proven your extreme gullibility?

I won't bother to dissect the remainder of his article, as it's the same weak rhetoric that has been refuted ad nauseum over the last several decades and centuries. If only these pathetic piety peddlers would do any reading, they might avoid this sort of embarrassment.

Morality Comes From Religion

2007-08-17T07:30:00.000-07:00

Or at least that's what I'm told. Somebody needs to go figure out where these birds are going to church though, as my faith is waning.

But seriously, the evidence that religion has very little, if anything, to do with popular morality is quite strong. Altruism is beneficial, and was therefore selected into our population, and morality has continued to evolve according to the zeitgeist, not according to any religious preachers, who generally prove themselves to be of, generously, below average morals.

Even if religion did play a role in the development of common ethics, The Abrahamic religions have been around for such a tiny fraction of human existence that it could still not take credit for much.

Christopher Hitchens commonly provides two examples, one from each testament, as evidence of this point: In the Old Testament, the Jews at Sinai could not have been shocked by "Thou shalt not kill" etc., or else they never would have managed to get that far. The commandments Moses supposedly brought down from the mountain were much more likely to be for his own benefit in leading the people, in the unlikely case that the event happened at all, and the story of the burning a bush a convenient fabrication. In the New Testament, the Good Samaritan helped a Jew in a clear act of altruism, despite being either pagan or non-religious.

Perhaps the most obvious evidence in favor of the view that morality does not originate from religion is the way in which we commonly interpret scripture. The Bible, for instance, is a smorgasbord of moral teachings, ranging from extreme evil to extreme good. That the evil is almost always ignored and the good emphasized makes clear that modern-day preachers are using some criteria other than the Bible for developing their morality. If this criteria is anything other than revelation, which is extremely unlikely to say the least, then religion's claim on morality is false.

Why is this even a debate? Morality is clearly of great benefit to our species, and we obviously would not have survived this long without it. If the rabid religionists continue to gain political power in the world, they may kill us all yet. I suspect that this debate has a lot more to do with insecure creationists trying desperately to explain their indefensible myths than with any actual intellectual endeavor.

No Comment

2007-08-16T13:36:00.000-07:00

Via Paul Krassner at Huffington Post

Members of Decatur, Alabama's Church of Leaning Christ, who complained about Rev. Billy Lee Halpin's choice of rock music, which has been used in the church's services for years. "We started out with The Monkees song 'I'm a Believer,'" he explained, "but then had to cancel that as many members were upset by the use of The Monkees. They felt it was a slap in the face to God, you know, with evolution and all. So now we just use Pat Boone again."

The Real "Assault on Reason"

2007-08-15T15:40:00.000-07:00

The article Greetings from Idiot America showed up on reddit today, and even though it is a bit old (11/2005), it is one of the best articles I've ever read. I'm generally not one for hyperbole, but this article really hits the mark. I am reminded of Al Gore's Assault on Reason, and am left thinking that if his book was anything like this article it may have been one of the finest books of our generation. Of course it wasn't, and indeed couldn't have been.

The author of this article, Charles Pierce, begins with some choice comments on the much-discussed creation museum, and ends up discussing America's general disdain of science and all things intellectual. Here are a few of my favorite passages, in case you need more encouragement.

The rise of Idiot America is essentially a war on expertise… It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a preacher, or a scientist, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

A "politically savvy challenge to evolution" is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be. It makes as much sense as conducting a Gallup poll on gravity or running someone for president on the Alchemy Party ticket. It doesn't matter what percentage of people believe they ought to be able to flap their arms and fly, none of them can. It doesn't matter how many votes your candidate got, he's not going to turn lead into gold. The sentence is so arrantly foolish that the only real news in it is where it appeared.

On the front page.
Of The New York Times.

Even in the developing world, where I spend lots of time doing my work," Hodges says, "if you tell them that you're from MIT and you tell them that you do science, it's a big deal. If I go to India and tell them I'm from MIT, it's a big deal. In Thailand, it's a big deal. If I go to Iowa, they could give a rat's ass. And that's a weird thing, that we're moving in that direction as a nation.

The Enemies of Reason Online

2007-08-15T11:37:00.001-07:00

And here it is. I haven't watched it yet, but look forward to doing so this evening. I believe part 2 comes out next week.

Oh here I'll embed it for the click-averse.

Where Does Black Skin Come From?

2007-08-14T05:15:00.000-07:00

First, the real answer: Black skin results from the evolution of melanin subsequent to the migration of early humans or proto-humans to the East African savanna. This was important in order to prevent constant cancer-causing sunburn, and also the destruction of the body's folate stores caused by ultra-violet radiation. Folate is important in the development of sperm, so darker skin was selected into the population fairly quickly. Prior to this, humans (or their ancestors) likely had fair skin, due to living in fairer climates and having a greater amount of body hair. The great apes tend to have fair skin for the latter reason.

Once groups of humans began leaving Africa and migrating North, they again evolved fairer skin. This was due to the body’s need of sunlight in order to synthesize vitamin D. This balance between vitamin D production and folate preservation resulted in those who migrated to cooler, but still warm climates ending up with dark, but not black, skin, and those who migrated to cold climates ending up with white skin.

Someone with a good understanding of this concept, and yet no knowledge of geography or ecology, could accurately predict the predominant skin color found in any location in the world. Such a prediction would look something like this:

Graphic by Matt Zang, adapted from Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin

Now, the fake but widely believed answer: Black skin results from Noah getting pissed when one of his sons, Ham, saw him drunk and naked in his tent. So pissed, in fact, that Noah inexplicably and impossibly cursed Ham’s son, Canaan, with black skin. It has been interpreted that Noah's “nakedness” was actually a Biblical euphemism meaning “was boinking his mother,” which might explain his extreme reaction. Either way, Canaan became the father of a giant civilization and is the source of all the black skin in the world. Any medium-skinned people are presumably the result of inter-breeding.

This story is obviously false, but likely seemed a plausible explanation in a pre-scientific, extremely gullible society.

The Book of Mormon has a similar story, wherein the Nephites were the good guys and were white, and the Lamanites were the bad guys and were therefore cursed by God with dark skin. The entire Book of Mormon account of the Nephites and Lamanites is a complete fabrication, as DNA evidence tells us that Native Americans came from Asia, not from Jerusalem, and this story about how they got dark skin (the Nephites were eventually destroyed, leaving only the dark-skinned Lamanites to populate the Americas) is only one in a long list of problems in the Book of Mormon. This may also help explain why it took the LDS church so long to allow black people to become full members, which didn’t happen until 1978.

My point is this: Anyone who believes in Biblical inerrancy, or who believes that their scriptures are not fabricated morality tales, is inherently racist. I say this not only as a reminder of what sort of silliness the average faith-head believes, but as a reminder that in the political struggle between evolution and creationism, or between science and religion, our side believes in logic, observation, and evidence, and their side believes in ancient attempts by ignorant people to explain what they saw around them.

Religion is little more than the institutionalization of obsolete ideas.

I personally can’t fault the writers of the various scriptures for getting just about everything wrong, as they didn’t know any better. We do. That we insist on continuing to respect these ignorant and obsolete writings is an international embarrassment. The Bible, along with all the other books seen as sacred today by various people, need to join the Illiad and the Odyssey in the body of mythology where they can be enjoyed for what they are: Ancient stories, that while entertaining and sometimes insightful, demonstrate the inferior level of understanding of a time long past.

A Talent Wasted?

2007-08-13T14:31:00.000-07:00

This review of last night's show The Enemies of Reason brings up a good point. Richard Dawkins is a brilliant scientist with an outstanding ability to write informative, yet entertaining prose. It is a terrible waste that he is devoting so much time to debunking such obvious nonsense as astrology and spirit-channeling. Still, I'm not sure whether to lament his choice to do so, or to lament the society that necessitated such a project due to its belief in this woo.

New TGD review

2007-08-13T11:53:00.000-07:00

There's a new (published 3 hours ago) review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion available here. It takes the interesting approach of labeling each of Dawkins' flaws as one of the mythical seven deadly sins. It ends up being a smörgåsbord of tired, cliched argumentation that we've already seen over the last year since the book was released (he even quotes Terry Eagleton), but at least the concept was dumb.

Speaking of bad argumentation, what's a Harvard scientist doing trying to calculate the diameter of the universe by using the Bible? Even more, why is Harvard employing someone who publishes data that we know to be wrong by roughly 6 orders of magnitude? Is criticism of religion so taboo that we even let our supposed experts just make stuff up out of thin air and publish it? The article reads like satire, so I can only hope, but the rest of the site seems pretty straight so it's hard to tell.

Reminder for all you Brits

2007-08-12T20:13:00.000-07:00

Richard Dawkins' new TV show The Enemies of Reason airs tomorrow night (well later today for you. Monday night at any rate). I look forward to watching it when it becomes available in the states or online. Here's a preview and an interview about it on Richard and Judy:

Our Understanding of Evolution

2007-08-12T18:40:00.000-07:00

Brian Switek posted an essay entitled The Evolution of What We Think About Who We Are yesterday that deals with quite a range of issues, from anthropology to creationism. It comes with my very strong recommendation. Apparently he's still working on expanding it, so read it now before it gets any longer.

Random Stuff

2007-08-12T13:27:00.000-07:00

Queen guitarist Brian May finally handed in his PhD thesis earlier this month, 36 years after abandoning it in order to become a rock star. He'll defend it on the 23rd, and we should know the result sometime before the end of this month. I'm reminded of former 49ers quarterback Steve Young, who received his law degree the same year that he set the NFL record for single-season pass efficiency (until Peyton Manning broke it 11 years later), was named league MVP, and was the MVP of the Super Bowl.

I have a huge amount of respect for those willing to finish their education even after the financial benefit of doing so is past. Education for its own sake is a virtue that I hold in high regard.

Here's a baby panda sneezing:

Differing political mottoes for differing political climates:

And finally, Why the Bourne Series is the Best American Film Trilogy Ever Made. I'm not sure that I agree with that assertion, but his argument is pretty convincing.

David Warren's Attack on Evolution

2007-08-12T12:19:00.000-07:00

I noticed an op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen this morning by David Warren that is too stupid to let go. He starts with the ridiculous assertion that the huge response to his previous anti-evolution column is evidence that he’s right, since nobody would care what he was saying if he were wrong. It couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that he is a part of the majority (certainly in the US, and in Canada as well last I checked) that is continually attempting to perpetuate the unfounded myth of creationism.

It is those who “have a stake in evolutionary controversies,” he goes on to say, that are the most “apoplectic” about his anti-evolutionism. This is a point akin to “grass is green” in its obviousness (assuming we ignore his childish accusation of apoplexy), as those who have an interest in any argument are the ones likely to (gasp) argue about it. This author seems to think he's making a good point, however, so he interprets this phenomenon to mean that creationism must be true, or else evolutionists wouldn’t get so worked up about it. The idiocy of this argument is apparent. If that’s the case, then evolution must be true also, due to the creationist noise machine of which he is a part, and certainly every conspiracy theory, brand of alternative medicine, and fantastical pseudoscientific notion must also be true, since they all generally meet the wrath of science. I wonder if this guy is a professional troll like Scott Adams, since they seem to get the same enjoyment out of the rational response to their ignorance.

Then Warren goes off the deep end. First is this predictable gem:

[T]he edifice of official atheist materialism crumbles, under the pressure of actual scientific inquiry. Mr. Behe's recent book, The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, does a fairly good job of surveying the three iron struts from which Darwinism was welded: random mutation, natural selection, and common descent. He is able to leave only this last standing.

Citing a thoroughly debunked work of pseudoscience as evidence of your point despite its status as an embarrassment in the scientific community is good evidence that you've lost the argument. Note to ID Creationists: You don’t like science. You don’t agree with science. If you did, you wouldn’t believe the retarded things you do. Therefore, please don’t try to use science to back up your claims. You look pathetic.

Then there’s this:

This last week we learned of the collapse of one of the latest props of "deep evolutionism," which was also one of the earliest (the ancient Greeks first thought of it): The very popular "panspermian" hypothesis that life was first seeded on the earth by materials arriving in comets. It has been kicked away by Paul Falkowski, and other biologists and oceanographers from Rutgers and Boston universities, studying DNA samples frozen in the Antarctic ice. (See, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.) They showed nothing of any earthly genetic use could have survived.

Not only does this one study not disprove panspermia generally, but it is completely irrelevant. This is a dumbfounding red herring that only an ignoramus would attempt to use as evidence against evolution. Panspermia is not a generally accepted theory, and in fact is only one of several competing hypotheses, and has no real relationship with evolution at all.

Like every other modern essay in "evolutionism" (i.e. evolution as a religious cosmology), the idea behind panspermianism is to transfer the problem of life's origin on earth, out of the finite space and time of the earth's own geological history, and into some abstract place where the laws of chance have an infinite amount of time to do whatever is necessary.

This is my favorite. Warren accuses science of trying to transfer the problem of origins “out of the finite space and time of the earth's own geological history, and into some abstract place.” As Phil Plait is likely to say,

“Ow! My irony gland is exploding! Arrrrrgh!”

Is there is a better characterization of ID’s cop-out method of inquiry?

He then finishes with another vacuous paraphrase of Behe, and a lamentation of “those who refuse to acknowledge God,” as if it were a proven concept that must only be studied to be understood. Of course as we in the reality-based community understand, evolution is what must only be acknowledged, whereas God, even after so many millennia, is still without supporting evidence of any kind.

Christian the Lion

2007-08-11T15:17:00.000-07:00

This is one of the more heart-warming stories I've seen in a while. Christian the Lion was raised as a pet by a couple of British guys starting in 1969. The lion eventually grew too large to be kept, so hi owners released him into the wild in Kenya. A few years later, the men who raised him went to see him. Here is the video of the reunion:

An article detailing the story can be found here. There is also a book forthcoming, though I don't know what it will be called or when it might be available.

An Ode to Books

2007-08-11T15:04:00.000-07:00

I am obsessed with books. I hang out at books stores. I hang out at libraries. I buy books faster than I can read them. When I finish a book, I place it on the shelf like a trophy for all to see, with no plans to sell. I love the smell of books, and the feel as I riffle the pages. The local library is hiring, and despite the absurdity of doing so, I thought briefly about applying. I check the best seller lists and the new release lists. When I find a book I know I won’t read, I sometimes take 20 minutes and skim it. Sometimes I go to a book store in order to read a book I already own, just to be surrounded by more books. Wal-Mart has perhaps the worst excuse for a book section on record, but I still find myself walking through it regularly.

I’m not sure if my love of books is altogether healthy, but it’s not a condition of which I wish to be cured. Books allow for a depth of discussion rarely found even on the best internet sites, let alone in the sound-byte media. Perhaps if a few more people read books covering various viewpoints on various issues, we wouldn’t be plagued by so much bad thinking and bad policy.

Coming Soon

2007-08-10T19:19:00.000-07:00

Another apology for the lack of content lately. The new puppy is getting acclimated and I'm starting to sleep again. I'll have to post some pictures of her, as she's really, really cute.

I appreciate your patience. I have a bunch to write about and will get to it presently.

Quickly

2007-08-08T13:57:00.001-07:00

My intertubes were clogged for a couple days and we got a friend for Bodhi that has been a handful to say the least, so forgive the lack of updates.

Meanwhile, I strongly recommend this debate featuring Glenn Greenwald. The whole thing is about 80 minutes, but Glen's opening statement is the highlight so at least watch that. It's a fantastic summary of the Bush administration's follies. I've heard that his recent book in which he discusses these issues is excellent, but doubt that it'll make my list, so this summary will have to suffice. The video is in real audio format, but the audio is in mp3 if that's more convenient.

The Isolation of Government

2007-08-05T13:46:00.000-07:00

My insinuation last week that dailykos.com is no more than a mouth piece for the Democratic party seems to have been incorrect. As I mentioned in the same article, I haven't really visited the site for quite a long time so I probably should have done so before commenting. For one, I didn't realize how gigantic the site really is, and the relative diversity of the views expressed. This article, for instance, castigates the Democratic party for their complicity in Bush's crimes, and is right on the mark. I still don't plan on visiting the site often, as I still doubt that any position that isn't at least somewhat left of center would be given a chance there, but it seems to have at least a bit of independence from the Democratic party.

On a related note, I'm sure that congress creates an insular environment in which it's very easy for Senators and Representatives to lose site of, or to stop caring about, their respective constituencies, but how distant from the real world must one be for polls like this one to not make an impact?

It's become popular for certain politicians to claim that they ignore the polls, but particularly on a national level, the polls represent the same constituency that these politicians supposedly do. When only 3% of your constituency thinks you're doing a good job, it's a safe bet that you're failing in your duty.

This trend in thinking that following polls is a bad thing reminds me of the trend in thinking that flip-flopping is the ultimate sin. When changing one's mind based on either new evidence or the overwhelming will of one's constituency is unacceptable, it becomes clear that politicians are living in a world far different from the one the rest of us occupy.

Barry Bonds and 755*

2007-08-04T23:35:00.000-07:00

Well, Barry Bonds hit his inevitable 755^th home run tonight, and will surely break the record at some point in the next week or two. The evidence that he is a dirty cheater is overwhelming, but I’m not entirely convinced that he deserves any asterisks next to his name or his growing number of records. If an asterisk is necessary anywhere in the record book, it should be on the cover, next to “MLB.”

Major League Baseball has proven time and again that, more so than any other sport, they don’t mind steroids. They refuse to enact any effective means of testing or harsh punishments on those who are caught. And why would they? Like it or not, freaks like Bonds are more fun to watch than those who play fair. They get more people into the stadiums, and make the league more money. Given the choice, a borderline athlete, or even an exceptional one, will do what is necessary to enhance and/or lengthen his career. Under these circumstances, who can blame Bonds for doing what so many others before him had done, when the consequences presented by the league provide no deterrent? If the league continues to offer the option to players of increasing their income by orders of magnitude in exchange for steroid use, many players will choose to do so.

What Bonds did is unethical, and he doesn’t strike me as an all-around decent fellow either, but rather than booing him for his steroid use, let’s boo the league that facilitated it.

The Boulder Book Store Science Section

2007-08-02T20:09:00.000-07:00

To follow up on my review of my local Borders’ science section, I visited the Boulder Book Store today. Their science section is absolutely huge, being perhaps double the size of the one at Borders. It does, however, contain a lot of woo. Whereas Borders had no woo other than Behe in their science section, the BBS had every kind of woo you can imagine, with the ironic exception of Behe. Before I got too happy about that, I looked it up and discovered that Behe is supposed to be in the science section, it’s just that all 5 copies of his most recent book are in the featured non-fiction section on the main level.

Of course bookstores place books not where they technically should go, but wherever they will sell the best. This whole thing is just for fun, and is not meant to upset the hard-working bookstore employees of the world. I didn't move any books anyway. Well, except for a couple of foofy inspirational books that made their way onto the atheism endcap at Borders yesterday, but that's forgivable.

Overall, I still score the Boulder Book Store slightly higher than Borders, due to the prominent featuring of good science and skepticism books around the store, as well as their additional selection. Their old-school, crowded, locally-owned vibe gets them additional points as well.

Those are really the only 2 bookstores I visit, other than the one at the university, so I’m done with this little experiment. Biologists Helping Bookstores will have to provide all of your science section reviewing excitement for now.

Bill O’Reilly is the Worst Person in the World

2007-08-01T18:53:00.000-07:00

Ok, that’s probably not true, but close enough. I really try to avoid hating anyone, as I don’t think that hate is a very healthy emotion, but sometimes I struggle when it comes to this guy. I won’t bother giving a full account of his lies and hypocrisy, as it has filled many books, but this latest example is just too much.

His latest crusade is against the website dailykos.com. I don’t frequent the site, as I find it to be way too biased and one-sided, even though I tend to agree with much of what they write, at least in principle. I do still visit the similarly biased crooksandliars.com, due to their timely and frequent video clips, but find that a lot the commentary and especially the comments consists of little more than simpleminded partisan dogma. Billo obviously doesn’t appreciate these kinds of sites, and has decided to single out dailykos.com as being purveyors of filth and hatred, and has dedicated a large percentage of his last several shows to the task.

The most heinous example of this alleged filth on dailykos, for which there was much build-up, was this picture:

Not exactly artful satire, but it actually does a pretty good job of quickly demonstrating the perceived relationship between the supposed Democrat Joe Lieberman and the current administration.

O’Reilly also cites several rude and simpleminded entries found among the comments on the website, assuming that their non-deletion is tacit approval by the siteowners. Bill doesn’t consider that the comments might be the result of an open commenting policy or a desire to avoid censorship, as these concepts are seemingly foreign to him.

Glenn Greenwald recently posted a whole bunch of similarly hateful comments from Michelle Malkin’s website, a frequent O’Reilly Factor guest host and ideological clone. Then there’s this comment on Bill O’Reilly's own site that is at least as bad as anything on dailykos.

Easily the best and most obvious example of Billo’s hypocrisy is his well-documented and admitted sexual harassment and adultery, including an admission of cheating on his wife while she was pregnant. The complaint filed in the sexual harassment lawsuit in which this information all came out is reprinted here, and includes descriptions of three different times when holy, self-righteous Bill ejaculated while describing his sick fantasies over the phone to his unwitting employee. These descriptions are the source of all the falafel and loofah jokes that Keith Olbermann, among others, gets such a kick out of. The complaint also suggests that O’Reilly’s motivation to constantly talk about lurid, sexual things on his show is not because he actually despises them and is worried about our society, but because he finds such things titillating. Click here for a (probably NSFW) video compilation of some of the sex-obsessed segments on his show.

After paying off his accuser with what seems to have been a multi-million dollar settlement, he had the gall to go on the air and act like he was the victim in the situation, saying he only settled in order to protect his family.

I understand that different people are turned on by different things, and that even though what he did was illegal, he is not necessarily unique in being aroused by things that many would consider to be strange and perverted. Where I get pissed is the intersection between sexual deviancy and sanctimonious moralizing. In this regard, Bill O’Reilly is a hypocrite of Ted Haggardian proportions. How can someone preach abstinence and fidelity during the day and smoke crack with gay hookers at night? How can someone preach about the downfall of society and set himself up as an example for others to follow during the day while offering raises to employees dependent upon sexual favors at night? I just can’t comprehend that level of hypocrisy. It is one thing to suffer from Orwellian doublethink when it comes to religion vs. science or eating meat vs. animal cruelty, but I just can’t even fathom this degree of cognitive dissonance, and the lack of conscience that would be required to sleep at night while it was going on.

Bill O’Reilly represents almost everything that is wrong with America. He is a war-mongering imperialist in patriots’ clothing. He is a licentious pervert in his personal life while playing morality cop on the air. He squelches rational discussion in favor of bellicose bloviation. He ridicules atheism and science while defending the pederasts that run his church. He routinely lies and deceives, using whatever means necessary to promote his agenda, and brags about never issuing a retraction or apology for anything he’s ever said, despite being so often demonstrably wrong, in some cases unforgivably so. Rather than apologize, he has a long history of going back and simply removing falsehoods from his shows' transcripts. All this, and he dares to call himself a journalist. “Culture warrior,” indeed.

This wouldn’t be such a big deal if there weren’t so many people watching him and listening to him every day. People like this should be laughed at and subsequently ignored, just like the religious nuts, astrologers, and any other brand of kook. However, he is the most popular man in all of cable news, and perhaps all of news. So not only is he filling his viewers’ heads with stupid, but his success has caused other shows and other networks to attempt to copy him, which has significantly lowered the level of discourse in the entire nation. It is not possible to have a rational discussion when the guest gets 8 seconds to make their point before being forced to listen to the host lecture them about how wrong they are for the rest of the segment. Bill is not the only pundit who does this, and I’m probably giving him too much credit, but he is certainly the worst of the current crop of pseudo-journalists on TV.

The bulk of his viewers seems to be the geriatric crowd, so everybody call your parents and grand parents and tell them the truth about Bill O’Reilly.

The Borders Science Section

2007-07-30T20:41:00.000-07:00

After coming across a fun, new blog entitled Biologists Helping Bookstores, in which the author reshelves works of pseudoscience that have inadvertently ended up in the science section, I decided to evaluate the science section of my local haunt. I am not unfamiliar with the section, but had not heretofore bothered to single out books of religion masquerading as science, so it was fairly interesting. All in all, I came away rather impressed.

The science section consists of roughly 120 feet of shelf space, and contains an outstanding variety of popular works and classics, and includes scientific rebuttals of both creationism and “intelligent design.” What’s more, it is completely devoid of the works of Strobel and Dembski, which had been placed in the Church/Theology section. There was a slight Behe infestation, however, as I found 3 copies of The Edge of Evolution, and 1 copy of Darwin’s Black Box, but the signal:noise ratio in the section was nonetheless very high indeed.

Now, I’ve worked retail so I know that product placement is the responsibility of publishers and corporate management more so than anyone at the individual store, and that moving merchandise generally results in little more than annoyed clerks, so I won’t say whether I actually moved anything or not, but I must say that it must be nice for these authors to be able to find their books sitting next to some of the classics of science, and all without having to worry about silly things like scientific rigor or actual research. Maybe there is something to all of this nonsense after all.

The tiny atheism section of the store, which totals about 4 feet of sparsely populated shelf space, has recently been featured in an end cap; albeit one that faces a wall in an isolated corner of the establishment. One of the works featured on the display was an explication of neo-pagan beliefs, which I thought was odd. It may be the result of the same logic that concludes that atheists worship Satan, which is a surprisingly common belief among the less-informed populace. I will admit to moving that book to the religion section, and replacing it on the display with Dan Dennet’s Breaking the Spell.

There’s a great book store on Pearl Street in Boulder, so I’ll see if they do any better next time I’m in the area.

Note: Borders is the chain that immediately pulled, and subsequently stopped carrying, Free Inquiry, the only publication that dared to reprint the Danish cartoons caricaturing Muhammad, so my endorsement of their great science section shouldn't necessarily be seen as an endorsement of a corporation capable of such cowardice.

The Out Campaign

2007-07-30T06:40:00.001-07:00

Richard Dawkins has started The Out Campaign, which seeks to encourage godless people to acknowledge and demonstrate their unbelief. PZ Myers is strongly in favor of it, but my views are much closer to those of Larry Moran. I think it is important to offer support and encouragement to all of those fence-sitters who wish they could throw off the surly chains of superstition and frolic giddily in the green, green grass of reason (too dramatic?), but don't know if this is the way to do it.

As you may recall, it was listening to and reading the words of Dawkins and Harris, among others, that convinced me to recognize my godlessness, so I agree with the motivation behind the movement. I just don't know that we need to start a club or make up symbols to match the smug vacuity of the cross in order to accomplish this, nor do I think that being atheist is a commonality worth starting or joining any organization over (though I do realize that I'm part of the problem when it comes to lobbying congress to get rid of anti-atheist laws and whatnot, and that atheists will be forever doomed to obscurity if we can never agree to organize. Sorry about that). So, out of solidarity, there's my big scarlet letter up there, but this will be the only time it appears in this space.

Like Larry, I'm not against forming an organization for positive reasons, and think that humanism and skepticism are positive things to rally around. I haven't ruled out joining such an organization, but my complete non-joininess will have to abate before that happens.

Interview with Gen. Wesley Clark

2007-07-30T00:58:00.000-07:00

I encourage everyone to check out this interview with Wesley Clark from several months ago (audio and video versions are available at the top of that site, in addition to the print transcript). I somehow missed it at the time, but it's quite enlightening. Among other things, we learn that the Bush administration planned to "take out" 7 different countries, with Iraq and Iran forming the bookends. We can assume that our trouble in Iraq is what has made us skip over the 5 in the middle.

It's yet another look into how completely naive these guys were; they thought they could (and even worse, should) steamroll all these countries without incident. It's also confirmed that the motivation behind invading all these countries, including Iraq, had nothing to do with intelligence (in every sense of the word), and any intelligence that happened to correspond, or that could be manipulated into corresponding, with the administration's plans was only icing, and served only to provide legitimacy to the operation that was happening regardless.

Clark also mentions that, at least at the time, he was thinking about running for president every day. I think he might be a good cross-over candidate, as the common accusation that Democrats are soft on terror wouldn't work on him, but I don't think he would garner enough votes to make it worth his while. Still, I'd rather see him in the race than Al Gore.

A Few Thoughts on Al Gore's Recent Book

2007-07-28T00:40:00.000-07:00

The Assault on Reason, as I alluded to last week, is not a terribly engaging book. I must say, however, that it would very likely have been more interesting for me had I not already been so familiar with the current administration’s deceptions and abuses. Because, you see, it turns out that Gore’s excellent title, introduction and first chapter do not represent the actual content of the book, but rather only the framework for a 200-page attack on George W. Bush. When viewed this way, Gore’s constant claims on the talk show circuit that his book is not at all political, and his refusal to even entertain questions about possible ulterior motives, seems less like determined focus, and more like punting.

Now, I’m not suggesting that an attack on Bush and his corruption is necessarily motivated by political interests, as even many Republicans will admit today that Bush’s presidency has been an unmitigated disaster and has called into question our future as a nation. What I am suggesting is that whether his attacks are politically motivated or not, asking a once and possibly future politician whether his actions are politically motivated is never a bad idea. This is especially true given that Gore attacks Bush and his fellow Republicans only, and has very little negative to say about any Democrats.

I also think that the way he has marketed his book is pretty disingenuous. Although his lament of the current anti-reason, anti-intellectual culture is spot on, nearly every example he uses, even as it relates to global warming, is directed at the current administration. The book is ultimately just another assault on Bush. Having already read Frank Rich’s The Greatest Story Ever Sold and Bob Woodward’s State of Denial, as well as having followed this comedy of errors since the beginning, I didn’t need another exposé.

In case anyone was wondering, Gore is definitely not a young-earth creationist, as he refers to our evolutionary heritage a couple of times in the opening chapters. He does, however, identify himself as a member of the Christian “faith tradition,” and uses Christian imagery and quotations quite often. This is generally done to demonstrate a logical point, however, and he does not explicitly point to the Bible or Christian tradition as authoritative.

Gore's book is strongest when discussing the ways in which congress has changed over the last few decades: the way in which the legislative branch has abdicated its oversight responsibility in unprecedented ways, the way the senate has gone from "the greatest deliberative body in the world" to its current state as being almost completely debate-free, the representatives’ obsession with fund-raising and the resulting erosion of congress’ motivation to uphold its constitutional responsibilities, etc. He also writes well about the ever-widening divide between the government and the governed, issues of the media, and so forth, but finding these interesting points requires wading through a great amount of partisan politics that I get enough of as it is. This book is only novel because of its source, not because of its message.

Gore has said recently that he is unlikely to run for the presidency, and this book seems to confirm that. While he tries to be hopeful for America’s future, he is clearly frustrated with the system, frequently bringing up 30-second television advertisements as the primary method of getting anything done in congress, and lamenting the influence of special interest groups on the president, the judiciary, and the congress. I wrote a couple months ago that I won’t be too disappointed if he doesn’t run, and that is even more true now. His obsession with global warming and his exaggeration of the science behind it, his hypocrisy, and his blatant opportunism have made me quite weary of him. He has performed an important service in facilitating the dialogue, but he has capitalized on that to such an obscene degree that there's no need to laud him any further; he has his reward.

This Would Explain the Secrecy

2007-07-27T02:10:00.001-07:00

It is till early, but it looks like the conspiracy by the Bush administration to cover up the events surrounding Pat Tillman’s death was motivated by more than we thought.

"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.

And which evidence was this?

…the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.

So it seems that he may have been deliberately murdered by a fellow soldier. It was long ago established that there were no enemy soldiers in the area, and that the whole incident was caused by one group of soldiers firing on Tillman’s group after they had split up a short time before.

I am interested to find out whether Tillman’s personal opinions had anything to do with it. Apparently he was well-liked, but by the time of his death had turned against Bush and felt that the war in Iraq was illegal. Tillman was an atheist, and an account of the following exchange, shortly before his death, has also recently come out:

The chaplain said that O'Neal told him he was hugging the ground at Tillman's side, "crying out to God, help us. And Tillman says to him, `Would you shut your (expletive) mouth? God's not going to help you; you need to do something for yourself, you sniveling ..."

It would be very sad indeed if his feelings about the war or about god had anything to do with this, though by 2004 there were many military men and women who were already against the war, and despite popular wisdom, there are lots of atheists in the military, so who knows. It will be very interesting to see how this plays out.

Speaking of Pat Tillman…

2007-07-26T11:17:00.000-07:00

The investigation is still ongoing, and it looks like they may have found their scapegoat. If what they say is true, that poor general who lied to Tillman’s family and the world about the circumstances under which Tillman died will lose a little bit of his monthly pension check as a consequence. Yea, that seems fair.

On Supporting our Troops

2007-07-25T22:24:00.001-07:00

I meant to say something about Mike Gravel’s strident position, which he reaffirmed in the debate on Monday, that the roughly 100 American soldiers that we lose every month in Iraq are “dying in vain.”

I agree.

First, here are Gravel’s words, as I think his comparison to a prior instance of vacuous government fear-mongering is valid:

…it's a set up question. Our soldiers died in Vietnam in vain. You can now, John, go to Hanoi and get a Baskin-Robbins ice cream cone. That's what you can do. And now we have most favored nation trade.

What did all these people die for? What are they dying for right now in Iraq every single day? Let me tell you: There's only one thing worse than a soldier dying in vain; it's more soldiers dying in vain.

While it’s true that the suits in Washington were almost as incompetent during Vietnam as they are today, the facts that almost everyone would agree with now, are that the Vietnam War would not have been “winnable” even under competent leadership, and the “domino theory” that so influenced our decision to invade and subsequently remain in Vietnam turned out to be completely false. I think most people would also likely admit, to themselves, if not publicly, that those nearly 60,000 soldiers died in vain, and those estimated 305,000 seriously wounded were mangled needlessly. What did they accomplish, other than killing over a million Vietnamese? How would the world be worse today if we had not gotten involved?

Yet, supporting our troops is the holy grail of politics right now, so when the same question that was asked to Gravel was put to 2 of the major democratic candidates, they gave virtually the same, idiotic response.

Obama:

I never think that troops… who do their mission for their country, are dying in vain.

Edwards:

I don't think any of our troops die in vain when they go and do the duty that's been given to them by the commander in chief.

So let me get this straight. Regardless of what the mission is, as long as troops follow orders, they are accomplishing something important. Is this a principle that we want a single citizen of our nation, let alone our presidential candidates, believing? How does this go unnoticed? Is our obsession with “supporting our troops” so strong that we are willing to let stuff like this slide, as long as it is done in an effort to falsely defend the dead?

One of the reasons why it is so important to elect a commander-in-chief who is competent and capable of making wise decisions is because if the president makes a bad decision, he has the power to send thousands or even millions of people to their deaths needlessly. While this conclusion is not a happy one, it’s an important one, and I think it applies in this case. When we are afraid of telling the truth when it comes to misguided military action, we only increase the likelihood of it happening again.

There is so much money and power involved in the waging of war, it is something that we must be especially careful about monitoring. The sad fact is that war is the topic for which we are most likely to create false justifications. Family and friends need to think that their loved ones died for a reason in order to deal with the loss, and empathetic citizens who have not lost anyone close to them are still likely to do the same. It is natural, but it’s not healthy.

Those soldiers didn’t die defending our nation; we now know that even if Saddam had had WMD, he would not have had the capability of launching them at anything more than a few hundred miles away. We also know that any terrorists in Iraq are only there due to the instability we caused, not, as Bush deceivingly implied, because Saddam and his regime had anything to do with 9/11. As horrible as Saddam was, he was quite effective at keeping opposing factions out of his country. Many experts now agree that the Middle East has become much more dangerous and more conducive to terrorism since the beginning of the war.

It is therefore possible that our (brave, awesome, incredibly skilled and disciplined) troops are not only dying in vain, they are actually furthering the cause of the terrorists.

Please don’t misunderstand me; I do support the troops. I just do it in a way that doesn’t require lying to myself or anyone else. The Bush administration has proven time and time again that they do not support the troops in any meaningful way. They were slow in providing body armor and armored humvees to them, have extended deployments, have covered up indiscretions committed against at least one soldier, have found it necessary to use the soldiers as often as possible as political props, and most importantly, have sent them to act as pawns in a pointless war.

So who supports the troops? Those who abuse them and lie about them? Or those who seek to protect them from their incompetent leadership?

Mike Gravel has no shot of becoming president, but for at least one moment on Monday, he was certainly the most presidential candidate on that stage.

Jason Rennie and Intelligent Design

2007-07-24T16:47:00.000-07:00

It seems as though my debate with Jason Rennie (introduced here) has ended. I can’t say that we came to any sort of agreement, or that either of us is likely to have benefited greatly from it, but it did give me a slightly different perspective on the ID movement as a whole. Jason, to his credit, makes as convincing an argument as I imagine is possible. I honestly do regret that someone of his ability has lent his services to so hopeless a cause, but congratulate the ID movement on luring him in, or shall I say, for being available as a haven for those seeking pseudoscientific justification for fatuous and wholly unsupported dogma.

Without going into too much personal detail, Jason is a devout Christian who believes in the standard Christian doctrines. He expressed acceptance of the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, which states, in part, that the Bible was wholly and verbally God-given, and therefore has infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches. Despite this, he does not take a position on evolution or the age of the earth, as he claims these matters are still open with regards to the evidence and are not important to his worldview.

In discussing intelligent design, he is unwilling to refer to the designer as God, Jesus, or even divine, claiming that doing so is beyond the scope of the argument. This is either honest admission of the argument's weakness or convenient dissociation, depending on one’s point of view.

Jason’s main interests in the exchange dealt with philosophical problems in science, in atheism, and in the human experience. I found it interesting enough to continue, despite recognizing that most of it had little to do with topic at hand, that of the evidence in favor of ID. This may have been a mistake, as the vast majority of the ensuing debate (consisting of no less than 75 emails of varying lengths) dealt with the problems inherent in holding oneself to a standard of reasoned conclusions based on evidence when it is impossible to objectively decide how much evidence is sufficient to make a conclusion, whether there is such a thing as evidence given the unreliability of our senses, and so forth. It was a fascinating display of obfuscation.

One of his major points was that one who is predisposed to look for evidence of intelligent design is more likely to find it, and is also likely to conclude that ID is the more accurate description of the origin of species on far less evidence than an uninterested third party would require. Similarly, someone who is predisposed to assume that everything has a natural cause is unlikely to look for, or to find, evidence for ID, and will require less evidence to conclude that a natural explanation has been found than would an uninterested third party.

This seems to be a good argument, and is certainly true as it relates to many other subjects of debate, but in the case of ID it doesn’t seem to apply, for two reasons. First, the only “evidence” provided in favor of ID consisted of either attacks on current evolutionary theory, or subjective and unfalsifiable hypotheses, both of which represent invalid sources of evidence. He had trouble even suggesting what such evidence would look like, other than to say that it would consist of things not able to be explained by current scientific theories. He even implied that science should have a limited time to work on a problem before admitting failure and attributing its cause to ID, though he wouldn't stand by that idea when I forced the issue.

The second problem in this argument is that science does not, in fact require a natural explanation of all things, as long as the evidence itself is available here in the natural realm. Some religionists and scientists will balk at this, and I will admit it's all theoretical and unlikely to find any pragmatic use, but I am quite confident that if “Made in Heaven” were found to be stamped upon each elementary particle or if little squares of white paper imprinted with “Inspected by YHWH” began showing up inside each newborn, science would likely take notice.

Issues of human understanding, problems in the scientific method, and epistemological questions are interesting, uniquely human, and things we all share. It is a shame that we must so often utilize them as ammunition against opposing viewpoints rather than discussing such things collectively. Similarly, gaps within evolutionary theory could be considered as seductive mysteries to be cherished and pondered, but instead become the subjects of bitter invective and bellicose diatribe.

Digression aside, we come to the evidence. And so, in the midst of referring to atheism as a religion, atheists as uniquely dogmatic, atheists as uniquely incapable of morality, atheists as uniquely without excuse to trust their senses, atheists as uniquely unable to have confidence in a knowable universe, and atheists as being far less open-minded than advocates of ID, along with justification of why argument from authority is acceptable, and various long-winded and tangential semantic trivia, Jason presented the following evidence in favor of intelligent design:

A long, drawn-out process over billions of years is exactly what you’d expect from a designer.

The methods used by earthly intelligent designers (engineers, et al.) are similar to the methods found to have been used in the creation of life on Earth.

Behe-style irreducible complexity

Religion has predictive power, having predicted something akin to the big bang through the doctrine of creation ex nihilo.

The “readily testable” “Privileged Planet” hypothesis, which states that the planets most suitable for life are also the planets most conducive to the viewing and analysis of the cosmos.

Neutral base pair substitutions seem to have some effect on protein folding in the ribosome (described as a “slam dunk”)

And finally, the argument given the most emphasis and made to seem the most important:

Current evolutionary theory would not expect, nor could it explain, multiple levels of coding within a strand of DNA. Such could not possibly be evolutionarily beneficial, and could only be the result of intelligent design. Also, assuming such a phenomenon were ever discovered, it would again demonstrate the predictive power of ID.

I hope that I’ve listed the evidence here as completely and objectively as possible (I’ll update the list if necessary), and will leave them here, without further commentary, for the reader to judge. I hold no ill-will toward Jason, and will again acknowledge his skill as a debater. If anyone feels like responding to these claims on your own website (or in the comments, obviously), feel free to do so and I’ll link to them here.

Also, Jason is working on a new project and is asking for contributions. If you would like to contribute, you can find the relevant information on his website, located here.

Update: I mentioned it last week (link at the top of this article), but Jason has requested that I again plug his "Darwin or Design" audio book, and I am happy to oblige.

Exhibit A in the Case Against "Kids Music"

2007-07-23T21:00:00.000-07:00

I hate kids music. It's terribly written, terribly performed, and devoid of any redeeming quality, unless you consider being unoffensive the pinnacle of achievement. Behold, this kid:

If you can keep a beat to a Rush song at age 5 and jam to Dream Theater at age 10, you probably didn't spend a lot of time listening to that pederast from Blue's Clues.

Our hypothetical children might end up brainwashed simpletons, but dammit at least they won't listen to stupid music.

The Democratic Youtube Debate

2007-07-23T18:58:00.000-07:00

I thought youtube.com was a great addition to the democratic presidential debate tonight. Although most of the candidates’ answers were the same timid attempts to cling to canned stumping points that we’re used to, the questions were far better than I’m used to, and evoked the occasional unguarded moment. Still, calling this thing a debate is a pretty big stretch.

I’m just as thoroughly unimpressed by the candidates as I’ve ever been, but this new format gave me a new perspective into the dishonestly and timidity requisite to be a (serious) presidential candidate. This may be why I was less disgusted by Kucinich and Gravel. Even though I didn’t always agree with their opinions, at least they had opinions.

It’s a shame that the question about “In God we Trust” was so generic. “What does that mean to you?” might provide a window into a candidate’s feelings, but “Why is this still on our money?” would have done a better job.

I absolutely loved the question from the Reggie Longcrier:

Senator Edwards said his opposition to gay marriage is influenced by his Southern Baptist background. Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote.
So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay Americans their full and equal rights?

After giving a surprisingly honest non-answer (hey the non-answer is a given, the honesty is novel), he was asked the question again, and this time responded that religious justification of public policy is wrong and that he will not do so if elected. In that case, I wonder what the justification of his gay marriage position is, but he sounds genuinely conflicted about it so maybe he’ll change his mind.

The question was thrown to Obama, who used his plan for civil unions as evidence that he supports equal rights for all, without offering any justification for his decision to avoid calling it marriage.

In the end, this debate was just like any other: A bunch of people trying to avoid looking bad, and not caring too much about looking good. It’s not a bad strategy, as there are a lot of people who will be voting Democrat no matter what in 2008, but I do wish there were a way to inspire a bit more candor at these things. The Republican Youtube debate in September should be interesting.

An Unlikely Pet

2007-07-21T22:07:00.001-07:00

We've been considering getting another Maltese so little Bodhi will have a friend, but I'm thinking something like this might be a better idea:

If there were a scale of cuteness, Jessica would be an 11.

Harry Potter and the Crowd of Nerds

2007-07-21T13:02:00.000-07:00

My wife and I sometimes hang out at the local bookstore, and did so last night. We had forgotten that Harry mania was in full swing, so we didn’t stay long. There were lots of people with witch hats and magic wands, and school boy ties with full-length cloaks. They had a cheesy magician doing a magic-rings routine, and were prepping microphones at various places around the store for who knows what. When our movie got out at 12:30, there were hundreds of people still waiting their turn to buy a book.

Now obviously there were a lot of irredeemably nerdy people there, but I found myself envying them, and not just because I’m irredeemably nerdy myself. It’s been a really long time since I’ve been so passionate about a book that I simply had to have it as soon as possible and was driven to read it at the expense of everything else until the very end. It really is a fun thing to do, and something I did a couple times in college as I recall, although never to such an extreme that I waited around at midnight anywhere.

The last time I was really excited about fiction was when I was reading Terry Goodkind’s Sword of Truth series. The series is still ongoing and, ~~as far as I know, has no end in sight,~~ will evidently end with the release of the 11^th and final book later this year, but I stopped after about the 6^th or 7^th book. The first few books were standard above-average sword and sorcery adventures, the next book or two were a great blend of story and philosophy (or at least I thought so at the time), and the last book I read was 10% story and 90% philosophical moralizing by the author, which is when I stopped. Apparently that was the author’s goal all along, but he had to write some standard fare in order to get the publisher to approve the later stuff. I understand that Goodkind is quite the Ayn Rand fan, and was trying to write his own Atlas Shrugged. I haven’t heard how the last several books have played out, but my fantasy book-reading phase is probably over anyway.

I haven’t actually read any fiction in quite a long time, which I should really remedy. If you have suggestions, feel free to email me.

I find the entire Harry Potter phenomenon a bit strange, but admittedly, I haven’t read any of the books, and thought the first movie was terrible. I could still write it off as being directed at a different demographic, but you don’t sell 400 million books (or whatever the number is now) unless people of all ages are buying them. The crowd last night would seem to confirm this assessment, as the under-18 crowd was not in the majority, even correcting for those who looked like disinterested parents.

So anyway, although I am not personally impressed by the books, bully for all of those who have found something fun to be passionate about. As Kurt Vonnegut said, “We’re here to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you different.”

I forgot about this one

2007-07-20T17:11:00.001-07:00

I'm still trying to clean out all this stuff that I meant to post. I guess I don't get as motivated to post this kind of thing as I do solipsistic rants. Anyway, this is a play on the stickers that were placed inside biology text books in Cobb county, GA from 2002-2005. Those ones read:

This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.

Especially in light of the little rant on theories and laws I linked to earlier, this fake sticker makes a lot more sense than the real one.

As always, click to make big.

New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

2007-07-20T12:33:00.000-07:00

While the findings are actually somewhat under dispute, this may in fact be a big breakthrough in biological anthropology. Basically, a new study suggests that we are all descended from a single hominid (or group thereof). This is intuitive, as it helps explain the relative homogeneity among the various races and peoples of earth.

Now, before anyone starts practicing up for the intellectual gymnastics required to claim that this vindicates the Biblical story of Adam, read this.

A Bit More Humor

2007-07-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

Can you find Utah on this map?

How the news works (click to embiggen):

A Bit of Humor

2007-07-20T12:12:00.000-07:00

Here’s a very cynical, and quite hilarious, look at humanity.

I intentionally posted the slightly more inspirational version. For those who like their cynicism thick and topped with obscenity, I’ve got you covered, too.

The mind of a creationist:

And finally, here are 30 hornets killing 30,000 bees. It’s strikingly similar to your average giant Lord of the Rings battle. You wouldn’t mess with Aragorn, so don’t mess with hornets… ehhh if you happen to be a bee.

The resolution seems pretty shabby on that one, so feel free to try this one. It usually loads but I couldn't get it to embed properly.

In which I catch up with some stuff that I meant to post earlier

2007-07-20T11:42:00.000-07:00

Here’s a great article about Stephen Colbert’s concept of “truthiness” as it relates to science, in which the author, a UW evolutionary biologist, explains that science isn’t always “truthy,” which is why we need research and experimentation to figure it out. Highlight:

Only scientifically illiterate troglodytes deny the microbial theory of disease, or the reality of atoms, or of evolution.

Here’s a fun, short explanation of the differences between a scientific theory and a regular theory, and how scientific theories relate to scientific laws. Now, the next time someone refers to evolution as “just a theory,” you have permission to humiliate them with great prejudice. Highlight:

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.

Here’s an article about the differences between proof and evidence as they relate to scientific discovery, and how lack of proof does not, in itself, provide justification to withhold judgment or to reject a scientific fact. Highlight:

There is no sharp bright line that we cross, at which the idea goes from being “just a theory” to being “proven correct.” Rather, maintaining skepticism about the theory goes from being “prudent caution” to being “crackpottery.”

Here’s a list of quotes brought to you by the American Taliban. If you agree with what they say, please reexamine your worldview immediately. I assure you, there are no highlights.

Intelligent Design Debate

2007-07-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

An intelligent design advocate named Jason Rennie has produced 25 short audio interviews with various scientists and theologians discussing evolution and intelligent design. I am in the midst of a protracted debate with Jason, and am likely to discuss his views at some point in the near future, so feel free to familiarize yourself with the arguments.

Persuasive Guessing

2007-07-19T16:54:00.000-07:00

Kurt Vonnegut’s Man Without a Country is a delightful little book that I strongly recommend. It’s only 150 pages or so, and reads like random musings, which, you’ve probably noticed from my blog, is a style I enjoy.

One of his musings that I’ll mention is that the concept of leadership is built on the principle of “persuasive guessing.” Even the greatest leaders we’ve ever known were mostly just guessing, and happened to be either especially persuasive or correct in their guesses.

I wonder if that explains the anti-intellectualism that pervades our government. The discovery of actual knowledge based on actual facts is a threat to the guessers in office. I’m tempted to apply this to Bush’s guess that there were WMD in Iraq, but I’m actually not convinced that he ever thought they were there. It always seemed like a ploy to get us into Iraq, which we now know was his goal all along. It may apply better to the administration's stance on global warming, but even then it's just as likely that they deny it only because of their connection to certain irresponsible corporations, not because they think it doesn't exist. Who knows.

Obviously Vonnegut’s idea is a gross oversimplification, but it’s clever.

If anyone’s holding their breath waiting for my review of Al Gore’s book, I’ll probably write one up in the next week or so. That I finished no less than 7 other books during the time it took me to read his brief tome might provide some indication of how much it gripped me.

A Trip Down Memory Lane

2007-07-17T23:40:00.000-07:00

I was rummaging through some old files from my high school and undergrad days this evening, and let me tell you, it wuddn’t purdy. This is not to say that my exploration of the role of Avalokitesvara in shaping Tibetan Buddhism doesn’t still gleam like a gem, but some of my opinion pieces in my early college days were downright embarrassing. You may recall from my conversion saga how I argued openly with my freshman biology professor about evolution. Well, that wasn’t all we disagreed about.

One of the assignments during the semester was to write a series of about a dozen short opinion papers based on scientific news articles. I thought about excerpting some of them, but I’m afraid of the consequences. Just imagine the most smug, outspoken, annoying, god-bothering simpleton you’ve ever met, and then multiply it by 10. That is the impression I get from those papers. In my defense, I generally avoided talking to non-Mormons about my beliefs, and it’s a good thing.

I am disturbed that I got away with writing so much anti-science nonsense, with so little objection from my professor. Was he afraid that my parents might complain if he put me in my place? Wasn’t it his job to put me in my place? If I could go back in time I would love to kick my own ass. Perhaps if my professor weren’t such a wuss about it I wouldn’t have remained so deluded for so long.

I actually don’t harbor a lot of bitterness about my religious indoctrination, but especially after going through some of my old writings, I feel like I would be justified if I were. Nevertheless, I will assume the responsibility for being such an ignorant blowhard, and take it as a reminder of what happens when doctrine overcomes reason.

For the rest of you, this could be taken as a reason to respect the fundamentalist fools you run into, as they just may see the light of reason some day. This wouldn’t be a terrible moral to glean from this, but I would probably rather that it serve as motivation to shoot down the tragically ignorant arguments of these simpletons. Who knows what would have happened if I had been introduced to reality a few years earlier.

9/11 was an Inside Job... or maybe not -- A Rumination about Conspiracy Theories

2007-07-17T14:52:00.000-07:00

I think that the term "conspiracy theory" is unnecessarily reviled, and all too often associated with tin-foil hat-wearing nutjobs. This is not to say that the conspiracy-believing set is not one of the most credulous and fanatical groups in all of our great nation, but I dislike the idea of dismissing something out of hand simply because it posits a conspiracy to explain something. Conspiracies happen constantly and don’t necessarily require non-expert analysis of fuzzy video or crack-potted interpretations of mundane things to discover. The problems generally arise when a popular or especially meaningful event occurs, and the official story of how it happened does not answer every question to the everyone’s satisfaction. As you might have noticed, this is a pretty common situation, and helps us to understand why conspiracy theories are so common.

I have a few basic problems with conspiracy theories:

First, They appeal to the common-sense, non-expert opinions of the average person. Conspiracy theorists, if nothing else, are very good at coming up with questions that seem important. How did the pillars in the WTC melt, when it’s a known fact that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt them? Such a question seems interesting, so it might draw you in, encouraging you to look more deeply. You then find a bunch of other non-expert statements that also appeal to your non-expert sensibilities, and before you know it, you’re convinced. Later, when you discover that the pillars melting was not a necessary condition for the towers to fall, you’ve already become resistant to evidence that contradicts your pet belief, very similar to those who belong to a religion or a political party. Or maybe you accept that the force of the airplanes and the ensuing fires were sufficient to bring the towers down, but because of this mountain of other “evidence” you still think the government was somehow responsible, so you continue to dream up different ways they could have pulled it off.

Don’t get me wrong; I still have lots of questions about 9/11, and agree that the 9/11 Commission was not nearly as thorough or explanatory as it should have been, particularly regarding WTC 7, but I am willing to assume that most, if not all, of my questions could be answered benignly if I only had more expertise in all of the relevant scientific fields or access to more information. Why am I willing to make this assumption? Because the alternative theories I’ve seen are even less likely to be true.

The second thing that bothers me about conspiracy theories is that they are AWESOME! How cool would it be if LBJ actually ordered the JFK assassination and later decided to get the boys back together to kill his brother 5 years later? That would be the story of the century. It seems very covert and subversive to think about or investigate these alternate theories, as if it’s not something the government wants you to be doing. This may explain why much of the propaganda associated with these movements use erroneous titles like “Banned by America! The video George Bush doesn’t want you to see!” in order to draw you in. Why accept that Oswald shot JFK when you can fantasize about the evil underbelly of our government and wonder how far down the rabbit-hole goes? Why accept that Bin Laden was the ring-leader of the conspirators responsible for the events of 9/11 when you can blame it on George W. Bush, the man you already despise? It’s all very exciting. It also sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking, which we’ve already learned is a red flag, and a demand for skepticism.

I will grant that on the flip side, a hypothetical conspiracy carried out by our government, if done very carefully and with the least possible amount of people knowing, could conceivably work. There certainly is pressure, particularly among those holding reputable public or academic posts, to avoid looking into these kinds of things, as it does draw the ire of people like me, who generally conclude that those kinds of people are kooks. In addition, the government really does have a lot of say over what we, the people, find out. I can only hope that the next president reverses Bush’s trend of secrecy, but even the most open administrations have great capacity for obfuscation. We must note though, that this capacity does not make anything remotely like some of the popular theories likely of ever happening.

What is possible, and likely very common, is smaller conspiracies that are hidden in order to protect credibility. These include the vast and still ongoing conspiracy, originally by military officers and now by the Bush administration to hide the events surrounding the death of Pat Tillman (“Support our troops” indeed). Of course there are also the secret prisons, the Abu Ghraib scandal, the illegal surveillance, etc. that were covered up for a time.

These were all government conspiracies, but what they all have in common (other than having been perpetrated by the Bush administration) is that they came to light. They were discovered and reported on. So, it makes sense that a huge, government-wide conspiracy would also have been found out long ago. These smaller conspiracies remind us that the government is capable of such things, but actually serve as evidence against the larger ones.

I have looked quite deeply into many of the popular alternative theories and am fascinated by the culture that surrounds them. In my investigations, I noticed a phenomenon that for me is yet another giant red-flag:

The people you find discussing conspiracy theories are, for the most part, extremely credulous (read: gullible) people. They assume conspiracy as the default position, meaning that someone who believes in one conspiracy theory is much more likely to believe in others, and they accuse any who dare question their pet theories in even the mildest fashion of being government shills. These people also, in my experience, seem more willing to subscribe to other irrational positions, such as alien abductions, although I can’t be sure that a scientific study would agree with that assessment. The point here is that even if there were any truth to be found in these movements, it would very likely be buried under vast piles of nonsense in short order due to the lack of self-correction within the rabid masses that subscribe to them.

Another problem is that conspiracy believers, much like Creationists, routinely overstate the credentials of those who side with them, believing that having “experts” on their side will afford greater credibility to their ideas, despite the vast majority of the experts still opposing them.

The most frustrating thing for conspiracy believers seems to be that there is never enough information available. If only they could see a couple more frames of video, if only the government would declassify one more document, if only they could ask one of the key players one more question…the “truth” is always just out of reach. They’re just never willing to accept that it’s possible that further evidence would refute their favorite theory.

So how does a rational person handle these conspiracy theories? First of all, I think the common practice of dismissing these theories out of hand as nutty or to immediately engage in ridiculing the believers isn’t particularly helpful, as without proper investigation there’s always a shot they’re onto something, and it just gives them more motivation to rail against “the establishment.” However, with so many theories out there, very few of us will have the time or inclination to investigate them all. Therefore, I certainly can’t recommend that we all start pursuing investigation of these things, particularly considering their track record.

Does it really matter?

When it comes down to it, my investigations have always resulted in one of two outcomes: Most of the time, I end up feeling dumber for having even bothered and lose a little bit more confidence in humanity (the moon hoax theory, for example). Other times, I’m left with a whole bunch of questions about the accepted, or “official” explanation, but without having found any opposing theory that seems the least bit plausible (I really do wonder about the implications of Norman Mineta’s testimony, but how do we reconcile that with reality?). In these situations I’m also left thinking that many of my questions could be answered upon further investigation, but wondering why I would want to continue caring when there doesn’t seem to be a plausible alternative to the status quo anyway.

In the end, I’m afraid I’ll have to appeal to Occam’s always helpful Razor. Until a conspiracy movement is able to provide enough evidence to force the mainstream scientific community to take notice (in a positive way), belief in their theories will remain confined to the gullible (If you happen to believe that the reason mainstream science hasn’t accepted your pet theory is that they’re in on the conspiracy, seek professional help).

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Even as I write this I feel conflicted due to a few very convincing accounts that I’ve read and a few lingering questions that I have about various theories. However, when your story is that much less plausible than the official one, circumstantial evidence is just not sufficient. Therefore, I will not rule out certain theories, but will only say that there is no reason to give them any specific credence until they can come up with evidence that withstands serious scientific scrutiny. A willingness to accept any of these theories on insufficient evidence, or without exploring the evidence from both sides, is no different than accepting religious or political dogma before exploring all the evidence—it’s not a smart thing to do.

In the end, I suppose this is a challenge to the believers: Root out the idiots among you, and focus on solid evidence. If you can’t do that, then your theories are undeserving of attention.

Personality Test

2007-07-17T14:12:00.000-07:00

Larry Moran over at Sandwalk posted the results of a personality test that he took, and it turns out that I got the same "rare" result:

Your Personality is Very Rare (INTP)

Your personality type is goofy, imaginative, relaxed, and brilliant.

Only about 4% of all people have your personality, including 2% of all women and 6% of all men

You are Introverted, Intuitive, Thinking, and Perceiving.

How Rare Is Your Personality?

I don't put much stock in these things but it's interesting.

More from Sam Harris

2007-07-14T14:15:00.000-07:00

Sam Harris gave a speech followed by a short Q&A session at the Aspen Ideas Festival last week. I urge everyone to watch it, as the clarity with which he discusses the religious-secular divide is quite powerful. It's about an hour long.

Creationists won't like this one

2007-07-13T21:14:00.000-07:00

There's a movie coming out soon called "10,000 B.C." (trailer) that is advertising itself as a story taking place at the "beginning of time." I think such a film has a lot of potential. Although we don't know too much about individual stories of the time, simply bringing back the many now-extinct species of the day would give a good director some good fodder. I'd be interested in seeing a visualization of the land currently claimed to be the United States, since it's understood that back then it looked very much like the African Serengeti, with giant beasts roaming freely, until they were exterminated by the settlers of that time period.

I understand that 10,000 is a nice, round number, but I wish they had chosen 11,000 B.C., since that's when the most recent ice age ended and when humans finally started spreading to the reaches of the earth, including the Americas (We didn't actually get to Australia, Greenland and the various smaller islands until later, since technological advancements were somewhat necessary). It's still not even close to the beginning of time, but it's the beginning of the Recent Era, and is when humans first began settling into villages. I suppose I'm nitpicking.

I Neglected to Mention…

2007-07-13T19:12:00.000-07:00

If anyone is still wondering which of all the religions is true, it’s the one led by genocidal pederasts. Duh.

"God" is a Meaningless Word

2007-07-13T17:06:00.000-07:00

I finished Walter Isaacson’s Einstein a few days ago, and highly recommend it. Isaacson obviously has great respect for Einstein, and treats him well. Many will probably regret that he didn’t delve deeper into his intimate associations, but I enjoyed that he gave them only cursory treatment. He discussed Einstein’s personal life enough to get a good sense of who he was, how others thought of him, and how his situation affected his work, without pretending that his personal life, in itself, is the reason that anyone cares about Einstein today. The author dedicates much of the book to explaining Einstein’s theories and papers, and does so in an always interesting fashion.

My one complaint is that I think Isaacson mischaracterizes Einstein’s religious beliefs—I’ve already seen god-botherers claiming Einstein as one of their own after reading the book. This is not a recent phenomenon, of course, but this book may be helping to perpetuate it.

Much of the confusion on this issue is due to Einstein’s unfortunate use of the word “God” to describe the order that he saw in the universe. At the very most, Einstein was a deist, which is much closer to atheism than it is to popular theism, but I wouldn’t even go that far. I think Einstein was probably a pantheist, one who believes that “God” represents the transcendent reality behind the laws of the universe. To even call such a belief system religious is a huge stretch, and calling it God at all was likely just a convention of speech. “God” is a word that has about as many meanings as there are people in the world, so Einstein having invoked it doesn’t make him a god-worshipper or even a god-believer.

For all intents and purposes, Einstein was an atheist. Sure he didn’t have a high opinion of people who identified themselves as such, but there could have been any of a great number of reasons for that, none of which necessarily require disagreement concerning the central question. He certainly loved the mysteries, so perhaps he relished the concept of God for that reason.

For rhetorical purposes, let’s accept that Einstein was a deist. A deistic god, as I’ve mentioned before, is one who is often wheeled out by god-worshippers in debates, because it is so much easier to defend. Science doesn’t know how exactly things got started, so therefore “God did it” isn’t a completely reprehensible assertion (it’s still superfluous, disingenuous, devoid of any supporting evidence, and creates the even bigger problem of who created the creator, but I digress.).

How does a creator who got things going and then took off, who doesn’t give a rip about anyone or anything, including but not limited to whether you believe in him, have anything whatsoever to do with the meddling god of Christianity? Using Einstein as support for Christianity because he believed in a deistic god is like a Christian using Pythagoras’ belief in Zeus as an excuse to claim him as one of their own. The deistic god is not related to the god of any of today’s religions any more than Zeus is.

The issue here is nomenclature. Language is not effective in conveying meaning if people are not willing to assign very specific definitions to every single word being used. Because “God” is such a nonsensical and abstract concept, no conversation about it can ever be productive unless “God” is first defined. Perhaps in discussions with Christians we should begin exhorting our interlocutors to refrain from saying “God,” but rather “Jesus.”

“Science hasn’t shed any light on the topic yet, so therefore God must have done it,”

is a nonsensical statement as it is, but

“Science hasn’t shed any light on the topic yet, so therefore an obscure peasant man that is rumored to have lived in Judea about 2000 years ago must have done it,”

better demonstrates the utter vacuity of such an argument. I think that many Christians will not be comfortable saying “Jesus” in these situations, though it is unlikely they would admit why—that even one who cares nothing for logic and reason is embarrassed by such obvious fatuity.

Humility is not a Christian Concept

2007-07-13T16:22:00.000-07:00

I don’t know how many times I’ve heard recently that humility is a Christian concept. Consider this:

A scientist works his whole life researching some tiny aspect of what we know as reality. Along the way, he makes a few very small discoveries that provide us with a tiny bit more of the puzzle, in the hope that others will come after him and build on this knowledge. Even as he is laboring, he understands that it is very unlikely that anything he’s studying will ever be proven absolutely true, but only that it will enter into the greater body of scientific knowledge to be used in understanding things as best we can.

Along comes a Christian.

This guy already has everything figured out. It turns out that everything that the scientist, (and indeed all of science) has been working on for the last several hundred years is actually wrong, because, you see, there is this one ancient book that says… oh and there’s no point in trying to figure this stuff out anyway because anthropomorphic sky-god is coming back soon! Of course this person is also likely to believe that the reason the earth fits us so well is because it was made just for us,* and indeed the entire universe must have been made just for us humans.

Can you envision, even in your wildest imaginings, anything more arrogant or solipsistic? Me neither.

-----------------------------

*The late Douglas Adams discussed this silly notion, in his always humorous way:

This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.

Mormon Scandal?

2007-07-12T12:33:00.000-07:00

There’s a lawsuit going on right now dealing with a representative of the Mormon church molesting a kid a couple decades ago (the alleged criminal was a "home teacher," which is actually something that all members of the church are called to do. Everyone is assigned a few families, and your job to visit them and make sure that all's well with them, physically and spiritually). Anyway, it was just ruled that the church is going to have to publicize its financial statements, which is generally done so that punitive damages can be decided based on the net-worth of the defendant.

I’ve been hearing that if these documents end up in the public square, there is likely to be quite a bit of outcry from church members. I think we’re all aware that the Mormon church is an absolute cash cow, generating many billions of dollars in revenue every year. What might be shocking to some is that the supposedly unpaid clergy is (according to some sources who claim to be in the know) actually paid extremely well.

I learned on my mission that the prophet and apostles paid themselves a “living stipend” from church funds, and felt it was justified, since it would allow less-wealthy men a chance to serve in that capacity, but these “stipends” are allegedly quite large indeed. What is also unclear is whether these large sums of cash come directly from their church leadership positions or whether it comes from the various boards of the church-owned corporations that they all sit on. It's also possible that a lot of money is from book royalties, since most of the apostles write books to a built-in customer base (how could you not buy and read a book written by a modern-day prophet?).

The only reason this is even interesting is because of Mormondom’s supposed lay clergy. If it turns out that they’re professional ministers, it’s not earth-shaking or anything; it just means that Mormonism isn't as different from all the other religious rackets as they'd like us to think.

This is obviously speculation at the moment (although some of the less-wealthy apostles are known to be living pretty high on the hog right now), but it should be interesting if these documents get released.

I really love my dog

2007-07-12T12:30:00.000-07:00

One of the hardest parts about our recent trip to Vegas was leaving Bodhi, our 3.5 pound, 19.5 month-old maltese. On previous trips we’ve had him stay at a friend’s house, but he tends to get really anxious and sick, so we thought maybe he’d be more comfortable at home this time. We paid a neighborhood kid to come over a couple times a day and play with him for a few minutes and make sure he was fed and watered.

Although we thought it would be better for the dog, it freaked us out. So needless to say we were both very excited when we got home and found him in good spirits. He ended up getting just as sick as ever, so I doubt we’ll use that strategy again.

I’ve been an animal lover for a long time, but have only ever had cats as pets growing up, and don’t remember ever feeling very strongly either way about them. My wife, on the other hand, has generally hated pets of any kind. It is interesting that we are both so in love with our puppy.

I used to make fun of people like us. However, I think we handle it pretty well. I recognize that he doesn’t understand most of what I’m saying, that he’s mostly color blind, doesn’t have anything like self-awareness or consciousness, and doesn’t actually love me so much as uses me. We have a pretty good system worked out though: I chase him around the house, give him fake bacon, and avoid putting clothes on him, and he acts like he cares about me. It’s a win-win.

More Vegas Musings

2007-07-10T19:38:00.000-07:00

Las Vegas has changed a lot recently. It used to be that the casinos were all trying to attract people to gamble, and would provide things like customer service and inexpensive gourmet meals (Mmmm discount seafood in the desert). Several years ago my brother and I got all-we-could-eat steak and lobster for $2.99. These days, the food is still excellent (assuming you avoid the cheaper hotels’ buffets), but it costs more than just about anywhere I’ve ever been, and the customer service in most places is terrible.

Penn & Teller, whose show I mentioned earlier, were as great as I expected them to be. Penn referred to all of the forms of supernatural hucksterism as “Bullshit” right after explaining that this was a family show where he wasn’t allowed to swear, called all miracles “fake,” and openly referred to himself as an atheist.

Perhaps more importantly, the show was awesome. Teller’s sleight-of-hand is world-class, and his rose gag was hauntingly beautiful. Penn used cold-reading (the same technique psychics and other frauds use) to figure out which joke a random audience member had chosen out of 5 or 6 big joke books, swallowed fire, juggled broken liquor bottles, and convinced a poor member of the audience that he was throwing knives at her (and later that she was throwing knives at him) even after clearly explaining that his bosses could never handle that kind of liability. They also had a great bit (some of which they performed on the West Wing) in which they stuff an American flag into the rolled-up copy of the bill of rights and burn it (well, without actually burning it). I’m still trying to figure out how they do their magic bullets bit. I’m sure I could find out online, but I’m not sure if I want to.

I’ve had a passing interest in magic for some time, and wish that I knew more about it. I find it interesting that so many of our best skeptics and debunkers are magicians. When a magician makes a better debunker than a scientist, you know you’re dealing with some stupid, stupid shit. On a related note, if you haven’t watched anything by Derren Brown, you really should (especially since one of his videos appeared prominently in my treatment of “The False Hope Industry”). Just type his name into youtube and be amazed—the guy is a jedi master. Beware that doing so cost me about 2 days of productivity. Here's a short one to get you started.

While we were there we also saw the Blue Man Group (incredible music, quirky, trippy, and worth the price) and Cirque de Soleil’s “Mystere” (needlessly bizarre and excessively homoerotic, but incredible in spurts).

I love Vegas’ marketing campaign, but don’t quite get what they’re referring to. What exactly happens in Vegas that needs to stay in Vegas? Surely they’re not referring to the strip clubs, as those are available anywhere, so it must be the prostitution. It really sheds new light on that campaign if you assume that everyone on the commercials is trying to hide their love of hooker flesh.

Matthew 9:20-22 (A Poker Story)

2007-07-10T18:44:00.000-07:00

So while we were down in Vegas the World Series of Poker Main Event was going on. We didn’t go down there for the purpose of watching it, but we happened to be going to see Penn & Teller’s show in the Rio, which happens to be located very near the giant room where the WSoP was being held, so we went down to take a look. As we were walking through the crowd, my wife and I noticed a humble man named Jesus. Immediately, as if compelled from on high, my wife reached out and touched the edge of his raiment. Since that time, she’s been healed of all of her afflictions.

That’s a completely true story.*

We also saw Alan Cunningham, Jason Alexander, and Chris Moneymaker, and learned that poker is not a spectator sport. Moneymaker was at the ESPN featured table, which was surrounded by 6 cameras so there was no way to actually see the table, and the rest of the tables were stuffed into a giant room and arranged so that most of the them were unable to be seen from the designated spectator areas, and those that were had big crowds around them clogging up the walk ways. This was very late at night too. I can’t imagine trying to get any actual poker-watching in at a more reasonable hour.

-----------------------
*Except for that last part

What's your sign?

2007-07-05T12:43:00.001-07:00

The wife and I are heading to Vegas for the weekend, so meanwhile don't forget to check your horoscope.

(Click to embiggen)

Random Thoughts on Security vs Liberty

2007-07-04T14:29:00.001-07:00

I think a lot of the confusion on this issue comes from poor framing by those on the Left. The Republicans paint themselves as the party of security, and the Democrats obviously try to refute that, but don't back that up with anything other than contradiction. Here's the issue as I see it:

Republicans seem to want security above all, and are willing to sacrifice some of our basic freedoms to get it. Frightened people find this to be a noble position, and don’t investigate further. Now, if there were obvious advantages to doing it this way, there might be an argument, although even then we’d have to tread carefully. However, the fact is that there is no tangible benefit to these sacrifices. Which plots have we stopped through the use of these illegal measures that would have gone undetected with the use of legal techniques? What information have we gathered that is germane to national security through the use of torture or warrantless wire-tapping that couldn’t have been gathered through legal means?

This information is all classified, so we are forced to just believe that these infringements on our rights have some unseen benefit. When an alleged terrorist plot is foiled, those on the Right inevitably start up the “I told you so” routine, but how do they know that these half-baked plots could not have been foiled through legal means? Why are we so trusting? It’s not as though the current administration has a history of trustworthiness. What evidence do we have that these measures have any effect other than the consolidation of power that Bush is working so hard toward?

Furthermore, why are conservatives so anxious to give such unprecedented power and authority to Bush, knowing that the next president may very well be Hillary Clinton, the mere mention of whom causes retching and gnashing of teeth? Do they not realize that by giving Bush so much power they are also giving it to their most hated opponents?

Perhaps they subconsciously feel that if a Democrat gets into the White House he or she will be more scrupulous in using the excess executive authority that Bush has added to the office over the course of the last six years, or perhaps they assume that the next president, regardless of party affiliation, is likely to do away with all of Bush’s unconstitutional nonsense. Perhaps I’m being naïve in thinking conservatives have even considered the implications of their approval of these dangerous policies.

On a slightly related note, the reaction to the recent pardoning (well, commuting, but a $250,000 fine for someone that rich and who will profit immensely from the whole ordeal is not even worth considering) of Lewis Libby has been troubling to me. I actually don’t have a strong opinion either way on the matter, but the most common justification I’ve seen is that Clinton pardoned lots of undeserving people, so therefore it’s a wash. For one thing, none of Clinton’s pardons involved someone who hadn’t even had a chance to appeal yet, and more importantly, none of the people Clinton pardoned were at risk of implicating the sitting president or his administration in illegal activity. Nor did any of Clinton’s pardons smack so strongly of cronyism, but I digress.

This is not a zero-sum game. It’s not Democrats vs. Republicans here. It’s the reputation of our nation in the world square that is at stake. A blemish on our nation’s history remains, regardless of who put it there. An indiscretion on one side of the aisle does not cancel out one from the other side; they both add to the greater political morass.

"Happy" 4th of July

2007-07-04T12:05:00.000-07:00

In honor of the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence:

25 Reasons Why I'm No Longer a Christian

2007-07-02T13:54:00.000-07:00

This (link is working again) is a great resource. Not only are all of the points valid, but they are backed by some really good resources for further study. I have a few minor quibbles here and there, but for the most part the guy is spot-on.

Update: Apparently that site is having some bandwidth trouble. I assume they'll be back up within the next day or two.

Update again: He claims to have had someone run some sort of a bandwidth-leaching program on his site in an effort to censor the article he wrote. I wonder if he has a good stat-tracker setup and whether he's aware that his article was linked all over the place and that there's a good chance all of his bandwidth was used up by legitimate visitors. Either way, it looks like his site will be down for a while. I'll keep this post up anyway in case it comes back up sometime soon. I'll also link to a mirror if I find one. Meanwhile, here are the names of the 25 reasons:

1) The world simply does not behave the way described in the Bible
2) The words used to define Christian Doctrine are representative of things whose existence cannot be 'proved' outside of language
3) The Fall of Adam & Eve (and resulting Doctrine of Original Sin) is incoherent and contrary when compared to scientific evidence and other doctrines
4) The concepts of Heaven and Hell are equally morally and ethically reprehensible
5) Historical Evidence shows much of the Old Testament was appropriated from earlier Sumerian, Babylonian, Egyptian, Canaanite, & Persian Myths
6) The Account of the Flood and Noah's Ark bears striking similarities to the Epic of Gilgamesh and other pre-dating Creation/Flood myths
7) Persian Zoroastrianism altered Jewish Doctrine during the Babylonian Captivity
8) The influence of the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch on the mystical Good-Evil dichotomy of Christian Doctrine
9) The influence of Philo of Alexandria on the development of Christian Doctrine
10) The ancient gods and goddesses that were assimilated by the Hebrews to become Elohim EL & Yahweh YHWH
11) Myths of Dying-Resurrecting God-Men Born of Virgins that Pre-Date the Story of the God-Man Jesus
12) The Problem of Evil (Theodicy) and the Hiddenness of God
13) Natural (Empirical/Scientific) vs. Supernatural (Faith/Language-Based) Belief Systems
14) The Gospels are not 'eyewitness' accounts but anonymous third-person narratives
15) The 'Evolution' of the Christian Canon and Jesus' Godmanship
16) Saul/Paul of Tarsus and the 'Re-Creation' of the Christian Myth
17) Archaeology and Biblical claims
18) Biblical Criticism: Findings as to Who - What - When - Where - How - Why
19) The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Essenes
20) The Nag Hammadi Library, Ugaritic Texts, and Armana Tablets
21) Canonical and Extracanonical books, the Gnostics, and Church Councils
22) Examined objectively, the Bible is rife with errors, contradictions, misstatements, and inconsistencies
23) Belief, Doubt, Disbelief and Critical Thinking
24) Science and the Scientific Method
25) Creationism, Intelligent Design, and Evolution

The False Hope Industry

2007-06-27T19:48:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I lamented the existence of the hate industry and the false hope industry in America, with a promise of further discussion of the latter, so here's my take.

False hope is big business, and costs Americans billions of dollars every year. Millions of desperate people have been attracted by promises of health, wealth, and happiness and all too often what they find instead are broken dreams and empty pockets. Rather than comment at extensive length, this post will employ videos to do much of the debunking, so feel free to come back if you can't watch them all now.

First, I'll deal with God and his various purveyors. Consider the story of Peter Popoff:

James Randi has been debunking these frauds for years, but as heroic as his efforts have been, he can only make a difference for those who care to look at the evidence. These preachers are counting on the fact the most people don’t.

Benny Hinn’s routine is similar Poppoff’s, only larger. He makes an estimated $100 million dollars every year from the desperate people who seek his help.

Here’s a humorous look at his nightly clown show:

And here's a thorough debunking of his tactics:

Although other examples may not be as obvious, all of religion is equally guilty. Churches collect over 20 billion dollars every year in America, much of it from the poor and hopeless. Among the newer religions (Mormons, JWs, 7^th-day Adventists, Iglesia de Cristo, etc.), growth is predominantly among the lower class and the third world. They claim it’s because these people are humble enough to recognize God’s word. That’s one way of characterizing it; another would be that they are preying on the desperate.

Upon making their promises of happiness and salvation, these churches require money. Money is the lifeblood of religion. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of money given to churches goes to support the organizations themselves and the leaders thereof, with very little being given in charity or used for good causes. A Mormon, for instance, who pays $10,000 in tithing over the course of the year, might see $200 of that go toward helping the needy. The remainder is placed into the bulging church coffer to be used on church expenses or business pursuits.

As an aside, because churches are tax-exempt, the average American citizen pays about a thousand dollars extra in taxes each year just to make up for what these faith-based rackets should be paying. So in reality, even those who make a point of not giving money to these frauds can’t actually succeed in that goal.

Moving on, a recent vexing phenomenon has been the popularity of The Secret. Both the DVD and the book have been purchased by millions, and the philosophy they contain has become gospel truth not only to the gullible Oprah crowd, but to personal trainers, motivational speakers, life coaches and religious preachers throughout the country. The problem? It’s complete and utter bollocks. If you dare, here's the trailer:

For the exceptionally brave, I present the first 20 minutes or so of the DVD for your heckling pleasure. Be warned, however. You might find yourself getting dumber by the minute. On second thought, just don’t watch it.

The Secret’s generic message of “think positive,” which actually is a scientifically sound principle, is overshadowed by the authors' insistence that it’s not your positive outlook that allows you to succeed, but rather the supernatural process by which your thoughts change the universe, allowing it to align itself with your desires, making them come true. Transversely, the setbacks, annoyances, and calamities that we suffer are not due to bad choices, random chance, or the decisions of others, but from the universe changing in order to align itself with our negative attitudes. The child mangled in the car accident or sexually abused by her brother brought these things on herself because of her negative thoughts, and victims of massive natural disasters all unknowingly conspired together to create the event through their magical thoughts. This is brainless supernatural hogwash, childish superstition, and downright evil.

That The Secret attempts to use quantum theory as evidence of this woo, just as the equally-retarded What the Bleep do We Know does, is maddening. These "experts" have such non-ironic titles as "metaphysician"and "visionary," so you know that they have nothing close to a grip on reality. Its continuing presence on the best-seller lists is a national embarrassment.

Why has it done so well? Much of it is likely due to its clever marketing as some great piece of wisdom that all of the great thinkers of ancient times used but which was lost until recently. It plays on the ridiculous tendency to trust ancient traditions more than modern, enlightened thought, and it preys on the emotions of lazy, uninformed people who are desperately looking for easy solutions to all of their problems—the same reasons that Benny Hinn and Peter Popoff make so much money.

Finally, this last video is a lot of fun. Derren Brown is an extremely talented magician and illusionist, and in this video, he visits experts in 5 different paranormal fields (a psychic, a Christian minister, a weird new-agey lady, an alien abduction expert, and a spirit-channeler) attempting to receive their endorsement of his abilities. It’s not the first time someone has done something like this (for example, see an account of a skeptic getting hired to work for a psychic hotline here), but it’s the most interesting one I’ve seen. I especially enjoyed the fifth situation, in which he channels ghosts similar to the fraudulent (and “biggest douche in the universe”) J ohn Edward. Even though Brown later explained to his victims that he wasn’t actually talking to ghosts, you still have to feel bad for these people. This video doesn't want to embed so watch it here.

We all go through rough and challenging times in our lives. In order to avoid becoming prey for these kinds of hucksters, it is important that we are each equipped with the ability to think critically, to evaluate claims, and to investigate evidence. For further discussion and information about how to do this, see my article about baloney detection here.

A Tad More Nuttery with a Sprinkle of Logic

2007-06-26T15:43:00.000-07:00

2 more appearances today by Ann Coulter:

This one, in which she associates Barack Obama with terrorists

And this one, in which she admits that without personal attacks she has nothing.

At the risk of irony, I must say that Ann Coulter is the scum of the earth. Those who trade in hate are the worst kind of slime; even worse than those who deal in false hope (a subject for another time).

On a brighter note, Sam Harris has written a short article encapsulating his witchcraft argument that he used in his recent debate with Chris Hedges. Although it will go over like a lead balloon among the religious folks, it really is a perfect analogy.

More Butter from Nutty Ann Coulter

2007-06-26T12:27:00.000-07:00

Ann Coulter is still being given opportunities to subject the world to the thoughts of her tiny, tiny brain. After such a long history of bigotry and blatant hate-mongering I am confused as to why anyone would offer her a platform, let alone associate themselves with her as so many Republicans (including Mitt Romney) do.

Her latest is a death wish for John Edwards.

Books and Bloxorz

2007-06-23T22:21:00.000-07:00

I’ve finally started reading Al Gore’s new book, The Assault on Reason. I’ll have a review when I’m done with it. I purchased it when it first came out, but was busy finishing up the stack I already had. I’ve had a good streak, and give confident thumbs up to all of the books I’ve finished in the last couple months. These include, in order of cool:

The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan (re-read because it’s that good)

Too Far from Home by Chris Jones

Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer

Freakonomics by Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner

I’m also almost finished with Einstein by Walter Isaacson, and unless the concluding chapters are terrible it might be the best of the bunch.

In other news, Bloxorz is one of the better flash games I’ve played, so if you're into mind-bending time-wasters this is a good one to check out. There are 33 levels, which took me 3:35 to get through. I was afk for at least an hour of that time, but if you can do it in 3:30 I’ll still admit defeat.

Bush Vetoes another Stem Cell Bill

2007-06-20T16:33:00.000-07:00

We all saw this one coming, but it’s still disappointing. C&L has video and Democratic reaction, including one from Michael J. Fox. Check out this fact check for an analysis of the misrepresentations (lies or ignorance? His presidency in a nutshell) in Bush's veto speech.

It’s amazing that such a despicable man can, with a straight face, refer to America’s scientific community as “unethical” as if it were self-evident. If he were some guy on the street I might pity him, but when the leader of the free world demonstrates such disdain for reason, it is withering. As Fox said, if we don’t take the initiative, other countries will, and when that happens we won’t have any say in the ethical debate. I have confidence in the ethics of scientists from other nations so I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but it seems an act of gross stupidity to willingly accelerate our vector to the margin of scientific discovery.

As much as I dislike the bumbling Democrats, today has been a reminder of how important it is that we get one into the White House.

An Inspiring Story

2007-06-20T00:36:00.000-07:00

My freshman year of college, a guitarist named Billy McLaughlin came and gave a concert at my school. At the time I wasn’t familiar with anything like his style of playing and was completely amazed. I immediately bought all of his CDs and became a big fan. After a few years I forgot about him and didn’t stay up to date on his situation. Around the time that I stopped paying attention, he was diagnosed with focal dystonia, a neuromuscular disorder that caused him to lose control of his left forearm, hand and fingers.

This immediately halted his career in music, or at least it should have. I just learned that he’s making a comeback, and I can’t even fathom the work that it must have required. Watch the video to see how he is managing it. What an incredible story.

And here’s him performing that full song:

The Case for Universal Healthcare, Part 2

2007-06-19T06:38:00.000-07:00

Part 1 is here.

Having established that our current system is ineffective, is a public healthcare system the answer? Theoretically, I think so. It would provide greater access to healthcare not only for those without insurance, but also for millions more whose coverage is insufficient for their needs, or whose necessary treatment entails a higher risk of being denied payment.

However, it must be done right. Socialized medicine is not something that anyone should get behind without specific qualification. It is available in so many other countries, that we have a pretty good idea of the potential issues. Here are some of the issues we would have to either overcome or mitigate:

Doctor skill and compensation. In order to be able to continue to train and keep the best doctors, their compensation must remain high. Our system requires at least 11 or 12 years of training for doctors, and we need to maintain that level of training while also keeping our doctors from practicing elsewhere. This could be difficult, as the most motivated individuals tend to migrate toward situations in which they can be paid according to performance. Incentive programs can mitigate some of this, and not having to deal with insurance (or money at all) may keep some of the less business-savvy doctors around. We will also be benefited by the fact that there aren’t any other for-profit healthcare systems nearby, so as long as we can stay ahead of Canada, and no other countries decide to become the healthcare destination for the world’s rich, we should be ok. Allowing private clinics to cater to those with special needs or with money to burn would do much to keep the best doctors here, but the existence and success of such clinics would likely be a sign that the public clinics are not providing an acceptable level of care. More than anything, we need to allot a large amount of taxpayer dollars for doctor compensation.

Appropriate incentive programs. There is an issue in countries like Taiwan and Russia where doctors get paid for each prescription they write, so many of their providers push pills onto just about anyone they can. Incentives need to be tied to patient health and habits. Britain has a system that includes incentives for doctors who convince their patients to stop smoking, for instance.

The taxpayer cost must not be too high. The US economy will slow down immensely if disposable income is significantly decreased by healthcare taxes. This actually might not be a huge issue—we already pay more than anyone else in the world per capita for our healthcare, and as I mentioned yesterday, a full 1/3 of that money is wasted on insurance company administration, so we definitely have some wiggle room. Tort reform, which would be a prerequisite for this kind of legislation, would further increase the amount of money available without increasing the taxpayers’ overall expenditure. I’m usually not a big fan of limiting liability in case of a lawsuit, as it only protects businesses from accountability, but this is one situation in which it makes a lot of sense, as it would significantly increase the amount of money available.

The immigration reform debate that is currently raging would need to result in something before healthcare reform could happen. Illegals taking advantage of free healthcare without contributing anything to the system would drastically increase the taxpayer expense, and more importantly, would present a very strong argument against the passage of healthcare legislation.

Patient wait-time. The subject of many of the horror stories about socialized medicine is the time it takes to receive treatment for anything more serious than a common cold. Many of these are exaggerated, but it is a legitimate concern. We would have to ensure that there are enough surgeons, MRI machines, etc. to meet the demand in a timely fashion.

Education. We must also ensure that people don’t use the system to get checked out for every tiny ailment that does not require medical attention. For the same reasons, we need to increase the “health IQ” of the populace so that we don’t put undue strain on the system through preventable disease. Preventive care is the emphasis under a public health plan, and that starts with understanding. There may be room here for something like a “smoking tax” so that the more responsible members of society don’t have to pay for those with obvious disregard for their own health.

Withholding treatment to the elderly or “bad risk” cases. In some countries, expensive treatments such as dialysis are sometimes denied to people above a certain age, and expensive treatments or surgery can be denied to someone whose condition or injuries are beyond a certain degree of severity. The logic behind this is it doesn’t make sense to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars just to keep someone alive for a few extra months, or to perform surgery that has a low chance of success. While this makes economic sense, I doubt it would fly in the US, as it’s not possible to attach a dollar figure to even a small amount of the life of an individual. This would leave less money to tackle other problems on this list.

Innovation must continue. A new system would be required to continue to provide motivation for pharmaceutical and medical research companies to continue to push the envelope and develop new and better treatments.

What to do about the giant insurance bureaucracy. This kind of a change would be not a reformation so much as a revolution. It didn’t happen in Britain until their country was mostly destroyed in WW2 and they didn’t have anything left to replace, and I fear that the entrenched bureaucracies, mostly that of the insurance industry, would thwart similar legislation here even if it required using every available penny in bribes. If it did go through, a lot of people would lose their jobs, and we’d have to find a way to deal with the ramifications.

Although I strongly believe that our healthcare system needs a major overhaul, I would not support public healthcare unless it addressed each of these issues. Many of these will require compromise to some degree, but if consideration can not be made on each of these issues without a drastic increase in taxes, then we should scrap it.

Something would still have to be done in that case. Employer incentives, increased emphasis on health savings accounts, and some severe housecleaning among the ranks of interested corporations would be available options. Whatever we do, it’s important that we stay away from the Medicaid model, as that system is a nightmare that should be annihilated with extreme prejudice.

Finally, let me say this. My wife and I do consulting for doctors, and make a comfortable living doing so. In advocating universal healthcare, I am also advocating the elimination of our income. That should give you an idea of how strongly I feel about the need for change, but again, only if it is implemented carefully by capable, competent people. This might be my biggest concern of all: Our representatives from both parties have thoroughly proven that they are incapable of clear thought, competent leadership, or proper action. I fear that it will be a very long time before this issue is properly addressed, and thousands more people will die unnecessarily because of it.

Sam Harris v. Chris Hedges

2007-06-18T16:34:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of formal "atheist v. theist" debates out there, and unfortunately many of them involve two people talking past each other who might as well have stayed home and sent in a recording of their speeches. Other times, the debate makes great progress until finding one of the typical ruts from which it doesn't recover, etc.

This new one between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges (it actually happened about 3 weeks ago but the recording just became available yesterday) isn't really a shining example of a good debate, since the moderator gets way too involved and the whole thing gets a bit off topic, but I present it as somewhat of a showcase for Sam Harris. Audio and video versions of the debate can be found here. The Audio is slightly longer and contains a few more questions than the video, so if you already know what all these guys look like or want to multi-task, the audio might be the way to go.

Harris is perhaps the best analogist/metaphorist I've ever been acquainted with. I previously mentioned a written debate that he had with Andrew Sullivan that had an impact on me, which you simply must at least skim in order to treat yourself to his brilliant metaphorical wit (my favorites are the new wine/new glass metaphor, the bombs in the distance, and the tennis racket, off hand).

I'm posting this debate because if you haven't heard Sam Harris speak, this is a great opportunity. This time, his analogies dealing with Catholics' cracker-eating habits, religion as a multiple choice test, and the witch-hunting culture among others are not only hilarious but extremely effective. His entire 15-minute opening-statement is quite impressive.

Sadly, I'm very disappointed with Hedges. He wrote a book called American Fascists that I almost read, and has written several articles that I liked very much. It turns out, however, that he is one of those guys who "believes in belief," even if it means believing in some sort of mystical, pseudo-humanist gobbledygook and calling it religion, as he does. After thoroughly obscuring his own position and thereby immunizing it from attack, he spends most of his remaining time attacking positions which Harris has never taken.

Harris does have several weaknesses, and Hedges does hit on a couple of those. If Harris had a do-over I assume his book would be significantly different in a few areas. His weaknesses were more effectively exposed at the 2006 Beyond Belief conference, which I consider to be almost the all-star game of rational thought ("almost" because there are a few speakers that are either incomprehensible or hopelessly confused, but they actually add to the fun, as you get to watch them get shot down). That whole thing is about 20 hours long, but is immensely rewarding.

Henry Rollins on war profiteering and public services

2007-06-18T11:24:00.000-07:00

On the topic of public services, here's Henry Rollins' take. His topic is war profiteering and he doesn't mention healthcare, but I think his views are still relevant to the discussion, as it demonstrates that the "Keep your hand out of my pocket" crowd in the healthcare debate doesn't have a legitimate argument unless they also want everything else privatized. It ultimately comes down to priorities.

Warning: As anyone familiar with this guy already knows, he is outraged and overly strident even when talking about the weather. Also, this video contains one use of the most evil of all the evil words. And by "the most evil of all the evil words," I mean "fuck."

The Case for Universal Healthcare, Part 1

2007-06-17T23:21:00.000-07:00

With the buzz from Michael Moore’s new documentary Sicko growing, along with the debate on the issue at the last Democratic debate, it’s looking like healthcare reform will be a relatively major issue during this election cycle. This is historically one of those issues on which Americans tend to split along party lines, but I hope that at least for the few minutes it takes you to read this, and preferably forever, that you’ll be willing to examine this issue (and all the rest) according to the merits of the arguments regardless of what any party thinks about it. This time I'll discuss the need for reform; part 2 will contain a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of putting a public healthcare system in place.

Much of the answer to this question ultimately resides in our individual interpretations of the ideal role of government in the lives of its citizens. For that reason I’ll briefly address this issue first.

The preamble to the constitution reads, in full:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While the preamble, like the Declaration of Independence, is not considered enforceable law, it sums up the intent of the Constitution nicely, and each of its listed intentions is confirmed later in the text.

So from the Preamble, we learn that the purpose of our government is to provide its citizens with a just, peaceful, healthy, and free existence. One of the strengths of our constitution is its flexibility, so individual interpretation can vary greatly. Most of us find justification for a publicly funded military and police force, as well as a justice system with various accompanying laws ensuring our freedom. We can also deduce the need for a proper infrastructure of roads and utilities, and many people find justification for a public education system as well.

What I’d like to specifically focus on is the phrase “promote the general welfare,” or as it is later phrased in Article 1, Section 8, “to provide for the general welfare.” What is the government’s role in the welfare of its people? While many will disagree, I find justification for including the provision of healthcare in the mandate of welfare. The government can promote health in many ways; I am particularly interested in two of them, namely, the funding of scientific and medical research, which I will not discuss at this time, and the availability of medical care to everyone who would benefit therefrom. For those who disagree, we can at least agree on this: the Constitution does not provide that healthcare should not be available for all, or that it should not be paid for with public funds.

So now we can move on to the topic of healthcare reform. First we must establish that it is needed in the United States. In 2000, the World Health Organization (WHO) ranked the healthcare systems of its 191 member nations, (The overall rankings are posted here, the summary is here, and the complete 215-page report including the rankings for each category can be found here). The factors on which the rankings were based include the overall level of health of each nation’s citizens, the distribution (equality) of health in the populations, responsiveness (prompt care, respect for patients), and the fairness of the financial burden. The United States ranked 37^th overall.

This result included rankings of 1 in responsiveness, 54-55 in financial fairness, 24 in life expectancy, 32 in equality of health, 72 in performance on health level, and 1 in overall expenditure. So it seems that healthcare in the US is quick, expensive, helpful for the rich and privileged much more so than the poor, and of middling benefit to our overall health. By many accounts, it’s also the highest quality when it comes to complex procedures. This is likely true, as our overall lack of health can be attributed to many factors, and the number of lives saved by cutting-edge procedures is small compared to the number saved by greater availability of more basic care. Quality is subjective and can also be a function of availability.

Many have called the worth of the WHO’s study into question, claiming that too much emphasis is put on financing. I dispute this, as medical bills are far and away the #1 cause of bankruptcy in America, and the cost of treatment can be, and often is, even more traumatic than the illness or injury that required it. The data prove that Americans spend more per capita than anyone else in the world on healthcare, and yet have less access to it than almost any other nation in the developed world.

Almost 50 million people, roughly 16% of our population, are without health insurance, and the rest of us are beholden to an insurance industry that is corrupt seemingly beyond repair. For doctors and hospitals, waiting for a person to get sick in order to profit from their suffering is a more viable business strategy than preventive care, and for insurance companies, the less medical care you allow, the more money you make. While there are many decent human beings in these industries, these conflicts of interest are too enticing for many.

Much of this can be blamed on the insurance companies themselves, as their immoral withholding of payment has led to some extremely large lawsuits. The lawyers who pursue these and other cases (especially malpractice) are also to blame, and doctors must share some of the responsibility as well, since lawyers can’t build cases without doctors on their side acting as expert witnesses. These lawsuits are a big reason why insurance premiums are so much higher than they need to be, although inefficient and greedy management is responsible for some of that. Fully 1/3 of the money that we pay for healthcare is wasted on insurance bureaucracy.

Next time I’ll discuss what we can do about this mess, including the potential pros and cons of a public healthcare system.

Part 2 is here.

Another Way in Which Iraq is Like Vietnam

2007-06-16T01:56:00.000-07:00

Does the news that China has been supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan worry anyone else? We really can’t afford to get into it with anyone else at this point, and China would likely wipe the floor with us even if our military weren’t so depleted.

It reminds me of Vietnam, in which one of the many reasons we lost was our fear of getting China involved. Our troops were ordered to wait until surface-to-air missile sites were completely finished and firing at our aircraft before being allowed to destroy them, for instance, because we wanted to ensure that we didn’t inadvertently kill a Chinese contractor and start WW3.

I wonder how long Bush and co. have known about this and if it has affected our tactics at all. I also wonder what they plan to do about it.

God as the Great Mutator

2007-06-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

Michael Behe is, for better or worse, the most credible figure in the Intelligent Design/Creationism camp. He is a protein biochemist with an actual degree from an actual university. His new book, The Edge of Evolution, was supposed to have been revolutionary, giving long-sought scientific justification to the doctrine of Creationism. Inevitably, the book is a complete failure, this time for two reasons.

He provides no evidence in favor of Creationism, but only the same false dichotomy in which if evolution is found wanting in any way, the completely absurd notion of supernatural intervention must therefore be true.

In the process of his attempt to focus only on the gaps in evolutionary theory, he ends up willfully conceding that at the very least, the majority of evolutionary thought is, in fact, accurate.

This has left him somewhat homeless, since the scientific community still considers him a fraud, and he has now alienated himself from all of the Biblical literalists which make up the majority of Creationists. I admire that he is intellectually honest enough to acknowledge, at least indirectly, that he has been presenting obvious falsehoods as facts all this time, as is required of Creationists, but it is a shame that he insists on clinging to the latest gap in scientific knowledge and claiming that God is within it.

Just as thunder and lightning used to signify the anger of the gods, so now Behe submits that since, in his view, random mutation does not provide sufficient genetic variance for speciation to occur, that God must therefore be involved.

Jerry Coyne has written an outstanding article in which God as “The Great Mutator” is discussed (It’s over at TNR, but a free version is posted at RD.net for us cheapskates). I strongly recommend it not only for its shredding of Behe’s poor science, but also for its treatment of some of the finer points of evolutionary theory. It's pretty long, so bookmark it if you have to.