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.
. . . are the people who are fostering this felid.
And another view, this time with cub noises and a lion lagniappe:
I have failed miserably in my search to pet a baby tiger (a lion or other big felid will also do, so long as it’s a cub).
p.s. I realize that one shouldn’t raise wild felids in the home, and I have no idea about the circumstances behind these videos. So let’s not have any lecturing and just enjoy this beautiful animal.
h/t: Matt
Well, when you’re quoted on a Chipotle bag, you know you’re not only a public intellectual, but a public superstar intellectual. The only way you can be more famous is to appear as a character on The Simpsons.
But I want to know why Pinker is eating at Chipotle*? (I hope the photo came from one of his fans.)
Notice, too, that they chose an idealistic and happy quote (like Chinese fortune cookies, none of which ever have fortunes that say, “You suck!”). I suppose that’s what makes people associate good feelings with the restaurant. It will be a cold day in the Yucatán when they put an atheist slogan on a burrito bag.
I’d love to see this one, for instance:
Pretending to be certain when one isn’t—indeed, pretending to be certain about propositions for which no evidence is even conceivable—is both an intellectual and a moral failing.
—Sam Harris
*For non-Americans, Chipotle is a chain that purveys bland and Americanized Mexican food
Reader Bruce sent us some real peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus; I’m still embarrassed for having called a kestrel a peregrine). These look real to me! (Click photos to enlarge.)
Bruce’s notes:
This spring I wanted to explore the coast between Santa Cruz and San Francisco and in the process stumbled on a wonderfully accessible and observable Perergrine Falcon nest. The nest was in a small cavity on a cliff face but instead of facing out to sea, where it would have been hidden from view, the nest was located where the cliff took a sharp corner so it was visible from the adjacent cliff tops. I discovered the nest just as the three chicks were learning to fly. On my first visits the chicks were still in the nest but they were soon flying well and they then spent their time on the top of the cliff waiting for a parent to return with food.
Below:The adult male Peregrine Falcon perched near the nest. I could distinguish the male and female adults based on size (female larger) and plumage (male plumage was a little crisper). On my first few visits, one of the two parents was always in attendance and was perched near the nest but not at the actual nest ledge. I suspect they avoid spending time at the nest because the chicks would mob and harass them for food. The one time I did see a parent bring in prey the chicks got pretty frenzied about the possibility of dinner.
Below: The adult female landing at her favorite perch spot close to the nest ledge:
Below: An adult flying near the nest:
Below. The three chicks squabble over a Mourning Dove carcass. An adult delivered the dove to the nest but left immediately and the three chicks then jostled over control of the prey item:
Below: One of the chicks practices flapping its wings at the top of the cliff:
by Greg Mayer
At the end of last month I attended the Evolution 2014 meetings in Raleigh, North Carolina. Jerry already posted one note about the meetings from Mohamed Noor’s tw**t about the “banana creationist” who protested outside the meeting, and I’ll have a few more posts to add. A good place to start is with Daniel Matute, Jerry’s “hot-dog student” (Jerry’s phrase!), who was awarded the 2014 Theodosius Dobzhansky Prize by the Society for the Study of Evolution, as Jerry announced here earlier this year.
Dobzhansky, as we’ve noted here at WEIT before, was one of the greatest evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, a key figure in expanding the synthesis of Mendelism and Darwinism from theoretical population genetics into the more empirical disciplines, both through his own work and his influence on others; he is also Jerry’s academic grandfather, and thus Daniel’s academic great-grandfather. The prize recognizes an outstanding young evolutionary biologist of great accomplishment and promise; Daniel is the second of Jerry’s students to receive it (the first was Allen Orr). The chief duty of the prize winner is to give a plenary address at the annual meeting (and pick up the award check!).
Daniel also reflected on his path from Colombia to the University of Chicago, and now “soon to be professor” (as Dobzhansky always said) at the University of North Carolina, noting that English was a second language (saying that when he got here, “it was painful to read me”), and thanking all those who had guided and helped him along the way. He said, “Jerry is family to me.”
Well, the Church of England has finally stopped disenfranchising half of humanity, at least as far as being bishops in their church is concerned. Now I don’t know why anybody would want to be a bishop, but if they allow men then they should allow women. The BBC has just reported this:
The Church of England has voted to allow women to become bishops for first time in its history.
The General Synod gave final approval to legislation introducing the change by the required two-thirds majority.
The previous vote in 2012 was backed by the Houses of Bishops and Clergy but blocked by traditionalist lay members.
The Archbishop of York asked for the result to be met “with restraint and sensitivity” but there was a flurry of cheers when it was announced.
The crucial vote in the House of Laity went 152 in favour, 45 against, and there were five abstentions. In November 2012 the change was derailed by just six votes cast by the lay members.
In the house of Bishops, 37 were in favour, two against, and there was one abstention. The House of Clergy voted 162 in favour, 25 against and there were four abstentions.
The vote overturns centuries of tradition in a Church that has been deeply divided over the issue. It comes more than 20 years after women were first allowed to become priests.
Women bishops could be appointed by the end of this year in the Church of England after legislation backing the move was give final approval by the General Synod.
The vote followed after almost five hours of debate at the University of York.
Of course there’s a disclaimer for the sexists:
It contained concessions for those parishes unwilling to serve under a woman bishop – giving them the right to ask for a male alternative and to take disputes to an independent arbitrator.
What I’m wondering is this: is it on religious grounds that they previously prohibited women from these positions? If so, what has changed: did God change His mind, or did someone get a revelation that scripture needed reinterpreting? Or was it simply that the secular tide in society favoring equality of the sexes finally swept up the church?
Once again we have evidence that secular morality changes before religious morality does, i.e., a demonstration of the Euthyphro argument.
h/t: pyers
What has struck me over the past few weeks is the anger with which certain writers (I won’t name names, but there are more than one) excoriate the New Atheists—even if those critics are atheists themselves! (I call atheists sympathetic to religion “faitheists.”) One thing I do recognize is that the vitriol is stronger when someone used to be religious or was raised in a religious home. That’s one clue to what’s going on.
But given that New Atheists aren’t nearly as strident, arrogant, or dogmatic as are some believers, the degree of criticism simply seems disproportionate to what people like Dawkins, Harris, or I actually have to say. For our criticism of religion basically comes down to this: “Your confidence in a proposition should be proportional to the strength of the evidence supporting it.” Is that really something that should inspire such nastiness? And it’s not just a criticism of religion, but a criticism of faith in general, including pseudosciences like ESP and “alternative medicine.”
Recently one reader pointed me to an interview with author Terry Pratchett in 2002, reported, of all places, in the New Zealand Herald. In the interview Pratchett says this:
JG: Do you view death that way?
Pratchett: It’s my hope, if you like. I am a disappointed atheist. I feel upset on the whole that I’ve had to resort to atheism. I’m kind of angry with God for not existing.
(As you might know, Pratchett, born in 1948, is a really famous British writer of fantasy novels. He is now suffering from early-onset Alzheimer’s disease, and has written poignantly about its toll.)
But Pratchett’s answer, I think, may tell us why some faithesists, especially those who were once religious or were surrounded by the faithful, now spend their time excoriating atheists rather than believers—even though believers do far more harm. It’s because the critics want God to exist, and are angry that he doesn’t. They realize that rationality gives them no reason to believe in deities, miracles, or the tenets of faith, but it would be oh so comforting if they could just believe.
Of course, you can’t force yourself to believe in your heart what your mind tells you is unbelievable—or at least has told you so forcefully that it’s turned you into an atheist. This causes cognitive dissonance which—and this is my theory which is mine—gets resolved by making these people excoriate New Atheists like Dawkins. It leads to faitheists spending their time extolling the virtues of faith, arguing that morality is grounded on religion (have they read the Old Testament or Qur’an lately?), telling us what a wonderful social glue religion is, and how important it’s been in art and history—all the while insisting that they don’t believe a word of it. And that’s why if you scratch a faitheist, you nearly always find a religious background. They’ve either experienced the comforts of religion, and mourn their loss, or have seen how many people are happily drunk on the liquor of faith, and long for that same state of spiritual inebriation.
They’re not angry at New Atheists; they’re angry at themselves—for being unable to believe in a God that they know doesn’t exist. And they’re angry at that God for not existing. They just take it out on us.
Well, it’s all over, and the golden World Cup trophy (worth several million dollars, I’m told) is in the hands of Germany. One can’t argue that they don’t deserve it, for they’ve played well the whole time. And yesterday’s game against Argentina was very good, with the winning goal scored in the second 15-minute extension period by Mario Götze. I’m just glad it didn’t go to penalty kicks.
Still, my heart was with the scrappy Argentinians, as I was hoping that Messi would attain the stature of Maradona in his own country—a status he deserves—which he would have done had Argentina won. He’s like Mardona in that he’s small and fast, but unlike Maradona in that Messi is a Good Boy. Argentina was also playing without star di Maria.
Messi missed several shots that, I think, he normally would have made. Perhaps the team was simply tired. But congratulations, Germany, even though your victory cost me a book that I bet against a German.
Here are the highlights (click on screenshot of Götze’s goal to go to the video):
As for our winner, here again is the spreadsheet showing the readers who guessed, before the tournament began, that the final match would involve Germany and Argentina. And, thank Ceiling Cat, there was only one winner and no ties. That winner, as you can see, is reader Aaron H. So Aaron, email me with your snailmail address and I’ll send the autographed book out soon. Let me know if you want the soccer-playing team to be wearing Germany’s colors!
My hearty thanks not only to the entrants, but to the anonymous person who kindly kept a spreadsheet of the entries, and narrowed it down as the tournament progressed.
We’ll take this up again in 2018.
