1. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #196146 by ukvillafan on June 19, 2008 at 10:59 am

Well, for what it is worth, this is my UK contribution to the Governor.

"Dear Governor Jindal,

You might be surprised to receive correspondence from outside the state and even more so from outside the country. I doubt you will be surprised at the topic.

The USA prides itself on its technological and scientific expertise, and rightly so. Sadly, in one area of science, your country is in danger of becoming the laughing stock of the world, and your State is leading the way. I am talking, of course, about biology, and evolutionary biology in particular.

The State Legislature has passed SB 733, the inappropriately named LA Science Education Act. It is, of course, not about science at all; it is about religion. The purpose behind those who propose this legislation, and support it and fund it, is to undermine the teaching of evolution for religious purposes. It is no more than another attempt by those who would teach children ignorance instead of science to promote their political agenda of bringing religion into the heart of government, thus undermining the separation of church and state, the very cornerstone of your constitution. The proponents of this legislation believe it is right to teach the content of the bible as being equivalent to a scientific text book. It is not such a book. It never has been and never will be. It is a book of faith. Teach it in comparative religion if you like, but keep it out of the science classroom.

There is no controversy to teach. Evolution is as much a validated scientific theory as gravity. The proponents of this legislation do not believe in teaching children to develop a proper enquiring scientific mind, they want to stifle such development and replace it with ignorance and superstition.

Others will no doubt explain to you the dangers you and the State will face in legal terms so I will not presume to add to them. I would, however, urge you to veto this legislation, for the sake of your country, your State and, most importantly of all, the children of America. If you fail to do so, your political legacy will be to be derided the world over.

Yours more in hope than in expectation …"

I do not expect a reply, at least not a substantive one, but hey, who knows!

2. The 14-year-old Afghan suicide bomber

Comment #191118 by ukvillafan on June 10, 2008 at 8:55 am

Just because our cousins across the pond cannot spell does not mean that either we or the Oxford English Dictionary should succumb to the laziness that is the American language. Paedophile is a quite straightforward word to spell, as is encyclopaedia, orthopaedic etc. Hmm, thinks, someone ought to produce an Encyclopaedia of Paediatric Orthopaedics, just for the pleasure of the title!

So, Richard, I am with Synchronium on this one.

I say this not because of pedantry but because I believe that "dumbing-down" happens without us helping it along the way and will only happen quicker if we give it aid and succour.

OK, alright, I AM a pedant too! But I will happily split infinitives when necessary!

3. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190167 by ukvillafan on June 8, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Re: Popestig @ 31

Assuming those statistics are accurate 80,000 is 17% of 460,000, nearly one fifth, so there is a reasonable chance of the term "principally" muslim being accurate if, a) muslims account for the biggest religious grouping of immigrants and b) we define the term "principally" broadly as meaning "the largest grouping". Without additional statistical information, I am, of course, merely speculating.

The point about FGM is that it is a means used to control women and the root cause of such control is the dominance of men, aided and abetted by the older females in a community (who benefit vicariously from the maintenance of the societal structure, or are perceived to.) It doesn't matter to a large degree how it originated as a practice; the point is that religions in general and such mechanisms of control are comfortable bedfellows. Religion will adopt a method that promotes the ability of the few to control the many, because that is how religion survives.

And I too was around when FGM was not necessarily considered to be child abuse by a certain type of social work professional here in the UK. Hardly believable but true.

4. Teenager faces prosecution for calling Scientology 'cult'

Comment #183044 by ukvillafan on May 21, 2008 at 9:13 am

I am a barrister but I do not do criminal cases (as this is). I would have thought that he would have no difficulty in obtaining legal representation. He may qualify for it for free in any event - though I am not up on the availability of criminal "legal aid". As he is a juvenile I doubt there would be a problem.

If the CPS has any sense whatsoever, they will drop this like a hot brick. I cannot see how a conviction would follow provided the lad had decent representation. I suggest he hops down to the office of Liberty to see if they can help. Perhaps Michael Mansfield QC would like to pop in to the local youth court and give the lad a helping hand - who knows.

I am more concerned about the connection between the CoS and the London police, which I was not aware of. All you Londoners, get on to your MPs now and demand to know what is being done about this!!!!

The CoS is not recognised in the UK as an official religion for tax and other purposes, as far as I am aware. I would welcome correction on this point. This means that the government must, presumably, completely agree with the description on the lad's placard!

5. Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

Comment #182230 by ukvillafan on May 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

"Pro life" is most definitely a term in full use in the UK by the anti abortion pressure groups and lobbyists. Just look at the web pages of such organisations as the Prolife alliance or united for life or the society for the protection of the unborn child (which I like to call "SPUnC" for short). You can get to all of these simply by Googling pro life uk.

6. Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

Comment #182147 by ukvillafan on May 19, 2008 at 9:22 am

If you like steak, then you ARE pro slaughter; it stands to reason unless your intention is to eat only road kill or some such.

Sorry, but eating steak involves the prior slaughter of the animal concerned, there is no getting away from it.

So, not a relevant example to the topic in question.

7. British Airways takes beef off the menu to avoid offending Hindus

Comment #178315 by ukvillafan on May 11, 2008 at 7:17 am

"Let me explain it. We are top of the tree. We eat them, not the other way around. Simple, really."

davem

Tell that to those who are eaten by tigers, sharks etc. You want to go up against a Bengal tiger in its own habitat, please feel free.

Frankly, yours is a typically ignorant, offensive and condescending remark akin to those made by people who smoke in public places and think it's their right to do so. Look, go eat your meat if you like - it clearly does nothing for your capacity as a decent human being - and leave those of us who want to concern ourselves with the suffering of all animals, the economy of the planet and the world food shortage (amongst a plethora of other things) to our own thing.

8. Faith in Britain today

Comment #177129 by ukvillafan on May 8, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Richard,

Seeing as you asked for views, albeit at such a late hour, I would say that it is always worth taking the opportunity of going on the Today Programme with the objective of demolishing such asinine rubbish. Though I too am amazed by your level of patience.

9. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172498 by ukvillafan on April 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm

I gave up at post 149.

Kyrie clearly has no understanding of the concept of child protection or the nature of child abuse and those who perpetrate it. Whilst there may always be cases wher child protection officers get things wrong, Kyrie's approach clearly demonstrates a level of ignorance about fundamental issues in child protection as to make arguing the point not worth the time.

10. Religion a figment of human imagination

Comment #171618 by ukvillafan on April 28, 2008 at 4:13 pm

When one examines sufficiently the argument that ideas cannot be communicated without "language", it becomes self-evidently false after a short period of time.

Communication takes many forms and, clearly, other animals communicate in ways that we, as humans, do not call "language", at least not in the sense that is meant in this thread. Joint action and community knowledge clearly exists in the animal world without verbal communication.

Whether the ability to pass on knowledge and ideas in the animal world requires "imagination" or not is an interesting question. To act in concert to hit ice floes from underneath to dislodge a food source would require a certain amount of imagination if undertaken by humans, even if after countless years the ability becomes second nature due to the passage of information down the generations. The person who first contemplated such an action would have had to "imagine it" â€" the same must go for other animals.

As I understand it, the point being made here is that the ability to imagine the abstract must have pre-dated the infiltration of religion in human development, on the ground that religion is, essentially an abstract concept. Effectively, the transcendant can only exist after the ability to imagine "evolved".

Personally, that element of the story is, surely, self-evident. In order to believe in the concept of a god, one has to postulate the concept in the first place. Even if the existence of god was implanted by god, he would have had to have implanted the ability to imagine the divine first.

11. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171593 by ukvillafan on April 28, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Multiculturalism is not the issue, except in so far as it is interpreted as a concept and applied. It is more a question of the potential and actual conflict between "cultural values" and "universal values".

Take the example of female genital mutilation. This is a cultural issue, generally driven, in so far as I understand it, by religion. It is particularly a problem in Muslim countries in Africa, but it is not unique to these areas, not least because that element of the culture has been exported along with the communities that have ventured forth into the West.

I am quite happy to stand up and say FGM is an abomination and, given it is practised upon children, an extreme form of child abuse. That does not make me a racist; it makes me a compassionate human being. Accepting appropriate cultural differences is entirely rational and necessary. Multiculturalism does not equate to the blind acceptance of all cultural differences for fear of being branded "racist". It is about accepting other human beings despite differences. In order to do this, one does not have to leave behind our own rationality.

Not all Muslims indulge in honour killings, not all red-neck Americans will beat their wives, and not all Christians send their children to Jesus Camp. Stereotyping of individuals based upon perceived cultural norms is always likely to lead to problems. We can and should denounce the dehumanising activities involved and the "culture" and/or religion that enable them to flourish. We should also condemn the individuals that engage in these activities and expect some form of justice. We can, if we choose, take a stance against, for example, religion generally, on the basis that it is irrational and has a tendency to produce doctrines and behaviours that are not beneficial. That does not mean we should condemn all Muslims or all Christians out of hand. Sure, they're irrational but that does not make each one potential honour killers. That argument is about as ridiculous as the one that paints all men as potential rapists.

The truly sad part about this story, apart from the consequences for the victim, is the institutionalisation of the behaviour in question - the acceptance of it within that particular society. It is also a reflection of the position of women within the culture and I agree with an earlier poster about the need to enable and promote the education of women and children. Be aware, however, that it is all too easy to come across as patronising and condescending when making such statements and, as also posted earlier, it would be wrong to assume that women in the West, in whatever culture, do no still suffer from the consequences of the cultural domination by men.

12. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168151 by ukvillafan on April 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm

also, it seems to me that the link to Christopher Hitchen's web site on the "who's who" page is, in fact a link to some sort of listing site rather than his actual own site. Check it out and please correct me if i am wrong.

13. A New Flea

Comment #160135 by ukvillafan on April 13, 2008 at 5:27 pm

Not only is his argument "rational" but it seems to be perfect too!

Perhaps I will pack up and go home right now and just give in to that fundamental urge to believe the rational content of the bible.

Maybe not ....

14. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156223 by ukvillafan on April 7, 2008 at 6:19 am

Aha! I think I have grasped the concept of emergence.

It means (and I am happy to be corrected)

"We do not know how this thing happened because it might have or does have a multitude of causes, which we can neither completely identify, or, if we can identify all of the possible contributory causes, we cannot be certain that all (or, indeed any) of them do actually play a part. What we do know is that this thing has happened when it didn't used to, so it has "emerged" from a previously known state. This we call an "emergent phenomenon" because, basically, we do not really know the answer, or we want to find a different answer to the accepted one and, either way, it's certainly worthy of more research money ... I mean investigation".

15. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156214 by ukvillafan on April 7, 2008 at 5:57 am

I am a simple man, but not, I hope, particularly thick. I cannot claim, however, to be a scientist. I must say that, as a consequence, I struggle with some of the complexities of this particular subject, especially when contained in an article that seems to be deliberately obtuse.

Anyone on here with a degree of scientific knowledge, please feel free to explain where I go wrong from here on in. (And I emphasise that what follows is in simplified layperson's terminology!)

As I understand it, the basis position is that it is genetic mutation that powers the process of evolution, with "natural selection" taking care of the success or failure of any specific mutation. In such a way, "beneficial" mutations are "selected" and this leads either to species variations in the short term or new species in the long. (See, I told you it was basic!)

So, applying this to the "super-organism" scenario, Woese et al seem to be implying, or stating explicitly perhaps, that such "organisms" somehow "evolve" in a way that is not powered by genetics? If I understand one of the examples correctly, the fact that a hive contains a complex organisational structure with differing reproductive specialisations for different worker castes is said to be an example of how a group need, or dynamic, has led to this change in the individual bee, rather than the individual change arising first, leading to exploitation at the group level. And also, that these traits have the characteristics of "emergence". Someone please correct me if I am missing something here.

I think that this theory is trying to tell me that complex structures at a level greater than the individual organism, produce both behaviours AND changes at the gene level as a result of some collective process - perhaps "natural selection through emergence"?

As far as bees are concerned at any rate, my humble assumption would be that the genetic mutations leading to super specialisation must have arisen first, following which, as individual hives, the positive benefits to the hive led to this mutation becoming preferred. Isn't this how it's supposed to work anyway?

Or. is Woese saying that no genetic changes have been identified that explain the differing roles for the individuals in the hive, in terms of the specialist tasks undertaken in the reproductive process? If this is what he is driving at - i.e individuals within a collective adapt their roles for the benefit of the collective, without any genetic change, then what relevance does this have to speciation (is that the right word?) because that would be no different to any organisational structure that internally allocates tasks to individuals best qualified for the job. This isn't natural selection within a particular system as far as I can tell.

Isn't Woese just trying to say "you may think evolution is driven by genes, but it isn't really, you know, because, well, I don't think so, and by the way, explain this then!!! Ha, Ha - gotcha!" Which, if you ask me, lacks a little scientific credibility!

But who am I to criticise. I come in search of enlightenment!!

And by the way, will all due respect to my American cousins, and in the knowledge that this site is States hosted, surely a site that is effectively based on the work of Prof D. should have its time based on GMT? It is not 6.00 a.m. in the morning here but 2.00 p.m. in the afternoon.

16. Protests no concern for outspoken atheist

Comment #155136 by ukvillafan on April 4, 2008 at 7:38 am

Thought I would attempt to write to the august journal to see whether anthing arises, even though I do not live there. this is what I wrote.


He is right, of course, but not in the way he meant! Firstly, the Christian version of the creation myth had about 1500 years start on evolution. That science can be seen as such a threat by the religious due to the progress it has made in a tenth of the time available to Christianity tells you something of the weight of the comparative arguments. Secondly, all of the relevant evidence supports evolutionary theory and none at all exists for creationism. This is the stark reality and is the reason why the creationist lobbies around the world search in vain for scientists of dubious credibility to try to promote pseudo science in an attempt to bolster their mythological fantasies. The debate is also unbalanced by the fact that evolution is a testable, verifiable scientific theory which fits the facts as they have appeared over the years, whereas creationism is non-testable, non-scientific and completely faith based. Finally, one could argue, as does professor Dawkins, that belief in a theistic, interventionist, creationist god is delusional (and therefore "unbalanced") in itself.

Perhaps someone would also like to ask Mr. Gillies, seeing as he positions the Free Church firmly in the creationist camp, whether the Church also sanctions slavery, genocide, the killing of those who work on Sundays and the various other despicable actions promoted in the Old Testament. One really cannot be allowed to pick and choose what to proclaim as the "word of god".>