Arizona State Senator

If I have anyone reading this from Arizona this should be something to take into consideration next time she comes up for reelection.

Response to The shot heard around the world

So I was bored and decided I would try and find somebody other than conservapedia to criticise especially since they really haven't posted too much in the way of science recently. Well while doing it I came across this: http://conservativeprincipals.blogspot.com/2009/07/shot-heard-around-world.html. It is a really good read actually and I can tell that the person who wrote it clearly put quite a bit of thought into it. I do have a few problems with it that I want to point out quickly though.

The issue in global warming is that science has been perverted to serve a
political agenda. There's plenty of scientific evidence to disprove most of what
global warming enthusiasts assert. That is to say, the science against global
warming is as potent as, or more potent than the science favoring global
warming. All we need is time for the truth to win out - which is what algore and
friends don't want, and why they are pushing so hard for quick action.

Ok I am not going to dive too deeply into this but the science is pretty obvious that global climate change is happening, there are very few scientists who deny this and there will always be people who object to everything (aka the flat earthers), but the major question and the one that has been played to the greatest political agenda is how much of it is human caused. This is something maybe to address at a later time.

And (2) modern scientific inquiry is not at odds with that very Jewish purpose
of history. The earth does not have to be young to make that history true;
therefore to make the Bible true. The age of the earth is irrelevant to the
relevant issue: that it is God who created it, and created it as a Garden for
humankind; and has been at work to restore us to the edenic state since the
beginnings of human recollection. As for evolutionary theory: I think it's fair
to say, on the basis of competing science, competing interpretations of the
gathered data, and gaps in scientific evidence, that it is only a theory. It has
gaps that some say suggest evolutionary theory better shows how creatures adapt
within their niches than how creatures jump from one niche to another. We're
still looking for the evidence, without ruling out the possiblity of some kind
of periodic "quantum leaps" from one state of createdness to another more
complex state of createdness. If we ever demonstrate that those leaps have taken
place, I'd likely argue that those leaps are further evidence of God acting
miraculously and outside the ordinary rules of nature. I won't rule out God
turning water to wine; I won't rule out God turning an ape into a human. We have
yet to produce evidence that makes the case airtight, though. And it seems to me
that any evidence of "quantum leaps" would be food for the Intelligent Design
type of argument.

This is something I think we need to talk about. You start by saying it is only a theory but all of the other things that you are so willing to accept are also only theories in fact the age of the earth has less evidence to support it than does evolution. I do understand that you are talking about a slow stepwise progression but look at the evidence that genetics has shown us. Your problem might be your view of animals jumping niches. This does not happen it is a slow progression from one niche to another I recommend the McFadden horse evolution paper if you want to see what we have supporting evolution from the fossil record. My guess, however, is that you are trying to make a statement regarding punctuated equilibrium and this is also a misunderstanding of this idea. Finally you mention we have yet to make the case airtight. This is true but I think you will be hard pressed to find a scientific theory with more evidence supporting it than evolution.

But the scientific method has advanced to the point that we now discover the
relativity of the scientific method. In other words, in a a way Mike is right to
say that knowledge is faith. We find over and over again that our
presuppositions influence the "objective" results of scientific inquiry. It
begins to look as though the scientific method is also subjective, though in a
different way than is faith.

It strikes me, then, that the scientific method can
lead us down any road we are predisposed to travel. In other words, our
worldview will determine what we discover is "objectively" true. If that's the
case, then at some point we have to reunite scientific method and Christian
worldview. More properly, Judeo-Christian worldview, since Christians are (Paul
assures us) but an engrafted branch on the stump of Jesse. I have been wondering
if the discovery of relativity theory and the quantum world wasn't the real
purpose of, the highest peak available to, decoupled science; and the next set
of mountain ranges will not really be seen, let alone climbed, until science and
the worldview of God revealed in the Bible (both testaments) and in the life of
Jesus are joined.

I wonder what we will discover when we engage scientific
inquiry with a Christian worldview? I don't mean in the pre-modern sense of
requiring that science conclude what faith wants it to, but in the post-modern
sense of a recognition that the assumptions one brings to the scientific enquiry
help determine the discoveries one makes. Literally, that how we think
determines what we can see. So if we are fully and completely the People of the
Book, not anticipating a struggle between science and faith, but anticipating
and looking for the ways that seeing as Christ sees, valuing the way God has
disclosed He values, reveals new scientific truths that bring the world more
into harmony with God's intention for creation, and enables us to do more with
less negative impact on creation; in fact, enables us to do more while also
ennobling God's earth. What will society, technology, human life look like when
we are fully engaged in that exploration? I think, pretty good.

Ok there is a lot to digest here and I just want to make a really quick comment. Science, as this writer states earlier in their work, did originally set out to prove the bible as literally correct. However, using observation and the scientific inquiry we have come to the conclusion that the bible is not literally correct. The general idea behind the scientific method is that you check your political and religious beliefs at the door. He mentions in this section I quoted not being able to see the next mountain range after relativity. We already have it is called quantum physics. I think that a majority of his essay is very correct in that there is no reason to quit believing in God just because science proves the bible is not literally correct. But it is this last section that I do have a problem with. He had already mentioned that science is not 100% objective, and while that is true with initial studies etc the process of scientific cross checks etc slowly irons out these not objective sections until they are no more. It make take time but what doesn't.

That may have been a slightly rushed and poorly worded argument against this piece but I felt it was well written and something for everyone to consider. It is something that really needs to be forwarded to those of you who know people who read the bible very literally. After all we are never all going to agree on everything but we need to at least start somewhere.

US High in Anti-Evolution views again

So I came across this article today: http://www.scientificblogging.com/adaptive_complexity/blog/us_ranks_high_antievolution_beliefs which links to this story: http://www.britishcouncil.org/darwinnow-survey-global.pdf.

I think the article says enough by itself in summarizing what is going on but I just wanted to make a quick statement on why this is bad. While yes we have clearly heard of Darwin and Evolution in this country (71% according to the survey) most Americans don't accept the theory of Evolution. This is a problem if we want to keep being known as the leader in science and medicine. The more we fight against Evolution the more we are setting ourselves back when it comes to the fight against disease. The majority of new drugs still come from the US but if we decide that disease causing agents can't change, can't evolve, then why should we keep researching new ways to fight disease? Why should we improve our antibiotics or even our vaccines? I just feel that this view is missed and is what needs to be stressed most to those who deny evolution.

4th of July

Just wanted to wish everyone out there a Happy 4th of July.

Global climate change

So I came across this earlier today on conservapedia:

Scientists Write Open Letter to Congress: "You Are Being
Deceived About Global Warming -- Earth
has been cooling for ten years. Present cooling was NOT predicted by the
alarmists' computer models, and has come as an embarrassment to them

So when I followed the link to this page http://climatedepot.com/a/1745/Scientists-Write-Open-Letter-to-Congress-You-Are-Being-Deceived-About-Global-Warming--Earth-has-been-cooling-for-ten-years I read the letter that they had submitted.

If you look at the list of signers there are a total of 7 and of that only 2 have climate backgrounds to their education the rest are physicists and one guy worked for Exxon. I don't think that is the background you need to be making any sort of a statement when it comes to global climate change.

As for the actual science well this page covers some of the basics: http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm

It is pretty obvious that the climate is changing and not necessarily for the better. Is it our fault, that is a different question and one that I do not feel qualified to answer. But lets pretend for a minute that us pumping CO2 into the air is not the cause of it well why then should we not be trying to clean up the what we are putting into the air. We need to lessen our demand on foreign oil anyway why not move to cleaner fuels, since the quantity of oil is limited. And all the crap that comes out when we burn coal for energy why don't we clean that up anyway so the air we breath is cleaner? Just something to think about.

Finally I just came across this on conservapedia as well:

"Nation's Jobless Rate Hits Highest Yearly Loss in 4 Decades"[8] "Change" is great, isn't it?

If you follow that link you find an article by Fox news that says the June to June jobless rate. So now apparently Obama is responsible for job losses not only before he was sworn in but also prior to him being elected, 4 months before he was elected ok that seems fair. What would this headline have said if McCain had won I wonder?

Nothing New

So I know I haven't really been posting too much recently I have been kind of taking it easy and well to be honest conservapedia hasn't really posted much that has been anti-science and I don't have the patience to say anything about politics because that is a quick way to draw attention that you don't want to yourself. But anyway I just figured I post something since it is the first day of July so I figured I post this for your reading pleasure.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30muse.html?_r=5

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_us/us_paleontologists_creation_museum

while I do feel that it is good to learn what the other side thinks about you I don't really want to spend money supporting these people, that and it is a long way away from here.

Onward Christian Soldiers

I know I haven't posted in a while but I just got this sent to me so I figured I would share it with everyone else out there who might not have:

http://skepticblog.org/2009/06/23/onward-christian-soldiers/

Randomness

I know I haven't posted in a while but as I said earlier I would probably be busy over the next few weeks and I have. This time is actually rare for at least another week so don't expect the posts to be rolling out anytime soon but anyway onto the post. This post is going to be pretty random I came across some things on conservapedia I want to address but it should still be a pretty short post.

The first one is this:

Homeschooling has
increased 74% from 1999 and 36% from 2003, according to a report recently
released by the U.S. Department of Education last month. Reasons cited include
"to provide religious or moral instruction" (36%), "concern about school
environment" (21%), and "dissatisfaction with academic instruction" (17%).

I do not like that people are shying away from schooling in general but I will agree there are areas in this country that need a serious overhaul in the education systme so that is a good enough reason to pull people out. I really don't have any problem with people being homeschooled for the most part but it was with the first reason that most people are homescooled, "to provide religious or moral instruction." While I have no problem with people believing in God it needs to be a clear destinction between what is faith and what is actually known and trying to teach both religion and science/history at home blurs the line but I guess that is why people do that because they don't think that science is right. The article they are talking about is: http://www.hslda.org/docs/link.asp?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ledger-enquirer.com%2Fnews%2Fstory%2F742241.html&

Next:

Another tragedy from unattended video game playing as a
11-year-old Mississippi boy accidentally
killed his 9-year-old brother with a shotgun blast Tuesday as the two
struggled over the gun after arguing about a video game, authorities said. "The
younger brother allegedly got mad because he got beat at some video games and
got the gun," Marshall County Sheriff Kenny Dickerson said. [28]

No this is not a tragedy from unattedned video game playing it is a tragedy caused by piss poor parenting. I have no people owning guns but if you are you need to teach your kids what they are used for and you also need to make sure that they are scured exceptionally well especially if you have children.

And finally:

The killer at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum,
James von Brunn, was a white supremacist and also an evolutionary racist. James von
Brunn wrote that "Only the strong survive. Cross breeding whites with species on
the evolutionary scale diminishes the white gene-pool while increasing the
number of physiologically, psychologically, and behaviorally deprived
mongrels."[15] The evolutionist Charles Darwin was also an evolutionary racist. The shooter, James von Brunn, also
appears to have had close ties to neo-Nazis and his ex-wife said his
anti-semitism and racist hate "ate him alive like a cancer". [16][17] Adolf Hitler was also a
rabid evolutionary racist.[18][19]

This, the shooting, is a tragedy but what they are trying to do here is just sick. Racists use evolution to suit their views the same way that conservapedia is using this shooting to suit their's. Evolution does not support killing those of other "races" from your own. As a scientific theory evolution only states that this is what happens in nature what we do to ourselves is not what nature is doing to us. Nature did not act upon that gun a crazy person did that is what it comes down to. I am sure that this guy "believed" in gravity as well so should we say that all people who believe in gravity are racist? All of these arguments have been addressed much better than I can do it and will be many more times but I just wanted to point out what was going on.

As always leave any feedback you want.

Argh really?

Ok so conservapedia linked to this article today and I figured I would pass it on but it is bad I might take some time to go over it later but don't hold out much hope http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

SEAVP post #2

You are probably noticing a theme here right now but I came across these today put together by the host of SEAVP this year Dr. Alton Dooley from the Virginia Museum of Natural History, they are summaries of the days events so anyone who was interested can find out more about what was presented at this years conference.

Day 1: http://web.me.com/dooleyclan/Site_2/Blog/Entries/2009/5/29_SEAVP.html

Days 2 & 3: http://web.me.com/dooleyclan/Site_2/Blog/Entries/2009/5/30_SEAVP_Days_2_and_3.html

Enjoy and as always if you come across some more crazy creationist stuff on the web pass it along I am always looking for a good article to refute.