Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
This is an experiment in PuffHo/BuzzFeed/Thrillist clickbaiting. So, here goes: “Five Things That We Atheists Don’t Want You to Know About Us.”
Continue reading “Five things that atheists don’t want you to know”
As Politico reports, Ted Cruz made a statement on January 20 showing where his allegiance lay:
Cruz’s initial comments came in response to a question about former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, who said in a New York Times interview that Cruz would be more damaging to the GOP than Trump, specifically that Cruz would generate “wholesale losses” and be unable to work with Congress. In the interview, Dole also said he questioned Cruz’s “allegiance” to the Republican Party.
“I’m a Christian first, American second, conservative third and Republican fourth,” said Cruz, who is currently a distant second place, behind Trump, for the GOP nomination in several national polls. “I’ll tell ya, there are a whole lot of people in this country that feel exactly the same way.”
Yep, that’s what he said, and it’s no surprise: music to the ears of his religious supporters, but clangor to everyone else. As the reader said who sent me this, “What if Cruz had said “I’m a Muslim first, American second. . . “? Or, “I’m a Scientologist first, American second. . “? Now those wouldn’t sound so good to Americans, would they?
The two big problems with this are that Cruz gives primacy to his faith over his governance, so we can expect, as with W., a country where the President seeks guidance from God. As we know, such consultations with the divine don’t go well. Second, 28% of Americans don’t identify as Christians: they’re either “nones” (which include atheists) or members of other faiths. What are those 89 million people supposed to think about a President whose foremost self-image is that of a Christian?
I didn’t watch the Trumpless GOP debate yesterday, but I seriously doubt whether the moderators (or any reporters) have asked Crus (or any faith-touting candidate) a question like this:
“Senator Cruz, you’ve publicly stated that you see your Christianity as more important than your nationality or your political views. Does this mean that, if elected, you’ll be governing based on your religious beliefs?”
Just once I’d like to see a reporter have enough moxie to ask a Republican this kind of question!
h/t: Lesley
Tonight there will be a debate at 7 p.m. on the topic of accommodationism: the announcement is below, and if you’re not in Toronto, you can watch it live on YouTube (see below). The participants are Denis Alexander, one of the more amusing accommodationists I’ve read, and Larry Moran, an evolutionary biologist and biochemist at the University of Toronto.
Actually, it’s not really a debate; Larry tells me this:
“Denis Alexander is going to give a 30 minute presentation. Then we’re going to have a ‘dialogue’ for about an hour followed by a 30 min Q&A.”
Below are the descriptions of the participants. I’ve crossed swords with Alexander several times before, as he’s a Templeton-funded accommodationist who describes himself as an “evolutionary creationist.” You can find some of the posts I’ve made that are critical of his views here, here, here, here, here, and here.
DR. DENIS ALEXANDER is the Emeritus Director of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, St Edmund’s College, University of Cambridge, where he is a Fellow. Dr. Alexander was previously Chairman of the Molecular Immunology Programme and Head of the Laboratory of Lymphocyte Signalling and Development at the Babraham Institute, University of Cambridge. Prior to that Dr. Alexander was at the Imperial Cancer Research Laboratories in London (now Cancer Research UK), and spent 15 years developing university departments and laboratories overseas, latterly as Associate Professor of Biochemistry in the Medical Faculty of the American University of Beirut, Lebanon, where he helped to establish the National Unit of Human Genetics.
Dr. Alexander writes, lectures and broadcasts widely in the field of science and religion. From 1992-2013 he was Editor of the journal Science & Christian Belief and currently serves on the National Committee of Christians in Science and as a member of the executive committee of the International Society for Science and Religion.
DR. LARRY MORAN is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. He is the author of the blog called “Sandwalk” and one of the authors of “Principles of Biochemistry” (5th edition). Dr. Moran is interested in biochemistry, molecular evolution, and science education. He received his PhD from Princeton University.
It will be streamed live on YouTube, and you can see it by clicking on the screenshot below (not operative yet, of course). My screenshot says 6 p.m., but that’s undoubtedly Chicago time, an hour earlier than Toronto time. I’ll be watching this for sure, and I have high hopes for Dr. Moran.
Tara Tanaka (flickr site here, Vimeo site here ) is brightening up our Friday with this lovely video of a determined brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum) taking a bath. I’m hoping to put up one of her videos every Friday. Tara’s notes:
I’ve been slowly, painfully working my way through over 400GB of video I shot since August – trimming, naming, backing up – the “eating your vegetables” of videography. This morning I decided to treat myself to some “video dessert” and make a fun little video from something I just saw for the first time yesterday. I hope you enjoy it! Digiscoped with the GH4 using manual focus.
For best resolution (and it’s HIGH resolution!), be sure to put the on full screen (click the four diverging arrows), and then click on the “HD” feature, choosing 1080p. Comme ça:
That must have been a dirty bird!
It’s Friday! Even Professor Ceiling Cat (Emeritus) will rest a bit this weekend, getting ready for a busy week in Old Blighty. The good news is that my Indian visa has emerged from the bureaucratic labyrinth, so I’ll have my passport back for the England trip (travel to India commences in March). Wikipedia announced a “this day in history” event for January 29, 1967: “The ‘ultimate high; of the hippie era, the Mantra-Rock Dance, takes place in San Francisco and features Janis Joplin,Grateful Dead, and Allen Ginsberg.” I lived through the Sixties and have no memory of that event (there’s a joke here, but I won’t make it.) On this day in 1737, Thomas Paine was born, as well as Anton Chekhov in 1860 and Germaine “No Platform” Greer in 1939. Deaths on this day include those of H. L. Mencken in 1956 and Robert Frost in 1963. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is pretending to conduct a scientific experiment. She’s rather crafty these days!:
A: I suspect that when you bite through this cord we will not be able to roll up or pull down the blinds.
Hili: This is a wobbly hypothesis but we have to test it.
In Polish:
Ja: Podejrzewam, że jak przegryziesz ten sznurek to nie będzie można ani spuszczać, ani podnosić rolet.
Hili: To jest chwiejna hipoteza, ale trzeba ją sprawdzić.
And Leon’s mountain vacation ended; it was too snowy for him to essay long hikes. But he’s helpful on the way home:
Leon: Are we going to drive through Szczaworyż?
Our one-and-a-half stone Maine Coon guarding his year’s supply of cat litter pic.twitter.com/OOn8xhJxby
— John Cleese (@JohnCleese) January 29, 2016
It just can’t spell!!! (But I’m sure it loves fish. . . .)
h/t: Chris G.
Here’s a theory (which is mine) for which I’ll surely get shellacked. My theory, which (again) is mine, is this, and here it is. It’s just below:
In general, people don’t like fish near as much as meat.
My evidence:
I know a lot of people will write in angrily and say they love fish, and love fishy fish like anchovies and herring. I recognize that you people exist, but I am making a general argument, one supported by the data above. (Another non-fishy fish that’s highly prized, by the way, is swordfish.)
Full disclosure: I am not much of a fish fan, and when I do eat it it, it’s tuna or salmon.
p.s. Be temperate in your remarks below: remember there are rules about calling people names. Try not to carp too much.
p.p.s. I am talking about humans here, not cats.
A new Texas law that goes into effect on August 1 will allow all students to carry concealed weapons on public university campuses and inside classroom buildings (some exceptions can be made by university administrations). It’s a dreadful idea, predicated on the notion that if the students are packing heat, it will deter terrorists or other crazies who want to attack campuses. (I can imagine the carnage in a classroom shootout like that!) Private universities are exempt—for the time being.
Given that it’s a law, there’s not much one can do but challenge it in court. But one professor, and someone I know and respect, is simply committing civil disobedience, telling students he won’t allow guns in the classroom.
According to PuffHo, renowned and Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg (also an atheist) has announced that he’ll try to ban guns in his University of Texas at Austin classroom this fall:
Steven Weinberg, who won the top prize in science in 1979, said at the university’s faculty council meeting that he understands the decision could leave him vulnerable to a lawsuit. Most university task forces across the state have found that Texas’ new campus carry law prohibits such a ban. But Weinberg said he believes that he would eventually win that suit, because forcing professors to allow guns quashes constitutionally protected free speech and academic freedom.
“I am willing by my own actions to expose myself to this,” he said. “Let’s have it heard. We should allow the courts to decide it.”
Yes, I think he’ll be sued, and I’m glad he’s willing to take the heat (so to speak) and fight this thing up through the courts (I’m sure the American Civil Liberties Union will help, although I can’t really see this as a free-speech issue.) But Weinberg’s in for a hard time, for even the University’s lawyers disagree with him:
UT-Austin officials charged with reviewing the law were unconvinced. Steven Goode, a UT-Austin law professor and chairman of the university’s campus carry task force, said his group reviewed banning guns in classrooms and decided that it violated the new law. Attorney General Ken Paxton has agreed in a written opinion issued last month.
“I think that the notion that a First Amendment claim would win in court against [the campus carry law] is an illusion,” Goode said. “I think it is an extraordinarily weak argument.
. . . At UT-Austin, President Greg Fenves appointed a task force to review the law and suggest rules. That task force has recommended banning guns in dorms and allowing professors to ban guns in their individual offices. But it said that bans in classrooms went too far.
Fenves, who hasn’t yet weighed in, said on Monday that he expects to propose his rules by mid-February. But in comments to the faculty council, he indicated that he would have to stick with state law. When asked whether professors can require students with handguns to sit in the back of the classroom, for example, Fenves said he didn’t think so.
“As a public university, I am obligated to seeing that we carry out the law,” Fenves said.
I have a lot of friends who teach at UT Austin and other public universities in Texas, and I wouldn’t like to be in their shoes. I simply can’t imagine teaching knowing that students are sitting in front of me with pistols. What if they get mad?
At any rate, Weinberg has guts, and although he’ll probably lose, I applaud his chutzpah.
