“I say to the grownups, ‘If you want to deny evolution and live in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we’ve observed in the universe that’s fine. But don’t make your kids do it,'” said Nye, best known as host of the educational TV series “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”…
“When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in (evolution) it holds everybody back, really,” he said….
Nye said that while many adults may believe in creationism, children should be taught evolution in order to understand science. Absent a grasp of evolution, he said, “You’re just not going to get the right answers.” And he called evolution the “fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology.”
Teaching children the building blocks of science is essential for the country’s future, he added, saying, “We need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future.”
Update: This post has received a pingback from Jesse Bering. It does not support the contention he makes, nor does he make it clear which “outspoken atheist blogger” he means (me or PZ). I have asked him to correct his obvious error, but he refuses.
PZ Myers irresponsibly said this last year concerning circumcision:
The health benefits. Total bullshit. As one of the speakers in the movie explains, there have been progressive excuses: from it prevents masturbation to it prevents cancer to it prevents AIDS. The benefits all vanish with further studies and are all promoted by pro-circumcision organizations. It doesn’t even make sense: let’s not pretend people have been hacking at penises for millennia because there was a clinical study. Hey, let’s chop off our pinkie toes and then go looking for medical correlations!
The American Academy of Pediatrics on Monday announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, concluding that the health benefits of the procedure clearly outweigh any risks.
“There is clear evidence that supports the health benefits of circumcision,” said Susan Blank, who led the 14-member task force that formulated the new policy being published in the journal Pediatrics…
For starters, Blank says, circumcision helps baby boys pretty much immediately.
“The health benefits of male circumcision include a drop in the risk of urinary tract infection in the first year of life by up to 90 percent,” she says.
But there’s a much bigger reason to do it, Blank said. Circumcised males are far less likely to get infected with a long list of sexually transmitted diseases.
“It drops the risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition by about 60 percent. It drops the risk of human papillomavirus [HPV], herpes virus and other infectious genital ulcers,” she says.
It also reduces the chances that men will spread HPV to their wives and girlfriends, protecting them from getting cervical cancer.
“We’ve reviewed the data and, you know, we have gone through them with a fine-tooth comb, and the data are pretty convincing,” she says.
So now the only question that remains is, When is PZ Myers going to recant his blatantly and irresponsibly false statement where he said that health benefits of circumcision vanish with further studies? It would also be nice if he could clarify whether or not the American Academy of Pediatrics is a “pro-circumcision organization”.
I’ve only ever been to five weddings (at least as far as I remember) and I think it’s pretty clear cut: Buffets are where it’s at. It’s cheaper for the bride and groom (or their parents, as the case may be), plus the food is always just way better and with way more choices.
I was looking through some old weight lifting books that once belonged to my grandfather when I came across an exercise I had written about in the past. At the time I called it the cleave and jerk. It turns out it as an alternate name:
I believe “one arm power jerk” is probably a more accurate name, but either way works. Of course, it’s all somewhat moot since this is a fairly old fashioned lift. In fact, aside from that excerpt/image coming from a book originally published in 1963, I was once doing this exercise when, just after I set the dumbbell down, an older gentlemen by the name of Ralph asked me if I had learned it from my grandfather. I asked if he had had the honor of knowing the man, but he said no. He just knew that there was no way I had learned it from a high school coach or any modern trainer.
On another note, here is a picture I found of my grandfather doing a similar exercise:
Again, this is only similar to the description above. The one arm power jerk involves an extended press of the bar as opposed to the resting of the upper arm on the ribcage. I’m not even sure if that’s safe. (I estimate there to be about 90 lbs in discs with the bar likely weighing 15 or 20 for a total of 105-110 lbs.)
I recently saw a poll showing that some crazy percentage of Republicans – 67% – believe abortion is okay in instances of rape. That’s hilariously inconsistent with the argument that a fetus is a full-fledged human life and thus deserving of protection. What the hell argument distinguishes between a fetus conceived via consensual sex versus one conceived via rape?
Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin has been all over the news for saying this in response to a question about abortion in the case of rape:
People always try to make that one of those things, ‘Oh, how do you slice this particularly tough sort of ethical question. It seems to me, first of all, what I understand from doctors is that’s really where, if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
He then goes on to say that he opposes abortion in cases of rape. (Before I go on to address the big issue here – the use of the word “legitimate” – I want to note how surprising it is that this position isn’t more widespread in the anti-abortion camp. If the life of a child is what matters, then why is it important how that child was conceived? If a life is a life, then a life is a life. The argument that ‘every life matters’ doesn’t cease to be the right-wing’s cornerstone because of external reasons that do not reflect upon the innocence of the life itself.)
Anyway. The major issue at hand here is that Akin, apparently, distinguished between legitimate and, presumably, illegitimate rape. I think it is important, at this point, to listen to the actual clip from the interview:
I think this makes his words much more ambiguous. Let’s start with the first part of what he says. When quoted in writing, it sounds like he’s being dismissive and condescending to people who ‘always try to make that one of those tough ethical questions’. That is, if I had only read what he said, I would have placed his words in a context where he was practically saying that the issue is nothing more than a “gotcha question”. Listening to the video, it’s clear he’s just summarizing the nature of the argument. I think it’s clear he does think the question is a tough one. His inflection indicates that. But I never would have gotten that from just reading his quote.
Now let’s look at his use of the word “legitimate”. I think what he was trying to emphasize was a difference between consensual sex and rape. That is, he was trying to say the female body has a way of distinguishing between two types of sex acts (consensual and non-consensual). Of course, there is no way the female body does that, and I suspect he was merely repeating the all too common anti-abortion propaganda out there that has no regard for science.
To be sure, Akin used a stupid word. And to be extra sure, I think his position on abortion is just as stupid. However, I do not think that he meant to say that women who claim to be raped yet still get pregnant are lying, that their rapes were not legitimate. I think he believed, erroneously, that there is some physiological mechanism in place that prevents pregnancy in the case of rape, but he also believed that it was not 100% effective. (Again, his belief was wrong through and through, but I think that’s the position he held.)
I don’t want to defend Akin. And, frankly, part of me is glad that this has not only impacted his chance of election, but that it has placed a negative light on the Republican party all together. However, just as President Obama’s use of the word “that” did not mean he believed business owners did not build their own businesses, I do not think Akin’s use of the word “legitimate” means he thinks pregnant rape victims are liars. For me, this issue goes beyond the social concerns and the ethical issues. I very much see it as an issue of language. I’m not willing to grill someone over what I think was a slip of the tongue. Until I see evidence that Akin might actually believe that rape victims are liars – a certainly shitty position – I’m not jumping on the bandwagon.
Finally, let’s go back to what I said right before the video: “I think it is important, at this point, to listen to the actual clip from the interview.” I intentionally used the word “actual”; most people who read it likely assumed I was distinguishing between the video clip and the written quote. And I was. However, it would not be difficult to falsely interpret my sentence to mean that I think there is a real clip and a fake clip. Or, alternatively, it could be interpreted to mean that I think the written quote is somehow fabricated or quote-mined. None of that would be true, of course. All I was saying was that there is a difference between reading a quote and hearing a quote. The nature of language allows for broad interpretations, though – especially when there is an agenda-driven narrative already in place.
NASA’s Curiosity rover has zapped its first Martian rock, aiming its laser for the sake of science.
During the target practice on Sunday. Curiosity fired 30 pulses at a nearby rock over a 10-second window, burning a small hole.
Since landing in Gale Crater two weeks ago, the six-wheel rover has been checking out its instruments including the laser. During its two-year mission, Curiosity was expected to point the laser at various rocks as it drives toward Mount Sharp, a 3-mile-high mountain rising from the crater floor.
Oh. And it also has the goal of determining if Mars is inhabitable or something.
I’ve written on this general topic in the past, but I want to emphasize it once again: Your Facebook page, your blog, and whatever other discussion-facilitating website you use and/or control is not your living room. It seems as though I see someone somewhere claim that the two are one in the same just about every other day. “Why, this page is just like my living room. You’re my guest, so you must only say what I find appropriate.” That’s horseshit.
A person has the right to censor and be a general douche as much as he or she wants when it comes to Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc, but that does not mean doing so is ethical nor, more importantly, that the right to do so is the same as it exists in one’s living room. First, I can tell someone to leave my blog all I want, but I cannot have that person charged with trespassing. The law does not recognize the comment function of social media platforms as anything like the couch in my living room. Second, no one invites hundreds or thousands of people into his or her living room. It just doesn’t happen. At best, your email or private inbox is like your living room. At best.
It’s legally fine is someone is sensitive to criticism or some sort of discussion and, as a result, decides to insulate him or herself from it all. But that doesn’t mean said critics and others were sitting in front of anyone’s fireplace having a chat over a cup of tea. It’s just a stupid comparison.
As we’ve learned over the past few years from Republicans, corporations are people. You see, any time people get together to do things, they have the same rights as individuals. It makes one wonder how we’re allowed to regulate any business at all. But that’s another topic for another day. You see, while corporations have been given person-status because they are no more than collections of people, some members of the GOP apparently don’t think that the states are also collections of people:
In 1913, the 17th Amendment was passed to override part of Article 1, Section 3, of the Constitution, which designated that state legislatures, not the people, select two people per state to serve as senators…
Today, [Pete] Hoekstra and some other GOP members couch the argument of a 17th Amendment repeal in the concept of giving states back their full rights under the Constitution.
The Roll Call article lists four other GOP members who’ve made remarks about repealing the amendment since 2010: Representatives Jeff Flake and Todd Akin, Indiana state treasurer Richard Mourdock, and Senator Mike Lee.
Mourdock, a Senate candidate in Indiana, said earlier this year that the 17th Amendment hurts the states.
“The House of Representatives was there to represent the people. The Senate was there to represent the states,” Mourdock said in February.
Got that? The House is there to represent the people. In contrast, the Senate is there to represent something that is not the people. Specifically, it is there to represent the states. You know. Those things that aren’t people. Because only corporations are people.
Paul Ryan and other Republicans have been saying that President Obama is incredibly partisan and has changed the atmosphere in Washington more than anyone in recent memory. When asked if they thought it was really fucking stupid and a sign of an inability to ever compromise to sign a statement pledging to never raise taxes, blank faces filled the room.
For the Sake of Science 