A tweet from Mike Brown via Matthew Cobb:
The limits of science
This would make a great slide for Eric Hedin’s “Boundaries of science” class at Ball State University.
Contributed by the artist, Pliny the in Between at Pictoral Theology (and with the Labels: Ball State, Creationism, limits of science [links go to related cartoons]):
Jane Austen to replace Darwin on the 10-pound note. You vote on the issue!
Well, the Days of Charles regnant on Britain’s £10 note are coming to an end. According to the BBC, the Guardian, and many other sources, in 2017 Darwin’s note will be deep-sixed and replaced by Jane Austen on the tenner. This is intended to remedy a lack of women on British banknotes. Although Elizabeth Fry has been on the fiver since 2002, she’ll be replaced by Winston Churchill in 2016.
While I applaud the initiative to call attention to the achievements of British women (that doesn’t include the Queen, who is on every note and achieved that through no effort of her own), I am distressed that Darwin’s bill will be defunct, and he’ll become an ex-biologist who sings with the choir invisible. Can’t they keep him permanently and put Austen (or, better yet, George Eliot, who wrote the best Victorian novel, Middlemarch) on some other note? Why not replace John Houblon on the £50 note, for instance? Does anybody even know who John Houblon was?
Take a last look at Chuck’s note.
There was a commemorative two-pound Darwin coin issued in 2009. I have a specimen, and it’s great. Imagine something like this appearing in the U.S, with Darwin juxtaposed with a chimp. No way!
And his replacement note, which you must admit is nice:
I’ve suggested a number of alternative strategies that will keep our hero on the tenner while giving women their due. Vote (once please) for your alternative, and if you don’t like any of these, add your preference in the comments. Results will be visible after you vote.
h/t: David, Diana, Grania
Pennsylvania school swears it doesn’t teach creationism; the FFRF warns them anyway
In April, reader Hempenstein called my attention to an article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reporting the paper’s survey of 106 Pennsylvania high-school science teachers. The disturbing result was that more than 32% of the teachers adhered to some form of creationism. A national survey by Penn State researchers also showed that between 17% and 21% of high-school teachers in the U.S. actually introduce creationism into the science classroom.
Naturally, because I’m a radical evolutionary atheist (and a member of the Darwin Lobby), I wrote an outraged post on this site highlighting the Post-Gazette poll, one feature of which was pretty disturbing. I quote from my post:
One of the surveyed teachers made the mistake of admitting publicly, using his name, that he actually teaches creationism in his classroom. To wit (my emphasis):
“Sometimes students honestly look me in the eye and ask what do I think? I tell them that I personally hold the Bible as the source of truth,” said Joe Sohmer, who teaches chemistry at the Altoona Area High School. The topic arises, he said, when he teaches radiocarbon dating, with that method often concluding archeological finds to be older than 10,000 years, which he says is the Bible-based age of Earth. “I tell them that I don’t think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method.”
‘Kids ask all kinds of personal questions and that’s one I don’t shy away from,” he said. “It doesn’t in any way disrupt the educational process. I’m entitled to my beliefs as much as the evolutionist is.” [JAC: yeah, but he’s not entitled to foist them as science on credulous high-school students!]
Mr. Sohmer responded to a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette questionnaire distributed this spring to school teachers statewide, and he agreed to discuss his teaching philosophy. He said school officials are comfortable with his methods.
I reported this article to the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), which sent a letter to the Altoona superintendent of schools (see here for their letter). And the FFRF just received their reply, which denies the whole thing:
Well, this response seems a bit dubious in light of Sohmer’s claim that “I tell them that I don’t think [radiocarbon dating] is as valid as the textbook says it is, noting other scientific problems with the dating method.” “Them” implies “more than one student”, and in fact more than a private conversation. Second, Sohmer said that “school officials are comfortable with his methods.” That implies that his “methods” aren’t exactly imparting straight science to the students.
But since the school denies any creationism, and no student has come forth to complain, this issue is at an end. Clearly, though, that the Altoona school district knows it’s being watched, and that any incursion of creationism in science class, even by Mr. Sohmer (who should be ashamed of teaching superstition to even a single student), is unacceptable.
At any rate, the FFRF, has just sent a four-page letter to every school-district superintendent in Pennsylvania; you can download their letter here. That will certainly get their attention, and, unlike Ball State University, I doubt that even Larry Moran or P. Z. Myers could argue that high school teachers have the “academic freedom” to teach creationism in science class.
Do think about joining the FFRF (which you can do here). It’s only $40 per year, and, unlike some other secular organizations, the FFRF is down in the trenches every day fighting legal battles to support the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Caturday felids: New Jalan ads and a nice essay on the domestic cat
Jaran (also Googled as “Jalan”) is a Japanese travel agency that produces hllarious videos starring a tie-sporting cat as a businessman (the object is to sell vacation/business packages). I’ve highlighted two of their ads before (here and here), along with explanations by Yokohamamama, our Japanese correspondent.
I have now found several new Jalan ads—four of them concatenated—on YouTube. They feature not only Nyaran, the big orange-and-white cat, but apparently his son/daughter or an apprentice traveling with him. And. . . . a D-G! They’re doing what I take to be typical Japanese vacation activities: eating, going to a spa, viewing cherry blossoms, and so on:
I love the way the animals carry their suitcases on their collars.
My questions:
1. What the hell kind of dog is that? A baby Akita? It doesn’t look real.
2. What is going on in those ads? Japanese-speaking or Japanese-acquainted readers please explain.
***
Have a look at a new essay in Aeon magazine: “If a cat could talk”, by David Wood. It’s a bit discursive (“this pudding has no theme“), but has some nice bits, like these:
Perhaps because we selected cats for their internal contradictions — friendly to us, deadly to the snakes and rodents that threatened our homes — we shaped a creature that escapes our gaze, that doesn’t merely reflect some simple design goal. One way or another, we have licensed a being that displays its ‘otherness’ and flaunts its resistance to human interests. This is part of the common view of cats: we value their independence. From time to time they might want us, but they don’t need us. Dogs, by contrast, are said to be fawning and needy, always eager to please. Dogs confirm us; cats confound us. And in ways that delight us.
. . . Michel de Montaigne, in An Apology for Raymond Sebond (1580), captured this uncertainty eloquently. ‘When I play with my cat,’ he mused, ‘how do I know that she is not playing with me rather than I with her?’ So often cats disturb us even as they enchant us. We stroke them, and they purr. We feel intimately connected to these creatures that seem to have abandoned themselves totally to the pleasures of the moment. Cats seem to have learnt enough of our ways to blend in. And yet, they never assimilate entirely. In a trice, in response to some invisible (to the human mind, at least) cue, they will leap off our lap and re-enter their own space, chasing a shadow.
. . . But the claws through the jeans give the game away. The cat is not exploring the limits of intimacy with a dash of pain, a touch of S&M. He is involuntarily extending his claws into my skin. This is not about ‘us’, it’s about him, and perhaps it always was — the purring, the licking, the pumping. Cats undermine any dream of perfect togetherness. Look into the eyes of a cat for a moment. Your gaze will flicker between recognising another being (without quite being able to situate it), and staring into a void.
There are two nice illustrations as well. First, the cat that owned the odious Jacques Derrida, though I won’t hold it against the cat. But it was a crime to name the cat “Logos.”


h/t: Michael
2131 books go down
Only in Seattle (well, it could have happened in Portland, too). . .
On May 31, the Seattle Public library, with the help of many volunteers, successfully created the world’s largest domino chain of falling books—2131 of them. As the YouTube site notes:
The Seattle Public Library launched the 2013 Summer Reading Program by setting a new world record for the longest book domino chain!
The books used to make this domino chain were either donated or are out of date and no longer in the library’s collection. They are now being sold by the Friends of Seattle Public Library to help raise money for library programs and services.
No books were harmed during the filming of this video.
h/t: SGM
Wanted: young creation “scientists”
Sevreal readers pointed me to an essay/ad by the Institute for Creation Research asking Christian youth to go into science. For your delectation: “Wanted: Young creation scientists” by Jake Hebert, Ph.D. (doctorate in physics from the University of Texas at Dallas). Pay special attention to the last two paragraphs.
If you need a sign that creationists are getting desperate, here’s a good one, for this “ad” literally begs Christian youth to go into science solely to become “stealth creationists” like Jon Wells.
The first paragraph, about the advances of creation science and its superiority over “real” science (i.e., evolutionary biology) is of course a complete lie. But the real motivation for co-opting Christian youth into science is in the last two paragraphs, advising these students “to not draw attention to your creationists beliefs while you are a student.”
But if those beliefs have, as the ICR asserts, trumped modern evolutionary biology, why hide them? Well, it’s because of the “anti-Christian sentiment” in society and the “academic persecution in the secular universities.” What this means is simply that people with creationist beliefs have those beliefs questioned in a good secular university. That’s what a university is for, and it’s not “persecution.” But it’s better to keep your mouth shut until you get that Ph.D., whereupon you can come out as a full-throttle creationist like John Wells and Michael Behe.
This is a form of child abuse in three ways. It take a child’s natural interest in science and perverts it by forcing it into the Procrustean bed of creationism, turning the child into a liar for Jesus. Second, it tries to distort scientific understanding before the “candidate” even gets to the classroom, by urging the the student to hold onto his/her views in the face of counterevidence. Finally, it is unbearably cynical, for it makes the child a tool of the creationsts/fundamentalists—a minion who can fulfill their desire to overthrow real science by subverting it from within. They are producing the equivalent of those little Iraqi children who were urged to run through minefields to detonate unexploded mines. Suborning a child’s curiosity about the world by enlisting it in the cause of superstition is true child abuse.
h/t: Tom
There were five kittens
Ladyatheist got the answer right with her diagram
The litter size was verified in a post at A Merry Meow on Facebook, which also explained why the moggie was x-rayed.
We have an update on this cat. Her name is Grace, and she was given an x-ray because she was over due and the vets wanted to rule out problems. Neither she or the kittens were harmed and she delivered five kittens on 7-11-13.
The original X-ray (here):










