101. What Binti Jua Knew

Comment #236096 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 24, 2008 at 8:09 am

Comment #235892 by kraut on August 23, 2008 at 10:04 pm

You berate kkelly for his lack of logic, and then respond with slippery slope arguments, and false dichotomies. Do you not have a grasp of logic when it has to be applied to your own arguments? or are you being deliberately obtuse?

In answer the the questions you keep asking... It is possible to grant basic rights to organisms that demonstrate cognitive ability that equals that of human children without "cheapening" human rights. Note the rights as listed above don't include things like voting in elections, etc.


53. Comment #236033 by SilentMike on August 24, 2008 at 4:12 am
You're dwelling too heavily on the word human, and not enough on the point at hand, but I will attempt to explain my stance on this. No name calling, you have my word. :)
There are non-humans on the planet that exhibit behaviours indicating that they actually THINK, reason, and plan. Most of these organisms are apes (the others are some of the smaller toothed whales). Affording protections to creatures that are able to rationalise on the level of a human child, and therefore feel the same base emotions, is an ethical choice. The issue here isn't species but rather sentience. Clearer?

102. Pastor Michael Guglielmucci spun gospel of lies

Comment #235648 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 23, 2008 at 10:40 am

Jumping in rather late, but.. <19> I agree... in fact I would be ecstatic if governments would choose to tax property and income of any/all religious institutions and anything taken in by non-profits that exceeds their operating costs, to be directed into something resembling effective social programs. Instead, we have two presidential candidates that insist on following Bush's lead by promising to continue funding "faith-based initiatives" because "some of them are doing good work" (the last quote is as close to verbatim as I can remember from the Obama town hall meeting I attended last week).

103. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235641 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 23, 2008 at 10:31 am

went and read the article in Nature... the authors seem to be inferring that successful infection is a result of group selection (sorry for the knots in the stomach Jmac). Interesting, because there isn't anything to suggest that there is anything going on other than selection of expressed genes. Perhaps I'm misreading the article?

104. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235634 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 23, 2008 at 10:12 am

Sorry, but some total FUCKWAD highjacked a thread I was interested in discussing... my apologies to anyone who actually enjoys feeding the troll, but I'm going to mark him as such in the hopes of reclaiming intelligent discourse.

105. Natural 'Knowledge' and Natural 'Design'

Comment #234359 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 21, 2008 at 8:51 am

You're looking for examples of prey that fight back? There're quite a few, some still in the ruminants: Moose have been filmed kicking wolves; wildebeast cooperating to protect young from lions, etc. As for why not gazelle, it depends largely on the primary response to attempts at predation, and how the organism has evolved to deal with such attempts. Gazelle aren't all that large or heavy, and have evolved to use speed as their means of evading predation. Bear in mind however, that cheetah are not the only things on the savannah that prey on gazelle. If you were a 70-90 pound deer, are you going to attempt to stand and fight with 190 lb hyena or 2-300 lb cats (lions/leopards)? Based on body size alone the conclusion demonstrates that this is an almost suicidal method of defense, and if the behaviour ever occured, it was selected against. Also, "cooperation" isn't necessarily in the manner you're thinking. If you watch herd animals carefully, they post lookouts, and flee in a group. This is a form of cooperation, simply not an aggressive defense. By fleeing in a large group at high speed, the gazelle make it more difficult for a lone hunter to separate one animal from the herd in order to kill it. Those that fall behind enough to be caught are less fit, either genetically or simply due to age/illness, and the POPULATION survives... Cooperation and competition, within the species and between species, allows for a healthier ecosystem. The genes are indeed selfish, but it also is a function that by the best suited individuals surviving the species as a whole stands a better chance.

106. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232586 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 18, 2008 at 11:21 am

Jmac> fair enough... if there is not money in it, then this is pure censorship, and I have to agree with your point.

107. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #232579 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 18, 2008 at 11:17 am

Honestly haven't delved into Dennett yet... time to visit the bookstore.

The NOMA concept should mesh perfectly with the ID proponents "god of the gaps"... except that science keeps filling in the gaps. I'm not sure whether I feel more tolerant of fundamentalists, who at least revel in their ignorance, than those who are able to ignore the massive cognitive dissonance their religion creates with the rational portions of their brain.

108. No credit for creationism

Comment #232575 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 18, 2008 at 11:08 am

5. It wouldn't involve a lack of clothing and a pole would it? Politeness was never my strong suit.

If your course is lacking in critical thinking and reality, you can't receive credit for taking it... hmm, can we get universities to extend that policy to those graduating under Lousiana's new science curriculum? or to graduates of the Kansas school system when it removed evolution from biology courses for a couple years?

109. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #232565 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 18, 2008 at 10:59 am

I'm not sure this bothers me.... this group is clearly importing books for economic gain. If one of us were to attempt to bring in 300 copies of say, well anything else, without paying import tariffs, we would be subject to the same law, would we not? Perhaps the Chinese should have stuck to applying those laws rather than making special rules for religious materials. Then again, the purpose here is likely to control any influences that could subvert their control over the population.

110. Unintelligent Design

Comment #231983 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 17, 2008 at 11:42 am

I find a definite need for this article to be written, although to most readers and posters here it falls into the "DUH, we knew that" category. Anything that makes common sense and the varied branches of science more accessible to the deluded masses is important enough to print. Remember, Jindal is a front-runner for the Republican VP candidacy.
As for further examples of poor design in humans... one would think the existence of the appendix, who's sole function appears to be to cause life threatening infection, would be a solid enough example for ID proponents. I'm sure the response to that would be something along the lines of "God works in mysterious ways", or a question as to how evolution explains its presence.

111. Rochester Physicist's Quantum-'Uncollapse' Hypothesis Verified

Comment #226930 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on August 9, 2008 at 12:36 am

Comment #226374 by Oystein Elgaroy on August 8, 2008 at 2:57 am
avatarBrian,

so you have been reading "The coherence of theism"? I just finished it myself and will read "The existence of God" next. I don't agree with Swinburne's objection to positrons being electrons traveling backwards in time. My understanding of his argument is that he uses the arrow of time which only applies for macroscopic systems. The fundamental equations of physics are symmetric in time, so his argument doesn't apply to single electrons/positrons.

Not having delved too deeply into quantum physics (my discipline is bio, but I also teach an intro physics course), I haven't seen the explanation you just offered before this. This implies that anti-matter is such because the particles are traveling the opposite direction in time? Could someone point me to a reference on that? I find it fascinating...

edit: Being that I usually lurk instead of post, I haven't figured out the whole block quote thing.. some help with that would be appreciated.

112. Antony Flew reviews the Index of The God Delusion

Comment #215791 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on July 22, 2008 at 11:33 am

Commented on AOL re: DeSouza's open letter. Text follows... (note, if you'd like to read an amusing and irritating Christian view on the topic, there's one posted above mine. May I suggest removing all coffee cups, breakables, and sharp objects from the area before reading THAT pile of brown matter)

204. What DD fails to consider is that Dawkins, Gould, and others have had a long-standing policy of not debating creationists on the subject of evolution, as it lends credence to their point of view and reputation that they could not otherwise gain. (Yes, I know that Gould is unlikely to be debating anyone, as he is deceased.) To check this premise have a look at the correspondance with S. Gould toward the end of THE DEVIL'S CHAPLAIN. So while an atheism/theism discussion is something to which RD could conceivably consent, the topic presented would indicate that once Dawkins was aware of the point-counterpount format he was bound to refuse.
I can see why theists and proponents of Intelligent Design become angry and resort to claims of ducking when debates are refused to them: they have no logical or scientific grounds for a debate, but wish to make it seem so. Once a debate is engaged, public opinion tends to support those who make the more convincing points, even if the points are made through circular reasoning, argument from ignorance, and plain old lie-mongering... these are the common tactics of the ID movement.
-->In response to the poster calling people "dawkins monkeys": Do you think the credibility a noted scientist establishes with the fundamentalist community is important to him or anyone who evaluates such claims on evidence? Debating with staunch creationists is tantamount to arguing with a brick wall... I can't blame anyone for choosing not to waste their time. If the debate were solely on the existence/non-existence of a God, I could concede your point. We both know from the Al-Jazeera video that it wouldn't have been.

InfuriatedSciTeacher at 2:29PM on Jul 22nd 2008

113. Losing Sight of Progress

Comment #215771 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on July 22, 2008 at 11:05 am

Hellene> Haeckel again? a useful oversimplification, but an oversimplification nonetheless... Have you read Stephen Jay Gould's book on the subject?

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

Comment #215258 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on July 21, 2008 at 2:44 pm

I actually followed the link posted above... it's nice to see that Jefferson cut out not just the over the top miracles, but all the supernatural BS...

my bad.. with the exception of references to an afterlife... and the use of some variation of "God" every fourth word in some passages. Still, it's nice to see a collection of snippets that lack the hocus-pocus. It looks like Jefferson was trying to retain what he considered a guide to morals, rather than a wholly religious text. So while YES, moderate theists have to mentally cut away the more embarassing contradictions of their religion, most of them still accept things like resurrection at face value.

edit: I lent my copy of TGD to my Christian GF... the resulting conversations have been amusing: "So what do you think about the whole Jesus thing?" "You mean you don't believe he turned water into wine?" Having to patiently explain that no, I don't in fact believe in miracles, and that went along with rejecting anything supernatural was quite the discussion.

115. Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued

Comment #215239 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on July 21, 2008 at 2:25 pm

aquilacane> I'd like to give you a tough time over it, only I happen to agree with most of what you've said. I am inclined to hold the opinion (probably baseless) that the commitee members, like <35bluejacket> above, are concerned about feeding prejudices rather than identifying biological differences that have real medical value. (If bluejacket happens to read this, he/she has missed the point of the posts above: no one's claiming superiority, or even that what the so-called races hold in common is less than the differences, but that the differences can be important in some situations. The PC-BS that is often spouted in the media and mroe enlightened parts of society chooses to ignore those differences to the loss of all involved. Honestly, no genetic differences? Know anyone who isn't of African descent with sickle-cell? Would love to see the #'s there for those that cite one complete genome. I do grasp the POINT of attempting to minimize the perception of differences, in that you're striving for tolerance, but the cynic in me (who lives in the American South) doesn't think it'll work because it fails to reach the population that holds racist views. The only way I've personally seen to reduce racism involves personal contact among people of all different cultures, allowing them to DEMONSTRATE their similarities and prove their value to one another.)
My only argument with you would be on the "white genetic superiority in the art of swimming"... I was a swimmer, I have seen the disparity you talk about in composition of swim teams, but I would be more inclined to attribute that to socioeconomic factors then racial ones. Perhaps someone from a nation who's poor aren't also mostly non-white could correct me, but blacks in America area also disproportionately sent to schools that can't afford a pool, live in communites where their access to swimming is limited to 3ft deep community pools, etc. There is also a cultural pressure among americans of african descent to excel at sports that are more "traditionally" available to them (football, basketball). With my limited knowledge, I would also venture that life in 3rd world African nations is such that swimming is not a skill that is in high demand.



Reading this afterwards exposes a great deal of argument from personal experience... my apologies for the poor logic, but I lack other sources on this topic.

116. Ten Commandments' of race and genetics issued

Comment #213984 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on July 19, 2008 at 10:29 am

A point that seems to have been missed in much of the sport discussion: American blacks, whatever their initial genetic differences, also underwent artificial selection during several centuries of slavery. One might think that in a situation where intense physical labour is expected, even of children, the most physically durable people are the ones who are going to live long enough to have more offspring.

117. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #198165 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 23, 2008 at 9:47 am

<139. Comment #197641 by 82abhilash on June 22, 2008 at 12:15 pm

If Bobby Jindal signs this bill he will never ever be able to enter national politics. Ever. I guess he does not want to. It is for the better. >

Actually, Jindal is one of the front-runners to be John McCain's running mate. His religious convictions are part of the package, and a way to "balance the ticket" in light of McCain being fairly liberal for a Republican, at least in the eyes of the conservatives... It would certainly destroy any chance of that ticket getting my vote.

118. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195787 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 18, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I find myself wishing I had copied my letter to post here as well, but for what it's worth I emailed the man as well. As my handle might hint, I'm a high school science teacher (in a Bible Belt state), so this proposition is a tad scary for me.
Mister Griswold>> I'm a relatively new transplant to the Raleigh area, and it's nice to see that it contains other individuals who think rationally and aren't afraid to share those thoughts.

119. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #192538 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 13, 2008 at 10:32 am

Miller's excellent when it comes to explaining Natural Selection, and his views, despite the cognitive dissonance, aren't so polarizing as to alienate the more moderate religious majority. While arguing with fundies may be like talking to a brick wall, I'd posit the those of a more moderadate religious weal are not only useful in that they may actually SUPPORT the teaching of science and only science in schools, but that they represent those who can be shown reason so to speak.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

and no, I've not read that book, but I have heard him speak on the topic at conferences.

120. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191946 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 12, 2008 at 7:03 am

Mordacious> Thanks, I was wondering if my question didn't seem to be worth a valid response :) His debating skills seemed suspect, and I was looking forward to shredding whatever tripe he might have used as evidence (notice, however, that the question-dodge isn't a rare thing amongst those with his views? I wonder why that is...) although expecting a reply was an overly optimistic thought.

121. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Comment #191063 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 10, 2008 at 6:58 am

Ugh, what was I thinking? The bacteria didn't become jellyfish or frogs, so natural selection must be false... HILARIOUS

122. Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab

Comment #191047 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 10, 2008 at 6:41 am

I believe it was linked in the forum somewhere, I've seen it recently, too.

edit: for those inclined to scoff at the word 'believe', it's use here is meant to convey the probable inaccuracy of my statement.

123. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #191040 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 10, 2008 at 6:34 am

CLEARTHINKER>
Due to the moniker, I actually attempted to read your multiple posts... You seem to have developed the knack for pointing out the logical fallacies in other's arguments while completely missing the ones in your own. Since you seem to prefer to poke holes (however inconsequential or microscopic they may happen to be), let me try something:
Let's say I have newly rejected the idea of a Deity. Not simply your deity, ANY deity. You claim to think freely and rationally; demonstrate to me, using those skills, the case for the existence of a creator/god/sky fairy/ elf/ad naseum. I'd like a refreshing argument, if you please, nothing recycled despite its continuous refutation. In the spirit fairness let's make it clear that I am unlikely to accept any proof that comes from a centuries old, oft-translated text written in a desert somewhere.
You'd like a debate? Make your own assertions, leaving the rhetorical questions aside.

124. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191026 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 10, 2008 at 6:06 am

Just for shits and giggles, as well as mountains of annoyance, you should check out the site that spawned this article. If you're in the mood to waste time perusing mindless inanity even worse than this, that is. Someone PLEASE tell me this is some Canuck version of the Onion?!

125. Lizards make adaptive change

Comment #187991 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on June 3, 2008 at 5:50 am

[12. Comment #187289 by Mitchell Gilks on June 1, 2008 at 7:41 pm

They had this up already on here didn't they? If not this adds no new information. Didn't the last article have pictures? ]

I think I know what you're referring to... There was an NY Times Article that discussed rapid evolution in lizards, but those were in the Carribean. Being new to this site I don't know if it was ever linked here or not, but..

Leapin' Evolution Is Found in Lizards 1 May 1997, Nicholas Wade.

Sorry, having link issues, but you can query it.

126. 'Framing Science' and The Dawkins Effect

Comment #186006 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on May 29, 2008 at 10:49 am

Comment #181516 by Apeseed on May 17, 2008 at 10:40 am

[Could it be that one of the reasons Christianity superseded most of these ways of being is because it was evolutionarily more viable?]

Christianity was evolutionarily more viable than Bushido and Buddhism? or perhaps did that fact that those at war with those Japanese who could still be called samurai in the 19th century also happened to have firearms? I'm not sure that one can assert that Christianity leads to more advanced technology... in fact, that sounds rather silly.

127. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #185732 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on May 28, 2008 at 11:33 am

Honestly, I'm not sure where this ends, but it makes me cringe to have to admit I'm an American (a nice reprise of the year I spent in UK). I teach in a metropolitan area of North Carolina (yes, certainly the Bible Belt).. a number of my colleagues are at best aplogists for relgion, with a few admitting that they truly believe that life was created by some divine power and evolution took of afterward. These happen to be the more enlightened of my co-workers (read: those who actually have an understanding of science), can we imagine how the others think and feel?
Incidentally, while we're on the subject of offending people, I'm rather offended that I have to be subjected to public, administration-led, prayer at school sponsored events, in memos, etc. I have a feeling (oops, I do indeed lack empirical evidence) that if I were to challenge or complain about this state of affairs I would be seeking employment elsewhere. Any thoughts on this?