Not really, it was just soaking up the sun on someone’s skylight, but it does look like Hovercat, and I like to end the work week with a felid.
From imgur:
h/t: jsp
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.
The Guardian published this letter urging removal of the crime of blasphemy from the Irish constitution It was by Atheist Ireland (headed by Mick Nugent) and addressed to Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach (prime minister) of Ireland. Several of us were asked to sign it, and I did so with alacrity.
Kudos to Atheist Ireland for trying to get this odious law off the books. I’m told that the letter may even have an effect. Note: if you find what’s below hard to read, simply go the Guardian site whose link is above.

Reader Michael sent me this previously unseen interview of Christopher Hitchens by Italian journalist and author Christian Rocca, filmed at Hitchens’s apartment in the Wyoming. (As of 7 a.m. Mississippi time, there are only 280 views.) The date was Decrember 1, 2005—five years before Hitchens died. Sadly, the questions are in Italian, but Hitch’s answers are in English with Italian subtitles, and since Hitch dominates (as usual), you can guess the questions.
I have Darwin Day activities today, and so won’t be able to watch it all yet, but I present it as a gift to readers. It’s 49 minutes long, so you might want to save it as a weekend treat.
It’s good to see the guy again, even if he smokes like a chimney through the interview.
. . .and with help from Professor Ceiling Cat! Yesterday I had a long chat (while sitting in the Atlanta airport) with Jonathan Cohn, formerly with The New Republic and now with PuffHo. He wanted to know, vis-à-vis Republican governor’s Scott Walker’s ducking of questions about evolution, about what the theory of evolution really said (it’s in my book) and what evolutionists really find controversial (Dawkins and I wrote about that here).
Cohn wrote a piece for PuffHo Politics, “Why Scott Walker’s views on evolution are totally relevant,” which gives a pair of tw**ts by Walker (governor of Wisconsin), and then Cohn’s analysis of why it is completely relevant to question candidates about evolution. First Walker’s tw**ts (I dispel the first one in The Albatross):
If that’s what he believes, why did he duck the question about whether he accepted evolution?
Then Cohn’s analysis:
But there’s a reason reporters are curious to learn what Walker thinks about evolution. Some 90 years after the Scopes Trial, the theory of evolution and its place in the schools remain matters of public debate. Two states, Louisiana and Tennessee, now allow public schools to teach “alternatives” to evolution. Several others allow public funding to support such teaching through charter schools or vouchers. At least for the sake of politics, the issue isn’t really whether “faith & science are compatible,” as Scott put it; Pope Francishas said he believes in evolution, for example. Rather, the issue is whether discussions of divine intervention belong in the classroom. That raises fundamental questions about the boundaries between religion and science that Walker, as a president appointing federal judges, would have to consider.
Basic respect for, and appreciation of, science is another issue. Put a bunch of evolutionary biologists in a room and you’ll get a lively debate over the precise origins of some species, such as the bat, and the extent to which “random processes,” rather than the familiar power of natural selection, shaped populations over time. What you won’t get is denial or skepticism of the insights we now associate with Darwin — the idea that the species on Earth emerged over a very long time, through a process of hereditary, generation-to-generation change. The science on this is just not up for reasonable debate. “You have to be blinkered or ignorant not to know that,” says Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago and author of the bookWhy Evolution Is True.
Interrogating Democrats about whether they accept the expert consensus on evolution, or any other scientific issue, is absolutely fair game. But Republicans have given the press, and the public, more reason to ask questions. Walker’s silence turns out to be typical of the GOP presidential field, as Salon’s Luke Brinker noted this week. And Republicans have shown similar disregard for science on other issues — most critically, climate change. As with evolution, you can get a spirited, meaningful debate among the experts over precisely how quickly global warming will take place or exactly what consequences it will have. What you won’t find is a significant number of scientists questioning that the planet is warming because of human activity. And yet Republicans routinely deny this, citing supposed uncertainty over the details as reason not to take action on reducing emissions or pursuing alternative energy more aggressively.
I think it’s absolutely fair game to ask Republican candidates (and there will be many opportunities for such queries over the next year and a half) how they feel about evolution—and global warming. For although many Americans are creationists, they also know that creationism isn’t a respectable intellectual position, and that a President should be down with science. If the Republicans really were proud of their evolution denialism, and thought that it would help them politically, most of them wouldn’t hide it as they do.
I’ve received a ton of email from readers alerting me to various pieces about the murder of the three young people, all Muslims, in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Their names: Deah Shaddy Barakat, 23; Barakat’s wife Yusor Mohammad Abu-Salha, 21; and Abu-Salha’s sister Razan, 19. The implication is that I should say something about the killings, as they were apparently committed by an atheist, and that we have to somehow exculpate ourselves, or explain ourselves, or indict that aspect of the atheist “movement” that is responsible for what many see as a hate crime.
I can do none of these things, for there is simply not enough information about what happened, about the killer’s motivations, about whether he had an animus towards Muslims that was somehow inspired by atheism, or whether it was one of those frequent spur-of-the-moment killings that occur over minor altercations.
Instead, I look at photos like this, of Yusor dancing with her father at her wedding, and it brings me to tears:
Likewise with this vigil held Wednesday at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

What we have are three young people, all with aspirations to help others, cut down in the full flood of their young lives. It would be an understatement to say that this is tragic. Their friends and relatives will carry this with them forever, and always think “What would they have become had they not been killed?”
Why did it happen? We don’t know. Now isn’t the time to speculate about that, as an investigation is under way. After such tragedies, the press (and bloggers) often begin to echo rumors about motivations, rumors that often turn out to be wrong. After the Columbine shootings, for example, goth culture, Marilyn Manson, and bullying were endlessly masticated by the pundits as possible contributions to the shooting—yet all of these connections proved to be bogus.
So it’s simply premature and inappropriate to begin pointing fingers, and using these murders as some kind of springboard to advance one’s ideological or political or religious agenda. And yet that is what I see.
You’ll all know about the religionists who are pinning this on atheism. That is expected. What bothers me even more is to see fellow unbelievers pinning this on atheism as well. There are those who say that this proves that no atheists have infused the “movement” (if there is a movement) with the proper degree of empathy towards the downtrodden, as if Paul Kurtz hadn’t spent his life doing that. We see those vile opportunists who, with an animus against the best-known New Atheists, implying that who really pulled the trigger was not Craig Stephen Hicks, but Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris or Lawrence Krauss, who supposedly created the climate (and the writings) that led to this murder.
We are operating in complete ignorance, as the killer’s motivations are unclear. It makes me sick to see these young people, who had family and relatives who loved them, turned into a tool to leverage various social agendas. One of the most cringeworthy responses was this tw**t by Reza Aslan after Richard Dawkins condemned the murders:

Please, can’t we behave like adults instead of narcissistic, grasping opportunists? And that goes for everyone. We don’t know what happened and so we should just shut the hell up until we do know. I, for one, am fully prepared to learn that the murderer was indeed inspired by the writings of atheists and his hatred of Muslims—true Islamophobia. We may eventually find this to be the case. And if it hasn’t happened this time, it will—for atheism is no guarantee of high morals. Atheism, after all, is not a moral code or a recipe for the good life or a political philosophy, but simply an absence of belief in the supernatural. I can’t see apologizing for that absence of belief.
If and when we find that this is a case of atheist-inspired, Islamophobic terrorism, then that will be the time to see if there really is an endemic problem to address, or if this is simply a one-off thing with no implications for how atheists might rethink their actions.
But right now is the time to show sympathy for the victims and their families. It is unseemly and reprehensible to give lip service to this tragedy and then spend many words of analysis arguing about who was responsible and how we have to fix “atheism” to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.
That’s all I have to say.
If you sent good photos and they haven’t yet appeared, don’t despair. I have a backlog. But do continue to send me good ones, as the tank will run dry if it’s not replenished.
Today we have some more photos by reader Ken Phelps. They are all missing species IDs, so readers are welcome to identify the beasts (and plants!).
I may have posted this first one before, but you can’t see it often enough:
Was taking pictures of bees just after a thundershower. This guy had just been grazed by a drop, leaving his hair matted.
For some reason this face reminds me of the guy in the autogyro in Mad Max:
Some serious eating going on:
One fat spider:
In Corcovado Nat’l Park, Costa Rica:
Romance on a fennel plant:
Gull landing:
This was on an early spring hike. A mosquito had hatched a bit early on an unseasonably warm day and then frozen on the snow. The sun was out and his darker color had caused him to warm up and melt a little vault in the surface of the snow.
It’s Friday and I’m in Hattiesburg, Mississippi to give a belated Darwin Day talk. (Remember, if you come, buy a copy of WEIT (on sale at the venue and in fine bookstores everywhere), and say “Felis silvestris lybica,” you will get a cat drawn in it. However, I have the feeling that I have few readers in this area!
I arrived last evening, and haven’t seen much of the town (though I had an amazeball BBQ dinner), but what is dead obvious, even in the dark, is the huge number of churches in this area. There are steeples everywhere, and interspersed between the churches are the dreaded institutions of Chick-fil-A (I am talking to two FAs I know here), and the odious HOBBY LOBBY, a store I’ve never seen before. I am in the South. But, as always, I will find some nice secularists here, and some will whisper to me furtively during the book signing, thanking me for my work and telling me that they agree with it. That’s the best part of lecturing in the South.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is making brief forays into philosophy, but her neurons are so wired for noms that every thought gets derailed:
Hili: Peace is an extention of war conducted by other means.A: What do you have in mind?Hili: I will not eat you if you fulfill my three wishes.
Hili: Pokój jest przedłużeniem wojny prowadzonej innymi środkami.
Ja: Co masz na myśli?
Hili: Nie zjem cię, jak spełnisz moje trzy życzenia.
By Grania Spingies
Brian Cox is Stateside at the moment, and was on The Conan Show promoting the US run of BBC 4’s The Infinite Monkey Cage, the science podcast brainchild of Robin Ince and Brian Cox that cannot be praised highly enough (it’s funny, it’s got science in and a whole lot of smart people who are passionate about their subject – what more could you possibly want?) and one which our congenial host will be a guest on when the show reaches Chicago.
You can watch bits of the chat with Conan here.
Of course, the really important part of the discussion is Deepak Chopra’s glasses. Are they diamonds? Are they rhinestones? Will we ever really know?
Of course, it doesn’t matter because as we all know the definition of a Real Scientist is whether they take Dr Chopra seriously or not, so Brian Cox and his Ph.D. in high energy particle physics are disqualified straight out the gate.
h/t: Ant