. . . and perhaps a reason to make Fluffy’s Wager.
Have a good evening; I’ll be here all weekend, folks!
Food for thought. . .
October 11, 2013 • 2:16 pm
In Alabama, Jesus rides with the cops—and taxpayers foot the bill
October 11, 2013 • 1:38 pm
This is unbelievable, but apparently in Alabama (where else?) the police carry pastors in their cruisers and allow them to proselytize crime and disaster victims. This is verbatim from a letter sent out by David Silverman, president of the American Atheists:
The religious extremists have crossed the line again. Imagine you were just the victim of a crime. You’re traumatized. You see someone step out of a police car and start to walk toward you. He flashes his police-provided ID card and ducks under the crime scene tape. He sits next to you as you think, “Who is this guy? A social worker? A crisis counselor?”
But when he opens his mouth, you find out right away that he is neither of these. He begins to tell you about God’s plan as he takes your hands and prays for you to come to Jesus.
Shockingly, this isn’t imaginary at all. In Montgomery, Alabama—the capital city with a population of 200,000—the police department has started a new program called “Operation Good Shepherd.” The program trains evangelical Christian pastors, using tax dollars, to ride along with police officers and gives them access to crime scenes in order to preach Christianity explicitly while people are vulnerable.
That’s right. And they’re not even trying to hide it. Official police chaplain E. Baxter Morris told The Atlantic, “Anytime you find a group of people whose lives have been adversely affected—it could be a major fire in an apartment complex, it could be trouble in a given community, it could be a storm or a disaster… There is an evangelicistic advantage. That is, that once I float to your comfort zone, and we become one in our crisis… I may be able to share with you a word from Christ.”
In other words, they are taking advantage of people who are in crisis and using your tax dollars to do it. So far, 37 pastors have completed the tax-funded training. On Monday, I sent a letter to Mayor Todd Strange and Chief of Police Kevin Murphy laying out, in no uncertain terms, that using taxpayer money and governmemt employees for the purpose of spreading Christianity is unconstitutional, and that the program must be terminated immediately, or American Atheists will sue. With your help, we can stop this violation of the most basic of American rights. Taking advantage of vulnerable people in order to evangelize at taxpayer expense is not only unconstitutional, but sickening.
According to the Atlantic, this program is indeed publicly funded, and besides the complete lack of evidence that it works, it’s palpably unconstitutional. The Atlantic notes this:
“Even without paying the ministers, using ministers as a formal part of the police department— as an outreach ministry — I think violates the Establishment Clause,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the School of Law at University of California in Irvine. “The government cannot take actions that appear to endorse religion. Using ministers in this way does exactly that.”
I don’t think there’s any question about this. If the cops don’t let mullahs, rabbis, and humanist “preachers” ride around with them, it’s clearly a violation of the First Amendment. In fact, they should deep-six the whole idea. Cops are cops, not aides to God. The police chief weighed in with his rationale:
“What we’re seeing today, those seeds were sown a long time ago. I truly believe there has been a breakdown in the family. We have young people not being guided,” said Montgomery Police Chief Kevin Murphy.
And Murphy’s police department is intent on providing that guidance via a cop-led, Christian outreach program.
Wouldn’t it be better, if you’re dealing with family problems or social dysfunction, to have psychologists instead of ministers ride around with the cops? After all, the First Amendment doesn’t put a wall between state and psychology.
h/t: Diane G.
Another shadow illusion
October 11, 2013 • 10:20 am
Matthew Cob sent a tw**t by Perfectly Timed:
What’s going on here? With the help of Greg, our Color Man, we can explain it thusly: The white line at the top of the bottom half implies that the light on this hinged object is coming from above, and thus the bottom half of the object is the same color as the illuminated line, and lighter as well than the top half of the object. But it isn’t: it is in fact the same color as the top of the object. We compensate for the assumption that the bottom is lighter by visually interpreting it as lighter, so the object looks as if it were in two shades.
This is one way that evolution, I suspect, has conditioned for vision, making our brains interpret the assumption of shadowing in a way that compensates for it. A famous example of this compensation, which I’ve written about before, is the “checker shadow” illusion in which a cylinder rests on a checkerboard and casts a shadow:
Squares “A” and “B” are actually the same color and shade (if you don’t believe that, go to my original post to see for yourself, as well as the explanation for this remarkable illusion).
Pigliucci and Boudry rebuke alternative medicine, praise science, in New York Times
October 11, 2013 • 9:06 am
by Greg Mayer
A little over a week ago Jerry noted a puzzling piece on the New York Times website by Stephen Asma that praised the theory of “Qi” and drinking turtle blood as interesting and worthwhile concepts. Jerry had a go at some of Asma’s confusions, and now in the Times Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry have their turn at bat, with Asma being the ball.
In their piece, called “The Dangers of Pseudoscience”, Pigliucci and Boudry note why it is useful to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and emphasize especially the importance of doing so with regard to medical claims.
Asma’s example of Chinese medicine’s claims about the existence of “Qi” energy, channeled through the human body by way of “meridians,” though, is a different matter [than aspirin]. This sounds scientific, because it uses arcane jargon that gives the impression of articulating explanatory principles. But there is no way to test the existence of Qi and associated meridians, or to establish a viable research program based on those concepts, for the simple reason that talk of Qi and meridians only looks substantive, but it isn’t even in the ballpark of an empirically verifiable theory.
They stress the importance of understanding the underlying causes of phenomena (e.g. the placebo effect), rather than applying fanciful words to the phenomena. They appropriately note that, “The notion of Qi, again, is not really a theory in any meaningful sense of the word. It is just an evocative word to label a mysterious force of which we do not know and we are not told how to find out anything at all.” They rightfully conclude
The borderlines between genuine science and pseudoscience may be fuzzy, but this should be even more of a call for careful distinctions, based on systematic facts and sound reasoning. To try a modicum of turtle blood here and a little aspirin there is not the hallmark of wisdom and even-mindedness. It is a dangerous gateway to superstition and irrationality.
Another god-infused science class at a public university?
October 11, 2013 • 5:33 am
Yesterday I wrote about the case of Dr. Ned Bowden, an Associate Professor of Chemistry at the University of Iowa, who had written a letter to the University magazine calling out evolutionary biology for its gaping holes, and insisting, at the same time, that evolutionary biology comports perfectly with Genesis (that is, if you construe “Genesis” as chapter 1 but not chapter 2). In a comment to an Inside Higher Education piece about his letter, Bowden also accused his colleagues in evolutionary biology of lying about their field:
I wonder if Bowden has a wee bit of regret about his remarks. I’m sure some of his colleagues do, including the 25 who responded to his claim that there are “holes in the theory of evolution that are big enough to drive a semi-truck through.” (Bowden didn’t identify the holes.)
Well, a few minutes of Googling revealed more than just Bowden’s effusive Christianity. It seems that he also teaches a seminar at his university that mixes science with God. Have a look at the description of Chemistry 1000:
004:029:003 (CHEM:1000:0003) First-Year Seminar
19 of 20 enrolledGeneral Catalog:Small discussion class taught by a faculty member; topics chosen by instructor; may include outside activities (e.g., films, lectures, performances, readings, visits to research facilities).
Subtitle: What Does Science Say about the Big Bang, Evolution, and Genesis?
Description:A conflict between evolution and genesis has existed ever since Darwin wrote his book that first explained the case for evolution. In 1925 the famous Scopes Monkey Trial brought this conflict to a wider attention that has not gone away. Many people are firmly entrenched in their beliefs on both sides. Some folks believe that the Big Bang and evolution explain everything and eliminate the need for a god because science has all of the answers. Does science negate the need for a god? Others believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or they believe a maker that has guided and continuous to guide the universe by intelligent design. In this course we will examine these different viewpoints from the perspective of science. What does science say about the current theory of evolution and the Big Bang? How does science explain the origin of life on this planet and the “descent of man” from simpler species? How similar are the events described by scientists and Genesis, chapter 1? No assumptions about what is right or wrong will be used, we will study the current scientific understanding about the Big Bang and evolution to gain an understanding about the differences and similarities between what was written in the Bible and what scientists believe.
In this course we will read a series of short articles written for a general audience to provide a basis for discussion about different topics. For instance, we will discuss the fossil record and what it says about the current theory of evolution and what is left to be discovered. On another day we will discuss how life might have evolved on earth and what makes earth conducive to life (and has for over four billion years). All faiths and creeds will be respected; we will examine the science behind the origin of life rather than the differences between faiths. An interest in science will certainly benefit the discussions in class.
There will be short weekly readings to cover a topic, and we will discuss these readings in class. You will be expected to do the readings and come prepared with opinions and a willingness to discuss or debate what was read. Some weeks the class will be broken into two groups who will debate a topic. At the end of the course, a short 5 page paper will be assigned and form part of the basis for your grade.
The reference material and textbooks for the course are not given, though there’s a space for them on the syllabus.
Now this all seems fine—like a “let’s examine all viewpoints” course, but knowing Bowden’s views I strongly doubt whether pure naturalism will be given the same play as his view that “our salvation comes from Christ” (see his Inside Higher Ed comment on my previous post). And, given Bowden view that Genesis comports nicely with what we know about evolution (despite the “big holes” in the latter), I suspect he’s going to point that out in his section about “the differences and similarities between what was written in the Bible and what scientists believe.” Note as well that Bowden’s magazine piece says this:
If we throw out our modern definition of a day as a 24-hour period, Genesis tells us that on the first day, “God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void…”
When this story was written 4,000 years ago, they didn’t have the language to talk about things like the Big Bang theory and subatomic particles. But whether you take the Big Bang or “God said, ‘Let there be light,’ ” it says the same thing.
So is he going to argue that in his class? If so, it’s not science, but Bowden imposing his Christian views on students. Are they going to read The God Delusion, or Victor Stenger, or Lawrence Krauss? If “all faiths and creeds will be respected”, will atheism be among them? All I can say is that I’ll write to Bowden’s chairman and ask for a syllabus. Odds are that I’ll fail, even though, since his school is a public one, that information is available via the Freedom of Information act.
This whole thing smells fishy—fishy enough that I’ll try to get more information. The University of Iowa should be deeply concerned about this course, and while Bowden is free to publish his views that science proves God in their campus magazine, he’s not free to teach that to students at a public university. The school should also be concerned that a chemistry professor wants to teach about evolution and the “descent of man”, and wonder why he’s doing this. Is he qualified to do so? Maybe Bowden’s course is on the up-and-up, but there’s enough concern to warrant a bit more digging.
What makes me extra worried is an interview with Bowden that appeared in the October 3 issue of Worldmag.com.: “Denying holes in evolution makes science appear arrogant.” Here’s a bit of it (my emphasis):
Some of Bowden’s colleagues went as far as calling into question his credentials for teaching a class on Genesis and Evolution.But Bowden said the professors failed to notice that he was not arguing against evolution, only pointing out unresolved holes in the theory.
“Denying that these gaps exist is embarrassing and makes science appear as arrogant,” the associate professor told me. He believes it is important for scientists to admit they don’t know everything about how the world came into being.
The faculty members also disapproved of Bowden’s acknowledgement of the existence of God. This shows the intolerance of science, Bowden said: “When you come out so strongly saying evolution has to be accepted and no one has a right to question it, people are going to be offended.”
. . .Not everyone at the university opposed the article. Faculty members contacted Bowden personally in support of his views, but said they don’t talk about what they believe because they don’t want to “stick their necks out.”
. . . But his colleagues’ reaction shows it’s not enough to embrace the theory of evolution, holes and all. To be accepted, scientists must deny any belief in a creator who brought the world into existence. Bowden wishes the scientific community would just admit that there is much they don’t know about the origin of the world: “When talking about evolution it’s 10 percent science and 90 percent creative writing.”
That’s wrong, and it’s insulting. “Creative writing,” really? How much does Bowden really know about evolution, anyway? Is he speaking from a deep acquaintance with the field, or is he, infused with his Christianity, simply buying the talking points of intelligent design creationists? What would he think if a biologist said the same thing about his field, or about physics?
Bowden is an embarrassment to his department and to the University of Iowa. Please note that I am not calling for him to be fired, or for his course to be eliminated. I just want to know what he’s teaching impressionable Iowa students, and I’d like him to either point out what those “gaping holes” are in evolutionary theory, or stop implying that the field is mostly creative writing, promulgated by biologists who lie about their field.
Boot weather!
October 11, 2013 • 3:24 am
When the acorns start falling, to the delight of the squirrels, it’s time to don a light jacket—and cowboy boots.
Here’s a virtually new pair, bought for a song on eBay, made by the estimable firm of Tres Outlaws (also known as Falconhead) in El Paso. They have tall tops (14 inches; the usual is 12) and nice burgundy stitching to match the oxblood leather. I also like the square toes.
Can you guess the hide? It’s tough but comfortable. (Click photos to enlarge.)
Friday: Hili Dialogue
October 11, 2013 • 3:02 am
Hili aspires to be the Maru of Poland.
Hili: A domestic cat always stumbles across some wild doors.
A: And what are you looking for in the basement?
Hili: It seems that you carried a new cardboard box down there.
In Polish:
Hili: Udomowiony kot wszędzie trafia na jakieś dzikie drzwi.
Ja; A czego szukasz w piwnicy.
Hili: Wydaje mi się, że zaniosłeś tam jakiś nowy karton.
We Did Stop
October 10, 2013 • 3:02 pm
Here’s a pretty funny spoof of the government shut-down based on Miley Cyrus’s abysmal song, “We Can’t Stop“. It’s bit risqué, but not R-rated. It’s funnier if you can bear to watch the original video.
Cyrus hosted Saturday Night Live two weeks ago, presumably where this video appeared.
I have to say that. although I used to be glued to the tube every Saturday night, I no longer watch SNL. I started seeing it during the glory days of The Not Ready for Prime Time Players: Radner, Curtin, Belushi, Akroyd, Chase, and Newman, and for decades it’s never come close to that original cast. Samurai deli-man, Emily Litella, the Blues Brothers, Weekend Update (“Jane, you ignorant slut!”), Roseanne Roseanneadanna: who can forget those? Gilda Radner and John Belushi were comic geniuses.
Gilda was at her best playing a little girl. I can’t find any clips of her classic performances, but here’s a compilation in which the sound’s been replaced with some cheesy music:
And the samurai sketches:
And then there were the killer bees, the Coneheads Consuming Mass Quantities. . . . and so on. Maybe I’m just a curmudgeon, but I think that SNL, like rock and roll, has run its course.
h/t: John W.