http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Wed, 11 May 2005 19:51:16 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/11/195116.php a-[e] In an attempt that Intelligent Design (ID) theorists' claim will definitively disprove Darwin's theory, ID proponents will attempt to mate humans and chimpanzees to "empirically test Darwin's theory" in the words of one ID theorist. Under the controversial plan, female volunteers will copulate with male chimpanzees. ID proponents predict that none of the women will become impregnated, thus refuting Darwinism.The project is a joint endeavor hosted by the Intelligent Design Network (IDN) and the Discovery Institute. Both organizations have been highly critical of Darwinian evolution, arguing that observed complexity indicates the existence of a designer. Critics claim that ID is not a scientific theory. This experiment, project leaders claim, "will prove the scientific grounding of Intelligent Design.""Evolutionary theory is nothing but a lie," said IDN founder William Harris. "They've been saying man came from monkeys for years. Well, we're about to disprove that. If a monkey can't successfully impregnate a human woman, then we're not related to them."Current evolutionary theory holds that humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor. Scientists also claim we share roughly 98% of our DNA with chimps. As a counter-argument, Harris and colleagues point to preliminary research showing that a young woman's uncle is not a monkey as supportive of their claims."We know God made us special," says Reverend Fred Phelps. "We don't need no fag scientists tellin' us otherwise! But if this will shut those idiots up, then let's do it!" Rev. Phelps' statements were met with a resounding "Hallelujah" from the project team.The project will begin later this year after a three month screening program to choose the female volunteers. According to the plan, the Discovery Institute and IDN will hold a cross-country interview process similar to that of Fox's reality hit American Idol.Like the familiar American Idol format, a panel of judges will evaluate contestants. In this case, the judges will be three male chimpanzees. Contestants will be expected to "strip, bend over, and present themselves in typical chimpanzee mating fashion" says Harris. Quality of contestants will be judged by the chimps reaction. The top three females will be receive a t-shirt, a small cash prize and the privilege of participating in the study. According to IDN insiders, negotiations are still underway to ink a contract with a "Christian Simon Cowell-like personality to provide saucy commentary and brutally honest critique" on the women's performances.Project leaders laughed off the question of their plan being sinful bestiality."No, no. This is Godly work," said Dr. Ezekial Brown. "The participants will be doing this for Jesus, so it isn't a sin. The Lord asks us to undertake mighty tasks to fulfill His will. Plus, we've cleared it with evangelical leaders like Tony Perkins, Jerry Falwell and Fred Phelps. This is legit. Plus, we're excluding Jezebels from the start. We want only good, single Christian women for this."Brown is heading of the interview process, tentatively titled Do It For Jesus. One prototype t-shirt showed a silhouette outline of a woman and chimpanzee embracing with a smiling Jesus watching over them. Brown and Harris said t-shirt plans had not yet been finalized, though marketing research found a strong response to this design among female Young Earth Creationists in the target 18 - 25 age range.Neither PETA nor the American Association for the Advancement of Science had an official comment.Speaking off the record, pro-evolution critics of Intelligent Design suggested that Harris and colleagues do not really understand basic evolutionary concepts and called the experiment "interestingly misguided."[This article originally appeared at Tinfoil Hat Pundit] Sci/Tech29381@blogcritics.org Wed, 11 May 2005 19:51:16 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/10/123946.php a-[e]"Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." -Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon "Is it 1925 already?" - MangoBy now everyone has probably heard about the ongoing "trial" in Kansas. Presumably this circus of pseudo-science and religious assertions is suppose to decide on a new science curriculum for the state of Kansas--particularly biological science.The hearings by the Kansas State Board of Education- one part science lesson, one part political theater - were set off by proposed changes to Kansas's science standards intended to bring a more critical approach to the teaching of Darwinism. The sessions provided perhaps the highest-profile stage yet for the emerging movement known as intelligent design, which asserts that life is so intricately complex that an architect must be behind it. Critics argue that intelligent design has no basis in science and is another iteration of creationism (New York Times).Pro-evolution scientists are rightly boycotting the spectacle and refusing to humor the either the religious ideologues that would dilute science with assertions about God in order to achieve a political agenda, or the inane hubris of elected officials unable or unwilling to even read the proposal they're supposed to be considering. Board member Kathy Martin, of Clay Center, elicited groans of disbelief from a few audience members when she acknowledged she had only scanned the proposal, which is more than 100 pages. Later, board member Connie Morris, of St. Francis, also said she had only scanned it. Martin said during a break: ''I'm not a word-for-word reader in this kind of technical information." (Salon)If they don't even read the material, how in the world can they even attempt to understand what the debate is about? Unlike assertions about God, creation and Intelligent Design, science is not based solely on intuition. At some point you must provide evidence for your assertions. With their failure to even read the evolutionary information, these board members have demonstrated that they fundamentally do not understand how contrasting scientific arguments are weighed or what is at stake. (The fact that they're even engaging in this lawyerly spectacle reinforces the interpretation of ignorance.) Presumably, they assume that a casual scanning or osmosis will allow them to intuit the merits of the various arguments."They are offering an answer that may be in conflict with religious views," [William Harris, a medical researcher and co-founder of a Kansas group called the Intelligent Design Network] Harris said in opening the debate. "Part of our overall goal is to remove the bias against religion that is currently in schools. This is a scientific controversy that has powerful religious implications." (CNN)The religious goals of this entire fiasco are plain for even the simplest of Young Earth Creationists to apprehend. Here's another example.Nancy Bryson, a biology instructor at Kennesaw State University in Georgia, said having life appear from chemical molecules is ''utterly impossible." Bryson came under fire for giving a public lecture in 2003 criticizing evolution and eventually lost her position as division science director at Mississippi University for Women. "In my personal opinion, I believe there is an intelligent designer," she said. (Salon)...and...Asked to explain the appearance of humans on Earth, witness John Sanford, an associate professor of horticultural sciences at Cornell University, said: ''My explanation, humbly offered, is that we were specially created." (Salon)The real issue for these people is their belief that evolutionary theory undercuts religious faith. Does it? For some it probably does though knowledge of evolution isn't required for either atheism or agnosticism. In fact, evolution alone isn't even a good argument for disbelief since the question of God is entirely a metaphysical question. Evolutionary sciences are concerned with understanding and explaining the world in terms of natural processes. Whether you believe those natural processes, which are observable today, were put into motion by a creator or not is your problem.This question of a designer is the heart of the debate that the religious are trying to foist onto science, the education system and the public at large. They are seeking a way to introduce religious instruction back into the education system. This is patently wrong and simple facts demonstrate this to be their true goal.The existence or non-existence of an Intelligent Designer is not a testable hypothesis. The assertion, not matter how emphatically made, that observed complexity requires a designer is neither a scientific explanation nor a testable statement. Anyone asserting otherwise is either a liar or seriously confused about science. The continued failure of ID-ers to operationalize and test their theory demonstrates exactly how scientifically useless it really it. Thus, ID is not a scientific theory. As non-science it does not belong in the classroom. It really is just that simple.The canard that ID-ers want to introduce debate into biological (evolutionary) science is tiresome. It is clear that there isn't a scientific debate as the ID-ers characterize it because they aren't bringing science to the argument. In addition, they mischaracterize the nature of biology and evolutionary education in high schools. How much evolution do students really get? The real nuts and bolts of evolutionary theory are graduate level topics. High school students aren't even taught enough to adequately explain evolution theory much less analyze its claims and adequacy. Therefore, it is questionable what ID-ers think these students are going debate in either direction. In reality, they want an assertion of faith to cancel out the science.The place of rigorous scientific debate, the place to disprove evolutionary theory, is ultimately within and among those trained to discern good science from bad science: scientists. The fact that they have failed to even operationalize ID and test hypotheses demonstrates why they need school boards and half-wit politicians to weigh their case and defend their cause. They can't make a scientific case so they must rely on assertions like 'special creation of humans.'Scientists are right, I think, to refuse to participate in the ID circus.Something must be done to more actively engage the public and students. Unfortunately, the very elected officials that are acting as ringleaders for this circus are the very ones spoiling basic science education.So, I guess it is 1925 already...again.The sad thing that Marx forgot to add in his correction of Hegel is that once world history descends into farce, it often wallows there ad infinitum.[Originally posted 5/8/2005 @ anti-[everything] Sci/Tech29280@blogcritics.org Tue, 10 May 2005 12:39:46 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/03/22/164638.php a-[e] In a shocking revelation, Bob and Mary Schindler announced today that they have been communicating with their daughter for years via mental telepathy. They also contend that Terri can telepathically levitate objects across the room, an ability also known as telekinesis. That power is less developed than her other skills."How can you kill a telepathic human being?" her mother asked. "Why won't doctors tell everyone she can talk to us? She talks to us daily. Her voice echos in our heads.""Her favorite thing is the balloon," Bob Schindler stated. "She floated it across the room and back. The whole time she was tellin' us 'Weeeeee'."Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, insists Terri can only telepathically groan, moan and make other random noises. He has also accused the Schindlers of using a string, or perhaps static electricity, to move Terri's balloon around.Hospice staff however, speaking anonymously, acknowledged that Schiavo has been "speaking" to them for years."She's a total bitch," said one nurse who would only give us the name "Betty." "She nags constantly and is very demanding. Plus, if you look in her in the eyes she'll hypnotize you! She can make you do stuff! If I could get close enough without her taking over my brain, I would kill her myself." Another nurse, who wished to remain nameless, alleges Schiavo mentally forced the woman to touch her inappropriately on several occasions. She is considering filing suit in civil court. Both nurses alleged that Schiavo has been telepathically tormenting her husband for years with brutal and obscene tirades within "earshot of the whole staff." "It really is humiliating for him," they said. "Who can blame him for wanting her to die?"Specialists in telepathy, mind control and telekinesis have testified that the best way to defeat the psychic terror is to slowly starve and dehydrate her. One went so far as to suggest driving a stake through her heart once she appeared to expire.Protesters outside of Schiavo's room had mixed reactions. "Dude, that is so freakin' awesome. How could they kill her? You wouldn't kill Professor X would you? It's crazy!" said one man. An older woman carrying a large Bible thought the news over and decided maybe Terri Schiavo should be killed."She's a witch. That's a sin," the woman said as she stooped to pick some stoning rocks.[This article originally appeared at Tinfoil Hat Pundit] Sci/Tech27115@blogcritics.org Tue, 22 Mar 2005 16:46:38 EST