Simply lovely

While I love to see the bare geological history of a mountain in the summer, Shawnee Peak will be quite lovely tomorrow, especially since there’s a convenient chair to bring me to the top.

wcsh_event1

Credit to WCSH6.com for the image.

Dumb parents

Quebec has a program of study which entails learning about different religions. It does not say “This is right. That is wrong.” It makes no endorsement of religion. It is simply a well-tailored course which educates students about what others believe, the culture surrounding those beliefs, and the diversity that is entailed in the world, with an obvious focus on Quebec’s diversity.

Of course, it comes as no surpise that some dogmatic mooks do not recognize the point of the class.

The course “is forcing children to learn the content of other religions,” Jean Morse-Chevrier, president of the Quebec Association of Catholic Parents, said yesterday. “Therefore it is the state deciding what religious content will be learned, at what age, and that is totally overriding the parents’ authority and role.”

The new course is the final step in a secularization of Quebec schooling that began with a 1997 constitutional amendment replacing the province’s denominational school boards with linguistic ones.

The notion that parents should have the authority to shelter their children from knowledge is obscene. The course is about learning how other people think and why. It offers insight, not harm. What these parents want to do is have the right to abuse their children by keeping them locked in an intellectual cage of uniformity and dogma.

A 2005 law changed Quebec’s Education Act and its Charter of Rights to eliminate parents’ right to choose a course in Catholic, Protestant or moral instruction, and the changes came into effect last June.

Am I reading this right? Students had to attend some form of “moral instruction”? Even with the options offered, this is inane. Looking beyond the oxymoron of Christian morality, at what point did Canada think it a good idea to indoctrinate children with particular notions of right and wrong beyond perhaps some basics (i.e., no fighting)? I thought you were better than that, O Canada.

Of course, such an article would not be complete without an example of the topic.

For Diane Gagne and her 16-year-old son Jonathan, evangelical Christians in Granby, the course teaches values that run counter to their religion.

Jonathan has been sitting out the course this fall, which is taught for about two hours a week. Last Friday he was told by J-H-Leclerc secondary school that he had been suspended for the day.

If he continues to skip the class, school rules could eventually lead to expulsion.

Ms. Gagne said her son remains determined despite the suspension. “He told me, ‘Mom, I am still standing, and I’m going to keep standing and fight this to the end.’ We’re prepared to go right to expulsion.”

Dear Ms. Gagne,

    Your son is a moron.

    Best wishes.

Puh-lease. This is just sad. This kid is so indoctrinated in his mother’s particular brand of inanity that he is unwilling to so much as listen to what someone else believes. Such action is not the mark of an intelligent individual.

Obama: Science to be at top of agenda

The beauty that is science has suffered horribly in the past 8 years thanks to the idiocy of the Republicans. It’s such a relief to know that Jesus H. Obama is going to bring the United States up to code with the rest of the sane world and, again, put science at the top.

CHICAGO – Seeking to draw a distinction with President George W. Bush, Barack Obama named his top science and technology advisers Saturday and pledged to “once again put science at the top of our agenda.”

And what a distinction it is. From denying global warming for so many years, to having the gall to suggest that intelligent design is somehow related to science in any way, Bush’s level of interest in science and truth is about equal to Bobby Jindal’s.

Obama said history has shown that the greatest scientific discoveries – from landing on the moon to inventing the Internet – didn’t happen without support from the government and its leaders.

We love our toilet paper, but we don’t want to learn about the path that led to it. (I have to be fair here. It wasn’t simply science – necessity played its fair role.)

Taking a veiled jab at Bush, Obama said the scientific process is about evidence and facts that “are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.”

“It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient – especially when it’s inconvenient,” Obama said. “Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as president of the United States – and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”

He announced Dr. John Holdren, a Harvard University professor, as assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Jane Lubchenco, an environmental scientist and marine ecologist at Oregon State University, is Obama’s choice for administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Obama also named co-chairs of the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology: Harold Varmus, a Nobel Prize winner, and Eric Lander, founding director of the Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard.

It’s so nice to see a president who is making his appointments based upon the candidates actually being, I don’t know, qualified. No former International Arabian Horse Association commissioner for this administration.

Aversion to education (rant)

I find myself wondering why the aversion to education from so many. It has become a popular thing to say “Well, such-and-such told me this about Subject X, so I’m not really interested in learning about it.” Well, that isn’t a good reason, is it? It’s no more than an Appeal to Authority. Basically, a person who is held in some modicum of respect declares this or that to be true and so others take it to be true and worthwhile.

I specifically want to take this down the road of science (of course). There is a massive aversion to this subject, almost to the point where it’s popular to play up one’s ignorance of this powerful, powerful tool. It’s a shame. A big, fucking shame. What’s tragically ironic is that many of these same people fully embrace their Internet, cars, toilet paper, inexpensive food, iPods, mass-produced (and inexpensive) clothing, and so many other things which are the result of science and technology. Science is within nearly every moment of our lives, yet few realize this because it is applied science, not research or theoretical science. Instead, we embrace the pseudosciences of acupuncture, intelligent design, and astrology.

To bring this to my favorite subject, it is of course important to wonder aloud why so many people have been taught that it is okay to be told by a pastor, priest, minister or other authority figure that evolution is untrue and that that person’s opinion on such a topic is worth its weight in salt. It isn’t. In fact, most Appeals to Authority are useless. It seems to me that if one is actually, genuinely interested in a topic that there would be a certain level of necessary inquiry that would be taken. That is, so many people reject evolution on the flimsy basis that because it contradicts their pre-held beliefs, it must be wrong. In other words, they recognize that if evolution is true, at best they can become theistic evolutionists, but even then they must recognize that such a god is superfluous. That means whether evolution is true or not is wholly central to the belief system of anyone that realizes the importance of the issue. If we can agree that this is the case, then shouldn’t we also agree that an aversion to education about evolution comes across as rather silly?

Properly leading science articles

Not long ago I wrote about misleading science articles, where it was claimed something in science was proved by a group of authors, one of which responded to the post (thank you, Christian Hoelbling). Now here’s a better article which is properly leading.

WASHINGTON – Mysterious dark energy, which likely causes the universe to keep expanding, seems to have another effect: It prevents the biggest clusters of galaxies from getting too fat. Astronomers used X-rays to study the formation of galactic clusters billions of years ago. Their research supports the hard-to-fathom concept of dark energy as a potent force that governs the growth of the universe.

It also means Albert Einstein’s century-old theory of general relativity passes another crucial, but not conclusive, real-world test.

Emphasis added.

Science is about disproving, not proving. By relativity “pass[ing] another crucial…test” it is meant that it was not falsified; it does not mean that anything was proven. The continued inability to falsify general relativity simply reinforces the theory.

Incidentally,

“[Dark energy] much more important and abundant in the evolution of the universe than the atoms that make us up,” said Princeton theoretical astrophysicist David Spergal.

Six Gene Mutations Linked to Obesity

Six new gene mutations linked to obesity

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – At least six new gene mutations linked to obesity that point to ways the brain and nervous system control eating and metabolism have been identified, researchers reported Sunday.

Joel Hirschhorn at Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston led a team called Genetic Investigation of Anthropometric Traits, or GIANT, to screen 15 different studies of the entire human genetic map and pinpoint the six new genetic variations.

“Today’s findings are a major step forward in understanding how the human body regulates weight,” Dr. Alan Guttmacher, Acting director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, said in a statement.

“This study essentially doubles in one fell swoop the number of known and replicated genetic factors contributing to obesity as a public health problem,” added Dr. Kari Stefansson, Chief Executive Officer of DeCODE Genetics of Iceland, who led a team that made similar findings in a separate study.

The GIANT team found variations in six genes — TMEM18, KCTD15, GNPDA2, SH2B1, MTCH2 and NEGR1 — were strongly associated with the height-to-weight ratio known as body mass index (BMI).

“One of the most notable aspects of these discoveries is that most of these new risk factors are near genes that regulate processes in the brain,” added Stefansson, whose company hopes to sell genetic tests based on such discoveries.

“This suggests that as we work to develop better means of combating obesity, including using these discoveries as the first step in developing new drugs, we need to focus on the regulation of appetite at least as much as on the metabolic factors of how the body uses and stores energy,” Stefansson said.

“These new variants may point to valuable new drug targets,” he added.

Nearly one third of U.S. adults are considered obese, with a BMI of 30 or higher. Obesity is associated with more than 100,000 deaths each year in the U.S. population and trends are similar in many other countries.

“We know that environmental factors, such as diet, play a role in obesity, but this research further provides evidence that genetic variation plays a significant role in an individual’s predisposition to obesity,” said the genome institute’s Dr. Eric Green.

If there weren’t such a strong genetic factor, I would propse substituting obese with “unconcerned for my personal welfare, the welfare of those around me, living a life of quality, and frankly, life as a whole”.

These six newly discovered alleles strongly suggest predispositions to obesity. Of course, that was already known long, long, long ago. What wasn’t known was just how strong the genetic link was. In this case, 6 associated alleles is a surprisingly large number.

What’s tremendously important to note, however, is that we are not our genes. In very few cases is it overwhelmingly difficult to combat obesity – and in the majority of that minority, the cases are due to other, more serious diseases and genetic conditions. For most people, a healthy diet and regular excercise will combat the hell out of obesity.

Here’s something few obese people see in person.

Mount Katahdin

Mount Katahdin

Discussing science

I find I often subject myself to a surprising amount of anti-science misery, otherwise known as the Crosswalk forums (with alternative names such as ibelieve.com). If you dare to read that rubbish, you’ll actually find a thread linking to one of my posts. I was banned long ago (it’s lifelong; I’m so flattered!), so it was actually a friend who made the thread. Anyway, it has generated a good deal of traffic for me, as well as quite a few responses, even if a large number of them are wholly devoid of any education. One reason it has generated traffic is because this blog (and science) tends to be a tad abrasive toward creationism and I guess there’s a whole slew of other people who like subjecting themselves to material which disagrees with what they believe, too.

Here’s a sample of the rubbish which is put on these forums.

NS [natural selection] is just a filter. It doesn’t create anything, it just weeds out stuff. Contrary to Darwinism, it doesn’t necessarily keep stuff either. There is nothing that stops deleterious mutations from undoing neutral and/or good ones.

Natural selection is a filter, but it does not exist, apparently.

Well, just speculating here, but if the tooth of a little dinosaur was made into a necklace, would anyone necessarily think of it being a dinosaur? A lot of what we see in the museums are people’s ideas of what they may have looked like, so I’m not entirely sure that what we see in the pictures are what they really even looked like.

Those silly misleading fossils. Scientists just guess how they go together.

So the pattern, rather than gradual changes through incremental and incidental modification of ongoing mutation, appears to be a rapid appearance of various groups [of horseshoe crabs] followed by extreme stasis, presumably comprising in some cases hundreds of millions.

This would seem to directly contradict the fundamental notion of Neo-Darwinian evolution.

Please see Gould.

Ok so here are some of the major reasons why I believe Darwinism will collapse.
Darwinism will ultimately collapse as a valid theory of life origins because :

It fails to explain the origin of complex coded information contained in all living organisms
It fails to explain the origin of nano bio-machinery contained in all living organisms
It fails to account for irreducibly complex systems contained in all living organisms
It fails to account for the human moral sense and altruism
It fails to explain the general lack of transitional forms in the fossil record which should number in the multiple millions but don’t
Natural selection (originally a creationist concept) has failed as a sufficient explanatory mechanism for the level of complexity and diversity in nature
Random mutations can never account for the sophisticated, factory-like organization within the cell
It fails to account for how, in the midst of greater numbers nefarious mutations, any of the rare beneficial mutations could dominate bio history = see 1st quote below
… IDists and creationists are invited to add to this list if you have more reasons

My head hurts.

Okay, I’m sorry for posting this, but I wouldn’t do it if I didn’t have a redeeming link, I promise. For actual discussion on evolution where people have [i]actual[/i] educations, the Richard Dawkins forums are excellent. I don’t personally post very much, but simply reading good discussions about science is refreshing and wonderful. And it isn’t necessary that you be an atheist to post or enjoy the read.

Check out this blog

I recently came across the blog Obsessed with reality. It’s really quite well written, especially this piece (which is the primary reason I am advocating for it).

Give it a looksie-loo.

Happy Thanksgiving

Palin is an idiot

Why we believe in gods

I found this video on why we believe in gods to be very interesting and worth watching.