I saw Ben Stein’s Expelled last night and there’s one question that noone will answer for me . . . do you have to have bad teeth to be a PhD?  But seriously . . .

They’re discussing it (the movie) over at TennesseeFree.com.

The BearCreekLedger has seen the movie, too.

The movie’s thesis is that there are legitimate questions about Darwinism, but scientists are not allowed to ask those questions because some people are threatened by certain potential answers to the questions. Tsk, tsk.

In a thread about homeschooling (here) that eventually narrowed to a discussion of Evolution, Tman linked to a fascinating essay by famed atheist and brilliant thinker–the late Stephen Jay Gould.

I am not well-versed in science or scientific terms, but I do like me some logic. And I’ll admit that I only occasionally bury my head in this stuff . . . and why? Because every time I am lured to the siren song of Evolutionists I get close to the rocks, examine their claims in depth and realize “hey, they’re just jerking me around” and/or “there’s a man behind the curtain!” Here are a couple of the things that are incredibly lame arguments (though arguments compelling–I suppose, to someone intent on wiping out “pseudo-science” used to oppress mankind or advance racism and/or sexism . . .)

One whopper referenced by Tman and laid out there by Gould early in his piece:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein’s theory of gravitation replaced Newton’s, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin’s proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Gould then proceeds to give us all the arguments of why we should draw his inferences to arrive at the “fact” of macro-evolution. Sorry if some of us aren’t as convinced that apes begat humans as we are that apples fall “down.”

A quotation included in Tman’s last comment at the other thread states:

“IC [or Irreducible Complexity, a key principle of Intelligent Design] is supposed to be important because it cannot evolve. But it can evolve, in the same ways that anything else does. Not one of the impressively complex biochemical systems said to be IC by IC/ID proponents has been shown to be in fact IC and several are known not to be. The known cases of IC are simpler and their evolution is understood.”

The problem with this argument is that it acts as if the believability of all random occurrences are created equal. Certain examples of evolution have been observed and certain are highly likely, but that doesn’t mean that all or any purported example of evolution is reasonable.

Lastly, Tman’s quote says,

Although the subject is religiously motivated, proponents have focused on bacterial flagella as the last hope for a highly complex IC [Irreducible Complexity] system. This has the unintended consequence of making The Designer (aka God) responsible for serious diseases.

. . . .

This makes ID rather questionable as a public school lesson. Gap theology is bad enough at best, and always has the problem that the gaps keep getting smaller. This new version of it is especially bad. Darwin did theologians a favor by freeing them from this sort of thing.

Well, maybe in the eyes of that writer, but any student of the Bible knows that it teaches that God is culpable–based on His omniscience and omnipotence, for disease.

~Mark Twain

I got an e-mail about the other day from the PR person for a film that has been making the rounds of public television stations. Here are the details:

The POWER of FORGIVENESS will be shown on Nashville’s WNPT-8 on Friday, March 28 at 8:00 p.m. The film is released nationally on Public Television through American Public Television (APT) and is a production of Journey Films. Best Documentary 2007, Sun Valley Film Festival

The one-hour film is a collection of seven short stories showing the limits, difficulties, healing qualities and unforeseen effects an act of forgiveness can have in people’s lives. It includes stories on The Amish, Ground Zero, Northern Ireland, and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, plus reflections from renowned Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh, and best-selling authors Thomas Moore (Care of the Soul) and Marianne Williamson (The Gift of Change).

Other highlights:
- A celebrated forgiveness expert has his theories put to the test after his mother’s brutal slaying
- Latest clinical research shows a link between forgiveness and lower blood pressure, other health benefits
- Equally revealing stories of people who cannot forgive or find relief from anger, grief and resentment

I’ve included more information from the e-mail after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Oh, noes! Another science nerd to add to my already-bursting feed reader! Stewman makes a good point:

How can the Hubble Space Telescope continually show us brilliant, detailed,and spectacular photos of some galaxies as far away as 450 million light years away, but can’t seem to come up with a decent picture of Pluto?!

It’s all about the discrimination against Pluto, I tell ya. If I was Pluto, I’d sue!

This is a new billboard campaign from Heather Mills in the UK.

According to Mills, who is a very vocal vegan (nice alliteration, huh?), and the organization, “Viva,” consuming anything from cows is promoting global warming and destroying the environment, because of all the methane they produce.

She actually asks, “Why don’t we drink rat’s milk or cat’s milk or dog’s milk?”   (gah! Sorry if you were eating breakfast!)

I believe we should all do our part to preserve the environment for future generations, and I am also very much of the belief that we consume far too much meat and dairy as opposed to fruits and veggies for the good of our health.

But…isn’t this taking the whole idea a little too far?

What say you?

h/t:  Blowing Smoke

Nathan at Compassion In Politics has an indepth review of the PBS special about the evolution controversy. Interestingly, he uses the show’s structure and style as a jumping-off point for indicting the modern mass media. He makes some very good points.

This seems to suggest a larger problem in 1 hour documentaries. They overwhelming tend to focus on the drama and the story and not the issues (the political contraversy and the political spectacle). I’m not saying the story is bad or not enjoyable–I’m just saying its not as scientifically, politically, or culturally as productive as alternatives could be. Even our documentaries, that are supposedly supposed to be above the fold, manage to entirely miss the heart of the issue. (any pun unintented) No wonder America can’t come together on issues–even our documentaries leave massive holes in the public discourse.

Let’s hit a few hot spots on this fine, Saturday night:

• Ginger writes about a moment in real life, real time, where her daughter witnessed a moment that had to be explained. Not a good moment for mother or child.

• Larry Elvis takes on consumerism.

• Sharon Cobb hosts a video of Candidate Rudy, and …. Bo Derek? Wait for Mike Huckabee.

• It’s a great movie, but it is very, very depressing.

• Fractions Suck.

• Rest in Peace, Mr. Otto. A friend of our dear Rachel. A sad day indeed.

• Fraud in Iraq.

• TV Round Up by BOM

Make yourself crazy and have a good night.

Lesley has writes about gas. But she gives really sound advice on how to avoid the common problem of excessive flatulence that accompanies a vegetarian/vegan diet. Though when she says, “And keep your mouth closed while you eat”, I always thought that was just out of politeness. Who knew it could also be good for digestion?

… that Philo T. Farnsworth taught the world how to play….television.Yes, kids, it’s true. So, before we all settle back this evening in front of our wide-screen, High Definition, flat-panel video display to watch the latest in blockbusting home entertainment — or before we cozy up to our computers to witness the world’s latest hi-jinks via YouTube — it might be instructive to remember how it all began.

In a makeshift laboratory in San Francisco, on September 7, 1927, a young genius named Philo T. Farnsworth transmitted the image of a simple straight line from the bottom of one empty bottle to the bottom of another. That was the beginning of ALL the video now before us — including whatever computer screen you are looking at now.

To get a sense of how far it has all come, check out this video of the actual breakthrough, as it was recreated for the 50th Anniversary of that event in 1977.

And the rest of the story is here.

Here, here, Spibby of Xark!

They say a lot about what the studies report (Shocker! A rock ‘n’ roll lifestyle is not conducive to longevity!), but say very little about what they mean or what you or I, or even a rock ‘n’ roller, should do about any of this. You’re either genetically skinny or you’re not. If you’re a heterosexual female, you’re also either hot enough or you’re not (interesting that these two stories came out on the same day, no?). And it turns out that, in both cases, being skinny and “hot” may not be the best thing, except the articles don’t go into too much detail about what you could or could not do about it if you were or were not. You are whatever you are, and then that’s that. Frankly, it’s neither science nor reporting so much as it is just charting. They put the diagram up on the board, and then you stand next to it and see how you measure up. What comes next … well, apparently that isn’t important. To my mind, I don’t think it is too much to ask of science journalism that, when reporting a study, they take a few steps out on the limb and and answer the notorious “So what?” question.

I actually considered getting up to see the solar lunar eclipse, but since I’ve been sleeping really poorly lately, I figured either I’d be up to see it or I wouldn’t. I wasn’t. Fortunately, Sharon Cobb, Blake Wylie, and Chris Wage were up and took pictures. Go see for yourself.

Update: Ron also blogged about the eclipse over at Shaktronics.

Lindsey has, shall we say, a fertile futuristic thought or two on child-bearing and the possibility of reducing abortions:

….if men were given the option of carrying pregnancies to term, could it be spun as a way to reduce abortions? If, say, a couple found out the woman was pregnant, and she wanted to abort but he wanted to keep the child, could it be worked out so that the fetus could be transplanted into the man and carried to term as he wishes?

Assuming fetus transplanting in this hypothetical is safe and routine, where is the drawback to such a scenario? Presumably the woman would be bound to the same child-support obligations as a man would have been in a traditional pregnancy.

As one of the comments says..not sure a man could handle this!

There was an interesting speech last week to the American Psychological Association from Roy Beaumeister which was featured in this NYTimes column (and links to the speech itself). The speech was titled “Is There Anything Good About Men?” Provocative to say the least:

“The ’single most underappreciated fact about gender,’ he said, is the ratio of our male to female ancestors. While it’s true that about half of all the people who ever lived were men, the typical male was much more likely than the typical woman to die without reproducing. Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did.”

snip

“Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.”

I like this proposal that whatever individual or community-wide gender roles exist, we live in a culture which uses both men and women to fulfill it’s own ambitions above all else. Is his argument sound or just sound-and-fury?

I have always seriously wondered about this:

I’ve heard from a friend that the way Febreze works is by “gluing” the molecules causing the smell to the fabric. So you may not smell it anymore, but it is most definitely still there…

Thankfully, the ladies at Home Ec 101 have an onsite Chemistry geek to give us the answer.

Bear Creek Ledger tells us the real reason gas prices are high.

Enviromental groups driving regulations. Congress, through the influence of enviro lobbying groups, has regulated ourselves out of the business of refining crude. The same thing applies to drilling for oil domestically. There’s plenty of crude in the US plus there’s coal gasification which could be utilized. But nooooooo, they have to mandate ethanol which is currently causing the price of corn to go through the roof which will drive all level of food prices.

Absolutely. No refinery built in the last 30 years, no new oil exploration in the United States, boutique gasoline, a government that subsidizes corn ethanol, no nuclear power plants.

So which is worse for America, big oil or a government that buys into the global warming hoax?

It’s Shark Week on Discovery Channel. It’s a week for learning about all-things shark-related. But if you don’t have time to watch, NewsComa’s distilled it down into a list.

Here’s a shark fact you may not be aware of:

5. Sharks will eat you and then go swimming before the 30 minute time I’ve always heard you had to wait after consuming a meal because, you know, they’re sharks.

The rest of the list is funny, but that one made me laugh out loud.

Ben Cunningham is NOT a believer. He has an ally from perhaps an unexpected source: Rolling Stone Magazine

…. Ethanol doesn’t burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption — yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

Read more, if the story PEAKS your interest…

Mack is talking about Peak Oil

To me, the warning signs are everywhere. I tend to be good at logistics, so I always look for ways to minimize wasted time or effort, and I am worried that most people have no plan in place to deal with even a short-lived oil shortage. In fact, I’ll bet most people have no clue as to how much of their lives depend not only on a supply of oil, but a cheap supply.

There’s much more talk about how Mack foresees Armageddon on the horizon as oil becomes scarcer. In the comments, Sarcastro shares his thoughts:

Stock up on shotgun shells and canned goods.

Our lives are so dependent on oil, as it is the lifeblood of not only our economy, but our daily survival.

The only good reason to go to war is for oil. Anything else is just pretense.

Mack wrote his post in response to this one from Southern Beale.

I think we’re so programmed for fear in this country that we’re starting to go a little nuts. The news media is telling us to be scared of everything, including our shadows. I mean, for crying out loud, two weeks ago I saw a TV news report warning in ominous tones how running might be dangerous for your kids! Running!

Come on, people. Calm down. The apocalypse ain’t coming any time soon.

[Ed. Note: Write this down. It’s one of the few times I think you’ll see me say I agree with SoBeale about something.–KC]