1. Debate - Hitchens, Harris, Dennett vs Boteach, D'Souza, Wright

Comment #432059 by Robert Maynard on November 16, 2009 at 5:13 am

I have bookmarked it for later.. but the audio seems.. really, really quiet. :\

2. Casey Luskin: Let's restore civility to the debate on evolution and intelligent design

Comment #431657 by Robert Maynard on November 13, 2009 at 8:47 pm

[My Facebook comment when linking to this article]
Professional liar Casey Luskin moans about the different connotations of the terms "skeptic" and "denier". He correctly explains that they both mean basically the same thing, but that one has esteemed connotations and the other has connotations of willful ignorance. Then he whinges that Intelligent Design - which is, in the eyes of his nations courts, a pernicious pseudo-scientific outgrowth of creationism - is unfairly labeled as denialism, going further to say that using the term is intended as a conversation-stopper and that we should consider its use intolerant and close-minded.
Well of course it is, in exactly the same way as a notice saying "Do not accept cheques from this lying cheapskate" is an intolerant conversation-stopper. Your institute is not practicing science, it's a PR front for creationism. You deserve neither tolerance nor civility, you stupid motherfucker.

3. New flying reptile fossils found

Comment #424040 by Robert Maynard on October 16, 2009 at 12:42 am

Guys, guys.. you can't just keep naming every fossil you find after Charles Darwin. :P

4. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Health Care Wars & the Religious Right

Comment #415865 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2009 at 4:04 pm

Pretty much. I'm just interested in calibrating how far your opposition to government-run things goes. :P
It's just that it seems very intuitive to me that a government should provide for the common security of its people. The maintenance of a regulated environment, over the ultimate deregulated state - nature - is basically the purpose of any community at any scale. I.. don't see why that shouldn't include more tightly regulating the health insurance industry - including a government run option to force for-profit companies to trim their fat.
I've got no stake in its success, seeing I live in Australia, other than to speedily proceed to cap-and-trade legislation so Obama has something to show for himself at Copenhagen. But as the post mentions, these are pretty middle-of-the-road type policies we're talking about.

5. Onward Christian Soldiers: The Health Care Wars & the Religious Right

Comment #415851 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Good grief, what a surreal "discussion". Hard to see it happening here.

"I would prefer to think that what America has is an ability of its people to care for themselves"

I assume, seeing russkid places so much value on "taking care of yourself", he only sends his kids (or intends to send his kids) to private schools, or homeschooling, rather than relying on socialised education. I assume he never uses the USPS, seeing that's socialised postal care. I assume he never uses public transit, including highways, seeing that's socialised transportation. I assume he has no time for socialised law enforcement either - frankly if Americans can take care of themselves, they should be trusted to take legal matters into their own hands.
I assume he is against the FDA regulating food and drugs.. Americans should be able to take care of determining whether they're being poisoned or scammed on their own, rather than be held under the sway of socialised consumer protection. All funded by tax dollars - disgraceful, really. :|

I skimmed, but while focusing on the issue of rationed care, none of you seemed to ask russkid why he has no problem with the rationing that exists in the current situation, overseen by privately owned for-profit companies. It's amazing to me that conservatives are so blindly opposed to government in general (at least, when they're out of power), that they would rather be at the mercy of gigantic corporations than a not-for-profit organisation directly accountable to the people (also known as the government).

6. 20 coolest atheist T-shirts for sale on the web

Comment #414174 by Robert Maynard on September 12, 2009 at 1:50 am

At this point I will shamelessly plug my own Crocoduck t-shirt.

http://www.cafepress.com.au/rMaynard

It's the only thing there at the moment, unlike boffinwear's cool store, but yeah. :P

7. We are born to believe in God

Comment #412836 by Robert Maynard on September 6, 2009 at 3:05 pm

I think you are being a little too optimistic there, David. The journalist says "hardwired by evolution to believe in God", but the actual scientist says "Our research shows children have a natural, intuitive way of reasoning that leads them to all kinds of supernatural beliefs about how the world works."
Your particular capital G god was not mentioned as being a default or esteemed choice people are born to believe. Nor does it say that specific concepts or gods are pre-planted. What it says is that children are equipped with methods of reasoning that lead to supernatural beliefs. This description could cover a broad range of incorrect, imaginary reasoning, such as rapidly coming to believe that clothes draped on chairs are actually the form of a monster in their bedroom.
What the study suggests is that human children are innately susceptible to any variety of supernatural claim that enters their mind, as this sense of credulity apparently has a survival advantage.
That includes belief in ancestral spirits, multitudes of deities, witches, curses, magic spells, frightening shadows and, of course, monsters under the bed.

Sleep tight! :)

8. Comment: The Dawkins dogma

Comment #398040 by Robert Maynard on July 20, 2009 at 12:34 am

I posted this on a friend's blog when they posted a link to this article for discussion. Edited slightly:

It's pretty sensational to claim that Neo-darwinism is Dawkins "dogma", particularly when Dawkins has no actual control over research or education, and the competing frameworks she discusses are not only being researched but also taught in universities. I understand she's an atheist, but in this regard she sounds just like the Christians who can only conceive of power structures with reference to their own, and call him a priest, and evolution an object of devotion and worship. But as evidenced in her other work (she is currently promoting her book "The Selfish Genius: How Richard Dawkins Rewrote Darwin’s Legacy"), Eldson-Barker seems to have a chip on her shoulder. :P

Dawkins main famous books that she is claiming to be in a huff about (The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker) were published in the 1970s and 1980s, all of them over twenty years ago. Evolution science definitely seems to be shifting, and I think what she's actually whining about is Dawkins status as a public intellectual, that he is promoting a possibly overly-simple view of evolutionary process on talk shows, as if there is a new generation of science communicators just busting to start laying some epigenetic transfer onto the public, but, DAMN HIM, they are being held back.
I think what they would find, as Dawkins no doubt has in his decades as a communicator and years as the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, and as teachers in general have forever, is that you will get nowhere in the business of explaining if you start your explanations at the cutting edge of research. It's ass-backwards, plain and simple.

For advocacy purposes amongst non-scientists, it seems perfectly fine to me to stick to discussing heredity in a linear, "vertical" manner (the classic branching tree), without getting into how recent research into gene expression and lateral transfer may be muddying that picture.
It's routine for education on a subject to begin with a broad sweeping view of the field that then sharpens the focus (either in a top-down manner or by retracing the historical development of the theory) and fills in details and special conditions in which the broader "stereotype" of the subject learnt in previous semesters breaks down into ambiguity, until finally students reach the edge of modern research, in preparation for possible careers as researchers.

For explaining it to ignorant people (creationists) and the merely curious, you have to start at below the high school biology level of explanation. Dawkins has laboured admirably to boil evolution down to the most elementary terms, to explain what shouldn't have to be explained in five minute segments on talk shows. It leaves little room for uncertainty, or conditionals, or careful elaboration - you have to deal with absolute answers because you are dealing with children, in terms of that field (hence the 'but-why' ender that always makes me cringe: "Because of evidence"). It is a teaching moment, a moment of instruction, not a moment of elucidation or discussion. And when you boil it down, regardless of exciting new science, the essentials remain: "Living things were not created as separate kinds - they all come from other living things, with complexity and diversity receding as we travel further back in time. Therefore, it's a fucking tree. Deal with it."

9. Chiropocalypse

Comment #387003 by Robert Maynard on June 11, 2009 at 2:49 pm

Personal anecdote, but I do get a sense of disconnect between crazy-chiropracty and the basic physio stuff.
I had some back problems when I was a teenager, and went to a place that branded itself as a chiropractic clinic, but on reflection and in comparison to the stuff I've since learnt about chiropracty it seems more like it was just a plain old physio. There were just minor procedures that resulted in popping noises like knuckle-cracking, that honestly relieved stress. I had an x-ray taken and was given the common sense advice of adopting an exercise routine, that my spine was a little twisted to the side from hunching, and could be easily taken care of if I just had some stronger back muscles.

This is in Australia mind you, but from that time I got the sense that chiropractic care was just a sub-discipline of physiotherapy. It was only later I heard about all the crazy pseudo-science stuff, none of which reflected my own experience. My chiropractor never mentioned any of the energy stuff, or how other problems could be cured by spine "futzing", it was just - "your back is a bit crooked - I can crack it around a bit for immediate relief but if you want a long-term solution you should be exercising." Isn't that just physiotherapy? But if so, why did he call himself a chiropractor?
Like I said, it's a personal anecdote, but more importantly, it's definitely not testimony that "chiropracty" as described by Simon Singh has worked for me. Rather all I'm saying is that there must be a diversity of chiropractors out there in terms of how much they believe and how much they're just practicing basic physiotherapy.

10. Professor Stephen Hawking in Star Trek TNG

Comment #367684 by Robert Maynard on April 21, 2009 at 2:31 pm

"You might as well complain that it's a stupid show because they travel faster than light or because everybody looks like humans."

The FTL bothers me less than the "it turns out aliens are everywhere, and they look just like humans with extra features," but yes, those are other reasons it's a bad franchise. As for the advice of MST3K, I relax by not watching shows like Star Trek, because I can't watch it without getting picky like I just did. :P
The clip just reminded me of that, is all. The issues and ideas the writers wanted to explore always wielded priority over the believability of the technology, even in small gag scenes like this, so it's chock full of lame "it's future-science duh" cop-outs.

11. Professor Stephen Hawking in Star Trek TNG

Comment #367626 by Robert Maynard on April 21, 2009 at 12:58 pm

...right, so how exactly did the Holodeck have insight into their minds, let alone simulate an interaction that had not taken place in their memory? Clearly their brains and personalities are not stored on a disk, meaning that these are AI's, and much like the apple story, are apocryphal constructions, caricatures at best. This doesn't even enter into how their differential skill at poker is being simulated. With Data surely aware of these limitations why would he think it insightful? And, and... GODS I hate Star Trek.

Best wishes to Professor Hawking, in any case. :(

12. Christopher Hitchens Debates Kenneth Blackwell About Religious Influence In America (VIDEO)

Comment #362249 by Robert Maynard on April 8, 2009 at 9:44 pm

Wow, Chris Matthews lost his hair really fast. :P

13. Attendance at religious services, but not religious devotion, predicts support for suicide attacks

Comment #344250 by Robert Maynard on February 20, 2009 at 7:50 pm

It is kind of disturbing that the first comment here begins with "Theories???" and goes on to assert the commenter's certainty in the causes of suicide bombing, as if there is simply no need, or no knowledge to be gained, by sitting down and doing the research.
As some have pointed out, the researchers may have muddled their measurements of religious devotion, but you know what is the best way to find out if they did, right? It is not to say "This is wrong, we all know the real answer!" It is more research.
We should all be very careful about our "It's so obvious, just read the book - it's awful - jeez, case closed!" declarations, and be sure that they remain personal suspicions awaiting empirical confirmation, rather than simplistically asserted certainties based on incomplete perspectives and prejudice. :)

14. Jerry Coyne's 'Seeing and Believing' with responses

Comment #333935 by Robert Maynard on February 3, 2009 at 10:53 pm

Bonzai

Actually our regular trolls here are extremely thick skinned.

15. Jerry Coyne's 'Seeing and Believing' with responses

Comment #333835 by Robert Maynard on February 3, 2009 at 3:50 pm

Honestly, one of the easiest ways to tell if someone is a troll (which, on richarddawkins.net, typically means "a religious apologist") is if they're so thin-skinned as to go online and derail a thread by taking offense at "insults" like butt-head.
Butt-head?
Seriously?
UH OH, THAT ANGRY BRITISH MAN JUST CROSSED THE LINE. Calling people butt-heads, how did he get into Oxford! Harumph! And you CULTISTS are just going to let him get away with it! How despicable! He should be setting a better example! Take a hike, gramps.

16. Jerry Coyne's 'Seeing and Believing' with responses

Comment #333668 by Robert Maynard on February 3, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Sam Harris's was a brilliant bait and switch. Really threw me off for the first few paragraphs. Once you've finished it though, even the first paragraphs flip like a magic eye.

"He demolishes the intellectual pretensions of militant atheists like Coyne and Dennett in the most elegant way imaginable: by merely divulging the title of a 17th century work by the great Robert Boyle. When I was a militant neo-rationalist, I had a sinking feeling that my colleagues and I had not fully reckoned with Boyle on the argument from Design and were, as a result, risking public humiliation." Ice cold burn, sir.

17. Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.

Comment #331694 by Robert Maynard on February 1, 2009 at 10:47 am

OOF that would smart. And they think the current thing is offensive! xD

18. Hatred of slavery drove Darwin to emancipate all life

Comment #330034 by Robert Maynard on January 30, 2009 at 4:49 am

As I explained Sheol99, even if that reasoning is wrong, it is regardless convincing to some people (typically, as you say, creationists), and hence it's useful information to know - not to lionize the man in a quasi-devotional sense, but to humiliate those who would seek to discredit him for silly and false reasons.

For example, this is particularly useful to know if one finds themselves talking with a creationist that makes such a claim, that suggests that Darwin was racist. Not only can we dismantle the claim, that the quality of science is determined by the character of scientists, we can also refute the claim itself as cheap slander.

It is similar to the rumour of Darwin's deathbed repentance. It would be enough, for a reasonable person, to patiently argue that his beliefs on his deathbed have no consequences for the evidence he collected and the ideas he developed, so it doesn't matter, but it's a double hit to their confidence to also point out that not only would it be irrelevant, it's also not true.

19. Hatred of slavery drove Darwin to emancipate all life

Comment #329841 by Robert Maynard on January 29, 2009 at 10:58 pm

mrjonno & Foxy,
The argument that an evil man's ideas are evil/wrong is convincing to some people, it is used by some people seeking to discredit Darwin's ideas, and we should greet the opportunity to repudiate it.
It is correct that his character has no bearing on the veracity of his observations, and that biology has advanced considerably since his work, but given how much nonsense is made of the eugenicists "inspired" by Darwin, we should all be glad that the theory of natural selection was the product of a wholesome and socially progressive mind, and that we don't have to make excuses for it as having an unfortunate origin.

20. What Will Change Everything?

Comment #310688 by Robert Maynard on January 1, 2009 at 8:16 pm

the end of biological deterioration (aging) as a cause of death.

21. Obama the Secularist

Comment #280167 by Robert Maynard on November 7, 2008 at 4:24 am

A great speech, but seriously, how many god-damn times is this video going to get posted?

22. Religion: Bound to believe?

Comment #275711 by Robert Maynard on October 31, 2008 at 12:40 pm

I have Religion Explained in my bookcase, having snatched it from my dad's bookcase a few years ago, but I never took the time to read through it all. Now I'm interested again.

23. Video Game Pulled Due to Qur'an Quotes

Comment #266262 by Robert Maynard on October 18, 2008 at 1:28 pm

1) The artist behind the song, Toumani Diabate, is apparently a "devout Muslim".
2) The song, Tapha Niang, which you can hear for free on Diabate's MySpace page, isn't half bad.
3) The design of the game, LittleBigPlanet, is premised on incredible customisation and user-generated content, and some particularly angry fans have already floated the idea of flooding the servers with levels with Qur'anic verses scribbled all over everything in protest.

Could this foot get any more shot?

24. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248726 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 5:50 pm

An excellent point.
After all, the church shown in this video is not the church she was a member of until 2002. The video of THAT church is in video in the other post on this matter, also produced by the talk2action blog. :P

Remember when people tried to charge that Ron Paul was connected to racist newsletters? It was too tangential, too vague, and too hard to pin on him, and it fell flat. It distracted people from the more important task.. making the case that dismantling most of the government is probably a really bad idea.

This is kind of the same situation. I guess at the end of the day there's still more than enough meat to chew on without digging at her relationship with far-far-far-far-right churches.

25. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248605 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 2:16 pm

The irony is that the more you and others engage in this kind of panic, witchhunt approach the more likely you are to drive people to vote for Palin.

26. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248492 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 10:18 am

Neuro, Wright's radical opinions were largely questioned for their political content, and used to call Obama's patriotism and views on race relations into question - asking how closely aligned his beliefs were with Wright if he had happily tolerated hearing things like "GOD DAMN AMERICA" at church before receiving public scrutiny. When people called him on it, he formally denounced Wright's radical opinions, made clear his incidental reasons for maintaining a connection to the church and Wright up to that point, and promptly left the church. Deeds to words.

Now, what is being called into question here (by here I mean the general scrutiny of her background, not these two videos, which make incidental references to the depth of her belief) is the actual content of Sarah Palin's religious beliefs, and the direct evidence of how they have in fact influenced her politics in the past, and could influence her political opinions going forward. Can it be said that his crazy former pastor shaped Obama's views on foreign policy? No? Okay, how about Palin's? Soldiers in Iraq are on "a mission from God," eh? Was that statement.. not scary to anyone here? Anybody at all?

Will she address the concern over these beliefs, and distance herself from this church of nutbags? No, because that's part of the reason she's on the ticket in the first place.

27. The Holy Laughter Anointing

Comment #248454 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

"I can't concentrate because someone in the background has a laugh like a monkey."
I know right? Yikes. Sounds like a zoo. "I didn't come from no ape" indeed.

28. YouTube Removes Viral Video on Palin's Churches For Inappropriate Content

Comment #248321 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 4:02 am

It's a funny example of Dawkin's Mount Improbable metaphor. :P
From 2000 years in the future it seems highly improbable that a belief like that could last so long without payoff, yet when you look at the generational gradualism it rode in on it starts to make sense :D

29. YouTube Removes Viral Video on Palin's Churches For Inappropriate Content

Comment #248298 by Robert Maynard on September 16, 2008 at 3:35 am

Reposted from my blog on this: The scenes in that video are nothing short of insane, fevered delirium. It's how the best ones all work. Heat those brains up, make 'em all soft and supple and suggestible, then they're yours.
What is the functional difference between those revival sessions and a drug-fueled rave? The Christian answer is presumably that the passion comes from a purer place. This is debatable, and in fact quantifiable and researchable (if we can somehow measure the brain states of someone jumping around in a Jesus-derived ecstasy and someone jumping around in an ecstasy-derived ecstasy :P)
There doesn't seem to be a functional difference in the outcome - these are not human beings behaving in rational ways. While fundamentalists like this rail against secularism and evolution, they bring the truth on themselves by acting and sounding more like animals here than anyone I've ever met. Moreso than even the few ravers I've seen in my fairly sensible life. "If evolution's true why don't we just get together in groups and holler nonsense sounds like a bunch of apes?" Oh wait.

...

Like Mr. Engle there at the end of the video, I also think it's necessary to shed light on the so-called "underground church" he describes as fast as possible. He says "once they get the stage, it's over with". I agree, but not in the way he seems to mean.
Hopefully our grandchildren will look back on this kind of insanity the same way we can look back at the historical popularity of cigarettes, or the use of asbestos in construction. Students will learn all about our long-lasting love affair with delirium, the ease with which it can hijack ones better judgment, and the great diversity of spiritual inebriation it yielded - from the wine-fueled orgies of Bacchus to the tongue-flapping rock concerts of Pentecostalism.

..you know, unless Jesus returns. ;)

* * *

Tyler Durden,
From a recent Salon piece worth the read (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html)

Another valley activist, Philip Munger, says that Palin also helped push the evangelical drive to take over the Mat-Su Borough school board. "She wanted to get people who believed in creationism on the board," said Munger, a music composer and teacher. "I bumped into her once after my band played at a graduation ceremony at the Assembly of God. I said, 'Sarah, how can you believe in creationism -- your father's a science teacher.' And she said, 'We don't have to agree on everything.'

"I pushed her on the earth's creation, whether it was really less than 7,000 years old and whether dinosaurs and humans walked the earth at the same time. And she said yes, she'd seen images somewhere of dinosaur fossils with human footprints in them."

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

30. Dark matter 'bridge to nowhere' found in cosmic void

Comment #247716 by Robert Maynard on September 15, 2008 at 12:53 am

"Bridge to nowhere.."
I'm trying to work in a Sarah Palin zinger here, but my heart's just not in it. :|

31. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247213 by Robert Maynard on September 14, 2008 at 6:14 am

thewhitepearl
Okay, either/or/or :P
I'm just sayin', without preferential voting it doesn't seem to make sense to vote for a third party candidate, because at the end of the day most would-be supporters of independents would be too afraid to vote for their favourite in case they hurt the "lesser evil" major party they'd prefer, so the only support they ever seem to get are protest voters and people not fully aware of the gravity of their choice.
It's always worth remembering that if Nader was not a candidate in 2000, Gore would have very likely won Florida and been the President for 2001-2004, and probably til today. :(

32. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247196 by Robert Maynard on September 14, 2008 at 5:15 am

thewhitepearl,
I hear America doesn't even have preferential voting, so if you bother going into a booth, yeah, you kinda do have to be either or. :P

33. Our scientists must nail the creationists

Comment #247081 by Robert Maynard on September 13, 2008 at 11:46 pm

SnowyDoc
Yar, there's a timeout. I've made it a habit to just tap ctrl-a ctrl-c before pressing post so I don't lose long messages. :D

robotaholic
Huh? Who thinks they're Jesus? I don't understand.

34. Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in poofter devils gag

Comment #245935 by Robert Maynard on September 11, 2008 at 2:44 pm

yikes, tough crowd.

35. Bizarre Anti-Spore Website Takes Issue WIth Stance On Creationism

Comment #244908 by Robert Maynard on September 9, 2008 at 6:11 pm

Definitely satire. :P
The entry about National Geographic and SimCity were over the top enough to change my mind.

36. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242154 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 12:34 pm

"Are these the same democrats that employ that little toad in Illnois who ridiculed an atheist during his testimony for not believing in god in "the Land of Lincoln"? Are these our saviors? The ones to deliver us from the evils of American stupidity?"

It's a matter of ideology more than individuals. There are of course social conservatives in the Democratic party, particularly in some rural districts where you'd have to be to have any chance of getting elected. But it's not like it's a club that gets to kick disagreeable people out to maintain brand discipline. Look at that slug Joe Lieberman!
That toad from Illinois is "employed" by her constituents.
The Democrats are worth the support of atheists mainly because it will be an easier task for secular progressives to mould the Democratic party and staff it with people who are on their side, than to attempt to do the same with the Republicans, which is way too infested with the far far far Christian right.

37. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242132 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 12:14 pm

it's an easy B), for me at least.

38. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242104 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 11:42 am

To be fair, elements of the media did do exactly what they're doing now with Palin to Obama with the Wright business, and even after he repudiated Wright, left the church and gave a speech responding to the controversy, Fox pundits and McCain surrogates still take the odd opportunity to try and hang it around his neck, as recently as the "how many houses" business. I doubt people wouldn't be making the same sort of assumptions if he never addressed it and didn't leave the church. We're just going to have to wait to see how or if Palin responds to all of this.
The difference here is that the gossip is carrying on unabated without any response from the McCain campaign, partly because they're in the middle of their convention and partly because there's so much else to respond to, the AIP being one of the juiciest right now. :|

39. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242087 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 11:24 am

Bamlett,
for what it's worth, Palin's church is a pentecostal church, which specifically holds as doctrine that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God - ie. literalism, seven 24 hour days, James Ussher and all that.
As for whether she herself is subscribes to their young earth creationist doctrine, we'll have to ask her that when the campaign decides to let her out of her bunker for a press conference or a TV interview or something.
If you wanted to play the induction game, all we apparently know is that she is a Christian, says crazy Christian stuff on other topics, is from a literalist church, and her quoted 'teach the controversy' remarks imply she sees a measurable amount of merit in creationism (young earth or old earth?), as opposed to none. Everyone familiar with the purpose of the 'teach the controversy' meme in the 'wedge' strategy knows not to take her call for innocent curiosity at face value.

From my own limited experience, I have a friend who's a pentecostal Christian, and I spent several weeks attending his church for a university assignment. Those guys are the real deal, tongue talking and all that. No one I spoke with was old earth. Science and the Bible really seem like oil and water to them.

40. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242052 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 10:51 am

Al, I amended the childish ending to my original comment but unfortunately you saw it before it was updated. Here's the thrust of my edited comment.

"You charged that his campaign had not clearly laid out what he intended to do, to "change" as President. Quote "What "Change" does Obama propose? ... How is he functionally different from McSame?" That's what you asked, facetiously or no.
Having been shown what he says he'll do, you instead called him a liar on page 3, which was never under discussion, and on that basis felt free to ignore the rest, cheerfully ignoring the fact that your question has been answered. Don't move the goalposts on me, Al."

So here's the thing: there are specific policies in that pdf file. I admire his community service for college education idea, and no other candidate remaining supports science as strongly as he does. But don't dodge what you originally asked, which was "what change is he proposing?" Perhaps this was simply an error of clarification, but you didn't ask anyone to prove that he's never lied and is a sinless lamb, and you didn't ask people to recite policy papers from memory. The change he's proposing is right there, lies or not. Now you're accusing me of trying to brush your question aside because I essentially said "Do your own research"
It's not difficult to see foreign policy isn't his strongest suit, besides that mistake about Russia the foreign policy section of that pdf is the sparsest. That's the hole Joe Biden is intended to plug up.

Change for me has meant a very simple issue from the beginning, as I'm not a US citizen: Supreme Court appointments. Stevens will probably kick the bucket in the next four years, and he's one of the good guys.
Obama will put secular, liberal judges on the Supreme Court, McCain will put social conservative judges on the court that please reptiles like Rev. Pat Robertson and Dr. Dobson. This is a matter of record. I mean, that's just it, for me. Done. I'd donate if I was legally allowed. That shit is too important to ignore with a protest vote. (EDIT: Oh, you already said that too.)
The rest of Obama's policy promises are simply icing on the cake.

41. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242028 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 10:27 am

Woah slow down, Al: What else have I got?

You've demonstrated that he received money from lobbyists as a junior senator, with an article from 2006 (which didn't mention your smear about donations from kids, so we'll ignore that uncited claim for now)
The statement says "unlike other candidates, he refuses to accept campaign (that's Presidential campaign now) contributions". Now show that he's received lobbyist money since February 2007, since he announced his run for president, and released these policy papers explaining how much he intends to put the squeeze on them, and I'll be happy to call him a liar on that front.
In fact I'll be happy to call him a liar if he doesn't do any part of what is outlined in these policy papers - and I'll be really disappointed too, because some of this internet/transparency stuff is Democracy 2.0-style gold. I understand that this may be all puff talk. But that's not what you charged.
You charged that his campaign had not clearly laid out what he intended to do, to "change" as President. Quote "What "Change" does Obama propose? ... How is he functionally different from McSame?" That's what you asked, facetiously or no.
Having been shown what he says he'll do, you instead called him a liar on page 3, which was never under discussion, and on that basis felt free to ignore the rest, cheerfully ignoring the fact that your question has been answered. Don't move the goalposts on me, Al.

42. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241996 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 9:41 am

Good grief Al,
You're on the internet, you are already halfway there. So please don't pretend the Obama campaign hasn't made policy information available on its website, or that his specific policies haven't been discussed in the press. Don't pretend you can't type in something as simple as "Political positions of Barack Obama" and "Political positions of John McCain" in Wikipedia and compare them yourself.
Obama has clearly enunciated what "Change" is supposed to mean in the context of an Obama presidency throughout his 19 month campaign, and it's nothing but sheer laziness on your part to shrug and claim "change" is an empty buzz word simply because you haven't bothered to look into it.

EDIT: the link Gregg posted is as good as anything I s'pose, but really, this stuff's been in circulation for a while now. Didn't anyone see his tax policy next to McCain's in the NYTimes? Thing of beauty. :P

Now if only I lived in America :|

43. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241710 by Robert Maynard on September 3, 2008 at 1:53 am

Flux, you're in the pocket of Big Moron.

Besides what amounts to about 11 years in elected offices, Obama has also been running his campaign organisation for the same amount of time as Palin has been governor of Alaska. This organisation employs hundreds if not thousands, has built a national movement of volunteers, raised over 300 million dollars of capital, and deftly out-competed the presumed nominee Hillary Clinton. So don't try and tell me Obama hasn't run anything, and run it extremely efficiently.
The campaigns mobilisation during the primaries and caucuses can only be described as hyper-competent.

Take a look at what Palin's actually done in those offices. Palin's executive "experience" left Wasilla in debt, and she is currently under investigation for abuse of power. Awesome work!

EDIT: Abiotic oil? Ohh gawd..
Even if there was more oil than we currently presume there to be.. it's not a good sol- oh..
According to the Atheist Conservative, AGW isn't real either! Delightful. Now we know the kind of nutjob we're dealing with.

44. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236627 by Robert Maynard on August 24, 2008 at 11:20 pm

Quick skim of Wiki, library of babel for the lazy learner: "Jupiter has been called the Solar System's vacuum cleaner, because of its immense gravity well and location near the inner Solar System. It receives the most frequent comet impacts of the Solar System's planets."

People who note this as evidence of 'design' should also understand that Jupiter is likewise credited with the chaotic coalescence of the asteroid belt and the rocky inner planets, including Earth.

45. To learn biology, just pick up the console

Comment #231049 by Robert Maynard on August 15, 2008 at 4:13 pm

Will Wright is an atheist, btw. :P

In regards to the creature creator being more of an "intelligent design" simulator, keep in mind that Wright has said that your power to sculpt your creature is not as unlimited as it has been in presentations and the Creature Creator demo. Players of the demo may note that each body part has a cost. You earn 'genetic' points each generation of your creature, with which you 'buy' bits and pieces to improve your creature incrementally. While the design of a creature is fully within the hands of the player, there is no doubt that it's a design trajectory, not an enormous leap of 'special creation'.
When you think about it in terms of the old geological paradigms of catastrophism vs. gradualism, Spore is unequivocally teaching concepts of gradualism, and that is more than enough to start eroding belief in creationism. When 66% of Americans believe humans were created by God in the last 10,000 years, this has the potential to be a very eye-opening piece of software for kids.

Another recent item of news is that Spore features religions. In the Tribal phase your creatures develop religious rituals and traditions that may last through the Civilisation phase. The article I saw this in also mentioned that a small group of 'militant atheists' had been protesting this feature, which I found bizarre. :|
I think watching a religious tradition evolve on screen is going to have the same kind of effect as teaching comparative religion.

46. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221715 by Robert Maynard on July 30, 2008 at 3:06 am

Careful, stephenray, anyone not familiar with typical sample sizes might be led to believe that 0.5% is WAY too small to draw conclusions from! You wouldn't want to mislead people, would you?

So let's not be deceptive. 1,400 even 600 students, the number of Muslim students interviewed for this survey, is a larger sample size than many polls taken during the US presidential primaries. [Link]
Even now in the general election, it's not common to see sample sizes larger than 1400.[Link]

These are national polls we're talking about. One of the general election polls there has a sample size of 3000 "likely voters". Well holy crap, that's less than 0.001% of Americans! Less than one thousandth of one percent. Well that's not fair, only 56% of America actually turned out to vote in 2004. Let's just say 0.002%. Much better.

What about that recent Pew poll about religion in America? They had an impressively large sample size of 35,000 American adults, but it was also less than half a percent of American adults.

All polls are 'conditional' on the quality of the sample size. This survey was conducted by an organisation of qualified statisticians who know how to put together statistically valid surveys. These are perfectly valid findings. What percentage of Muslim students would convince you? 1? 5? 10? 25? 50?

P.S Dammit, I took too long to write this.. kevmont beat me to the basic point. :P

P.P.S. Clarification.. 1,400 was the total number of students polled, including non-muslim students. 600 Muslim students in total were interviewed [Link], which is a little lower than a lot of the general election polls I linked to. Even so, those polls are national. This is a poll of a very specific demographic.

47. Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Comment #214371 by Robert Maynard on July 20, 2008 at 10:38 am

No one here yet, which is why I said "it WILL be said". I pre-empted it, hopefully. :P

I keep seeing remarks like that on other articles here. When it's said on articles which have already been posted at this portal it's kind of understandable, but sometimes it's just STUFF that is interesting and people are like "Duh, geez, obviously".

48. Jefferson Bible reveals Founding Father's view of God, faith

Comment #214367 by Robert Maynard on July 20, 2008 at 10:33 am

It will be said by some here, as it often is, that this is old news. What reason to publish it then, if I know it? :P
Catch your tongues, smartypants. If it's not new to you it's because it wasn't written just for your benefit.
I'm tired of reading people complain to let people know that they know so much. :P

49. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212415 by Robert Maynard on July 17, 2008 at 7:25 am

Judson: Hey guys, let's get rid of the term Darwinism. I think it's continued use in our culture promotes a limited conception of what has really grown into a really expansive field of diverse research

Creationists: Yeah, I see your point. Okay, we'll stop using that term. Because we respect you.


Good luck with that. Seriously, this seems as dumb as the call a short while ago to just start calling evolution a law instead of a theory to shut up creationists. Yeah, that'll work. Awesome. Or not.

50. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210979 by Robert Maynard on July 15, 2008 at 10:34 am

people always want "something more, something more, something more."