Archive for July, 2008

Call me…The Violator!

The gang at Bakersfield that ran one of the polls we contributed to has noticed, and they feel violated. Mildly. And with a little good humor. I guess we'll have to do it again sometime!

Read the comments on this post...

Call me…The Violator!

The gang at Bakersfield that ran one of the polls we contributed to has noticed, and they feel violated. Mildly. And with a little good humor. I guess we'll have to do it again sometime!

Read the comments on this post...

Space liquid

Much interesting NASA news this week. Today, Phoenix has found water in a Mars soil sample.

“We have water,” said William Boynton of the University of Arizona, lead scientist for the Thermal and Evolved-Gas Analyzer, or TEGA. “We’ve seen evidence for this water ice before in observations by the Mars Odyssey orbiter and in disappearing chunks observed by Phoenix last month, but this is the first time Martian water has been touched and tasted.” (From NASA)

Yesterday, NASA announced that Cassini had identified a liquid ethane lake on
Saturn’s moon Titan. This makes Titan the only place in the solar system except Earth that is known to have liquid on its surface.

There are lots of awe-inspiring images on NASA’s site and the Cassini ones are particularly fascinating. Saturn and its moons must be the all time favourite space pictures, what with Saturn being the most photogenic planet by a few light-years.

But this picture is pretty good, too. A planet with surface water and water vapour and everything. Looks good enough to move to.

from Ciclops.org - earth and moon

from Ciclops.org - earth and moon

ShareThis

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

Now, we all know that I wasn't exactly a fan of the PZ Myers' response to Crackergate, but I'm squarely on his side when it comes to whether or not he had the right to do as he did. The Catholic Church has clearly gone berserk in response. A "Confraternity of Catholic Clergy" are calling Myers' "desecration" of the Host "unconstitutional:" [h/t to PZ himself.] Quoth the clergy: "The freedom of religion means that no one has the right to attack, malign or grossly offend a faith tradition they personally do not have membership or ascribe allegiance."

This is extremely wrong. I would like to make this clear: Freedom of religion means that the state, and others, can't, and shouldn't, stop you from worshiping as you please, praise Jefferson and Madison, pass the parchment and the ammunition, forever and ever amen. What it doesn't mean is that your religion is free from blasphemy, sacrilege, or people calling you a bunch of Mary-worshiping, pointy-hat wearing cracker-eaters. Let's reiterate: You do not have a right to be free from offense. Free speech stops at the advocacy of violence or disenfranchisement. Someone hie thee to a civics class.
-- James F. Elliott jamesfelliott.blogspot.com jamesfelliott@gmail.com

Not Loony, Just Human


Is it just me or is there some kind of cultural connection amongst humans between the moon and insanity? I first noticed it when I learned the phrase “esta en la luna” (in the moon) in Spanish which is a way of saying absent-minded. I then made the connection between “Luna” and “lunatic” and “loonies” and began to wonder. It’s not really something I’ve researched but maybe some sociologist or anthropologist out there knows what I’m talking about… or it could be pure coincidence.

Even so, I would find such a social connotation of the moon ironic when you take into account Apollo astronaut Edgar Mitchell. On “Paranormal Schmaranormal” Stefano left this comment:

There are not only crazy Guys that are talking about the existence of UFOs.

And posted these two videos.

I get it. Edgar Mitchell believes in UFOs. That’s nice.

Now, I have great respect for all astronauts. It takes brains, it takes physical prowess, it takes hours of training, and it takes guts to strap yourself to a giant can of rocket fuel and blast yourself 384,000 km away from the Earth with faith in Newton to get you there safely.

I respect that.

But, just because you did all that doesn’t mean that you can say “there are pink dancing unicorns on Neptune” and have them pop into existence. If you (the astronaut) or you (the person believing the astronaut can do that) believe that authority makes it so then I don’t respect that.

And, on the other hand just because an authority says something which we think of as outrageous does not mean it is untrue. If the authority can point me to observations published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal which shows dancing pink unicorns and I can replicate the experiment on my own if I get access to a big enough telescope and swing it around to Neptune and see dancing pink unicorns then I’m convinced.

Where is Edgar Mitchell’s evidence? He says he believes. Again, that doesn’t make it true. He says he has eye-witness testimony, but eye-witnesses can be wrong.

I once saw three UFOs drifting above the buildings of my hometown on a warm, sunny morning. Visibility conditions were good. I wasn’t under the influence of drugs, caffeine, alcohol, catnip, or sleep deprivation. I suddenly noticed with excitement how they looked like saucers straight out of films like The Day the Earth Stood Still… that is until the saucers drifted into a better angle and I realized I had been viewing three jets flying in formation edge on.

I’m not crazy. I just live on the verge of madness because it’s more interesting. But, I was mistaken. If I hadn’t kept watching perhaps I would have remained mistaken.

Does Edgar Mitchell have anything else to offer other than Stefano’s assertion that he’s not senile?

No.

You don’t have to be a lunatic to be mistaken. You just have to be human. Just because you went to the moon doesn’t make you any less human, any less subject to believing something that is crazy. It just makes you kinda cooler than other humans in one regard.

Interesting Art

This is an artist with a clear political, and social, agenda. Not that I see that as a bad thing. We The People is my favorite. Its a huge piece of art, 8' by 25', which from a distance is the heading of the US Constitution, but it is composed of 83,000 pictures of Abu Ghraib prisoners. Why 83,000? Glad you asked, thats the total number of persons who have been arrested and held without trial by the US.

Confusion on Biblical authority

When I see liberal Christians saying Christians needn’t be anti-gay, they often seem to use two conflicting arguments: the Bible doesn’t say what most Evangelicals think it says, and anyway the Biblical authors didn’t know any better. Example: this Hemant interview of Candace Chellow-Hodge. Not sure if this quite belongs in the “stupidity” category, but still very odd. Note that I’m pretty sure there are some Christians who take Biblical authority seriously and seriously believe the Bible doesn’t condemn homosexuality, but they seem to be a minority of those who deal in pro-gay interpretations.

Gàidhlig Gaidhlig


Canan Nan Gaidheal





1 Cha b' e sneachda 's an reòthadh bho thuath,
Cha b' e 'n crannadh fuar bho 'n ear,
Cha b 'e 'n uisge 's an gailleon bho 'n iar,
Ach an galair a bhlean bho 'n deas
Blàth, duilleach, stoc, agus freumh
Canan mo threubh 's mo shluaidh.

Séist: Thig thugainn, thig co-rium gu siar
Gus an cluinn sinn ann canan nam Féinn,
Thig thugainn, thig co-rium gu siar
Gus an cluinn sinn ann canan nan Gaidheal.

2 Far a nuas dhuinn na coinnleirean òir
'S annt' caraibh coinlean geal ceir
Lasaibh suas iad an seòmair bhroin
Tìgh-'aire seann chanan a' Ghae'l
'S sud o chionn fhad' thuirt a namh
Ach fhathast tha beò canan a' Ghae'l.

3 'S iomadh gille thug greis air a' chuibhl'
'S an du-oidhch' thog fonn Gàidhlig a chridh
'S iomadh gaisgeach a bhrosnaich 'sa bhlair
Gu euchd nuair bu teòtha bha 'n strì
O Ghaidheil, o caite 'n deach t' uaill
'Nad fhine 's 'nad chanan 's do thir.?

4 Uair chite fear-feilidh 'sa ghleann
Bu chinnteach gur gàidhlig a chainnt
Ach spion iad a fhreumh as an fhonn
'N aite gàidhlig tha canan a Ghoill
'S a Ghaidhealtachd creadhal-nan-sonn
'S tir mhajors is cholonels 'n diugh th' innt'.

5 O chanan ta leath ri mo chridh
M' aran m' amhlan is m' anal 's mo smior
'S tu cho aosd ri fraoch-dosradh nam frith
Shloinneadh og leat beinn, leitear is sgur
Ghaidheil, 'gad easbhuidh, 's 'gad dhith
'S clarsach aon-theud, is cuislean gun fhuil.

6 Ged theich i le beath' as na glinn
Ged 's gann an diugh chluinntear i nis mo
O Dhuthaich MhicAoidh fada tuath
Gu ruig thu Druim-Uachdar nam bo
Gigheal, dhi na Eileanan Siar
Bi na claimheamh 's na sgiath'n ud dhoirn.

7 Ged nach chluinntear nis mo i 'san dun
No 'n talla-nan-cliar is nan còirn
Ged tha meòir chloinn'icCreumein gun luths
O 'n tric feasgair ciuin dhoirteadh ceòl
Gigheadh, anns na Eileanan-siar
'S i fhathast ann ciad chainnt an t-sloigh.

8 Tha na suinn le 'm bu bhinne bha t' fhuaim
'Nad linn thir nam fuarbeannaibh ard
Aig an druim anns na uaidhean nan suain
Suas air eirigh mo thruaigh tha nan àit
Eadhon siar ann an duthaich-MhicLeoid
Linn og oirt a ghàidhlig rinn tair.

1 It was not the snow and frost from the north,
nor the cold withering from the east,
it wasn't the rain or the storms from the west,
but the sickness from the south that has faded
the bloom, foliage, stock and root
of the language of my race and my people.

Chorus Come, come on, come with me westwards
until we hear the language of the Fein,
Come, come on, come with me westwards
until we hear the language of the Gaels.

2 Pass over to us the golden candlesticks
and put in them the white waxen candles
light them up in rhe mourning room
of the wake-house of the Gael's old language
That's what the enemy has long been saying
but the language of the Gael is alive yet.

3 Many a lad who has spent a while at the wheel
in the darkness of night has had his heart lifted by a Gaelic song;
and many a hero has spurred on on the battle field
to valour where the fight was hottest;
O Gael, where has your pride in your race and your
language and your country gone?

4 Once if a kilted man was seen in the valley it was certain
that Gaelic was his language, but they have torn his roots from
the ground, in the place of Gaelic is the foreigner's language,
and the Gaeltachd, cradle of heroes, today it is a land of
majors and colonels.

5 O language that's close to my heart,
My food, my spice, my breath, and my strength,
you are as old as the abundant heather on the hills
The hills, slopes, and peaks were named by you when they were young
Gael, you're needing and you're wanting,
like a stringless harp or a vein without blood.

6 Although it has escaped with its life fom the valley,
although it's rare today that it's head any more
from Strathnaver [MacKay's country] in the far north
right down to Drumouchter where the cattle are
nevertheless, for it in the Western Isles
the swords and shields are taken in hand there.

7 Although it is heard no more in the city
or in the festive hall of the laureates,
Although the strength has gone from the MacCrimmons' fingers
from which often music would be poured out in the evening
Nevertheless, in the western Isles,
there it is still the first language of the people.

8 The heroes to whom your sound was sweetest
in your time in the land of the cool high bens
are on their backs at rest in graves
and risen up, Oh woe, in their place, is
even in McLeod's country
a young generation who despise you, gaelic.
expression as battle with the enemy

A Chris Crocker Redux - Leave Barack Alone!

If you spend most of your time under a rock, you may have missed Chris Crocker's tearful YouTube video defending Britney Spears from her detractors. If you've seen the video, you might have a grin on your face just thinking about it.

With the McCain campaigns recent release of an ad attempting to connect Senator Obama with the likes of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, Slate had the clever idea to dub over the Crocker video and offer its own impassioned defense of Barack Obama. Kudos to Slate...this is good stuff.

You can view the original Chris Crocker video at the above link. The Slate video and the McCain ad appear below.

Slate - Leave Barack Alone!

McCain Attack Ad

Down wiv da kidz

It is certainly true that if you don’t have a vote, you don’t count in a democratic society.

One of the (many) demonised groups in the UK now seems to be the “youth” - of which the middle aged, middle classes seem to be inordinately frightened. Coincidentally, this is also an age group in which most are unable to vote, and most of those who do, don’t seem to bother. As a result, it seems, they have become fair game for any crackpot ideas. Oddly, they are also a group politicians seem to constantly appeal to (obviously knowing they wont be arsed to vote…). Isn’t the world strange.

Two recent mad ideas spring to mind. First from the Guardian:

Road safety: Impose total alcohol ban for teenage drivers, says chief medical officer
A zero drink-driving limit should be imposed on all drivers under 20, the chief medical officer recommended yesterday, saying that such a ban would save lives.

This hits two of our current “fears.” First it panders to the idea that the UK is in the grip of a “Booze Culture” and secondly it cries that some new restriction will “save lives.” Nicely it wraps all this up by targeting a silent group of society, so the fall out would be minimal (and it was).

For me, despite being neither “yoof” or a novice driver so immune to any resultant laws, this is insane. I completely, 100% fail to see any logic. I am reasonably sure that any young driver mature and grown up enough to go out and stick to the 1 pint limit is also likely to be mature and capable enough to drive sensibly. The problem, and it isn’t just young drivers, is being over the limit.

Some figures are bandied about:

Justifying his call for zero alcohol for 17 to 20-year-olds, Donaldson said they were six times more likely to have a car crash if they had been drinking. A young person who had been drinking was 2.5 times more likely to have a crash than an older person who had been drinking. “I’m aware it is a controversial recommendation, but I believe it would save lives,” he said.

Now, so far I have been unable to clarify this, but I am reasonably certain that the problem is young people are more likely to be over the legal drink driving limit - I seem to recall the alcohol level is not recorded by the police if the person is under the legal limit.

Basically, this is saying young people over the limit have more accidents than old people over the limit, so lets lower the limit for young people.

Madness. But it is the madness that comes from some one with a fantastic knowledge of one subject area (medicine) being given implied authority in another area (crime reduction, driver safety etc).

The next bit really annoyed me. From the Times a few days ago:

Curfew tames feral yobs of Cornwall
An experiment to bring peace to a yob-plagued town by imposing nocturnal curfews on its teenagers had a promising start this weekend when the streets of Redruth in Cornwall were free of the usual intimidating gaggles of youths.
Under the experimental curfew, named Operation Goodnight, parents in the most troubled part of the town have agreed with police that they will keep children under 16 indoors after 9pm, and that under10s will not be allowed out after 8pm.

What a wonderful culture we live in. When you read things like this it really makes you despair for what the adults of 2020 will be like.

I have two big issues with this. First off - why are we sending kids so many mixed signals? We (as a society) say they should be more involved in the community, say they should spend less time on their playstations and more time outdoors, say they should spend more time interacting with others. Simultaneously we say they cant go out, cant hang round together and everything they do means a paedophile will get them.

Secondly, the sheer unadulterated nonsense behind this.

  1. It is a voluntary scheme. So if you are a NAUGHTYKID™©® all you need to do is ignore it. All the good, well behaved kids will stay at home. Hang on, isn’t that the wrong way round?
  2. It is being done with the approval of the parents and targets the children in the most troubled part of the town. What? It actually says “a Sunday Times poll showed that nine out of 10 parents backed restrictions on their own children going out after dark.”

Right, let me get this straight. The parents of these “feral” children want restrictions on when the children go out. They have enough control over the children to stop them going out but wont do this simply because their children are little s***s, they demand that the police tell them to do this.

Nope, still cant get my head around it.

Why in the name of Zeus dont the bloody parents control their children? Why do they have to agree with police to follow this “trial” curfew (which will, no doubt, report a positive outcome and then spread to other areas - just like the criminal nonsense that is congestion charging)?

Our children are fine. They are the same mix of evil little turds and fantastic kind angels they were 30 years ago, 60 years ago, 90 years ago and even 900 years ago.

The bloody feral parents are the problem…. but then, they can vote…

ShareThis

Species Diversity

 Some of you might recall my series of postings last year on the top Science questions. One of them was What Causes Species Diversity?. This is an important unanswered question in evolutionary biology even if it's conflated with speciation. We don't really have a good handle on what causes speciation. That doesn't mean that we are completely ignorant. There are several candidates that, singly or

Only a Theory

I published a review in Nature this week, of Ken Miller's Only a Theory(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and boy, was that a tough one. The catch was that I want the book to do well, and I definitely think it has a place as an appeal to the religious majority to support good science (you know, all those people who see my demonic visage leering out at them from the top left corner of this page and want to call for an exorcist), but it also irritated me greatly on several important points.

I think it's a much better book than his previous, Finding Darwin's God(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). That book had one point where it simply drove off the cliff with a bunch of handwaving about god dwelling in quantum indeterminacy, which made it virtually unreadable beyond that point. There is no cliff in this one; instead, it's threaded with some annoying biases throughout.

The big one for me was a lot of naive American exceptionalism, and that's the issue for which I took him to task in the Nature review. Why does the US have such an aberrant problem with creationism, while Europe does not? I would have answered with something about a tradition of religiosity and anti-intellectualism, and maybe something about a rough-and-ready credulity that allowed for the rapid proliferation of widely variant sects; the recent renascence of creationism under the guise of ID owes something to raging relativism, too. In Miller's eyes, creationism has absolutely nothing to do with religion at all — it's all about the American virtues of rebelliousness and disrespect, to which we also owe our eminence in science.

This is news to me, especially lately since Miller's co-religionists have been madly flinging bricks at me for daring to disrespect their peculiar superstitions. I also don't think the sheep flocking to the mega-churches are flaunting their rebelliousness…it's more an expression of conformity. There isn't one true revolutionary among the creationist hordes, only a mob trying to defend hallowed superstitions from the encroaching modernity. Any explanation for the popularity of creationism that discounts the impact of religion for the worse is like trying to explain the motion of a car while completely ignoring the engine compartment.

The other annoyance of his book creeps in gradually. He's clearly a fan of Simon Conway Morris's view that life roughly of our sort was inevitable, that while evolution would lead to variations in the details, a human-like mind was a consequence that was programmed into the starting conditions of the universe. If we restarted the Earth at a point 4 billion years ago, the planet would eventually cough up a pile of social animals that would start going to church and praising their heavenly creator — maybe they wouldn't be mammals, but our molluscan or reptilian or echinoderm replacements on Alternate Earth would still be occupying a similar niche to ours, and would still be fulfilling the rough outlines of the vision set in motion by a loving god.

This is, of course, untestable wishful thinking, and not at all supported by the science, which shows a genuine role for chance. Real chance. Not the chance of Miller, which is that of a god who throws dice most of the time, but when it is really, really important, he fudges the results a little bit to make sure he wins.

Still, you should read the book. Ignore the apologetics, and don't trust anything he says about the origins of creationism in the US, but do read it for the excellent rebuttals to common creationist claims. This is a book I'd hand to any creationist students who try to argue against evolution on religious grounds, but I think it would only take them partway to a realistic view of how life came to be.

Read the comments on this post...

Only a Theory

I published a review in Nature this week, of Ken Miller's Only a Theory(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), and boy, was that a tough one. The catch was that I want the book to do well, and I definitely think it has a place as an appeal to the religious majority to support good science (you know, all those people who see my demonic visage leering out at them from the top left corner of this page and want to call for an exorcist), but it also irritated me greatly on several important points.

I think it's a much better book than his previous, Finding Darwin's God(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll). That book had one point where it simply drove off the cliff with a bunch of handwaving about god dwelling in quantum indeterminacy, which made it virtually unreadable beyond that point. There is no cliff in this one; instead, it's threaded with some annoying biases throughout.

The big one for me was a lot of naive American exceptionalism, and that's the issue for which I took him to task in the Nature review. Why does the US have such an aberrant problem with creationism, while Europe does not? I would have answered with something about a tradition of religiosity and anti-intellectualism, and maybe something about a rough-and-ready credulity that allowed for the rapid proliferation of widely variant sects; the recent renascence of creationism under the guise of ID owes something to raging relativism, too. In Miller's eyes, creationism has absolutely nothing to do with religion at all — it's all about the American virtues of rebelliousness and disrespect, to which we also owe our eminence in science.

This is news to me, especially lately since Miller's co-religionists have been madly flinging bricks at me for daring to disrespect their peculiar superstitions. I also don't think the sheep flocking to the mega-churches are flaunting their rebelliousness…it's more an expression of conformity. There isn't one true revolutionary among the creationist hordes, only a mob trying to defend hallowed superstitions from the encroaching modernity. Any explanation for the popularity of creationism that discounts the impact of religion for the worse is like trying to explain the motion of a car while completely ignoring the engine compartment.

The other annoyance of his book creeps in gradually. He's clearly a fan of Simon Conway Morris's view that life roughly of our sort was inevitable, that while evolution would lead to variations in the details, a human-like mind was a consequence that was programmed into the starting conditions of the universe. If we restarted the Earth at a point 4 billion years ago, the planet would eventually cough up a pile of social animals that would start going to church and praising their heavenly creator — maybe they wouldn't be mammals, but our molluscan or reptilian or echinoderm replacements on Alternate Earth would still be occupying a similar niche to ours, and would still be fulfilling the rough outlines of the vision set in motion by a loving god.

This is, of course, untestable wishful thinking, and not at all supported by the science, which shows a genuine role for chance. Real chance. Not the chance of Miller, which is that of a god who throws dice most of the time, but when it is really, really important, he fudges the results a little bit to make sure he wins.

Still, you should read the book. Ignore the apologetics, and don't trust anything he says about the origins of creationism in the US, but do read it for the excellent rebuttals to common creationist claims. This is a book I'd hand to any creationist students who try to argue against evolution on religious grounds, but I think it would only take them partway to a realistic view of how life came to be.

Read the comments on this post...

McCain’s not-too-swift boats

After putting out an ad that just reeks of dog-whistle racism, the McCain campaign is now whining that Obama's very measured and restrained response amounts to playing the race card. What sickening hypocrisy!

A black man with white women continues to be the huge unbreakable taboo in the US. It's the one thing guaranteed to give Republican voters the hives, and the merest suspicion that it might be happening has led to countless brutal lynchings and murders right up to the present day. McCain's spinmasters knew exactly what they were doing when they linked Barack Obama with two well-known promiscuous white women, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. Talk about audacity!

For McCain to rant and rave about the race card is as dishonest and despicable as the rethugs cutting every program that helps ordinary people in order to fund more tax cuts for millionaires - and then sneering that we are waging "class warfare" when we oppose their corruption. McCain very definitely owes Obama an apology, not the other way round!

Update: McCain's stupid Paris Hilton ad has very possibly pissed off one of his biggest supporters - Hilton's father! Heckuva job, you little jerk!

(Comment on this post)

Chew On This


Gods Gristle

God's Gristle

A restaurant owner in Nigeria (they have restaurants in Nigeria?) recently discovered a piece of meat that bore the Arabic words for God, and the name of the prophet Muhammad, in the gristle of the meat. I’ll have to take his word for it, because I don’t read Arabic, but if you do, the picture is up there. Have a look. To me, it looks like tripe, which would naturally have those squiggly little crenelations, but what do I know?

They conducted a scientific inquiry to prove it was a sign from heaven:

A search of the kitchen’s meat revealed three more pieces which bore the names.

Damn, don’t you just love the scientific method? Not convinced?

A vet told the newspaper the words “defied scientific explanation”.

“Supposing only one piece of meat was found then it would be suspicious, but given the circumstances there is no explanation,” Dr Yakubu Dominic said.

A vet?

Still not convinced this is just not another manifestation of Pareidolia? Here’s the clincher.

It just so happened that local Islamic scholars happened to eat there, and they confirmed the divine nature of the indigestible culinary delicacy.

“When the writings were discovered there were some Islamic scholars who come and eat here and they all commented that it was a sign to show that Islam is the only true religion for mankind,” he said.

I’m glad they settled that. Praise Allah (MPBUHN)!

In other news, at the Vatican, a spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI has announced that the Holy See will be releasing photos of the Pope’s most recent bowel movement, which bears an uncanny resemblance to Bill Donohue. The actual BM will be split into pieces and sold as indulgences.

add to del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg itreddit Stumble It!

Despite Overwhelming Evidence, Creationists Cling to Unreality

 Despite Overwhelming Evidence, Creationists Cling to Unreality

The great Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once wrote — or, rather, sighed — that “creationism is an American institution.”

As an institution, creationism has crossed social strata as easily as it crosses decades. Despite all that science and secularism can do to explain it away, the crusade against evolution — the foundation of modern biology — is as intransigent, and strangely modern in its anti-modernism, as ever. The actor-author-documentarian-presidential speechwriter Ben Stein, with his movie Expelled, has become only the latest in the long line of its media-savvy critics. Today, around half of all Americans prefer creationism, in some form, to the scientific consensus.

Few know this better than Lauri Lebo, author of The Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma v. Darwin in Small-Town America. When the trial over intelligent design theory in Dover, Pennsylvania, caught the attention of the world, Lebo was the lead local reporter covering the case. For her, the controversy was personal as well as professional; as the trial unfolded, she struggled to come to terms with the impending death of her Pentacostal father, desperate for assurance that he would see her in the creationist-only hereafter. In The Devil in Dover, Lebo combines the dramas of family and courtroom into an engrossing story, trading illusions of journalistic objectivity for hard-won personal truths.

Carnival of the Liberals at The Cult of Gracie

The latest edition of Carnival of the Liberals is up at The Cult of Gracie. I am happy to see that my contribution was accepted. Carnival of the Liberals is one of the few blog carnivals I read regularly, along with Carnival of the Godless and the Humanist Symposium.

Interview with Candace Chellew-Hodge, Gay-Friendly Pastor

Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge is the founder/editor of Whosoever, an “online magazine for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Christians.”

She is a self-proclaimed “recovering Southern Baptist.”

Her first book, Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians, will be published this September.

bulletproof.jpg

All this puts her in a rather unique position among Christians — she is both one of the flock and one who goes against a belief that has become almost synonymous with the word “Christian” (that the gay homosexuals must be stopped).

She was kind enough to answer a number of questions regarding her beliefs and attitude:

Hemant Mehta: How do you deal with other religious figures who consider homosexuality an abomination?

Rev. Candace Chellew-Hodge: I try to deal with all of my opponents with love and understanding. I also try to not take their rants against homosexuality personally. It’s not about me. Something about homosexuality sets them off. Something within them is reacting against the idea of homosexuality or a gay Christian. I want to understand what that is, so I try to listen deeply to them. What I mainly hear is fear and pain. They’re afraid of losing their faith and being wrong on some point of faith is scary — it means they may be wrong in other areas. I also hear the pain. Anti-gay Christians do have a deep concern for GLBT people and want to see them come to God. They often resort to repulsive ways of telling us about their concern, but I can still hear that concern and try to respond to them in a loving manner.

In the end, I attempt to look past the hateful words and actions and try to see the humanity in my opponent. If I can model this, perhaps I’ll get the same consideration in return. I treat them as I want them to treat me, whether they return that treatment or not. I don’t want to argue — I want to understand my enemy and in that way, perhaps eliminate one more enemy when we find common ground. We may still disagree about homosexuality, but at least a door has been opened to dialogue.

HM: Is there a generational gap on this issue in the church? In other words, are younger Christians much more likely than older Christians to be open to homosexuality and the belief that they [homosexuals], too, can get into Heaven?

CC-H: I think there is a generation gap going on, but that’s not to say all younger Christians are pro-gay. There are still plenty of anti-gay young people in the church. They’ve been taught by their elders that being gay is sinful, so they embrace that idea without much thought. I think it may be easier to get the younger Christians to change their minds.

I fear that many pro-gay young adults are simply turned off by Christianity because it’s seen as judgmental, hypocritical and anti-gay. I do hope, however, that younger Christians within the church will see the error of their elders and bring the church into a more modern understanding of homosexuality and the Bible.

HM: How do you deal with the portions of the Bible which say homosexuality is a sin? On what authority do you take your interpretation? Is it based on the original intentions of the writers? A more liberal viewpoint?

CC-H: I have yet to find a section in the Bible that says homosexuality is a sin. There is no such passage. What the Bible condemns are some sexual acts between same-sex partners (mainly men). The acts condemned include sexual acts done in the context of temple worship (passages in Leviticus as well as Paul’s mention of same-sex acts fall under this category), use and abuse of another person sexually, pederasty or prostitution (condemned in other New Testament passages like 1 Corinthians 6:9), and rape (which is the entire point of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis). Nowhere does the Bible state that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is sinful — it merely instructs anyone, gay or straight, that any sexual act that does not spring from a place of love, respect and commitment to the other person involved is sinful. There is nothing in the Bible that condemns homosexuality, per se, or condemns sexual conduct between two consenting adults engaged in a loving, monogamous relationship.

The authority of such an interpretation comes from a long line of historical criticism of the Bible. There are plenty of biblical scholars who have come to this position including Bishop John Shelby Spong and Walter Wink. Even conservative commentators like Robert Gagnon are now admitting that the Sodom and Gomorrah story is not about homosexuality, but about inhospitality and rape.

The method of historical criticism seeks to understand each passage in the context of the audience to which it was first written. In that context, knowledge of sexual orientation was lacking — the original audience still believed the woman was merely an incubator and the whole of human life resided in sperm. A notion of sexual orientation was well beyond their grasp. In fact, the word “homosexual” wasn’t coined until 1869, so it could not have been used by biblical writers and was only later used in biblical translations after 1946 when the rise of Communism and the “homosexual menace” began to come into our society’s vernacular. Translators in that time made the decision to use “homosexual” to describe the sinful sexual practices mentioned in the Bible. Not a far stretch since homosexuality was still considered a mental illness. It seemed to make sense that these lustful, sinful acts could simply be covered with the new word “homosexual.” I believe translators are mistaken and were guided by their own internal and political prejudices against gays and lesbians — prejudices that persist today thanks to their decision to insert a fairly recent word and concept into an ancient text.

HM: How do other Christians treat you since you are outspoken in your defense of GLBT Christians and how they can be “saved” without trying to change their orientation?

CC-H: Depends on the Christian. Those who agree with me are glad that I am outspoken. Many in our community are afraid to be outspoken for fear that they’ll face reprisals or attacks from other Christians who disagree. So, they’re happy to have me out there advocating for them in the church.

As for Christians who disagree with me, most of the vitriol I receive comes in the form of hate mail. When face to face, most Christians who disagree with me are very civil and curious about my beliefs. I’ve had good dialogue with many Christians who disagree. Most often we end up still disagreeing, but at least we’ve had some contact. The only angry Christians who disagree are usually the ones who show up at Pride celebrations and want to argue with me. I usually smile and say, “God bless you” and walk away. There’s really no need in arguing with those sorts of Christians.

HM: What arguments can convince other religious people that homosexuality is acceptable to the Christian God?

CC-H: Again, it depends on the Christian in question. For some, like those who paint hateful slogans on signs and go to gay pride parades are really beyond reason. They have so much of their self-identity invested in what they hate that it would take a miracle to turn some of those around. Not to say it can’t happen, but no argument will sway them. Some event would have to happen to give them some sort of epiphany. That’s why I don’t argue with those sorts of Christians. Their hearts and minds are closed. I only hope that by refusing to argue I plant a seed of nonviolence in them that will take root somehow.

As for other Christians, some can be convinced by biblical arguments, but that’s usually a dead end. I believe that religious people’s hearts and minds will change in the same way they changed over the issue of slavery and racism. They will come to realize that discrimination against any group, for any reason, is wrong and condemned by God. Even though slavery is never condemned in the Bible, we condemn it today — even though it goes against “God’s word.” Why? Because our conscience can’t take the thought of owning another human being. We now know, instinctively, that it is wrong. It was arguments from the Bible that convinced us slavery was wrong — since the Bible says it’s right. We changed because we, as humans, came to a deep understanding that freedom is the right of every human being. That change came slower in the church — but you won’t find a church now that thinks slavery is something we should bring back.

This is how we will change society and the church on the issue of homosexuality. We work to raise the conscience of people so they realize that discrimination against a group of people simply because who they love is ridiculous and wrong. Polls are already showing that the younger generation is realizing this. It’s really only a matter of time before society grants full rights to gays and lesbians. The churches will eventually follow suit, with a minority of churches remaining firm in their prejudice (like the Southern Baptists still discriminating against women in ministry).

HM: What is the best way to approach anti-gay Christians?

CC-H: In a non-defensive manner. If we approach anyone spoiling for a fight, we’ll get one. When I encounter anti-gay Christians I try to do a lot of listening, because if you listen to them you begin to understand that their anti-gay stance has nothing to do with you and everything to do with their own fears. They have a fear that if they’re wrong about this part of the Bible, then the whole house of cards that is their faith comes tumbling down. Gay Christians are a challenge to their idea of biblical authority. They don’t want to have to rethink or re-examine their faith, so it’s easier to make the gay Christian wrong than it is to be forced to examine their beliefs.

Having said that, though, not all anti-gay Christians are raving bigots. Many of them have just never met gay people and are simply in need of an education. Extending a hand of friendship and honest dialogue is often the best gesture we can make. Remember, we’re trying to raise the conscience of people — we do that by being open and ready to talk with anyone who will have a constructive and honest dialogue with us.

HM: How long will it take, do you think, until mainstream Christianity adopts more enlightened views on GLBT issues?

CC-H: For some of the more liberal streams of Christianity, I think it will be sooner rather than later. For the more conservative denominations like the Southern Baptists, I don’t know if they ever will. They still struggle with what to do with their women and only within the past few years apologized for their support of slavery.

HM: What can be done about Christian groups that try to “cure” homosexuality?

CC-H: There needs to be a concerted effort to continue to discredit them. Some good work has been done over the years — since most of their “research” into homosexuality has been debunked and their “experts” exorcised from any respectable professional affiliations.

It also needs to be made clear that, to a person, those who claim to be “ex-gay” will all admit they still “struggle” with same-sex attraction. It needs to be emphasized that all that has changed in these people is behavior, not orientation.

HM: Can you blame GLBT people for leaving the faith after being treated so horribly for so long?

CC-H: No, I don’t blame them at all. I left the faith for many years for exactly the same reason. It’s like leaving an abusive relationship — I applaud anyone who gets out of an abusive situation alive and relatively intact.

I am on a mission to help those who left that they don’t have to suffer in an abusive religious situation. There are many safe churches and denominations where they can return to Christianity if they so choose.

My only concern is that those who leave Christianity find something else that fulfills that spiritual side of themselves. I believe we are hardwired to be connected to something greater than ourselves — whether we call it “God,” “the Universe,” “the Holy,” or “no gods.” I love pagans because their rituals are rich with meaning. They don’t have a “god” that they worship, but they have a deep sense of the holy — a deep sense of awe at being alive. That is a deeply spiritual connection — deeper than most Christians I know.

I explored many faiths — Buddhism, Taoism and the like. I found much of value in each tradition, but returned to Christianity because its traditions and rituals are what connects me to the divine, the holy. It’s where I find my sense of awe. I want all GLBT people to find that place where they connect in that way. It doesn’t have to be in Christianity.

HM: At what age do you feel Christian children (or children in general) should learn about sexual orientation and GLBT people?

CC-H: I think it should be taught as early as possible that some people pair up as boy/girl and others pair up as girl/girl or boy/boy and there’s nothing wrong with that as long as the relationship is based in love. Sexual matters don’t need to be discussed until later in life when they can handle that information, but the concept of two people loving one another, regardless of gender mix, should be taught from birth!

HM: Do you think the whole LGBT issue with the church is simply part of a larger rift between strict literalistic interpretations of the Bible and more open liberal interpretations?

CC-H: The GLBT issue is completely about biblical authority. If the literalists lose it’s just another battle they’ve lost over biblical authority. They argued for the rightness of slavery — because God blesses it all through the Bible. They argued for the rightness of racism because God’s word tells us to separate the races. They argued for the rightness of the subjugation of women because the Bible says women can’t be ordained, should never teach a man and keep quiet in church. They have lost all of these arguments about biblical authority and they’ll be damned if they’re going to lose another. So, they’re fighting tooth and nail. They’re losing and they know it, which is why they are fighting so hard right now.

HM: How successful have you been in your quest to change the minds of anti-gay Christians?

CC-H: That’s hard to quantify. I get plenty of emails from folks who say they once believed GLBT people were condemned but have changed their minds, perhaps because of something I’ve written or said. Whosoever, the online magazine I run, receives more than half a million visitors each year and I only hear from a fraction of them. I think I’d be shocked at how many lives I’ve touched over the years. I can only hope that I have planted seeds of change in the hearts of many anti-gay Christians — because the only way we can change hearts and minds is one person at a time.

If you’re interested in exploring these issues more deeply, her book will be out soon and you can pre-order it now.

Feel free to leave follow-up questions in the comments and I will be sure to pass them along.

Share This

Perspective

This is a rather atypical post for the Rude Pundit, probably cause it wasn't written by the rude one. But as bemoan my personal situation its nice (in a fucked up sorta way) to remember that for the problems I have, my life is still pretty damn good. I couldn't ask for, or even imagine a better family than the one I have, my friends are the shit they would do anything within their limited means if I needed it. I've got a job, its not a very good job but it pays the bills with a little bit left over. I'm poor by American standards which still probably puts me in the top like 80% for the world. I'm overweight but I'm pretty damn healthy otherwise, the only long term meds I've ever been on is an asthma inhaler which I never use. Most people like me, I don't have any enemies. I've never killed anyone, I've never been arrested. Overall my life really is pretty good, I just wish I had someone to share it with. Joy is the one thing that gets bigger when you split it. Well joy and that broom in Fantasia, or mini-ash from Army of Darkness.



P.S. Fuck Captcha - Again

19 Yr. Old Boy Beaten in Liverpool, England in Vicious Hate Crime

michael-causer-whiston.jpgMichael Causer, a 19-year-old teen was beaten viciously in what police are calling an anti-gay hate attack on Friday, July 25, 2008.   He remains in critical condition after requiring brain surgery as a result of the attack.   His family notes that Michael is a rather small kid who “wouldn’t hurt a fly.”

3 Suspects have been arrested in the crime and details of the attack should emerge with time.   In the meanwhile, my thoughts and hopes go out to Michael, his family and the community around him.   Hate crimes create victims far beyond those attack.   Now others in the community will live in fear of this happening to them.

Hat tip to Ex-Gay Watch.

Please join the facebook group in Support of this young lad!

The Natural Realm Implies Naturalism

One of Ray Comfort’s little evangelistic tricks is his use of the word “creation” to describe the universe itself, which both sides can agree exist, so that he can (1) define God into existence, and (2) belittle atheists for not seeing the “obvious.” It’s a meme that all of us Raytractors have come across repeatedly: “Creation implies a creator.”

But consider this: we could just as easily call the universe “the natural realm,” which defines metaphysical naturalism into existence, and belittle Ray for not seeing the obvious.

(Ray might respond that the word “universe” means “one word,” which implies the existence of a Speaker. But when using the word “universe,” I no more mean to say “that which is spoken by God” than Ray, when saying “bless you” to someone who has sneezed, means to say “you appear to have the Black Plague, please keep your distance.”)

So we can both do a service to our respective theories depending on what term we use for the universe. Ray can say it implies a creator, I can say it implies naturalism. But who’s actually correct? Whose theory does the universe we observe confirm?

To answer that, let’s look at what each of our theories predicts and compare those predictions to what we observe, keeping score along the way.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which Earth and humans are the main feature, the basic reason for it existing in the first place.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which neither humans nor their homeworld are anything special in the grand scheme of things.
What we observe: A universe in which humans and their world are lost among countless trillions of stars; not only are we not the center of the universe, we can’t even see the center of the universe, being so far away.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 1.

Christianity predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe and the beginning of humans are seperated by a matter of days.
Naturalism predicts: A universe in which the beginning of the universe adn the beginning of humans are seperated by vast periods of time, millions or billions of years, it taking that long for life to develop from inanimate matter through natural processes.
What we observe: A universe that has been around for about 14 billion years, but a human species that has only been around for several thousand.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 2.

Christianity predicts: A human race created by as simple and efficient a means as an extremely powerful spiritual essence could manage.
Naturalism predicts: Life arising, if at all, through some sort of chemical “code” which copies itself and is subject to mutation so as to be able to change form from inanimate to animate matter.
What we observe: Billions of years of evolution, and DNA.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 3.

Christianity predicts: Intelligent minds which, being made of spirit (whatever that is), exist and function completely independently of any physical body.
Naturalism predicts: Any mind which exists is made of the same stuff as the universe and biological life, and therefore suffers from the same limitations and drawbacks as that stuff.
What we observe: Intelligent minds are produced by a physical machine, the human brain; by altering the physical state of this brain, we can change the mind itself.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 4.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who is powerful enough and knowledgable enough to prevent human suffering, and who loves them and cares about them enough to do so.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: The existence of enormous amounts of unprevented suffering.
Score: Ray 0, atheists 5.

Christianity predicts: The existence of a being who has a specific and vitally important message for mankind, namely the gospel message, and is powerful enough to deliver that message individually to each and every human.
Naturalism predicts: No such being necessarily exists.
What we observe: Widespread unawareness of the gospel message, and equally widespread reasonable nonbelief therein.
Score Ray 0, atheists 6.

With some creative work, any theory, including Christianity, can be modified to become compatible with these observations, but that proves nothing unless the modifications themselves are independently proven. For example, Joe killing Steve is inconsistent with the proposition “Joe is a morally good person.” A Joe-apologist could modify that theory to state that Steve had a nuclear bomb, was about to detonate it in the middle of a city, and that killing him was the only way to stop him. But the fact that the theory is able to be modified in such a way is, by itself, insufficient to salvage the “Joe is good” theory; we would have to have independent confirmation that Steve had a nuke, that he was about to detonate it, and that Joe’s only option was indeed to kill Steve.

Therefore, if the Christian wanted to solve the problem of, say, the vast size of the universe by saying that God had some important reason for creating trillions upon trillions of light years of apparently empty space for a universe created especially for humans, that would not prove anything — not unless the Christian could prove, to the same standard of proof as the original question, that such a desire on God’s part actually exists. He can’t.

Similarly, any attempt to make God compatible with suffering by citing, say, free will fails unless accompanied by (1) a logical proof that a world in which all beings freely make choices that avoid suffering is impossible, (2) some sort of proof of the existence of Satan or whatever malevolent entity is responsible for natural suffering, and (3) some sort of proof of the existence of a desire on God’s part that all beings have free will, and that his desire that this obtain is greater than his maximal love for us. These must all be proved independently — both from one another and from the original theory that God exists in the first place — and to within the same standard of proof as the original theory. Needless to say, this has not been done.

So there you have it. The natural realm implies naturalism — and this is so obvious that Ray and the Raybots are fools for not seeing it. Now let’s look at how this meme defeats Ray’s meme:

Q: Doesn’t a builder imply a builder?

A: Is there any building in New York City that was built by a discorporeal spirit? In Chicago? In Moscow? Tokyo? Sydney? Cape Town? Bellweather, CA? Of course not — all buildings were built by physical beings who arose by natural processes.

Q: Doesn’t a painter imply a painter?

A: Was the Mona Lisa painted by a ghost? Starry Night? The Last Supper? No, they were all painted by humans. Physical beings. Natural beings.

Q: Doesn’t creation imply a creator?

A: Christians and atheists disagree on whether the universe is a creation — in the sense that it was created by an intelligent being — but there is a set of objects — buildings, painters, cars, etc. — that we do agree are creations. Can the Christian name one of those objects, just one of them, that was created by something other than a finite physical being? Of course he can’t!

So if the universe is a creation by an intelligent being, then all the evidence suggests that the creator of the universe is some sort of finite physical being as well, and none of the evidence suggests the contrary.

Therefore, the universe was caused to exist either by a natural person or by impersonal natural processes — consistent with the predictions of naturalism, contradictory to the predictions of Christianity.

Score: Ray 0, atheists 7.

The natural realm implies naturalism. QED.

Crackergate Aftermath

A week ago PZ Myers asked everyone to email the president of UCF to complain / voice concerns over the handling of students Webster Cook and Benjamin Collard. I sent a short email, along with a few other hundred people. Today I received this response:

Thank you for your e-mail.

Laws regarding student privacy prevent us from commenting about
individual UCF students. But, in general terms, when a student allegedly
violates student rules of conduct, his or her student account is placed
on hold.

The student is notified of this action and informed that the hold will
not prevent registration for classes. A student is allowed to register
after making a request to release the hold. The Office of Student
Conduct follows this procedure for any student who is referred to it.

More information about the entire Golden Rule and the student conduct
process is available on our Web site, www.ucf.edu. Please be assured
that UCF is committed to following its standard procedures to ensure
fair outcomes in all student conduct review cases.

Additionally, it is the university’s policy to treat all people with
dignity and respect, without regard to race, creed, color, national
origin, religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual
orientation, veteran status, or political opinions and affiliations.

Amy J. Barnickel
Senior Executive Assistant to the President

From Promise to Prominence:
Celebrating 40 Years

Of course its the standard copy/paste response that was probably sent to everyone, but it’s the last paragraph that confuses me. Firstly I’m happy that Cook and Collard are not going to suffer any setbacks in their education because of this, but the so called “policy” outlined in the last paragraph clearly states

without regard to race, creed, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, veteran status, or political opinions and affiliations.

Clearly the university is going against its own policy by regarding the religion of others over the individual. If the policy actually counted for anything, this whole issue would have been brushed aside as “free expression”, the same as any political statement or opinion. The UCF need to stop bowing to demands of evil religious organisations and start thinking of their students.

Related Posts:

Μέρα της Λίνουξαρτησίας

Σε περίπτωση που δεν το ακούσατε ακόμα, τo πρώτο Lindependence τελείωσε με επιτυχία. Για μια μικρή πόλη στις Η.Π.Α. τα αποτελεσματα ήταν πολύ θετικά και η προσωπική μου άποψη είναι ότι θα βοηθήσει στην “word-of-mouth” διαφήμιση του GNU/Linux όσον αφορα το desktop.

Ο λόγος όμως που γράφω αυτό το κείμενο δεν είναι απλά για να διαφημίσω αυτή την πολύ σωστή κίνηση αλλά για να επιστήσω την προσοχή σας στο πόσο πολύ το αγνόησε η κοινότητα του Λίνουξ.

Απο μεγάλους κόμβους στόν τεχνολογικό κόσμο (Slashdot, O’Reilly) μέχρι αφοσιομένες στο Gnu/Linux ιστοσελίδες (Linux Journal, FSF), η αντίδραση ήταν μια απαθής αδιαφορία! Πέρα απο μερικά σημεία όπως το LXer, σχεδόν πουθενά αλλού δεν είδα, αν όχι ενθουσιασμό, τουλάχιστον μια απλή ανακοίνωση. Αντίθετως πολλοί είναι αυτοί που συγκεκριμένα απέφυγαν να το ανακοινώσουν.

Το όλο θέμα είναι λυπηρό. Είμαστε μια (σχετικά) μικρή και αποκεντροποιημένη κοινότητα που δεν έχουμε κανένα άλλο για υποστήριξη εκτώς απο τα μέλη μας. Είναι εντελός αντι-διαισθητικό να κινούμαστε σε τέτοιες κατευθύνσεις μόνο και μόνο επειδή δεν συμφωνούμε με τις πρωτοβουλίες που παίρνουν οι άλλοι. Ειδικά τα μεγάλα μέλη ενημέρωσης για οτιδήποτε Λίνουξ θα πρέπει να είναι αγνωστικά στο τι παρουσιάζουν σαν νέα, εφόσον έχουν να κάνουν με το θέμα.

Δεν υπάρχει κανένας λόγος να μην αναφέρουν, έστω και αν συντομία, οτι η Μέρα Λινουξαρτησίας “θα γίνει την Τάδε μέρα” ή ότι “έγινε με επιτυχία”. Κανένας. Το να μην το αναφέρεις καν είναι μια ένδειξη μικρότητας και συμφωνώ με αυτούς που πιστεύουν οτι η ζηλεία είναι ο υπαίτιος. Γιατί δεν το κατάφεραν οι ίδιοι…

Όπως τα έφεραν οι εξελίξεις, ο Ήλιος (Helios) και οι συνεργάτες του τα κατάφεραν μια χαρά αλλά η ελειψη οποιασδήποτε βοήθειας έβλαψε αρκετά τον ενθουσιασμό τους. Ελπίζω μόνο να συνεχίσουν με τον ίδιο ρυθμό και να μην το βάλουν κάτω γιατί πραγματικά εμπνέουν πολλούς μας αλλά και το γεγονός οτι κάνουν την θεωρία πράξη μπορεί να αλλάξει και γνώμες.

Με αλληλεγγύη…


If you liked this post, you might also enjoy: Άθεοι του Nexus | Final Email | Ubuntu trend slowly overcomes XP

Vulture Antandre

Image Source

Turkey vultures have recently taken to perching on downtown St. Paul buildings, according to a reliable park ranger friend of mine.

This amusingly coincides with the first round of republicans arriving for next month's National Convention. Are the vultures expressing some kind of kinship? Are dead bodies being left on the roofs? ...

While vultures are a common site along the Mississippi River in Minneapolis and St. Paul, this is the first I've heard of them perching in groups on buildings downtown. Bizarre coincidence?

Skeptic’s Circle 92


The 92nd skeptic’s olympiad is being held this year at The Lay Scientist. Unlike the real olympics, this one doesn’t come with censored internet.

Darwin: The Evolution Revolution

  My how time flies. It was almost four months ago that the The Evolution Revolution opened at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) here in Toronto. The ROM is only ten minutes from my office so I wasn't in any particular rush to see the exhibit. After all, it wasn't going to close until August 4th. Now August 4th is almost here and I still hadn't made the effort—until yesterday, that is. Ms.

Evolving snake fangs