tingilinde

on the failure of education in america

There are many reasons for not distributing a film, but something is broken if the reason turns out to be illiteracy.

(thanks for the link Bjarne)

bad hats and good hats

hats off  to Bjarne for pointing  this note by PZ on really bad hats.

It is disgusting seeing these sanctimonious, hyper judgmental types condemn the beliefs and non-beliefs of others while condoning child abuse.   They are consistent with their hate, but the mind wobbles that anyone would listen to them.  

They bring a bad name to hats.

There are men and women who bring honor to hats (nods to Jheri)

religious change in the us

A new Pew study on religious affiliation in the US.  Pew studies tend to be fairly carefully done, but I get a bad feeling when "atheism" is lumped in as a religion - they clearly don't get the idea of what the null set means.

A quick read of the summary suggests there is a great deal of flux.   Potentially good reading (the study, not the summary) for when there is a bit more time.

"scientism" is not imagination

It is enormously frustrating to see people who know nothing about how science works, liken it to a religion. 

Phil addresses the issue in Bad Astronomy...

snip

...

First off, there is no such thing as scientism. What he is describing is simply science, because science by its very nature is an attempt to explain all things using natural processes. And he seems to think science has no imagination.

That’s insane. Without imagination, all we can do is categorize the world. Assigning names and numbers, statistics and categories. And while that sort of thing is important in the scientific process, it’s not science itself. Without imagination, science is a dictionary.

And in fact the opposite of what Todd is saying is true. It takes no imagination at all to insert a supernatural explanation in some spot where you don’t understand the process. It’s all too easy to say "the bacterium flagellum could not have evolved," or "The Big Bang theory doesn’t explain why the Universe is homogeneous everywhere," and therefore "God did it." But it takes imagination, soaring, incredible, wonderful imagination, to look beyond the limitations of what’s currently known, and see what could possibly be… and even more imagination to make sure this venturing beyond current understanding still stays within the bound of reason and known rules of science.

You can always insert magic or belief or some supernatural power, but in the end that is a trap. Because someone else who is more imaginative than you will see the actual steps, the process reality made, and then you are left with an ever-narrowing amount of supernatural room in which to wiggle. And once that gap starts to narrow, the squeeze is inevitable. Your explanation will be forced to fill zero volume, and you’re done. You’re explanation will be shown to be wrong for everyone to see, and your only recourse will be to abandon it, far too late to save your credibility.

Or to run for the Texas State Board of Education. But that’s certainly not science.

...

creationists in texas win

students and everyone else looses 

relentless stupidity

Rep John Shimkus (Republican-Illinois) shows an amazing amount of scientific illiteracy during a House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment last week speaking to a British global warming denier: 

 

it gets better...

   

wow thanks for the links Jim

making sure kids grow up to be ready for the 14th century

Will the creationists win in Texas?

Jerry Coyne's blog is worth following btw...   he offers an update

(tip of the hat to Bjarne, Jim and Bart)

breaking down scientific ignorance in america

From a Pew Research paper - an astonishing amount of ignorance.

snip 

So if evolution is as established as the theory of gravity, why are people still arguing about it a century and a half after it was first proposed? (See Evolution: A Timeline.) The answer lies, in part, in the possible theological implications of evolutionary thinking. For many, the Darwinian view of life -- a panorama of brutal struggle and constant change - goes beyond contradicting the biblical creation story and conflicts with the Judeo-Christian concept of an active and loving God who cares for his creation. (See Religious Groups' Views on Evolution.) In addition, some evolution opponents argue that Darwin's ideas have proven socially and politically dangerous. In particular, they say, the notion that more resilient animals survive and thrive ("survival of the fittest") has been used by social thinkers, dictators and others to justify heinous crimes, from forced sterilization to mass genocide. 

But while theologians, historians and others argue over evolution's broader social impact, the larger and more intense debate still centers on what children in public schools learn about life's origins and development. Indeed, the teaching of evolution has become a part of the nation's culture wars, manifest most recently in the 2008 presidential campaign, particularly in the attention paid to Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's statements in favor of public schools teaching creation science or intelligent design along with evolution. And while evolution may not attain the same importance as such culture war issues as abortion or same-sex marriage, the topic is likely to have a place in national debates on values for many years to come. 

amazing ...

coverage of beach volleyball coverage

I tend to be suspicious of people who complain loudly about things like this..

For the record I support beach volleyball ---  I've got a friend with skin in the game.  So if a healthy body images doesn't upset you  and helping educate kids about healthy lifestyles for themselves and their environment strikes you as desirable, consider a contribution...  Even modest contributions are welcome.

the second law, evolution and creationists

I was thinking about responding to a long letter someone sent that "disproves" evolution based on the second law of thermodynamics.  I've see this argument many times - it basically says the second law states entropy always increases.  In other words order turns to disorder.  In evolution we see order coming from disorder, so there is a contradition.

The creations don't understand the physics involved.  There are many ways to debunk this - usually talking to an undergraduate who has had a good thermodynamics course is sufficient, but I'll put down a few notes.

The second law of thermodynamics only applies to thermodynamically closed systems - a system where heat can't enter or escape.  But heat is constantly flowing to the Earth from the Sun (and a tiny bit from starlight and reflected light from the moon) and is constantly being radiated out.   The way a physicist deals with this would be to consider the Earth part of a larger system that is approximately closed (you can define what you mean by approximately with good precision).  In a system the entropy of one part of the system can decrease as long as it is balanced by an increase somewhere else.  In the case of the Earth there is a lot of heat coming from the Sun (even though it is Winter ... brrr) and this is more than sufficient to balance out decreases elsewhere.  

There is another finer point that the creationists get wrong - entropy is not the same thing as disorder.  But this is a finer point and demands a deeper knowledge of physics.  It turns out the first point dominates, so we'll go back to that.

I'll leave out the calculations, but you can work out the the sun supplies enough entropy increase to the earth in a very short amount of time to balance out the entropy decrease from evolving all of the biomass on earth.  There is a lot of overkill in the system if you want to have life emerge through the universe.  (fortunately!)