Readers’ wildlife photos

June 9, 2014 • 4:34 am

Stephen Barnard demonstrates more of the aerodynamic properties of Idaho ducks:

Ben Goren recently commented on the iridescent colors in Mallard wings in a photo of mine you posted. Here’s a particularly fine example, I think, of green iridescent markings on a Cinnamon Teal wing [Anas cyanoptera]. This green marking is difficult to spot with the naked eye, although I’m pretty sure the female teal can see it.

RT9A6116

Also, a pair of Mallard drakes [Anas platyrhynchos] taking off. The drakes are hanging out together in small groups while the females are tending nests, eggs, and ducklings. Typical. 🙂

I saw the first flotilla of Mallard ducklings today.

RT9A6127

RT9A6128

 

Texas Republicans back converting gay people to straight ones

June 8, 2014 • 1:28 pm

Now, if you’re American you’ll know that party platforms, on either the state or national level, aren’t really promises of what that party will do if it gains power. Rather, they’re ideological statements meant to attract voters. Nevertheless, they give you a good idea of what the party wants put out there as its image. And, according to a piece in today’s Independent, the Republican Party of Texas wants a particularly sinister image, one that goes against the very direction that American society is taking:

The Texas Republican Party has endorsed ‘reparative therapy’ for gay people, as other states ban the practice and professional organisations decry it.

Around 7,000 delegates at the Texas Republican Party’s convention ratified a new platform that also included moves to the right on other policies including immigration.

US states New Jersey and California ban licensed therapists from conducting conversion therapy on young people, and the new policy is thought to be partly a response to that move. Republicans supporting the policy have said that it is intended to give potential patients the freedom to choose.

The policy won a vote on Thursday and was confirmed in another vote on Saturday.

The counselling has been condemned by health organisations including the American Psychological Association. Defining homosexuality as an illness is an attempt to discredit growing social acceptance, the association has said, and can harm those that undergo it.

I do know that “reparative therapy’ is widely acknowledged to be ineffective and sometimes harmful. In my view this is because homosexuality is not a “choice” but probably a biologically-based tendency. Since I’m a hard determinist and don’t believe in “free choice” anyway, there are only two sources of homosexuality, as there are for all behaviors: genes and environment (the latter includes both nongenetic effects on physiology, like developmental influences, and external influences mediated through interactions with other people).  All the gay people I’ve known have said the same thing: from a very early age they felt inexorably attracted to people of the same sex. To me, that bespeaks an underlying biochemical or genetic basis and not some kind of “choice” produced by social influences.

The idea that being gay is a choice comes largely from religions’s stupid insistence on libertarian free will as well as Biblical proscriptions against homosexuality.  What I don’t know, and wonder about, is whether gay people who really want to change their sexual orientation will be unable to find help in New Jersey and California. One the one hand it seems that people should at least be able to talk about such feelings, but on the other I recognize that perhaps it is a useless and harmful endeavor to do anything more than talk about it. After all, if reparative therapy doesn’t work, then trying it violates the oath of “first doing no harm.”

If you’re anything but completely blind in America, you’ll know that this country is moving inexorably towards more rights for gays, and that includes marriage. And really, the only opposition to this movement is based on conservative religion, as there’s no convincing reason why gay couples can’t have the same privileges as straight ones. Will it “erode traditional male/female couples”? I wouldn’t care if it did, but I doubt it anyway since how you couple seems to me determined by genes and internal environment rather than what you see around you in society. And those straight couples that dissolve because one member decides he or she is gay, well, those shouldn’t have been couples in the first place.

By making such a stupid and retrograde statement, the Republicans are ensuring themselves a loss in next year’s elections, and wedding themselves to the intolerant past rather than a progressive future.

h/t: Matthew Cobb

Bill Maher vs. Ralph Reed

June 8, 2014 • 9:59 am

You may Remember conservative Ralph Reed when he was director of the Christian Coalition. He’s now director of the Faith and Freedom Foundation, and he was on Bill Maher’s show last week. This short clip shows Reed and Maher discuss (of course) religion.

Reed espouses belief in the literal truth of the Bible, and Maher asks Reed’s reaction to stuff like God’s Old-Testament approbation of slavery. (Reed says that it was “a different kind of slavery” back then) Reed also argues that the antislavery movement in America came out of the churches. I’m not sure about that, but there sure were a lot of churches, both North and South, condoning slavery and giving it a Biblical imprimatur. At any rate, that doesn’t deal with Maher’s issue, and Reed wriggles around, as he does when Maher then brings up stoning (something the Bible approves of for women who have sex before marriage).

I won’t steal from you the pleasure of watching Reed comport the Old and New Testaments, but it’s funny to see him say that Maher is “being selective”:

I always wonder why someone like Reed even agrees to go on Maher’s show. As I heard from a debater in another sticky situation, “You show up, you lose.” Or maybe Reed believes that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

h/t: Barry

Columnist in Lebanon, Missouri paper gives ringing endorsement to principal’s illegal speech (and disses evolution)

June 8, 2014 • 8:02 am

Katie Hilton is a columnist for the Lebanon [Missouri] Daily Record.  In her latest op-ed, “Hats off for Lowery!“, she espouses every sentiment that shows the problems of that intolerant, faith-soaked town. I’ll reproduce her column in full, interspersed with my own comments in bold.

4ec6b26f6bd01.image
Katie Hilton

Screen shot 2014-06-07 at 4.24.12 PM

A tip of the mortarboard to Lebanon High School Principal Kevin Lowery. His introductory speech at commencement included a moment of silence, for which he has been forced to apologize.

Nope, he was forced to apologize not for having a moment of silence, which is legal, but for what Hilton describes next, which is illegal. Oh, and FYI, where do you get the idea that Lowery was “forced to apologize.” The only statement he’s made about his “apology,” such as it is, notes that he apologized of his own free will.  Do you have other sources for your information?

Lowery told the audience that he used his moment to pray for the students, thanked God for them, their parents, teachers and the community, and asked God to protect them in the future. A University of Chicago professor who saw part of the remarks on YouTube declared Lowery’s talk was “clearly a violation of the First Amendment.”

Nonsense. You can view the supposedly objectionable portion of Lowery’s remarks here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctwrBqcBcgM.

It’s not nonsense; it’s settled case law. If you doubt that, read the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s letter of complaint to the Lebanon School Superintendent and School Board. 

Dr. Jerry A. Coyne, an evolutionary biologist trained at Harvard, has a blog called “Why Evolution Is True,” also the title of his most recent book. He posted his first rant against Lowery May 31, along with a letter to Dr. Duane Widhalm and the school board.

“Lowery’s behavior during that graduation ceremony is a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, and of court decisions that prayer in public schools by officials of those schools is illegal,” Coyne claimed. “Apparently, by making a public display of his faith, Mr. Lowery wished to voice his disdain for those rulings, and for our Constitution.”

I think Dr. Coyne should stick to monkeys and their uncles. You can judge for yourself.

Here we see the first hint that perhaps Ms. Hilton isn’t down with modern evolutionary science. “Monkeys and their uncles”? Really? This makes me wonder whether Lebanon High School even teaches evolution, or whether they sneak in intelligent design or other forms of creationism. Perhaps one of the several LHS students who reads this site can tell us. 

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Lowery clearly isn’t Congress, nor did he establish any religion at commencement. He did exercise his right to pray during the moment of silence that he requested, and he did exercise his right to free speech when he shared what he had chosen to pray.

This is breathtaking inanity.  Lowery doesn’t have to be “Congress” to violate the Constitution! All he has to do is be a government official who tries to promulgate religion in the organs of government.  He is and he did.  The courts have clearly established that “free speech” does not include an official’s right to pray to a captive high-school audience at official events—like graduation. This has been decided by the courts over and over again.  When I read stuff so blatantly ignorant and self-serving, I wonder whether Ms. Hilton really understands the issues, or that she does but is just ignoring them. Like a good theologian interpreting the Bible, she picks and chooses from the Constitution what she wants to see. Unfortunately for Hilton, the courts consistently disagree with her interpretation. Her take on the Constitution is like a garden-variety Catholic telling people what official Church dogma is, despite the Vatican saying otherwise.

Coyne was satirized in February as “censor of the year” by the Discovery Institute. According to the institute’s website, Coyne and the Freedom From Religion Foundation caused Ball State University to ban teaching the scientific theory of intelligent design. ID is a theory that contradicts Coyne’s Darwinism.

“The scientific theory” of intelligent design? Here again we see hints that Ms. Hilton rejects evolution as it’s accepted by scientists (not just “Coyne”). If the people of Lebanon want to parade their ignorance of evolution as visibly as they parade their ignorance of Constitutional law, by all means let them, for they only make themselves look like ignoramuses. 

*****

Truly, the Lebanon Daily Record should be embarrassed to have someone with this degree of acumen as a columnist, but sentiments like these are what we’ve come to expect from the Lowery-boosters.  In effect, they are encouraging violations of the law, and I suspect they know it.  And they haven’t learned to think for themselves, for they simply fall in line with the sentiments of the religious and of the small-town boosters so ably depicted by Sinclair Lewis in Main Street.

There is only one comment after Hilton’s article, and it opposes her. I’ve just added another (I don’t know if it will be approved) using the eloquent words of Christopher Hitchens as reproduced by reader Harry in yesterday’s comments. My own comment is addressed to the young folk of Lebanon, as was Harry’s.

If you’d like to weigh in on Hilton’s editorial, you can go here to do it. If you do comment, please be polite! We don’t want to act like the citizens of Lebanon.

Also, as reader Barry notes below:

By the way, if you click on “Home” after reading the dreadful article, there is a poll about this issue with two options. It looks like the goddies are dominating right now.

The poll is at the bottom right of the “home” page (you have to go to the article first and then, as Barry says, click “home”). Here are the results when I voted:

Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 11.23.27 AM

New Gallup poll: acceptance of evolution rises slightly, creationism falls

June 8, 2014 • 5:38 am

The Gallup organization has conducted its annual poll of Americans’ acceptance of evolution (results here and here). It’s based on a sample of 1,028 adults surveyed in May of this year. They’ve been taking this poll, asking the same questions, since 1982, which makes it the longest-running regular poll on U.S. attitudes towards evolution.

Actually, as you’ll see from the question below, it’s really a survey of attitudes about human evolution. As most of us know, it’s possible for many people to accept evolution for other creatures, but with an exception for humans.  In that form of theistic evolution, our species (or hominins) were either created directly, had our evolution facilitated by God-tweaked mutations, or had some metaphysical apps installed by God: usually a soul and, as Francis Collins puts it, “The Moral Law.”

I don’t mind Gallup asking the question this way, for if you don’t accept naturalistic evolution of humans, you don’t accept naturalistic evolution at all. (In addition, that’s the question they’ve been asking for 30+ years, so the results are comparable across decades.) For those who claim that the proper study of mankind is man (I’m not one of these), the correct account of our origins is crucial to understanding ourselves. Regardless, I don’t see how those who require our own species to have involved God’s intervention can be regarded as allies against creationism, especially when, as you see below, 42% of them not only see human exceptionalism, but our creation in the present form in the last 10,000 years. 

But the news this year makes me mildly optimistic. Although the pure young-earth creationists are at 42%, and have historically hovered between 40% and 47%, I discern a trend towards an acceptance of pure naturalistic evolution.  In the last 32 years the proportion of respondents accepting that for humans has risen pretty steadily from 9% to 19%: more than a doubling! Granted, it’s still a minority view, but its increase is, I believe, keeping pace with the decline of religiosity in America. (It’s religion that prevents people from accepting evolution, and we must await the decline of faith, which is slow, before we get much evolution-acceptance.)

Further, the young-earth creationists have fallen 4% since last year (maybe a blip), and the theistic evolutionists have fallen by 7% over the last two years. I’d say that that’s a cause for optimism.

qlkv1bjc1ewmyfp0xrqvhg

Gallup has also made three points about the data above (to see the raw data from earlier years, go here):

  • Religiousness relates most strongly to these views, which is not surprising, given that this question deals directly with God’s role in human origins. The percentage of Americans who accept the creationist viewpoint ranges from 69% among those who attend religious services weekly to 23% among those who seldom or never attend.
  • Educational attainment is also related to these attitudes, with belief in the creationist perspective dropping from 57% among Americans with no more than a high school education to less than half that (27%) among those with a college degree. Those with college degrees are, accordingly, much more likely to choose one of the two evolutionary explanations.
  • Younger Americans — who are typically less religious than their elders — are less likely to choose the creationist perspective than are older Americans. Americans aged 65 and older — the most religious of any age group — are most likely to choose the creationist perspective.

There’s not much new here, but look at the large effect of religion on accepting evolution. I’m always surprised that people question this (it’s something the National Center for Science Education likes to play down), but “belief in belief” is so strong that it keeps people from admitting the palpably obvious. What’s heartening is that the people who reject creationism most often are the younger ones. Those, of course, are also the people most likely to lack formal religious affiliation—the famous “nones.”

And, for those who claim that science and religion are compatible, here’s another figure from this year’s poll:

Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 7.19.14 AM

The folks at Gallup put it a bit carefully:

 . . . few scientists would agree that humans were created pretty much in their present form at one time 10,000 years ago, underscoring the ongoing discontinuity between the beliefs that many Americans hold and the general scientific consensus on this important issue.

Indeed!

The mills of rationality grind exceeding small, but they grind surely. I’m a bit sad that I won’t see the U.S. become secular—which means that evolution will no longer be an important issue—in my lifetime, but at least I see some progress. And that’s enough for me.

 

 

Good morning, Professor Ceiling Cat!

June 8, 2014 • 4:40 am

A lovely comment from the conservative website The Blaze, which published a piece on the Lebanon prayer fracas this week, and mentioned me in passing.  I don’t look at the comments on pieces like this, but reader Ben sent it along, knowing it would amuse.  It’s obviously from a believer.

How lovely these people are, and how quickly their their facade of geniality crumbles when their beliefs are challenged!

Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 6.32.40 AM Screen shot 2014-06-08 at 6.32.50 AM

 

I don’t know what a “codsack” is, but I can guess.

I used to think that people like Anthony Grayling were exaggerating when they said that were the faithful to gain full power over the government, even today, we’d see some pretty horrible repression. Now I’m beginning to think he’s right.

And, no—neither flames nor codsack nailing could convert me.

 

Sunday: Hili dialogue

June 8, 2014 • 3:29 am

Like many cats, Hili likes to sleep on the freshly cleaned and folded laundry.

Hili: These jumpers made out of pure wool are much more friendly to cats.
A: And how will I look in this?
Hili: Like a man who has a cat.

10374030_10203534549111664_7359142061651834544_n
In Polish:
Hili: Te swetry z czystej weƂny są znacznie bardziej przyjazne dla kotów.
Ja: Ale jak ja potem będę w tym wyglądaƂ?
Hili: Jak czƂowiek, który ma kota.