Good news for Maine

A recent Gallup poll “asked representative samples in 143 countries and territories whether religion was an important part of their daily lives.” The United States, despite the religiously-driven anti-science movement, does not rank as having an especially high number of individuals who say religion is an important part of their lives. For all the countries surveyed, the median response was 82%. The U.S. came in at 65%.

This does not mean the U.S. is unreligious. The interesting thing about this survey is that it is strongly correlated with poverty. In nations where poverty is higher, so is the rate of positive respondents to the poll. That is, poor people cling to their religion. It makes sense that someone who has lost hope, or at least been placed in the dismal position of being desperately poor, would turn to mysticism as a last resort. Of course, this has not helped the people of Sri Lanka or Eygpt gain much wealth. Religion simply isn’t the helpful. In fact, it isn’t really helpful at all.

So what’s rather shocking, at least statistically, about this poll is America’s amount of wealth and rate of religiosity.

Social scientists have noted that one thing that makes Americans distinctive is our high level of religiosity relative to other rich-world populations. Among 27 countries commonly seen as part of the developed world, the median proportion of those who say religion is important in their daily lives is just 38%. From this perspective, the fact two-thirds of Americans respond this way makes us look extremely devout.

Of course, the obvious point to be made is that this seems to directly contradict the issue of correlation. In fact, it does not. This is because as poverty increases by state, so does religosity. Alabama, the slack-jawed center of the South, comes in at 82% answering positively. Mississippi, the well-established cesspool of stupidity, Mr. 50 in Everything Bad, as it were, comes in a smidge higher than the worldwide median, at 85%. These two poverty-rich states are roughly equal to Iran with their rate of response.

It should be of little surprise, then, that all six states of New England fill out the top ten. In fact, the top four are, in order, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts. Tending toward less general poverty, these states also tend toward less religiosity. Of course, it’s important to also consider the more liberal, more moral, less evil leanings in this area as well. Such people – the ones concerned with reality – often have a liberal bias. Freed from the shackles of sheepdom as wrought by religion, these states have generally better standards of living and education. No big news there.

More news from John Lott

John Lott has an article up attacking Ashley Judd. She does not favor aerial hunting of wolves and is part of an organization that is active against what they say are practice encouraged by Sarah Palin up in Alaska.

I, frankly, don’t give a damn. It’s an uninteresting issue. John Lott, on the other hand, does care. His interests are of a lesser quality, it seems.

Yet, sometimes the emotional response isn’t the most responsible one. In this case, hunting is done to keep animals from dying from starvation and to maintain higher quality populations. The problem is that in the wild, animal populations go through what are called “boom and crash” cycles – animal populations expand to consume the available food supplies and when those are exhausted, the animals starve and the populations crash. Starvation also makes the animals more susceptible to disease. Hunters stabilize populations, and keep those problems from recurring.

It’s probably safe to assume Johnny is just getting his information from the official website of Alaska, which he cites in his article. Okay, dandy. Population control is done for a good reason. That isn’t Judd’s argument, but whatever. It’s a boring issue. I’m just giving you the jist of it. Next.

As it is, since 1972, the federal government has heavily regulated aerial hunting of animals – only allowing it for predators by government employees or licensed hunters and even then, contrary to last year’s campaign ads and Judd’s latest, animals can’t be shot from the air. While the planes can be used to find and track or chase the wolves, the wolves can only be shot by hunters who are on the ground. The pictures used in the ads inaccurately depict the policies that have been in effect for the last 37 years.

This isn’t so misleading, but it is inaccurate. It is illegal and the act does state that no person is allowed to hunt by aircraft. However, after stating that it is illegal, the act also says this:

“This section shall not apply any person if such person is employed by, or is an authorized agent of or is operating under a license of permit of, any State or the United States to administer or protect or aid in the administration or protection of land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life, or crops, and each such person operating under a license or permit shall report to the applicable issuing authority each calendar quarter the number and type of animals so taken.”

Clearly, the act does not only state “animals can’t be shot from the air”. Relatively minor issue, but still worth noting. Given the fact of notability, I let Johnny know this. You see, we’re dear friends on Facebook and Johnny posted the link to his article on his status. I left him a comment telling him that he should be more accurate. I also responded to this from the end of the article:

Possibly the most telling point of Judd’s ad is that the ad first mentions Sarah Palin and not the wolves. But how often are fundraising efforts directed against the losing candidates in recent national elections? Never? The ad probably says more about Democrats still viewing Palin as a credible future opponent than it does about the Defenders of the Wildlife and Judd’s inaccurate claims about hunting.

I informed John that Ashley Judd and her wildlife organization are not representative of Democrats. He left a response to my point about the act, telling me that it is clear in what it says. I told him I agree and posted the section concerning the exceptions to the law.

So what was Johnny’s response?

No, he didn’t leave three dots. And it wasn’t simply nothing. I presume he wrote something. Or maybe he deleted everything. No one likes to be embarrassed afterall. Of course, I cannot actually confirm any of this. You see, Johnny and I are no longer friends. Our promise to be BFFs has been broken. WHY, JOHNNY! WHY!

Indeed, embarrass John Lott by simply reading a file to which he originally linked and he ain’t nobody’s BFF.

BFFs no more

BFFs no more

Believers take the low road

The atheist bus campaign was done with two goals in mind: get people talking about not believing and help them to stop needless worrying. Of course, the second point to that was unlikely to occur, but the intent was at least there. Now some Christian groups, instead of desiring to improve the lives of their fellow humans, just want to take petty jabs.

Beginning Feb. 9, three separate Christian groups will launch advertisements on more than 200 of London’s buses to convince pedestrians of God’s existence. “It may be unpopular and unpleasant, says David Larlham, the assistant general secretary of London’s Trinitarian Bible Society, a group that distributes bibles worldwide, “but there is a whole lot of truth in the bible that people need to get to grips with.” His organization has paid $50,000 to display posters on 125 of London’s red double-decker buses that quote Psalm 53: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.”

Wouldn’t this organization’s time be better spent telling people something at least intended to be useful? With the atheist message – “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life” – there is the clear intent of easing the stress induced by all the nutty bus messages telling people they’re going to burn in hell. For these Christians, the message is “You’re an idiot if you don’t believe in magic.” They have no interest in doing any good. As with most Christians, their bread and butter issues are really just petty interests with no real concern for other human beings.

Schinderhannes bartelsi

The title just grabs you, doesn’t it? It’s okay if it doesn’t; this organism did enough grabbing in its day anyway.

S. bartelsi was recently discovered in a piece of slate in Germany. The fossil offers some clues as to the origin of the claws of scorpions and horseshoe crabs.

“With a head like the giant Cambrian aquatic predator Anomalocaris and a body like a modern arthropod, the specimen is the only known example of this unusual creature,” said Derek Briggs, director of Yale’s Peabody Museum of Natural History and an author of the paper appearing in the journal Science.

Scientists have puzzled over the origins of the paired grasping appendages found on the heads of scorpions and horseshoe crabs. The researchers suggest that Schinderhannes gives a hint. Their appendages may be an equivalent to those found in the ancient predatory ancestor, Anomalocaris — even though creatures with those head structures were thought to have become extinct by the middle of the Cambrian Period, 100 million years before Schinderhannes lived.

Recognizing the rarity of this find, Briggs references Anomalocaris (also a rare find). This organism was a proto-arthropod, but came some time before S. bartelsi. Its appendages are basically precursors to pedipalps, or the grasping claws present in scorpions and horseshoe crabs. They’ve proved to be quite durable, especially in horseshoe crabs, which have maintained their body ‘plan’ for a few hundred million years. These claws have proved quite useful for the horseshoe crab niche. Scorpions, on the other hand, have varied a bit more, but their claws are still likely homologous to this new fossil and thus also good evidence for the durability of this appendage.

Schinderhannes bartelsi

Schinderhannes bartelsi

Widgets

I just added a couple of widgets for better navigation. Scroll down to see them on the left side. Leave a comment if you think I should add something more.

New Jerry Coyne blog

Jerry Coyne has a blog. It’s worth checking out.

Stimulus bill

So it looks like Republicans want to trim some costs out of Obama’s stimulus bill. Fair enough, there’s plenty of crap in there. Unfortunately, they’re looking to trim costs from education and science, two major foes of conservatives.

A roster of $88 billion worth of cuts was circulating Thursday, almost half of which would come from education grants to states, with an additional $13 billion in aid the local school districts for special education and the No Child Left Behind law on the chopping block as well.

Well, NCLB is a bunch of crap that focuses on seeing which students can take tests the best, so that’s fine, but the actual education monies need to stay. That’s probably the worst thing that can be cut. Wait…

Nearly 20 senators from both parties met twice during the day and reviewed a list of possible cuts totaling 88 billion. They included elimination of at least $40 billion in aid to the states, which have budget crises of their own, as well as $1.4 billion ticketed for the National Science Foundation.

It’s surprising that Democrats would join in on this, but they were elected by the American public, too. I suppose it makes sense that they wouldn’t be very passionate about science.

Critics contend the bill is bloated with spending for items that won’t create jobs, such as smoking prevention programs or efforts to combat a future pandemic flu outbreak.

The smoking prevention program is an issue with the Republicans. They apparently don’t realize smoking is responsible for 30% of all cancer deaths in the U.S. Read that again. Thirty percent of all people who die of cancer each year die because they smoked (or inhaled secondhand smoke). It seems reasonable that we would want to relieve our health care system – and more importantly individual human beings – of the hardship and cost associated with being stupid enough to smoke.

Awesome

Just read it.

WASHINGTON – Flitting across your yard, butterflies seem friendly and harmless. But at least one type has learned to raise its young as parasites, tricking ants into feeding it and giving special treatment.

The pupae of the European butterfly Maculina rebeli exude a scent that mimics the ants and make themselves at home inside the ant nest. Once they become a caterpillar they even beg for food like ant larvae, researchers report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.

But, not content just to be fed, the butterflies even manage to demand special treatment, Jeremy A. Thomas of Britain’s University of Oxford and colleagues report.

It turns out that ant queens make subtle sounds that signal their special status to worker ants. The caterpillars have learned to mimic those sounds, the researchers say, earning high enough status to be rescued before others if the nest is disturbed.

In times of food shortage, nurse ants have been known to kill their own larvae and feed them to the caterpillars pretending to be queen ants, they added.

In nature, the real ant queen and the caterpillar keep to different parts of the ant colony and would not encounter one another, the report said.

But in an experiment, a butterfly pupa pretending to be an ant queen was placed in a chamber with worker ants and four real ant queens. The ant queens began to attack and bite the caterpillar, but the workers intervened, biting and stinging their own queens, which they then pulled to a far corner of the chamber while other workers attended the pupa.

Great fossil find

Maiacetus inuus is a a four-legged creature ancestral to modern whales that was recently discovered. Two adult fossils were found in in Pakistan dating close to 50 million years old. One of these fossils are carrying a fetus. The interesting thing is that the fetus was faced head first. This likely means it was born on land, not water – it does an oxygen breathing animal no good to be born head first in water if it needs to get to some air quickly. Modern whales are borned tail first. This conveniently prevents drowning before they are fully born.

This ancestral whale was far smaller than its modern day lineage. It weighed roughly 600-850 lbs and came in near 9 feet long. This makes sense if the animal was to give birth on land (dragging one’s self is more consistent with laying eggs).

Here’s kind of a crappy idea of what it looked like.

meh

Jerry Coyne

Jerry Coyne has a very succinct article regarding the inability of science and religion to work together in any viable manner. He primarily focuses his points against two prominent evolutionary theists, Ken Miller and Karl Giberson. Both men are good scientists, but make great stretches to fulfill their desire to marry their science and religion.

The article can be found here. (I would normally give a direct link, but RichardDawkins.net organizes the article far better.)