Monthly Archive for November, 2009Page 2 of 88

A Looooooong But Spirited Job Search

Published

on November 30, 2009

I write today from an airport terminal (follow my tweets if you want more personal detail). I am on my way to yet another on-campus interview.

The job search is an interesting challenge to endure. It’s a tough market, student affairs is a narrow field, and I’m holding out for specific kinds of jobs within that narrow field. I’m pretty lucky, because I can afford to do that.

Days like today can be extremely draining. It’s an interesting phenomenon to experience: spending more time getting to and from the place you’re going than the amount of time you actually spend there. It’s not a habit I want to keep, but it’s something I’m getting used to. Flying has become more routine than I ever thought it would be in my life, and I do my best to ignore the huge carbon footprint that results.

It’s tough. I keep hearing the unemployment numbers go up. In one light, it’s distressing. The market’s not getting better yet! I could soon be at placement conferences competing for jobs with 2010 grads, contemplating poetic ways to explain how I’ve spent the time since. I could talk about how proud I am of my blog. I could talk about taking a break to refresh myself before the next big phase of my life. There is truth in both of those stories, but the real truth is: I’m just holding out for a job that either fits my interests or helps me work towards a job that does!

At the same time, life is not so distressing. The unemployment numbers are also strangely comforting. I’m not alone. People are in the same boat I am. The problem isn’t me. When I talk to my similarly well-qualified colleagues who are also struggling to find a job, we are able to keep each others’ spirits up. Some of us have adopted an attitude of, “Well, we’ve waited this long, we can hold out for the right fit instead of just desperately taking any job we can get.” We remind each other how much respect we have for each others’ talents and motivations and encourage each other with how honored we’d be to share an office with such fine professionals (as ourselves). It sounds kind of egotistic, but it works. It’s gets us through this Purgatory of job searching.

Days like today are extremely exhausting. I will have spent close to nine hours in (four) airports and (three) planes by the time I reach my destination today, and then I’ll have dinner with members of the search committee, which means I need to be energetic and enthusiastic. I will be, of course! Because, as stressful as traveling can be, it has important significance. I’m a competitive candidate. I wouldn’t be flying all over the place if universities didn’t think I had something to offer. That’s the feeling that matters most.

After this long, that kind of self-motivation seems to still be sustainable. I hope it continues to be, because it’s not over until it’s over.

Republicans want to purify their lunacy yet further

Published

Pharyngula

on November 30, 2009

Hang on here—the same wingnuts who are up in arms about the University of Minnesota proposing to screen out bigots from teaching are proposing an ideological litmus test for their own party?

Ten members of the Republican National Committee are proposing a resolution demanding candidates embrace at least eight of 10 conservative principles if they hope to receive financial support and an official endorsement from the RNC. The "Proposed RNC Resolution on Reagan's Unity Principle for Support of Candidates," is designed to force candidates to prove that they support "conservative principles" while opposing "Obama's socialist agenda," according to The New York Times' Caucus blog. The proposal highlights the ongoing tug-of-war for the ideological soul of the Republican party, and has been met with skepticism both inside and outside of the party.

While I'm sympathetic to the idea that a political party should have some principles, the ones they are pushing seem ideal for marginalizing Republicans even further as the party of kooks. Case in point: anyone who talks about "Obama's socialist agenda" cannot be taken seriously. Obama is a moderate-to-conservative centrist! Does no one know anything of Eugene Debs? There was a socialist American.

Read the comments on this post...

Comic: The New Witchcraft

Published

Brother Richard

on November 30, 2009

It has been awhile since I picked on the anti-vaccine wackos. Since my whole family has now been immunized against H1N1, I thought I would post this awesome comic:

Click image to enlarge.

Get the facts about the safety of the H1N1 vaccine here.

Brother Richard

Climate Change Poll

Published

Edward Baker

on November 30, 2009

Do it!

"I've seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."

Get your geek on for Thursday

Published

Pharyngula

on November 30, 2009

I'm going to be opening my mouth again on Thursday in Minneapolis — I'll be giving a talk in MCB 3-120 on the Minneapolis campus at 7:30 on Thursday, 3 December. This will be open to the public, and it will also be an all-science talk, geared for a general audience. I'd say they were going to check your nerd credentials at the door, but just showing up means you're already fully qualified.

The subject of the talk is my 3 big interests: a) evolution, or how we got here over multiple generations, b) development, or how we got here in a single generation, and c) the nervous system, the most complicated tissue we have. I intend to give a rough outline of how nervous tissue works, how it is assembled into a working brain, and how something so elaborate could have evolved. All in one hour. Wheee!

Afterwards, we'll be joining the CASH gang for refreshments, somewhere. They haven't told me yet where, but I know they're fond of pizza.

Read the comments on this post...

When the Bible & Science Differ…

Published

Daniel Florien

on November 30, 2009

When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.

—Henry Morris (founder of Institute for Creation Research)

Secular Criticism of the Bible. SBL meeting report.

Published

Dr. Jim

on November 30, 2009

Thanks to Hector Avalos who chaired the initial meeting concerning secular biblical studies at the SBL meeting in New Orleans. He has just posted his official report and there are some very interesting developments. A draft went around last week, but some of these developments are now confirmed. Here is a cut and paste:

~~~~~~~~

Dear colleagues,

What follows is a brief report of our meeting to explore the feasibility of establishing a group that would focus on non-religious approaches to biblical studies.

Time and Place: Saturday, November 21, 6:45pm-8:15pm in Conference Room Studio 6 of the Marriott Hotel in New Orleans, LA.

Attendance: Kenneth Atkinson, Hector Avalos (moderator of meeting), Zeba Crook, Stephanie Fisher, Jim Linville, John Loftus, Ken Pulliam, Frank Zindler.

The meeting began with introductions, and a description of the goals that such a group should have. Two basic positions were identified: (1) an activist position that would focus on direct challenges to religion and/or the Bible; (2) a non-activist position that would focus on scholarship from a non-religious approach. A compromise of sorts was reached by focusing on scholarship that could both challenge religionist biases and ideas in biblical studies in a scholarly and non-hostile manner, and also contribute original scholarship that would be distinctive of a non-religious approach.

The participants agreed to pursue a two-track approach to establishing the group. One track would focus on preparing the proposal necessary to establish a new unit within the SBL. By a vote of 8-0, the proposed name of the unit chosen was “Secular Criticism of the Bible” consultation/group. However, the establishment of a new unit in the SBL is a long process that might take 2-5 years before the first session would be scheduled in an Annual Meeting of the SBL.

Accordingly, second track was adopted that would work with an existing SBL unit, preferably the Ideological Criticism Section, and propose sessions on non-religious approaches to biblical studies. Such sessions could be scheduled as early as next year. These sessions also would help to draw people interested in working with the first track.

The final main item of discussion was a proposed session for next year within the Ideological Criticism Section. The group agreed to have a session, titled tentatively “Secular Biblical Criticism and Introductions to the Bible.” The session would examine and critique the current textbooks used in introductory courses to the Bible, and invite a respondent, preferably an author of one of those introductions. Participants agreed to work on ideas for individual papers that would then form a coherent set for a session. The session would also address the question of what a secular Introduction to the Bible would look like.

No decisions were made on a steering committee for our group, and who would be in it. I will check with the requirements of the SBL before further action on this.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

On Monday, November 23, 2009, Hector Avalos attended the business meeting of the Ideological Criticism Section, which is co-chaired by Randy Reed. One result is that Avalos has been added to the steering committee of the Ideological Criticism Section. A second result is that a session of the Ideological Criticism Section for next year is scheduled to include one on our proposed topic mentioned above (“Secular Biblical Criticism and Introductions to the Bible” ). This will be an invited panel, and Randy Reed will soon be making the relevant announcement in the Call for Papers for next year’s Ideological Criticism Section meeting in Atlanta.

NEXT STEPS

Papers for the invited session in the Ideological Criticism Section should probably be formulated within the next few weeks. We might envision one paper that would give a brief overview on Introductions to the Bible and/or 3-4 papers that would focus on individual themes in Introductions (e.g., historical, literary, theological biases, etc.). Respondents would be sought from authors of Introductions, and these might include Bart Ehrman, Michael Coogan, James Crossley, and Barry Bandstra.

All in all, I think we made some good progress, including a planned session for next year’s SBL meeting in Atlanta. Thanks again for your interest and support.

~~~~~~~~

Basic maths….

Published

Edward Baker

on November 30, 2009

Do you see anything wrong with the pie chart in this video? I hope so.

Australian Government Gives Millions for Religious Conference, None for Atheist Conference

Published

Hemant Mehta

on November 30, 2009

The Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc. and Atheist Alliance International are hosting a Global Atheist Convention in 2010. It’s going to be awesome, not just for the participants, but for the state of Victoria.

With possibly over 2,000 attendees, that’s a big chunk of tourism change coming into the region.

It makes sense, then, that the convention leaders would apply for $250,000 in funding from the Labor Government — not because of the religion aspect of it, but because this is good for Australia, and they give away money for this sort of thing.

How did that turn out?

President of AFA, David Nicholls, explains:

… it appears we “do not meet the criteria” for funding, (though we were recently led to believe that having reached ticket sales of 1000, funding was more or less assured). Indeed, we’re rather puzzled that the State Government held on to an application that didn’t meet its criteria for five months. It’s also puzzling that the Parliament of the World’s Religions, a similar gathering, in the same venue starting on December 3, involving a similar exchange of philosophical views qualifies for $4.5 million of government funds – more than 16 times the amount requested for the Global Atheist Convention.

$4,500,000 for a religious conference that could bring in about 5,000 attendees.

$0 for the atheists and their 2,000.

I didn’t know the Australian government was that bad at math. Someone should teach them about ratios and proportions.

I’d also like to know what criteria is not being met by the atheists. The articles I’ve read say the atheists didn’t meet it, without getting into any specifics.

(Thanks to Chrys for the link!)

Swiss vote for a minaret ban – and Muslims, not surprisingly, are incensed

Published

Barry Duke

on November 30, 2009

No doubt angry mobs from Cairo to Karachi will be furiously putting together little square red flags with white crosses for their ‘spontaneous’ displays of anger and grievance, and no doubt the Islamic world’s leaders will call for an immediate boycott of all Swiss goods, except of course the banks, which are vital and necessary in their campaign against the Zionists.

Those are the words of the Telegraph’s Ed West, who sees the surprise result of the weekend referendum supporting the minaret ban as a victory for democracy.

There are just four minarets in Switzerland

But I had to part company with West when he claimed that, if we had “true” democracy in the UK, we would now have returned to capital punishment.

According to the BBC, more than 57 percent of voters and 22 out of 26 cantons – or provinces – voted in favour of the ban.

It was proposed by the Swiss People’s Party, (SVP), the largest party in Parliament, which insists minarets are a sign of Islamisation. The government opposed the ban, saying it would harm Switzerland’s image, particularly in the Muslim world. In a statement, the government said it accepted the decision. It said:

The Federal Council (government) respects this decision. Consequently the construction of new minarets in Switzerland is no longer permitted.

Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf added:

Concerns [about Islamic fundamentalism] have to be taken seriously. However, a ban on the construction of new minarets is not a feasible means of countering extremist tendencies.

She sought to reassure Swiss Muslims, saying the decision was not:

A rejection of the Muslim community, religion or culture.

Switzerland is home to some 400,000 Muslims – but just four minarets.

After Christianity, Islam is the most widespread religion in Switzerland, but it remains relatively hidden.

Supporters of a ban claimed that allowing minarets would represent the growth of an ideology and a legal system – Sharia law – which are incompatible with Swiss democracy.

But others say the referendum campaign incited hatred. Last Thursday the Geneva mosque was vandalised for the third time during the campaign, according to local media.

Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.

The president of Zurich’s Association of Muslim Organisations, Tamir Hadjipolu, told the BBC:

This will cause major problems because during this campaign mosques were attacked, which we never experienced in 40 years in Switzerland. Islamaphobia has increased intensively.

And Farhad Afshar, President of the Coordination of Islamic Organisations in Switzerland, said:

The most painful thing for us is not the ban on minarets but the symbol sent by this vote. Muslims do not feel accepted as a religious community.

UPDATE: Check out how “prominent Muslim scholar” Dr Zakir Naik justifies the building of Islamic places of worship in Western countries, while supporting the prohibition of other religions having a presence in Muslim countries. Then decide whether or not the Swiss vote was a bad thing.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Other War on Christmas: an academic perspective

Published

Dr. Jim

on November 30, 2009

No, this post isn’t about attempts to eliminate all references to religious ideas from public acknowledgement of the holidays. Its about something far more insidious than that. It is about being an academic at Christmas and all the university crap that needs to be done while family and friends with their own views on what needs to be done.

First of all, one must wrap up the fall semester. There are essays to grade, exams to make up, exams to grade, panicked students to counsel, paperwork to be shuffled and what not. Then there is going through all the darn textbooks for next semester’s courses, planning the darn thing, making up the syllabus, changing it, changing it back, giving up and starting over. And then one must get some research done.

In addition to that, there are Christmas parties, Christmas shopping, Christmas travelling, and all the usual frustrations that brings. Of course, the big meal, the prezzies, the fun is, well, fun. And it is nice to see family and what not. But somewhere in all of this a hell of a lot of work has to get done and there isn’t a lot of time to get it done. The thing that gets me is that I’m usually pretty tired from the past semester and just need time to rest. If a lot of travelling is in the picture rest is something that is at a premium.

Compounding all of this is the totally aggravating schedule the U. of Lethbridge follows. We did not start our Fall semester until around the 9th of September! Don’t ask me why. They had New Student Orientation at the end of one week, and never started classes until the Wednesday or Thursday of the week following. At the other end of the term, our last class is on Dec. 11 and the exam period goes to Dec. 21! The Admin offices will close at noon on the 24th, so that doesn’t give a lot of time to grade exams.

Fortunately for me, my two exams are on the 14th and 17th this year. The odd schedule does actually impact how some profs with a late exam actually assess their students. Fewer essay questions and more, easy to mark, multiple choice etc. Some classes scheduled for the last day have up to 65 students in them (and perhaps more, 65 is one that I know of). First day of classes in the New Year is January 6. Yeesh!

I know I’m not alone in thinking this way. For academics the Christmas “Holiday” is anything but.

Disease & My Luddite Son

Published

Sabio Lantz

on November 30, 2009

The Luddite Fallacy & Economics

The Luddite fallacy is the belief that labor-saving technologies cause unemployment.

The fallacy of this belief is that though indeed labor-saving technology does take away someone’s job, it also creates many more jobs to compensate for the job loss. The word developed in the 1800s when knitting machines first came out and knitters began to lose their jobs. But as production increased, prices fell and with more purchases, other industries prospered and more jobs were created.

The fallacy was named after Ned Lud who was a weaver who damaged some looms and was later fictionalized into the leader of the movement to resist the mechanization of looms.

The Luddite fallacy is not a classic fallacy but instead it is a common mistaken economic assumption. Indeed the challenge of understanding economics is to see beyond many common economics intuitions which are wrong. The same is true when trying to understand religion — our intuition modules do not reveal extremely trustworthy conclusions. As I have often written, the human mind is not built to understand complicated truths.

Ludditism & Vaccines

On Sunday morning, I took my son (9 years old — 4th grade) to a local coffee shop at 7 a.m. For our first 30 minutes, we agreed that he would read his book on Dragons and I would read mine on Kant. Then we broke out our new, fun, award-winning, board game of Pentago (he beat me), and next he played an on-line educational game of Pandemic II while I went back to Kant. The player’s goal in Pandemic II is to build an organism which can annihilate all humans on the planet. Meanwhile, the program is trying to stop you by having humans build a vaccine. It sounds like a bad game for children but it has many redemptive features. For instance, it ironically it helps the player learn how to avoid disease by how it spreads and how dangerous it is. It also teaches lots of great biology terms, evolutionary concepts and global public health issues.

After playing Pandemic II for a while, my son sat with me and chatted. He said, “You know Dad, vaccines could become bad if we become too good at them. If we start wiping out disease, lots of people will lose their jobs.” I laughed but quickly thanked him for his thoughtfulness because he worried that I (his Dad, as a health care worker) would lose my job if there were no disease and suffering. I told him how this was sort of a Luddite fallacy. We looked up Luddites on Wiki and he actually understood the fallacy.

“Yes, if disease is wiped out, many people would lose their jobs, but many other jobs would take their place as we prospered more” I told him. He understood, but bless his heart, he persisted in his argument. He still felt rather sympathetic with disease and defended it saying further, “But without disease we would have too many humans on the planet and that would make life worse for everyone.”

With this, my son showed he understood the Hindu understanding of Shiva as the blessed destructive side of the Godhead. Should I worry and start saving up for his future therapist? Should I stop letting him play Pandemic? Or maybe I will just enjoy the ride as I watch as his interesting and creative mind keeps unfolding !

Appleyard must be fishing for more traffic

Published

Pharyngula

on November 30, 2009

I am deeply, horribly ashamed. On the principle that one's reputation is known by the quality of one's enemies…I have the pathetic Bryan Appleyard acting as if he is my nemesis. You know a post is worthless when it begins with "Please note that at the end of this post P.Z.Myers will still be a jerk and I still won't be," and then goes downhill from there. But then, Andrew Sullivan thinks there's some substance to Appleyard's bilious nonsense, so I tried hard to see if there was some reasonable argument somewhere in his pouty whine. There isn't; it's mostly excuses for why his science writing is such godawful tripe and wrong-headed babble.

His big point, if he has one, is that evolution has become an ideology. In that he shares common ground with the ideologues of the Discovery Institute, and also reveals that he doesn't know anything about science.

The big point is that […]ideology has migrated from politics to religion and science. This is bad for religion and very bad for science. The minor reason it's bad for science is it generates public confusion and mistrust. So, for example, mention intelligent design and the likes of Myers will be hurling abuse. But I gather from reading John Gribbin's superb exposition In Search of the Multiverse that ID is, in fact, a perfectly respectable hypothesis among some physicists - the designer would not be a deity but a more technically advanced civilisation. So the world is 'designed' then? 'No!' howls Myers; 'Maybe,' murmur the physicists.

ID is also a perfectly respectable hypothesis among some biologists — the ones on the crank side of the spectrum. Most of the physicists I know are fairly sensible on the matter, and reject Intelligent Design creationism; the physicists aren't murmuring "Maybe," they're walking quietly away from loons like Appleyard.

I thought Gribbin's book was awful. Basically, he believes that if there are multiple universes, then all things are possible…and that maybe our universe is the creation of semi-god-like beings in another universe. This is not convincing. It's simply deistic wishful thinking. Citing Gribbin as representative of common thought in the physics community is a bad idea.

It also misses the point. Sure, you can invent science fiction scenarios — the Big Bang was a science experiment in a grander metaverse, life was concocted in an alien laboratory and inoculated into our oceans 4 billion years ago — but these fantasies ignore the reality. Life was not designed, because we have the evidence of the processes that formed it and we see the relationships in living forms today. Appleyard is comparing hypothetical speculation about gaps in our knowledge with the concrete facts of life's evolution on earth and pretending that his guesswork about physics is as good as the solid body of evidence in the scientific literature…of which he is completely oblivious.

This isn't ideology. It's the simple, plain fact that we can see in the molecules of our body our relationship to the weirdest marine annelid you can find, and that we can trace eons of history without invoking a single angelic intervention, yet can still explain in rough outline our origins. We are the progeny of worms, not clever cosmonauts from another dimension. Any physicist who tries to argue that ID is 'respectable' is an arrogant ignoramus with no knowledge of biology; even Gribbin is not arguing for intelligent design, but for a rather fuzzy version of pseudoscientific deism.

Not that Appleyard would be able to tell the difference. He's a fellow whose mind is as muddled as a plate of scrambled eggs, and he thinks this is a virtue.

I was in the middle of writing on Friday when I noticed, as if for the first time, a habit of mine. For pace and economy I often set up a point of view without reservation or comment from me. Thus, for example, 'Hitler was right. Arnold Bonkers says....'. This seems to confuse people. Furthermore, I tend to write hybrid pieces - typically about 20 per cent column and 80 per cent news feature. The latter involves transmission of information, but not for the purpose of illustrating my own approval of disapproval of something or other. This further confuses people. On top of that, I had to shorten the Darwin piece that all this fuss was about by about 40 per cent at the last minute. It happens. This required me to tighten up my economy and pace habit even further. This definitely confuses people.
To be clear: I have no problem with the plausibility and coherence of a Darwinian explanation of the development of the eye. Indeed, to be honest, I don't care one way or another: it's not on my agenda or within my realm of competence, though I do regard myself as free to report the views of those who do find it unconvincing.

So evolution isn't within his 'realm of competence,' and he has just noticed that his writing style is confusing, but he insists on writing about the subject. That's a plain admission that a) he's ignorant, and b) his writing sucks. Which is what I've been saying all along.

At last! We agree on something!

Read the comments on this post...

Aggressive Atheism

Published

Ian

on November 30, 2009

Aggressive Atheism by Pat Condell

Published

on November 30, 2009

Mary’s Monday Metazoan: Eye of the gecko

Published

Pharyngula

on November 30, 2009

Read the comments on this post...

Gang Rape, etc.

Published

Edward Baker

on November 30, 2009

Over at Dwindling in Unbelief Steve takes a look at Judges 19. Can anyone explain why this story made it to the final cut?

A God of Obsessions

Published

Ebonmuse

on November 30, 2009

In the books of the Torah, Yahweh devotes entire chapters to explaining in exacting detail what kind of animal sacrifices he expects from his people. The one common thread, repeatedly emphasized, is that the animals to be slaughtered must be "without blemish":"And this is the thing that thou shalt do unto them to hallow them, [...]