Well, those of us who are still alive made it through another week. Meanwhile, in Dobrzyn, Hili is up to srs bsns:
A: Hili, smile!
Hili: Hush, you are scaring the prey.
Ja: Hili, uśmiechnij się!
Hili: Cicho, płoszysz zwierzynę.
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.
by Matthew Cobb
Pets recreate yesterday's #CometLanding #spacekitteh pic.twitter.com/gfvsMLv44g
— Paul Coxon (@paulcoxon) November 13, 2014
One of the few non-science, non-heathen websites that I follow is Amy Alkon’s “The Advice Goddess Blog.” Described as “Miss Manners with fangs,” Amy has a no-nonsense and hardnosed approach to manners. She pulls no punches, as in her relentless campaign to get people to stop talking loudly on their cellphones in public places (a stand with which I happen to agree). She’s also anti-PC in a refreshing way, and funny as hell. Granted, she has a small d*g, but she also has a pink Nash Rambler and is an atheist as well as a strong advocate of free speech.
The other day on her Facebook page, she asked her “friends” to give advice about manners to college students. As a prof, all I could do (along with several other teachers) was to tell her what incivilities among our students irked us the most in the classroom. She decided to turn that into a column, and it just appeared in the New York Observer, “College students must major in manners.”
Professor Ceiling Cat contributed some advice, though not to this bit; but I assent strongly!:
Emailing your professor: Use of “u,” “ur” and “n stuf ” is fine if you are 12 and emailing your BFF. When corresponding with your professor, take that extra millisecond to tap out the “yo” before the “u.” (How much time do you really save by typing “how u bin?”)
Start your email off with a salutation—“Dr.” or “Professor” or whatever professional title they’ve told the class they prefer—as opposed to “Hey.”
If you are asking to meet with them, propose a few times and look up the location of their office in the campus directory instead of asking them to write out directions. Chances are, they didn’t slave away getting a Ph.D. because all the jobs for mall information officers were taken.
These may seem like minor points, but they are not unimportant. It’s through small gestures of consideration like these—taking care not to needlessly suck the professor’s time and energy—that you show respect.
I can’t tell you the number of emails I’ve gotten from students that start with “hey.” My mesentery always contracts when I get that, but of course I always reply politely. And here’s one bit of manners that I’ve witnessed exactly twice in my thirty years of teaching:
Gratitude is good: “Send a thank you card when you graduate; we really appreciate this and can use it for promotion and tenure,” says Dominican College assistant professor Sarah Strout. Better yet, don’t wait till you graduate to express gratitude. Research by social psychologist Sonja Lyubomirsky and others finds that being grateful—taking note of what is good in your day and in your life—is one of the most effective ways to make yourself meaningfully happier, and it has cascading benefits for others in your life.
Granted, a fair few students have come to me or written many years after a course to thank me, but it’s nice to hear a few kind words at the end of a quarter’s class. And that goes for anyone who helps you! I’m told that airline flight attendants, who bust their hump attending to thankless and often rude passengers, rarely receive any gratitude at the end of a flight. Really, it makes peoples’ day to show some appreciation.
At any rate, Amy has a new book that came out June 3, and I’m not at all surprised at the title: (click the image for the Amazon link):
Well, it could have been worse: the Bible could have beaten The Origin decisively. As it is, in a Folio Society poll of books voted “most valuable to humanity” (see the Guardian’s report here), Darwin came second to the Bible by only 2%. Of course, this poll was taken in the UK (2,044 British adults weighed in). Had it been in the U.S., the Bible would have won by seven lengths.
Readers didn’t just choose the books out of thin air: they were given a pre-selected list of 30 titles from which to choose. Among the books that didn’t make the top-ten cut were Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Women, Tolstoy’s War and Peace, and Shakespeare’s Hamlet. The list of winners is below:
The 10 books voted most valuable to humanity:
1) The Bible (37%)
2) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin (35%)
3) A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking (17%)
4) Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein (15%)
5) Nineteen-Eighty-Four by George Orwell (14%)
6) Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica by Isaac Newton (12%)
7) To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee (10%)
8) The Qur’an (9%)
9) An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith (7%)
10) The Double Helix: A Personal Account of the Discovery of the Structure of DNA by James Watson (6%)
And a comment from a macher at the Folio Society:
“The first question I had was whether the similar figure for Darwin and the Bible does show a continuing polarisation between the realms of science and religion, or whether in fact it reveals a more balanced approach to ideas for the modern reader,” said Tom Walker, editorial director at The Folio Society. “They are the two ideas which have clashed in the 20th century – this shows, I think, that we can take understanding from both of them.” The Qur’an, he added, is “probably relatively recent to many UK people’s top 10 because of the impact of global debates around Islam”.
The publisher also asked respondents why they plumped for their choices: the Bible was chosen largely because it “contains principles/guidelines to be a good person”, the publisher said, while On the Origin of Species was cited because it “answers fundamental questions of human existence”.
I don’t see how the equality of votes for Darwin and the Bible shows anything like a “balanced approach to ideas”. Those ideas are inimical and incompatible, one book adumbrating natural causes for life and its diversity, the other offering untenable supernatural explanations for not only those phenomena, but everything else. What it shows is that half of Brits are science-friendly, and the other half can’t extricate themselves from the quicksand of superstition. And if someone voted for both, well, God help them.
As for the Bible telling us “how to be a good person,” well, maybe, but only if you ignore Deuteronomy and Leviticus, as well as the statements by Jesus such as the duty of leaving your family and loved ones to follow him. Where people get the idea that the Bible is a good textbook for ethical behavior eludes me. More than half of it, in fact, adumbrates a philosophy of murder, rape, misogyny, and genocide, as well as a bunch of stupid rules that nobody believes in (i.e., he who gathers sticks on the Sabbath should be killed). Have those people even read the Bible? What they’re doing, of course, is cherry-picking the precepts of the Bible that accords with their own sense of good behavior.
As for the winner of This Month’s Admission of the Obvious Award, Walker wins it, too:
Walker said that the list perhaps revealed “which books are perceived as having influence or giving understanding, rather than those which we personally read in order to understand the world around us”, citing A Brief History of Time as “surely one of the most underread bestsellers ever written”, and adding that the readership for Newton’s Principia Mathematica is probably “pretty thin”.
“Pretty thin” indeed! I’ve read 7 of the 10, but never essayed Einstein, Newton, or Adam Smith. Certainly as far as influencing people, the list isn’t bad, but in terms of “value,” well, let’s just say that I don’t see the Bible or Qur’an as being particularly salubrious. But take heart, for five of the ten books are about science or math. That shows that the voters, at least, perceived science as being more valuable than Scripture, or even fiction.
And now, dear readers, what books would you vote for (you don’t have to choose stuff on the list of 30)? But clearly Darwin belongs there, and for the reasons given: it answers fundamental questions of human existence. The Bible and Qur’an pretend to, but their answers are disparate, and neither answers the question of where we came from, which Darwin does.
h/t: Aaron
This is like the Catholic church finally admitting, after centuries, that yes, the Earth does go around the Sun (it took the Church 350 years to apologize for punishing Galileo on this issue).
Well, it took the Mormon Church only half that time—170 years—to acknowledge that its founder, the con man Joseph Smith, was a polygamist, having had between 30 and 40 wives. Not only that, but his wives were as young as 14 years old, and some of them were already married.
As anyone who’s read Mormon history knows, Joseph Smith could not control his concupiscence, and had a revelation that Mormons (i.e., he) could have multiple wives. (This resembles the convenient revelation that Mormon elders had in 1978 that blacks could now be lay priests, a position that was previously forbidden to blacks.) The Mormon God changes his mind with alarming frequency!
But, as an article in Monday’s New York Times shows, Smith’s sordid history is not to be found on Mormon websites and, in fact, many Mormons don’t seem to know anything about his polygamy. That’s like Christians not knowing that Jesus turned water into wine. In fact, it’s worse, because this is a matter of history amply recorded in the last two hundred years. Most Mormons already know about Brigham Young‘s polygamy, but not Smith’s—even though Smith’s “plural wives” have been admitted by the Church since 1852 and even Wikipedia, for crying out loud, has a list of his wives.
Are Mormons that ignorant, or are they willfully overlooking Smith’s behavior? (The polygamy is but one of Smith’s many stupid and unethical acts.) As the Times notes, many Mormons were surprised as well as grief-sticken at the “new” revelations:
The church’s disclosures, in a series of essays online, are part of an effort to be transparent about its history at a time when church members are increasingly encountering disturbing claims about the faith on the Internet. Many Mormons, especially those with polygamous ancestors, say they were well aware that Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, practiced polygamy when he led the flock in Salt Lake City. But they did not know the full truth about Smith.
“Joseph Smith was presented to me as a practically perfect prophet, and this is true for a lot of people,” said Emily Jensen, a blogger and editor in Farmington, Utah, who often writes about Mormon issues.
She said the reaction of some Mormons to the church’s disclosures resembled the five stages of grief in which the first stage is denial, and the second is anger. Members are saying on blogs and social media, “This is not the church I grew up with, this is not the Joseph Smith I love,” Ms. Jensen said.
Too bad. The Joseph Smith that Ms. Jensen loved was also a liar and a faker, with a history of run-ins with the law, and not just because he claimed to be a prophet.
You can find the Church’s admission on its official site in an article called, “Plural Marriage in Kirtland and Nauvoo.” As the essay explains, the commandment to have “plural marriages” (the euphemism for “polygamy”) came from God, who decreed it and then (as in the case of blacks) rescinded it:
After receiving a revelation commanding him to practice plural marriage, Joseph Smith married multiple wives and introduced the practice to close associates. This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration—for Joseph personally and for other Church members. Plural marriage tested faith and provoked controversy and opposition. Few Latter-day Saints initially welcomed the restoration of a biblical practice entirely foreign to their sensibilities. But many later testified of powerful spiritual experiences that helped them overcome their hesitation and gave them courage to accept this practice.
Although the Lord commanded the adoption—and later the cessation—of plural marriage in the latter days, He did not give exact instructions on how to obey the commandment.
And oy, God was insistent that Smith have lots of wives! The Church essay explains:
. . . When God commands a difficult task, He sometimes sends additional messengers to encourage His people to obey. Consistent with this pattern, Joseph told associates that an angel appeared to him three times between 1834 and 1842 and commanded him to proceed with plural marriage when he hesitated to move forward. During the third and final appearance, the angel came with a drawn sword, threatening Joseph with destruction unless he went forward and obeyed the commandment fully.
Does anybody believe this malarkey? What happened, of course, is that Smith was randy and fabricated a vision of God (and a divine threat!) that he’d better take some more wives. The threats were fabrications, designed to make people think that Smith’s evacuation of his seminal vesicles was done only under duress:
The conclusion of the Church in the essay is this:
The challenge of introducing a principle as controversial as plural marriage is almost impossible to overstate. A spiritual witness of its truthfulness allowed Joseph Smith and other Latter-day Saints to accept this principle. Difficult as it was, the introduction of plural marriage in Nauvoo did indeed “raise up seed” unto God. A substantial number of today’s members descend through faithful Latter-day Saints who practiced plural marriage.
Church members no longer practice plural marriage. Consistent with Joseph Smith’s teachings, the Church permits a man whose wife has died to be sealed to another woman when he remarries. Moreover, members are permitted to perform ordinances on behalf of deceased men and women who married more than once on earth, sealing them to all of the spouses to whom they were legally married. The precise nature of these relationships in the next life is not known, and many family relationships will be sorted out in the life to come. Latter-day Saints are encouraged to trust in our wise Heavenly Father, who loves His children and does all things for their growth and salvation.
But of course the real reason the Mormons renounced polygamy was not that God had second thoughts, but that the U.S. government pressured the Church to stop the practice. Polygamy became a Federal felony, and it became clear that unless Mormons abandoned the practice, Utah would not achieve statehood. The U.S. government started proceedings to disband the church, and went after some of its leaders with criminal charges. This would not do, of course, and so, in 1890, a church leader had a convenient revelation from God that Mormon’s should obey U.S. law after all. Render unto Caesar and so on. . . But of course some Mormon sects are still polygamous, with very young girls becoming betrothed and sexually violated, so the Times isn’t quite correct about that.
Finally, the Church, though vowing now to be open about its history, continues to keep it low key. As the Times notes,
The church has not publicly announced the posting of the essays, and many Mormons said in interviews that they were not even aware of them. They are not visible on the church’s home page; finding them requires a search or a link.
How anybody with brains can be a Mormon eludes me. But of course early brainwashing can overcome rationality.
There’s another interesting tidbit from the Times article:
The church recently released an informational video about the distinctive Mormon underwear called “temple garments” — and it received far more attention among Mormons and in the news media than the essays on polygamy.
Now how can you not want to watch a Church video about the famous Sacred Underwear (formal name: “Temple Garment”)? Well, I’m here to help you. The Church’s website on the garments is here, and here’s the video, right from YouTube, released in October:
It’s clear from the video that Mormons get really ticked off when people call the garments “Magic Underwear.”
Of course, Sacred Underwear (my compromise term) is in principle no more ludicrous than the shawl (tallit) and beanie (yarmulke) worn by Jews, or than other religious garments, but somehow it seems more ludicrous because it’s underwear. As the video says, “Not all such religious vestments are on public display.”
For reasons that elude me, the UK is far more defensive about the evils of extreme Islam than the United States. Perhaps readers can explain this to me, but it seems to me that the U.S., being far more religious than the UK, should also be more protective about criticizing religion. After all, faith often enables other brands of faith.
Yet instance after instance of religion-osculation emanates from the UK. The latest, reported on the Lawyers’ Secular Society website, is the cancellation of an event at the University of West London—an event that was supposed to take place yesterday but was cancelled on Tuesday.
The subject? The suppression of free speech and gender equality—and the promotion of anti-Semitism—by extremist Islam. And it was supposed to be the presentation of a report, not a debate. As the LSS reports:
At the event, Anne Marie Waters of Sharia Watch UK (SWUK) was due to present the findings of a forthcoming SWUK report about radicalisation in universities called “Learning Jihad”, and LSS Secretary Charlie Klendjian was also due to speak.
The event had kindly been organised by UWL’s Law Society, whose President Jay Marshall was also scheduled to talk.
The report, which is due to be published on Thursday 13 November, covers:
• Jihadist speakers
• Gender segregation
• Censorship
• The role of student unions
• Funding of British universities
• Anti-Semitism
• The Prevent Strategy
The University decided to cancel the event. As usual, the reasons given aren’t the real reasons, which were undoubtedly fear of demonstrations and threats from Muslims, as well as the fear of the label “Islamophobia.” In other words, political correctness.
The University’s interim secretary, Hugh Jones, gave two explanations for the cancellation in an email to Jay Marshall, head of the UWL Law Society. The first was a technical one: the “Student Law Society,” which was in charge of the proposed presentation, supposedly did not have the right to book rooms at the University as it wasn’t affliated with the Students’ Union. Marshall said that this is incorrect and that they did have the requisite affiliation, as well as having booked rooms through the approved procedure.
But here, disguised in University Speak, is UWL’s real reason for the cancellation:
The University has a duty under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 s43(1) to promote freedom of speech within the law on campus for members, students, and employees and visiting speakers. In particular (s42(2) of the Act) we have a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the use of any premises of the establishment is not denied to any individual or body of persons on any ground connected with the beliefs or views of that individual or any member of that body or the policy or objectives of that body.
We also have a duty of care to ensure the safety and wellbeing of people on the campus. A considerable interest has been generated by the meeting, giving me cause for concern that attendance will be considerably larger than has been allowed for; that stewarding arrangements will not be sufficient; and generally that we can safely host the meeting.
Note the lip-service to free speech, but then the explanation that on this occasion free speech unfortunately couldn’t be allowed because the “safety and wellbeing” of attendees couldn’t be guaranteed.
Now why would that be? If there were too many people, they would either have booked a larger room or do what we often do in the U.S.: have closed circuit video broadcasts to other and larger rooms as well. But no, the safety hear has nothing to do with the size of the audience, and everything to do with the problems of criticizing Islam. As Marshall noted,
“If booking the event has taught me one thing, it is how to draw out a university’s inner coward. Frankly, I don’t know what’s more offensive – the hypocrisy or the wasting of my time and that of the team.”
And I’ll reproduce part of the response by Charlie Klendjian, secretary of the Lawyers’ Secular Society, who was scheduled to speak:
“The LSS is very grateful to Jay Marshall and his team at the UWL Law Society for their valiant efforts. Sadly, they simply weren’t to know that a discussion of Islam in a British university in the 21st century is forbidden.
“The irony meter appears to be firmly within the red section of the dial. The forthcoming SWUK report lays out some disturbing examples of censorship that have taken place on campus, but rather than give SWUK and the LSS the opportunity to present these findings about censorship – not to mention all the other concerns in the report – the University of West London has chosen to apply more censorship. In terms of intelligence levels, this is like attempting to extinguish a fire with a gigantic bucket of petrol.
“The report also highlights some of the extremist speakers who have spoken on British campuses, but unfortunately it is not possible to come to a British university to talk about that.
“UWL’s hyper-sensitive approach is symptomatic of a highly dysfunctional relationship between Islam and British universities. No matter what people’s concerns are about Islam, universities seem intent on pressing a self-destruct button. They will stop at nothing to avoid an open discussion about Islam. If we can’t discuss ideas in a place of learning, where can we discuss them?
“What is particularly disturbing about this instance of censorship is that the report specifically talks about the problem of censorship on campus and how those who wish to criticise Islam or merely have an open discussion about it are being increasingly side-lined.
“The task of holding Islam to account is becoming all but impossible, just when it is becoming absolutely essential. The timing of this report, and UWL’s decision to cancel the event, could not be more salient. British Muslims, including university students, are travelling abroad to fight for ISIS, an organisation of the utmost barbarism even by the standards of jihadist groups. It is imperative that we be allowed to have these discussions otherwise we will sink deeper and deeper into an abyss.
Of course the “extremist speakers” (I suspect extremist Muslims) should also be allowed to speak. You can’t allow them to be criticized without allowing them to present their case as well. If, on the other hand, they want to call for Muslims to perpetrate violence, or to travel abroad to join ISIS, that case becomes a bit more difficult. I suspect that’s illegal under UK law, but since it causes no immediate harm, just a delayed a long-term harm, I can’t immediately say that it should be censored, even if it’s a call to engage in a far-off war that kills innocent people. On the other hand, Muslims, if they have the right affiliations, are perfectly within their rights to give talks about oppressing women, obeying the Qur’an, cutting the hands off of thieves, and so on. They just can’t give those talks to gender-segregated audiences.
UK universities seem to be becoming notable foci of cowardice. Out of fear of acquiring the “Islamophobia” label, they are inhibiting discussion of one of the most serious issues of our time.
We’re running a bit low on these again, so if you have good photos (and please make sure they’re high-quality, as I hate rejecting people’s snaps), send them along.
Two contributors today. First, reader Stephen Barnard from Idaho with an owl (the email was labeled, “Looks something like a cat,” and of course owls are considered Honorary Cats™ on this site).
This Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) spooked out of a spruce by my house and flew into the willows across the creek.
And reader John Harshman sends us photos from Australia:
A female and male magpie lark (Grallina cyanoleuca). These birds are common just about everywhere I went, and I was struck by the different facial patterns in an otherwise similar plumage.
Female:
Male:
Female olive-backed sunbird (Cynnyris jugularis) peeking out of her nest. This is Australia’s only sunbird, and the nest is built over a river to resemble a bit of flood debris.

A pair of pink-eared ducks (Malacorhynchus membranaceus). The name is for the tiny pink spot you can see if you squint, just behind the black eye-patch. The weird, flanged bills are used to filter-feed plankton. Phylogenetically, they’re out on a very long branch all by themselves, and aren’t closely related to the typical ducks (Anatinae). There’s a lot of that going around in Australia.

____________
Mystery birds from above: (clockwise from top): little black cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris), Australasian darter (Anhinga novaehollandiae), intermediate egret (Egretta intermedia), little pied cormorant (Phalacrocorax melanoleucos).