Here is the list of our 20 most viewed blogs for November, 2006
Read the rest of this entry »

In the rugged Tsodilo Hills region of the Kalahari Desert in northwestern Botswana, the San people [a.k.a. "Bushmen"] claim a python god first created humanity.

Today it was reported that a rock carving of a python's head and neck as tall as a man and 20 feet long was discovered inside the Rhino Cave along with artifacts at least 70,000 years old.

"You could see the mouth and eyes of the snake. It looked like a real python," said Sheila Coulson of the University of Oslo. "The play of sunlight over the indentations gave them the appearance of snake skin. At night, the firelight gave one the feeling that the snake was actually moving."

Read the rest of this entry »

Wikipedia is a popular source of information, with articles written by voluntary authors all over the world, motivated only by their desire to share their knowledge with the rest of us. That's the ideal, at least. But as DaveScot shows in his post, "Wikipedia Hatchet Jobs on ID Leaders", a small group of intellectual thugs are vandalizing Wikipedia, squashing any attempt to correct articles with an anti-ID bias. For example, the article on Francis Beckwith (who has argued for the constitutionality of teaching intelligent design) contains false claims about his views, implying that he's lying about them. Any attempts to correct it, even from Beckwith himself, have been deleted.

PETA is an organization fighting for "total animal liberation", equating the keeping of pets with slavery. Isn't it then ironic that PETA run animal shelters, trying to find homes for homeless cats and dogs? Not really, since PETA employees kill more animals than they save condemn to servitude. In fact, non-PETA run shelters in the same area have a higher success rate in finding homes to their animals.

This is just one of the many revealing facts from the Penn & Teller show on PETA. There's quite a bit of swearing, and especially Penn gets very vocal with righteous indignation. So by all means, sit down and watch it:

And we can dance!

[Big HT: Farshad]

Mike reported last week about the discovery of some dramatic variation in the genomes of humans – at least 10% of genes vary in number of copies. The 11-24 press release from Howard Hughes Medical Institute entitled Genetic Variation: We're More Different Than We Thought says these findings are expected to change the way researchers think about genetic diseases and human evolution.

Read the rest of this entry »

Okay, I haven't seen Krauze for some time and I'm getting worried. Last time I heard from him, he was obsessed with chasing this rabbit all over campus. I told him to leave it alone. But he just wouldn't listen to me. Well, he called me last night. "Mike," he says, "I'm following the rabbit right now…he's behind Baker Hall." So I say, "Don't touch him! I'll be right there." When I got there, Krauze was gone. And I found his videocam on the ground……

Educational policy discourse supports the idea that increases in science and mathematics achievement correlate to nation-wide economic gains. However, a thought-provoking new study from the American Journal of Education challenges the perceived causal links between educational achievement and economic growth. Francisco O. Ramirez (Stanford University) and his co-authors find that without the so-called "Asian Tigers," the correlation diminishes and all but disappears.

-Here

Back on April 16, 2004, I wrote:

The TEs might want to consider that if the ID Movement evaporates, they're next in line for wearing the "creationist" label.

Back on August 13, 2005, I wrote:

Collins and Miller accept evolution in its mainstream formulations, are supposedly only "nominally religious" , yet they are GUILTY of doing "lasting harm." It turns out they are part of the problem. It may be obvious to some of us that Sam Harris is a true Fundamentalist with a secular creed (a mirror-image of the people who frighten him), but that gets us nowhere as it's okay to be a the right type of fundamentalist in certain circles. Just keep your eye on the ball. In his mind, and the mind of many of his colleagues, there is no room for religious faith. The faith of someone like Ken Miller does "lasting harm" as it looks to "accommodate" the "religious irrationality."

And you thought it was about evolution and science.

There is someting that's just not right about this video –

"Hey Mike, since your views about Intelligent Design are so different from mainstream ID, why do you insist on calling them 'ID'? Why don't you come up with a new name?" For those who have these questions, I provide you my reasons.
Read the rest of this entry »

Recently there has been a rash of anti-religion books. One would think from all the rhetoric and broad public exposure of the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and other critics of religion that they are in the vanguard of those criticizing elements of irrationality and ill conceived dogma in religion. That could not be farther from the truth. These atheistic critics seem completely unaware of those within religion over many decades who have lodged many of the same criticisms they offer. Neither do they seem to know that many prominent thinkers in religion are just as serious about dispelling the superstitious and destructive elements in religion. The fact is that some of the best minds in religious thought have worked indefatigably to place religious thinking on a sounder footing within a modern world. These efforts have been an ongoing pursue of those who have been categorized as part of liberal theology.

Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Dawkins wants put to Hitler behind us and resurrect a discussion of eugenics:

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous – though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

It's a typical example of Dawkins and his "consciousness-raising." Let's talk about religious people as child abusers. Let's discuss whether religion is the root of all evil. Now, it's let's discuss whether eugenics is really bad. The new Anti-Religion Movement is off and running.

I encourage everyone to download session 9 of the Beyond Belief seminar, as it is very informative. First, you'll see Sam Harris give a rather mundane, anti-religion talk. But then it gets interesting. Next up, is James Woodward. It seems pretty obvious to me that Woodward is disgusted with what he has been watching and felt compelled to throw together a new intro to his talk, where he has to teach the scientists how to do basic science. Then comes Mel Konner, who put together an excellent talk that echoes Woodward and truly spanks Dawkins and Harris.

Of course, I am biased here. Both Woodward and Konner make the same basic point I have been making about Dawkins and his followers for years. Put simply, Dawkins has abandoned science and the scientific approach when it comes to his condemnation of religion and his solution to the Religion Problem. Dawkins and Harris substitute emotionalism, rhetoric, anecdote, and stereotype for science. Yet they posture as Ambassadors of Science.

Then came the discussion, with Woodward and Konner on one side of the table, and Harris and Dawkins on the other side.
Read the rest of this entry »