State prayers

A number of states will be endorsing prayer today. I believe I heard about this awhile ago, perhaps even made a post on it, but it had slipped my mind until I saw a status update on Facebook. Now, as I’ve pointed out here before, Christians love to cherry-pick the parts of the Bible they quote, usually grabbing something from the Gospels. (Funny how they ignore the evils of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, huh?) But thanks to a post at The A-Unicornist, we can all play these selective games. From Matthew 6:5-6:

5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

Problem, Christians?

New Cosmos

A new Cosmos is in the works:

In partnership with Sagan’s colleagues Ann Druyan (who is also his widow) and Steven Soter, Seth MacFarlane — yes, that Seth MacFarlane — is going to produce a new 13-part series to serve as a sequel and modern update to Sagan’s masterpiece.

Taking over the hosting duties will be none other than well-known astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has served as host of NOVA ScienceNOW on PBS for the past five years, so he has plenty of experience making science accessible to the general public. It would be difficult to think of anyone who would be better able to succeed the late, great Carl Sagan.

The folks working on it will take their time and do it right — it’s not scheduled to air until sometime in 2013.

It will unfortunately be airing on FOX, which means the commercials will be ridiculous, but I suppose it’s good that it will be given a broader audience than PBS gets. And it’s hard to go wrong with Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Punching bags

I really don’t read Neil’s blog very often. I usually scoot over there for a peak when I’m writing a post for FTSOS and I need to reference an old post. Those old posts often have links back to Neil’s and so I take a glance. And what do I see every time? Something wildly wrong:

The explicit reason for both the junk DNA error and the vestigial organs error was the need to find evidence for Darwinism in the form of stuff in life forms that doesn’t work. Without that need, these errors would not have been made. For many kids, mid-twentieth century, it was an error that resulted in needless, risky surgeries, removing supposedly vestigial tonsils and adenoids.

Neil is quoting from Uncommon Descent, a creationist blog that demonstrates the same understanding of biology as Neil has – none. That’s why this is such an easy one.

First, most DNA still is junk, i.e., non-coding and without use. It’s largely unneeded and has no developmental use or phenotypic effect. What was once labeled “junk” may have regulatory business to go about, but that is not the majority of DNA. Deal with it, creationists.

Second, I can’t believe creationists are still confused about vestigial structures. It was never the argument that these structures used to have a function and now they don’t. The argument was – and is – that they evolved to have a particular function, but they have since lost that function. They may well have been co-opted into having other uses, but that is not important to whether or not they are vestigial. Uncommon Descent and Neil ought to be hugely embarrassed.

Third and finally, tonsils were historically taken out for a number of reasons. One reason has to do with the availability of medicine to treat inflammation. It wasn’t until the middle of the previous century that penicillin and erythromycin were put into wide-spread use. Without that treatment option, surgery was a very viable solution. Second, improvements in surgical techniques plus the 19th century discovery of anesthesia made surgery that much easier. Third, long-term statistics were not particularly available concerning the effectiveness of the surgery. It was clear that it improved a person’s well being in the short-term as far as inflammation and soar throats were concerned, but beyond that it was a bit of a mystery. What was clear was that it did not pose significant long-term risks. Finally, the practice of removing one’s tonsils dates back approximately 2800 years prior to Darwin. The procedure is not based upon evolutionary thinking, nor was it ever utilized in an attempt to justify any claims about the vestigial nature of tonsils.

This is getting to be too easy.

Apparently I’m a conservative

I know, I know. I had no idea either, but as it turns out I’m apparently a conservative. I discovered this fact about myself when I did one of my periodic checks of Without Apology. As many of you will know, it is the online version of a publication I produced primarily from the fall of ’09 to the spring of ’10. I also created a version earlier this year in which I featured an article by Michael Hartwell titled “Why Buying Local Doesn’t Work”. As the title indicates, it is an economics piece about the “buy local” movement. I had in the past called the movement reasonable, but Michael’s piece actually convinced me otherwise. That doesn’t mean I would refuse to buy locally produced items – I’m going to buy what appeals to me – but I certainly will not buy any local items for the sake of helping the local economy. (Furthermore, in the piece where I called the movement reasonable, the author to whom I was referring indicated that local farmers especially use antibiotics responsibly. That isn’t particularly true. Perhaps they are responsible, but so are millions of other farmers around the nation.)

But back to my personal discovery. When doing my check on the FTSOS sister site, I noticed a pingback from a Marc Levy concerning Michael’s article:

There’s an essay making the rounds about “Why buying local doesn’t work” that might give the buy-local fans in Cambridge and Somerville pause — right up until they finish reading the essay and think, as I did, “That’s it?”

Because it was posted on a sober-looking site and written in a sprightly but informed manner by someone obviously conversant with current and historical economics, I read the piece expecting to come out of it with my beliefs shaken, looking for reassurance. But my dread was unfulfilled. There’s something a little off about the piece, and it only seemed a little more off when I followed the author’s name from the essay, which was reposted on a blog curiously named “Without Apology,” to his own site, the even more eyebrow-raisingly named “Young, Hip and Conservative: A Skeptical Blog.” Both do that thing where conservatives boldly assert their bold conservativeness, which is actually a form of assuming the role of victim before anyone has attacked. Who is asking Michael Hawkins for an apology? Who said Michael Hartwell was gullible? It also seems a bit gauche to declare yourself hip.

Emphasis mine.

It’s one thing for me to discover at this age that I’m actually a conservative, but it’s a real mind-blower to find out that I’m a bold conservative. I don’t know what to do with myself.

Oh wait. That’s right. This is just a case of someone not doing his homework. But that isn’t the worst of Levy. In response to an analogy Michael made between creationists and localists, Levy tosses out this assemblage of words:

The problem with Hartwell’s comparison of economics to biology by way of rejecting creationism is that creationist theory relies on a supreme being, and there is no god in even moderately serious economics — unless you include the god conservatives themselves seem to keep praying will make supply-side economics work the next time around, even though it never has before. If that doesn’t take faith, I don’t know what does, although applying it that way also comes parlously (sic) close to the definition of insanity being “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” But that’s economics for you.

If there’s one thing anyone should know about the Internet it’s that nobody is willing to accept anyone else’s analogies. The most common tactic of rejection is to draw distinctions within the actual subject to show that the analogy is invalid – and that is correct and proper. But another tactic is to take the analogy beyond its intentions and show where it fails. And of course it will eventually fail. Analogies are only designed to go so far. In this case, Michael’s analogy was to compare the ignorance of creationists to the ignorance of localists. But then Levy dons either his dunce hat or troll mask – I really can’t tell – and mangles the whole thing, bumbling his way into a failed stock retort involving deities and faith.

I’ll let Michael respond to the rest. (He could really just copy and paste much of what he has already written since Levy doesn’t seem to take much of it into account in his reply.) I just wanted to make sure that everyone knew – most of all myself – that I’m apparently a conservative. May the Lord bless Reagan’s dear soul, may FDR continue to burn in hell, and let it be known that FOX News is totally fair and balanced.

Another one no theist can adequately answer

Macho chest beating

I feel I have this interesting mix of emotions when it comes to fitness, if only because I know people tend to be willing to overlook important distinctions. On the one hand, I very much enjoy weight lifting and athletic competition. I want to be as strong as I can be, and I want to always win at whatever I’m playing – I never going into any game willing to lose. I like to discuss form, breathing, technique, and everything else that comes with lifting. And I’m not afraid to ask others what is they bench or squat or whathaveyou, provided I know they also go to a gym. But on the other hand, I hate macho chest beating. I’ve seen it on FTSOS at least twice, and I hear it at the gym from time to time. It’s annoying and immature and it shows a lack of appreciation for what weight lifting is about.

Just today I saw someone on the bench press (monopolizing the friggin’ thing) working out of form – wildly. I saw him pressing 200lbs for his sets and doing fine, but when he went up in weight to 220lbs, he began arching his back higher than I’ve ever seen anyone go. His toes were the only thing touching the ground and he was clearly using his full body – not just the muscles the bench press is meant to target – in order to get through the exercise. He was probably trying to impress his friend, which was ridiculous since his friend never went above 130lbs anyway. Besides that, he did not improve his bench press in any meaningful way.

For another example, just last week I heard two guys making disparaging comments about others in the gym who were under tutelage or doing simply, relatively easy exercises. They kept it to themselves, not directing any comment to any one person, but it was still annoying, and on three levels. First, it was stupid macho chest beating. Second, it was mocking people who were putting forth an honest effort to better themselves – I disapprove of those who are willingly fat and out-of-shape, but there is nothing wrong with being fat while attempting to become healthy. And third, these two guys were acting as though they were the toughest thing that gym had ever seen. They weren’t. Aside from the massively strong – and generally humble – guys I’ve seen around there, I was out-lifting them. And they each out-weighed me by about 30lbs.

And then there’s this example from Yahoo! Sports writer Jeff Passan:

There is an umpire problem in Major League Baseball, and it has nothing to do with blown calls or instant replay. It’s about a distinct lack of respect and baseball players’ cowardice in treating umpires as some subspecies, knowing the worst thing that can fly back at them is a suspension instead of a fist.

Most MLB players are far larger and far stronger than MLB umpires. I doubt they would be afraid to engage one of them in a fight if they could. After all, most teams get into a few brawls on the field every year – and that’s against other baseball players. Ya know, those guys who are professional athletes. It’s ridiculous to not only place false bravado on the players but to also pretend like an umpires fist is a big threat to these guys. It’s Passan who is throwing out the made up bravado, not the players.

So yeah, it bugs me when people try to play up the macho card. It’s worse when it’s done so by those who aren’t actually the strongest in the room – they deserve to be put in their place simply for getting their facts so wildly wrong – but it’s stupid when anyone does it. None of this should take away from a good appreciation for what weight lifting or athletics is about, but I do think it is good to maintain a distinction between being a macho jerk and just being a person who cares about fitness.

I can’t believe people take this idea seriously

One of the absolute worst ideas I have ever heard in regard to education has to be Maine governor Paul LePage’s idea to add a 5th year to high school so students can earn their Associate degrees.  He mentioned it during the campaign season but had gone silent on it since. I was hopeful he had abandoned the thought. It’s just awful:

  • High school teachers are not qualified to teach college level courses
  • Associate degrees typically take 2 years to get
  • High schools are not accredited institutions (I feel bad for the students that will get laughed at when they attempt to transfer their credits to real colleges and universities.)
  • This insults everyone who has a legitimate Associate degree

Unfortunately, it looks like people are still taking this stuff seriously, including the local newspaper:

A high school diploma is not enough for today’s job market, and current school programs work well for many students but still leave too many behind. Too often, students finish high school without the skills they need to get a good job or make the transition to college-level work.

Making it easier for more people to move from high school to college will not only improve their economic prospects, but everyone’s. It’s still an interesting idea and well worth pursuing.

Except this is not college-level work. There is not a single teacher in the state of Maine – or anywhere else – that is qualified to teach at the college level except in cases of special instruction and other, relatively rare exceptions – or when they are also professors. A sociology teacher at a high school cannot teach a sociology course at the college level. A high school biology teacher cannot teach me about genetics under any formal requirements. The same goes for all the major subjects. Until colleges start offering gym courses, high school teachers need to stay in their own buildings, teaching at their own level.

This is just the worst idea I’ve ever heard. I’m not saying that because LePage is a Republican and generally a bad governor. I’m saying it because it’s so ridiculous and demonstrates an extreme poverty of understanding of the differences between high schools and colleges. If this dolt wants to subsidize real college degrees, earned at real colleges, then great. Do it. Or if he wants to trim many of the useless classes high school students have to take so that they can more easily be sent to classes at universities and community colleges, then great. Do it. But if he wants to add a 5th year of high school without accounting for the quality of instruction, the new class space needed, the space needed for the added students – the high school in my city already has taken on 7th and 8th graders in addition to the other students – or why he believes it’s okay to give away two year degrees to under-taught students in a hugely compressed time frame, then no. That’s awful and Paul LePage needs to keep his face away from anything to do with education. He obviously has no idea what he’s doing and he hasn’t bothered to think through this idea in the least.

Can atheism overtake religion?

New research suggests it’s possible. It’s really a matter of quality of life:

First, as to the distribution of atheism in the world, a clear pattern can be discerned. In sub-Saharan Africa there is almost no atheism (2). Belief in God declines in more developed countries and atheism is concentrated in Europe in countries such as Sweden (64% nonbelievers), Denmark (48%), France (44%) and Germany (42%). In contrast, the incidence of atheism in most sub-Saharan countries is below 1%.

Some of the reasons the author, Nigel Barber, gives for this distinct distribution has to do with affluence, education, and a personal sense of security. First, poor nations very rarely have a notable occurrence of atheists. Rather, they tend to have marriage-encouraged families which help to produce high numbers of children. This is all pushed and protected and propagated to a high degree by religion. Of course, the inverse is that these families and their largeness creates a positive feedback loop that helps to increase religiosity.

Second, it is widely known that the more educated one becomes, the more likely one is to be an atheist. We even see most of the scientists of the world professing (or admitting, depending upon one’s view) their atheism. That doesn’t mean the religious are stupid. Nothing prevents a Muslim or Jew from becoming highly educated – and, in fact, many Nobel Prize winners have been Jewish – but the statistics are the statistics.

Third, and I think this is the biggest factor, people want to feel safe. They want a sense of security. They want to know they have control and that they aren’t just going it alone. Countries where its inhabitants are either wealthy or where social welfare programs are in high gear will tend to produce a higher percentage of atheists than other countries.

Of final note, I have three more things. First, as a token of good faith, I realize that much of this plays into confirmation bias. It’s long been a belief of mine that people largely turn to religion because it offers comfort. One only need to look at those who hit rock bottom, whether in society or in prison, to see correlative evidence of such. Second, this article does leave out other reasons why people cling to their religion. It’s difficult for one to let go of something so ingrained. We all have a web of beliefs. It’s easy to alter the beliefs not fundamental to how we define ourselves, but to get at the core and make a change is difficult. (That’s one reason we have creationists in the world.) This tendency to cling is important because the number one factor indicating what one will believe is what one’s parents believe. And to go outside one’s family, the next big factor to indicate what people will believe is region. It’s another positive feedback loop – one’s core beliefs are reinforced by their group and their group is reinforced by their core beliefs. Third, I know there are some of the more aggressive theists out there who will be willing to spin this to mean that atheism is a luxury of the wealthy, and in a way it is. But that isn’t a negative thing. Education, creature comforts, long-term well being, financial security, and health security are some other luxuries of the wealthy. This are all things which enable individuals to have all the more freedom and more peace of mind.

PZ moves

It looks like PZ has moved his blog to freethoughtblogs.com, which probably spells a (more certain) slow death for scienceblogs.com. It’s a shame if only because the latter site clearly has a better name than the former. But at any rate, Pharyngula is still quite active and available.

It looks like PZ is still making most of his posts are both websites due to technical issues with the ability for the new host to handle traffic, but his new site is available right now. Check it out here.

Update: Two points of note. First, there are more creationist ads than usual on the side. I hope they have to pay per page view. Second, Comrade Major Meltdown has a blog there. This is unfortunate because 1) he writes so poorly, 2) he’s little more than a troll who doesn’t care about making any arguments, 3) he inevitably freaks out when someone refuses to stoop to his level, 4) he’s a Yankees fan, and 5) he really is a Yankees fan. And probably a bandwagon Yankees fan at that (as if there is any other kind).

Thought of the day

If Toshiba knows their hard drives suck, why don’t they do something about it?

Also, I ironically backed up all my files using Carbonite and the coupon code “Rush” (as in Rush Limbaugh) for two months of free service. I’m not above a good deal.