Monthly Archive for July, 2011

Sunday Best

That is actually me, second from the right, all dressed up for church in my Sunday best.   My cousins sport the hats while my brothers wear the goofy smiles.  We were dressed up like little men ready to make our parents proud.   I didn’t mind looking good for my Mom but I hated when she would try to wet down my cowlick with her spit in the middle of the service.

The next picture is of my parents (on the right) with my aunt, my uncle and my grandparents.  We were all getting ready to go worship the Lord!

Well that was the 1960s.

Fifty years later, on a hot August Sunday morning, my daughter and I (not being the church goin’ types)  did a fun bike trip through our quaint riverside town.  During our trip we passed a church that had just let out from service and the congregation was out on the lawn in their Sunday best — suits, elaborate dresses, jewelry, big hats and fancy shoes.  Sure, the styles have changed, but the intent is the same.

My nine-year-old daughter asked me,  ”Dad, why are they all dressed up like that?” and I replied, “Well, they probably tell their kids that it is to show respect to God because their god likes to see them dressed up.  But really, sweetheart, they just dress up for each other.  She gave me a big smile as we rode on by.

Request from readers: Send me a picture of yourself in your Sunday best (a serious picture) and I will add it to the post (if appropriate).


A Critical Thinking Course You Just Won’t Believe

I asked and received permission to share the following story. I was told that was fine, so long as I withheld the student's last name, which I am glad to oblige...

Dear fellow atheists,

I've been having an ongoing issue in my Critical Thinking class that I'm taking this semester at college; it's a private for-profit secular institution. The problem is not so much with the class itself, but with the professor who teaches it. I've brought up the issue casually with my academic department and they have expressed their belief that it is a non-issue. Unless I'm willing to withdraw from the course and have it appear on my transcript, I'm forced to stay in it for the remainder of the term. That's why I'm coming to you in the hope that you could provide me with some coping advice. I'm not kidding; this class is driving me completely insane.

A couple of weeks ago I had a conversation with my professor along with another student during our class break. At one point she asked me to provide an example of a belief I had that I didn't realize I had. Confused by the question, I asked her to elaborate. She gave me her own example of how she used to believe God was a punishing God, but then came to know Him as a loving and caring God. Right off the bat I informed her that I couldn't think of anything as significant as her example, since I personally do not believe in anything supernatural or paranormal. It was then that she moved forward with the conversation by asking me, "You don't even believe in the paranormal?" My adamant stance on the subject clearly bothered her, especially when I stated that many supernatural and paranormal claims could be easily refuted with scientific evidence. My professor's adult son passed away several years ago, and she replied "My son is around me all the time and communicates with me every day". I assured her that I was not intending to take away any personal experience she had.

The next day, she asked a couple of students what we had learned from Chapter 2 of our Critical Thinking textbook. The answer I gave was, "I interpreted the chapter to mean that beliefs are subjective truths and facts are objective truths". For some reason my answer appeared to offend her. Out of all the students' answers, she wrote mine on the board and asked me to give examples of beliefs and facts. I explained to her that my personal opinion on what makes something a "fact" is something that was observable, measurable, and testable. She then brought up the subject of ghosts and EVP recordings, and challenged me to refute the "evidence" shows like Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures provide. "How do you explain the EVP recordings, and the fact that the voices respond directly to the questions!" I'll be honest with you, I truly wanted to laugh and ask her if she seriously thought those shows were conclusive evidence of paranormal phenomena. In fact, I did, I just didn't laugh. I explained to her that these shows were not reliable evidence for anything since they are entertainment programs. EVP's were easily explained away by many sources of interference including the pareidolia effect. But she insisted on reminding me that I still could not prove that they were not, in fact, actual recorded ghost voices. I agreed and ended by saying that it was up to her and anyone else in the class to research natural explanations on their own if they wanted to.

The following week, one of the students felt the need to bring up a story of how she had seen a ghost in her house "last night". Her totally unbelievable and laughable story included the ghost calling out her name, leaving a black hand-print on her shoulder which lasted for two hours (but no photographic evidence), and how her hair floated up in the air. Maybe it was just the way she told it that made it seem so unconvincing, nevertheless the entire class, including the professor, was captivated by her haunting story. So what does the teacher do? She looks right at me and asks me to explain her story. I guess being the only skeptic in the class meant I was the only one capable of dissecting it. "Do you believe her story?" I asked the professor to which she replied with a "yes". I asked her what evidence she had to believe the claim, and she stated, "Because she told me. I have no reason to disbelieve her". I then went into the whole spiel about how all claims are not created equal, such as someone telling you a ghost left a black hand print on their shoulder as opposed to her ordering pizza for dinner last night.

Sadly I never got a chance to provide alternative explanations for the student's claim, as the teacher decided to interject with the story of her "astral projection" experience. She explained how in the middle of the night she awoke only to find that she couldn't move a muscle. She couldn't call out for help and felt completely paralyzed. Her "soul" (or whatever it is she called it) came out of her body and floated around the room and out the front door which is when she woke up. I explained that what she experienced was most likely an episode of sleep paralysis. This was a text-book case of SP in my opinion, and I have had a few episodes myself where I have had similar experiences. I explained to her what sleep paralysis was, both the physiology and psychology of what takes place during an episode. In fact, there was a student in class that worked for a sleep-study center that could back up my claim. Nevertheless, the teacher quickly dismissed my explanation and said that it "explained nothing". She refuted by saying that science gets things wrong all the time and that "some guy in a white lab coat" could not disprove that what she experienced was not astral projection. Her claim was that it may be the current explanation in science but that this could change and eventually scientists would discover that these episodes were actually astral projection all along. I actually refused to counter her argument after 2 hours of going in circles and simply said "Okay".

Now I really don't care what she, or anyone else, believes. Everyone is free to choose whatever explanation makes the most sense to them, even if I do think it's silly to ignore mountains of evidence. Nevertheless, this is a critical thinking class. What should have been a valid discussion of weighing evidence to support a belief was nothing more than the professor feeling that her beliefs were being threatened. Time and time again I reassured her that my intentions were never to disprove anything, only to provide alternative explanations. Throughout the course of the discussion science was ridiculed and only evidence supporting her belief was considered. Not once were any of my explanations validated or considered seriously. The entire experience left me feeling humiliated and aware of the fact that I really AM a minority with my anti-spiritual worldview. "Critical Thinking" has turned into "Magical Thinking", and class time is now about sitting around a campfire telling ghost stories. Am I wrong for feeling just a tad pissed off about that? I actually thought this may have been the one class where skeptical thinking would be appreciated. Clearly I was wrong.

As I mentioned earlier, academics can do nothing about this situation. I can withdraw but having a "W" on my transcript is not something I want. I'm really left with no choice but to tough it out. I haven't really been able to get any useful advice from anyone, and so that's why I'm writing to you. I have five more weeks left of the term and although I don't want to talk about ghosts anymore, I may find myself in a situation again where I am the target of debate. Is there any advice you can give me under these circumstances? My biggest fear is the impressionable minds in this class that are being poisoned with affirmation by the professor that her worldview makes more sense. After all, she is promoting it heavily. I know that confirmation bias and attitude polarization plays a huge part in all of this, but I'm not sure how I can present evidence without the receiver feeling threatened. And personally, I wish that she wouldn't call on me to explain myself if she really doesn't want to know my answers.

Thank you for any help you could provide,

Maya

I did offer Maya some advice. And offered to share the story here. She said she will be following comments, so please feel free to post to her here. I can't promise she'll respond, but she will be able to see your notes.

USA Honors Two Biochemists and an Evolutionary Biologist


The United States has just honored two biochemists, an evolutionary biologist, and some other scientist by issuing stamps to commemorate their achievements [American Scientists (Forever)].

Melvin Calvin (1911-1997) is famous for working out an important pathway of carbon fixation known today as the Calvin cycle. This pathway is prominent in photosynthetic bacteria and in chloroplasts. It is often considered to be a fundamental part of photosynthesis, although some workers prefer to maintain the distinction. Calvin won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1961.



Severo Ochoa (1905-1993) received the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1959 along with Arthur Kornberg. Ochoa demonstrated that RNA could be synthesized in vitro using purified RNA polymerase. Later on he helped create synthetic polynucleotides that helped crack the genetic code.

Asa Gray (1810-1888) is best known today as a friend of Charles Darwin and one of the early supporters of evolution in America. He was a botanist at Harvard for most of his career. The website says he "... became the principal American advocate of evolutionary theory in the mid-nineteenth century." I think it would be much more fair to say that Asa Gray was a strong supporter of evolution. He and Darwin had many discussions (by letter) on the mechanisms of evolution.


Atheists Bus Shelter Ads Go Up in Orange County, California

The Backyard Skeptics have put up ads on 30 different bus shelters in Orange County, California (around Anaheim and Mission Viejo) and they look fantastic:

Now, if only they could fix up their website… (I know, I know, who am I to talk. I’m working on it.)

The entire campaign cost $8,000 — you can donate to the group here — and it’s already generating controversy:

Some passing motorists and people waiting at the bus shelter said they were offended by the ads.

“If they don’t want to believe in God then they should just be quiet about it. Why do they have to buy a poster and put it in public view?” said Melinda Holt of Anaheim, who was waiting for a bus next to the ad earlier this week.

“I’m a Christian and to see the Holy Bible in an ad that questions its worth –- that’s just not OK,” she said.

[Director Bruce] Gleason said he doesn’t mean to offend any one religion.

“If we put one up that said something about Muslims or Mormons, they would be offended, too,” Gleason said. “We are against any supernatural belief that harms the world. And that’s what we believe religion does.”

Christianity is the biggest player in the American Religion game, so the skeptics are going after them. Just as they should.

And Melinda Holt’s comment is the exact reason these ads need to be up. People are not used to seeing the Bible criticized, but it needs to be. If that shakes people up, so be it. There’s absolutely no need to be quiet about it. (No doubt Holt would have no problem with a bus shelter ad for a church.)

No word yet regarding any vandalization… but when the atheists’ ads are so close to the ground, it’s hard to believe some of them won’t be defaced.

Memo to Nick Kristof: Don’t Give Evangelicals That Much Credit

Nick Kristof has a piece in today’s New York Times regarding Evangelical Christians and doing good works. While he has the best of intentions, wanting everyone to get along, he gives Evangelical Christians far more credit than they deserve.

Normally when we think of Christians, it’s the jerks, the bigots, the “blowhards” (as Kristof says) who come to mind: Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Mark Driscoll, etc.

Partly because of such self-righteousness, the entire evangelical movement often has been pilloried among progressives as reactionary, myopic, anti-intellectual and, if anything, immoral.

Yet that casual dismissal is profoundly unfair of the movement as a whole. It reflects a kind of reverse intolerance, sometimes a reverse bigotry, directed at tens of millions of people who have actually become increasingly engaged in issues of global poverty and justice.

… But in reporting on poverty, disease and oppression, I’ve seen so many others. Evangelicals are disproportionately likely to donate 10 percent of their incomes to charities, mostly church-related. More important, go to the front lines, at home or abroad, in the battles against hunger, malaria, prison rape, obstetric fistula, human trafficking or genocide, and some of the bravest people you meet are evangelical Christians (or conservative Catholics, similar in many ways) who truly live their faith.

I’m curious whether the vocal anti-gay rights Christians are the same ones concerned with obstetric fistula and malaria. My initial reaction is they are two separate, barely-overlapping groups under the gigantic Christian umbrella.

There are a lot of important issues that progressive Christians address — I’m not dismissing that — but we’re not picking on the extremists when we use Falwell and Robertson as Christian spokespeople. Most evangelicals are against equal rights for gay people. Most evangelicals are against a woman’s right to choose. Most evangelicals don’t accept evolution. Most evangelicals would love to see at least a blending of church and state (if not a complete intertwining).

Most Christians care about those issues far more than they do about genocide. (***Edit***: An interesting rebuttal to what I’m saying is here.)

Yes, there are Christians who happen to do incredible things around the world (with and without proselytizing). But you can’t focus on the positive things they do without mentioning how much harm they cause. Kristof hardly mentions how many people are mentally, emotionally, and even physically abused because of their rigid beliefs.

He goes on:

I’m not particularly religious myself, but I stand in awe of those I’ve seen risking their lives in this way — and it sickens me to see that faith mocked at New York cocktail parties.

Full disclosure: I don’t go to many New York cocktail parties. Only, like, 2-3 a week.

That said, I doubt anyone is mocking the Christians who try to make the world a better place for everyone. We mock the ones who claim to speak for them. And we mock them as a whole because they believe a god answers their prayers, god’s son died but magically came back to life, and that their holy book is full of wisdom when it’s riddled with monstrosities.

They’ve all done plenty to earn the mockery.

Kristof does make one fantastic point at the end and deserves some credit for it:

Why does all this matter?

Because religious people and secular people alike do fantastic work on humanitarian issues — but they often don’t work together because of mutual suspicions. If we could bridge this “God gulf,” we would make far more progress on the world’s ills.

This is the whole crux of the interfaith movement (with input from the non-religious community). There are people who need our help and we shouldn’t let personal biases or religious superstitions stand in the way of that.

It’s nice to see some acknowledgement that non-theistic people are just as likely as religious people to work on humanitarian issues.

But without religion standing in the way, far more people would get the help and support they need.

a tale of two hemispheres

at apod:

tunç tezel and stéphane guisard (TWAN)
click image to source


Photo Sunday: Valencia

We saw a lot of churches and cathedrals in Spain, but the Cathedral of Valencia could claim one mark of distinction that some of the much larger and more impressive ones couldn't. Namely, it's the final resting place of that most precious Christian relic, the Holy Grail itself. To see that and more, click to continue...

... [visit site to read more]

Teleportation in the New Testament



So not only could Jesus teleport himself, but he could also teleport his mates and their boat. Later on in Acts, Philip teleported from the lake to Azotus.

Teleportation, zombies, is there any craziness the Bible hasn't covered?
John 6:16-21
16 When evening came, his disciples went down to the lake, 17 where they got into a boat and set off across the lake for Capernaum. By now it was dark, and Jesus had not yet joined them. 18 A strong wind was blowing and the waters grew rough. 19 When they had rowed about three or four miles, they saw Jesus approaching the boat, walking on the water; and they were frightened. 20 But he said to them, “It is I; don’t be afraid.” 21 Then they were willing to take him into the boat, and immediately the boat reached the shore where they were heading.


John 20:19-20
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

Acts 8:38-40
8 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. 40 Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.

For the Younger Atheists Out There

Generation Atheist is a new blog written by and for young atheists.

Editor Laura explains why she started it:

It can seem daunting to voice your opinions about religion in the real word, especially if you live in a predominantly theistic community. Many young people think about setting up websites or blogs to get their voices heard, but it can be difficult to find something to write about regularly and to get traffic to your blog. The aim of Generation Atheist is for us all to come together and support each other by reading and commenting on each others’ work as well as finding out own voices. I hope you find this a valuable service.

She welcomes submissions from anyone. There’s also a group on Atheist Nexus with the same name.

I’m happy to support any project that lets young atheists know they’re not alone, so check out the site and consider leaving a comment or sending in a submission so it can grow!

I have doubts Backyard Skeptics

Skeptics

I’m not one to self-edit simply because what I will say may offend people. I know that this post will piss off a few people. So be it.

I’m a big fan of effective communications. Atheists bus ads, billboards, and even some of the online campaigns, they are all good; until they are not. The ad shown above is ineffective and misleading. It’s a design issue. The ad is white on black. With this color combination, the protective glass acts like a mirror, which obscures the image. You cannot see the add unless you are standing in front of it, and drivers have no hope because it faces the wrong way. With this design and placement, the target audience is small. I would guess that it is limited to bus riders and pedestrians.

havedoubtsMy wife asked me why there was yellow pudding on the book. She was in our truck 40 feet away and could not see that the ad depicted a bible, nor could she tell that the yellow pudding was flowers. When I mentioned that it was flowers, she asked why anyone would put flowers on the bible. She wanted to know what it meant. I had to agree. Were the designers looking for a splash of color?

It turns out I was wrong about the flowers. It’s a cross with evanfinalsome kind of lacy thing. Standing 15 feet away from the poster, it looks like flowers. Oh well…

The ad looks like it was designed by an amateur. If the intent of the ad was to have people see it and think about the message, then the ad fails miserably. It’s visual crap and pretty much useless. But it gest worse, the other add is horrible.  A orange gradient? What were they thinking?

The add was provided by Backyard Skeptics, which is a local Orange County Atheist organization run out of the home of Bruce Gleason. His organization claims 400 members, which is impressive. Yet every time I’ve met the man I’ve come away feeling like I’ve met an evangelical pastor. He’s a true believer. I find that troubling because true believers are the people in this world who really scare me.

They often hold positions that are inconsistent.Take the message, “Have doubts? So do we.” I think it’s reasonable to let others know that there are options. The ad will offend people, but that’s ok if the intent is consistent with the message. The offense is slight, and the message may actually reach the target audience. Where it falls off the rails is when Bruce Gleason talks about his motivation. He think religion is evil and his unstated mission it to convert believers.

"If we put one up that said something about Muslims or Mormons, they would be offended, too," Gleason said. "We are against any supernatural belief that harms the world. And that's what we believe religion does."

Source: Atheist bus-shelter ads in O.C. question God. By Eric Carpenter

I realize that some atheist hold this position. I don’t. I think it’s harmful (and hateful). Plus, it’s inconsistent with a message based on love. What Gleason is saying is that we don’t have doubts all. He believes that what theists believe is harmful and he wants them to come to his vision of reality. He’s using bus ads to proselytize for atheism. Is that desirable? I don’t think so.

Lets discuss Evan. His message is confusing, “I read the Bible. Now I’m a proud atheist.” Bruce Gleason claims the bus ads are focused on showing Christians that we can be good without God. How does this message accomplish that?

Bruce Gleason, director of Backyard Skeptics and a Villa Park resident, said the campaign is meant to "let other nonbelievers know there is a community of non-theists who share the idea that we can be good without God."

Source: Atheist bus-shelter ads in O.C. question God. By Eric Carpenter

Let’s test his statement. He says, …”let other nonbelievers”. Yet the ads are focused on believers. How does that work? He goes on to say… “there is a community of non-theists who share the idea that we can be good without God." The ads don’t talk about being good without God. They don’t mention being good at all. Instead, they are focused on poking the bear and getting a reaction. It’s dishonest and unethical.

The last straw is the link to Backyard Skeptics. If the stated intent was to show that atheists are good without God, then their website should be consistent with the message in the ads. Yet we find a website that is self-aggrandizing and focused on telling others that what they believe is bunk. It’s an obvious bate and switch scam. The focus of the ads is actually to swell the ranks of Backyard Skeptics and to poke the bear of Christianity. How does this help the cause?

I added more photos to the Atheist Blogroll Flickr pool.

Technorati Tags: ,

Gay Christian musicians have nothing to sing about

NPR has a piece up regarding the challenges Christian singers face when they dare to admit to their audience that they’re gay. I’m sure a lot of them are very talented people who deserve an audience. It’s too bad their audience sees fit to judge them for who they are and then quits going to shows because of it, though.

…Tim Dillinger, was known around Nashville as a go-to backup singer for gospel and secular recordings. Eventually, Dillinger began to get airplay for his own songs, such as “That’s the Kind of Love.” But one day, all that changed.

“Somewhere around the end of 2006, I came out on a gospel radio station in Kansas City,” Dillinger says. “I did an interview there with a minister, Gerald Palmer, and it was the first time I’d said it publicly. It was the first time I’d talked about it in any kind of public forum, let alone on a gospel station.”

Dillinger says coming out went from being a freeing experience to a devastating one.

“My audience in Nashville, where I was doing my concerts, literally cut in three-quarters,” Dillinger says. “I used to say it cut in half, but it was really three-quarters. I went from being able to fill a room to begging people to come again.”

After that, the article quotes Teresa Hairston of Gospel Today and it’s hard to tell if she’s comparing sexuality to a choice of marmalade or arsenic for one’s toast in the morning, or if she’s referring to the choice to admit it in the first place:

“I think people should be able to be open about their choices,” Hairston says. “They should be loved despite their choices. But they also have to realize that they have to be accountable for their choices, and that their choices have consequences.”

Consequence being loss of respect, revenue, and possibly recording contracts. All because they admit to being who they are, regardless of what some 2000 year old book claims is permissible in the eyes of their god.

That takes some guts, I think, and it’s a good thing there’s a secular music industry for them to move into when their hypocritical fan-base casts them aside. Otherwise nobody else would ever hear them. If they’re really good, they deserve success regardless of their sexual preferences.


Filed under: culture, In the Media, religiosity Tagged: Christianity, homosexuality, music

I’m not ashamed to be related to a monkey.



OK... so technically, maybe I should have said "not ashamed to be a great ape"... and maybe I'll have those t-shirts out soon as well. But monkeys? They're just a little more distant. Still, we're all connected.




And let's try to see it from the opposing point of view. If we're monkeys, then...


Basic Genetics, Cat gagging is caused by histidyl-glutamic acid?


Rebecca Watson at CFI

We've been missing one piece of information in all the condemning and howling and insanity of the Rebeccapocalypse: the notorious talk at CFI in which Watson hatefully and viciously tore into a poor innocent student and ripped her to shreds in public…or, at least, that's how it's been characterized by some people. Omission corrected: here's the youtube video of the infamous talk:

Wow. Excellent talk, and guess what? The poor student was discussed civilly and without victimization. She didn't even make up an insulting name for her.

It's rather clear that the focus of her talk was presenting the evidence for anti-woman craziness that the people at CFI could use, not on attacking anyone at CFI.

(via Furious Purpose)

Read the comments on this post...

Why does science not accept the claims for ‘alternative realities’?

There are all kinds of ‘alternative realities’ in which many even quite sane people do often believe in. However, when I listen to their ideas, one question springs often to my mind: Have you considered the possibility that there is just one reality that would ever be knowable to us, but people just can have extremely different perceptions of it?
In fact, I am afraid that those differences in perception can be so strong that some people do believe that they do exist in a different kind of reality than others.

This state of affairs is of course proof of how humans are able to alter their minds to an extraordinary degree; it is not any kind of proof of that there would exist different ‘realities’.
One can develop an endless amount of different alternative realities in one's mind or develop old, earlier made-up realities even further, but these creations do exist only in the mind of a person who believes in them.
They can feel even very real, if belief just is strong enough. However, the true reality is the one that does not go away when you stop believing in it.

Of course, the reality of a bacteria is quite different to the reality of an ant and the reality of an ant is extremely different from ours. However, they do share the same basic reality, even if they can perceive it very differently.
Similarly the reality probably looks extremely different on the level of a quark or a galaxy, but they still do exist as parts of the same reality.

If the multiverse-theory is correct it is possible that there is an endless amount of other universes, but according to what we know now we just might never find out if these ideas are true or not. In any case they are part of the same reality in which we do live, they are only in different parts of it, and they can be formed differently.
The current theory goes that the multiple universes do not overlap. Pondering about their existence or nonexistence is in the end just a purely mental exercise for us, as the other possible universes have no practical way of affecting (or even to be observed in any way) from our own bubble of a universe.
However, if I claim that there is only one reality, nothing in this statement implies that I would claim to know any kind of final truth about its true nature or structure.

If we assume that there is an alternative reality, but it cannot be observed in any way in reality in which we do live in, how could we become truly convinced of its existence in the first place?
If this alternative reality cannot cause anything observable in the reality in which we do live in, what difference would its existence or nonexistence make to anybody?
If there would be any real-world effects caused by some kind of ‘alternative reality’, we should be able to verify their existence easily, and if there is none, there is no real reason to believe in their existence.

Refracted sun rising over Virginia Beach. - Wikipedia

An alternative reality could, of course, be like the other universes in the multiverse theory - then their existence or nonexistence would not make any real difference to us, as we can probably never observe them and they do not affect our own reality in any way.
Of course we can well still think about all kinds of alternative realities endlessly and even imagine their existence in minute detail in theory. After all we have the ability to make up an endless amount of alternative realities in our minds, if we just have the will and enough spare time.

On the other hand, if there is no real evidence and if we base our belief in existence of an 'alternative reality" on writings of 'sages', hearsay and old stories, there is no real difference to the more formal kinds of religions, I'm afraid.
One should not forget that if there would be any even the tiniest observable fact, any single testable hypothesis the theories of 'alternative realities' would be instantly part of the mainstream science.

Alas, sadly that is not the case and all 'alternative realities' are still in the class of religious beliefs, where people do accept all kinds of ideas without any kind of real, hard evidence.
The existence of 'alternative reality' would soon be taught in every class and every university, if there just would be any kind of evidence of their existence to be had. One must just think about the glory and fame which such a revolutionary finding would bring to any scientist.
There is no real reason why scientists all over the world would not seek to prove the existence of alternative realities, but just the lack for any means of verifying the existence of things that do not exist.

Comments

Trilobite Boy Mail!

Back in June a number of Flying Trilobite readers really helped me out with donations to keep my portfolio site at glendonmellow.com going. For a minimum $10 donation, I made each of them an original drawing. All of those drawings should be arriving in everyone's snail-mailboxes over the next several days.  

Here's science-artist Katy Ann Chalmers with her Trilobite Boy Chibi



My grateful thanks to each person who donated or tweeted to get the word out.  It's been a tough time freelancing for me, and it really helped keep my presence alive online. I had fun with each image, and did things a little differently than the norm. I made a nice scan of each one, and will put them all up in a future post together.

As an artist, it can be really tough to earn a living wage from your work without years of royalties and a large committed fanbase.  It takes time. I'm lucky to be doing well for a guy who paints trilobites with wings. But we're also living in a time when the divide between how images are prized and what people will pay for them faces a huge divide.

Artists forge ahead and use the talents to delight and inspire, and the growing movement of science-artists have a doubly important mission, turning people on to the natural world through their skills and dedication.

There's another science-artist who needs financial help right now, and is willing to put their skills to the task:  Katy Ann Chalmers, pictured above, is offering an amazing deal on original artwork if people can chip in and help her afford to go back to school this year: check it out!  Cephalopods and space art for a great cause!
- - - - - - - -

Original artwork on The Flying Trilobite Copyright to Glendon Mellow
under Creative Commons Licence.

Portfolio
Blog
Print Shop

New!  Follow me on Symbiartic, the new art+science blog on Scientific American!