jrosenhouse | May 4, 2007In last night's Republican candidates debate, the topic of evolution was briefly mentioned. As I discussed here, McCain said plainly that he “believed in” evolution, but then quickly qualified his answer by adding that he also believed in God. Three other candidates (Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo) raised their hands when asked to affirm their lack of belief in evolution.
IHere are some responses I've found around the web. I'll present them without comment.
From Jonah Goldberg at National Review:
I know there are Intelligent Design fans among our readers, but I found the string of…
jrosenhouse | May 3, 2007Moving on, we then had an interesting exchange with Governor Romney:
MR. MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, what do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?
MR. ROMNEY: I don't say anything to Roman Catholic bishops. They can do whatever the heck they want. (Laughter.) Roman Catholic bishops are in a private institution, a religion, and they can do whatever they want in a religion. America --
MR. MATTHEWS: Do you see that as interference in public life?
MR. ROMNEY: Well, I can't imagine a government telling a church who can have…
jrosenhouse | May 3, 2007The New York Times has posted a transcript of the big Republican candidates deabte. So, as promised, let's have a look at some other items of interest.
Here's Governor Huckabee trying desperately to avoid saying he believes global warming is a real problem:
MR. VANDEHEI: Governor Huckabee, this question comes from Curtis Waldman (sp) from Boca Raton, Florida. Thousands of reputable scientists have concluded with almost certainty that human activity is responsible for the warming of the Earth. Do you believe global warming exists?
GOV. HUCKABEE: The most important thing about global warming…
jrosenhouse | May 3, 2007There were a number of interesting tidbits in the Republican candidates debate tonight. There was the spectacle of Mitt Romney desperately trying to explain away his flip-flop on abortion. There was the stampede to declare embryonic stem-cell research immoral and unnecessary, culminating with Colorado representative Tom Tancredo's declaration that such research is “reprehensible.” But the one that really caught my ear was the brief discussion of evolution.
John McCain was asked directly, “Do you believe in evolution?”
The answer, after a brief pause, was a simple, if somewhat uncomfortable…
jrosenhouse | May 3, 2007Ed Brayton, Orac, and the Hoofnagles have already covered this story (click here, here, and here, respectively.) But why should they have all the fun?
Over at Uncommon Descent, Salvador Cordova discusses the MacCallum essay, Now, I've seen several of Salvador's public presentations. So I am well aware of his rather imaginative use of quotations. He almost seems to prefer quoting people inaccurately to giving his audience an accurate view of what was said.
But this one is low, even for him. MacCallum opens her essay with the following paragraph:
It is curious that Charles Darwin,…
jrosenhouse | May 3, 2007Writing in PLoS Biology, Catriona MacCallum offers these wise words on the subject of evolution and medicine. The article describes a conference MacCallum attended on the subject. MacCallum writes:
One reason that evolution doesn't figure prominently in the medical community is that although it makes sense to have evolution taught as part of medicine, that doesn't make it essential. As explained at a meeting on evolution and medicine I recently attended in York, United Kingdom (the Society for the Study of Human Biology and the Biosocial Society's 2006 symposium, “Medicine and Evolution…
jrosenhouse | May 3, 2007In a pleasant change from the ordinary, Slate has been posting a lot of good stuff lately. Today they have this review of a new book by Janet Browne entitled Darwin's Origin of Species: A Biography. The review is by Jonathan Weiner:
In 2009, On the Origin of Species will be 150 years old. On Feb. 12, 2009, its author would have turned 200.* Dozens of new books will be published to mark this double anniversary, and at last, Darwin the writer will receive the attention he deserves. Darwin the scientist is beyond famous. Darwin the scribbler is comparatively obscure. But I think he should be…
jrosenhouse | May 3, 2007Via Larry Moran I came across this article, from the journal Cell, about the growth of the science blogosphere:
There are close to 50 million weblogs or blogs for short. Blogs provide an online discussion forum for issues of current interest and are updated regularly with new short articles on which readers can comment.
The Pew Internet and American Life Project (http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP%20Bloggers%20Report%20July%2019%202…), an initiative of the Pew Research Center, reports that 8% of Internet users in the United States, or 12 million American adults, keep a blog and 39% read one…
jrosenhouse | May 2, 2007Writing at Slate, Ann Hulbert offers some thoughts on the use of chess as an educational tool in elementary schools:
In January of 1958, three months after Sputnik triggered an educational panic in America much like today's angst about the global talent race, a 14-year-old boy from Erasmus Hall High School in Brooklyn made headlines: Bobby Fischer became the youngest U.S. champion in a cerebral sport long associated with genius--and long dominated by the Russians. The game, of course, was chess, and 15 years later--during his antic showdown with Boris Spassky in Reykjavik in 1972--Fischer…
jrosenhouse | May 1, 2007The all-encompassing, all-devouring, Science Blogs combine has assimilated another member. Be sure to say hello to the brothers Hoofnagle (if that's really their name) who write the denialism blog. Only a few posts so far but all of them worth reading.
And I notice one of the Hoofnagles is a graduate student at the University of Virginia. Always nice to have a Virginia academic on the team!
jrosenhouse | May 1, 2007Reviews of Hitchens' book are already appearing. Here's one from Bruce DeSilva of the Associated Press. I found two items of interest.
The first is an amusing instance of an error in word choice. DeSilva writes:
Hitchens is the reincarnation of H.L. Mencken, the penultimate social critic of the first half of the 20th century, who used words like gunshots and considered most Americans “boobs.” Of course, reincarnation is another notion that could induce paroxysms in both of them.
I suspect both gentlemen would also be driven to distraction by a writer who says “penultimate,” (which means…
jrosenhouse | May 1, 2007Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris have had things to themselves for too long. Now it's time for Christopher Hitchens to join the party. His new book God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything is now available.
So, my summer reading list just got one title longer. In general I have mixed feelings about Hitchens. He's a terrific writer, and his essays are always enjoyable to read even when I disagree with him. I've consistently been impressed by his writing on religion, most notably his columns for Free Inquiry magazine.
The trouble is, he very rarely defends an…
jrosenhouse | April 26, 2007Bill Maher showed up on Scarborough Country yesterday to explain his problems with organized religion. Since I can't improve on his eloquent and spot-on comments, I will simply reproduce them beneath the fold. Enjoy!
BILL MAHER, HOST, "REAL TIME": I've always had it out for religion, for very good reasons. It's mostly destructive. I don't know what happens after you die, but to believe what another person tells me just makes me want to say to that person, "How do you know?" So that's what I would ask you. How do you know what happens after you die?
It's only, Joe, because somebody…
jrosenhouse | April 26, 2007I am happy to report that the little dust-up between Shelley Batts and Wiley has ended peacefully. Wiley has apologized for their rather heavy-handed treatment of the matter. When I read the good news over at Shelley's blog, I had a number of reactions. Happily Rob Knop has saved me the trouble of having to write them down.
So congratulations to Shelley for weathering the storm and emerging victorious, and an extra loud “Boo! Hiss!” to the blogger who criticized her for caving to Wiley's pressure by taking down the disputed graphics. It's easy to talk tough when you're not the…
jrosenhouse | April 25, 2007Commenting on the recommendation of the Vatican International Theological Commission to eliminate the concept of limbo, Michelle Tsai, writing for Slate, offers some interesting thoughts on past efforts by church leaders to resolve the final destination of baby souls in the afterlife. It's nice that today there is a growing theological awareness of God's mercy, because just a few centuries ago St. Augustine was offering this:
The fate of unbaptized babies has confounded Catholic scholars for centuries. According to church catechisms, or teachings, babies that haven't been splashed with holy…
jrosenhouse | April 25, 2007From the Catholic News Service:
After several years of study, the Vatican's International Theological Commission said there are good reasons to hope that babies who die without being baptized go to heaven.
In a document published April 20, the commission said the traditional concept of limbo -- as a place where unbaptized infants spend eternity but without communion with God -- seemed to reflect an “unduly restrictive view of salvation.”
The church continues to teach that, because of original sin, baptism is the ordinary way of salvation for all people and urges parents to baptize infants,…
jrosenhouse | April 25, 2007In this post, my SciBling Shelley Batts, of Retrospectacle, analyzed a recent paper claiming that fruit becomes healthier when consumed with alcohol. Something about boosting the antioxidant properties of the fruit.
Interesting stuff. Even more interesting was what happened next. The paper in question was published in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, published by Wiley. In writing her post, Shelley reproduced one table and one graph from the actual paper.
That provoked the following e-mail from Wiley:
The above article contains copyrighted material in the form of a…
jrosenhouse | April 24, 2007Ooblog presents a fascinating exchange that he had with Discovery Institute blogger Michael Egnor.
The exchange centers on Egnor's oft repeated challenge to Darwinists to explain how it is possible for naturalistic processes to explain the growth of information during evolution. This nonsensical argument is a frequent guest in creationist and ID literature.
Ooblog quite reasonably asked Egnor to explain what he meant by information in this context. The subsequent exchange of e-mails makes for interesting reading.
Here is the first exchange. First Ooblog:
Dear Dr. Egnor,
A while back, I…
jrosenhouse | April 24, 2007Via P.Z. Myers, I came across this post, from George Shollenberger. He is the author of a book entitled The First Scientific Proof of God, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know about him.
He seems vexed by the number of atheists here at ScienceBlogs. He writes:
I am a retired electrical engineer and the author of “The First Scientific Proof of God.” Last summer, Mark Chu-Carroll, the blogger of the Good Math, Bad Math website, began to attack me and my book. He continued to attack the book this spring and continued to assassinate my character. He never evaluated this…
jrosenhouse | April 23, 2007If you're curious, in an interview lasting just over four and a half minutes, Bill O'Reilly uttered 609 words, while Dawkins uttered a mere 342. Considering the way O'Reilly usually treats his guests, that's a pretty good ratio.
At the start of every show, O'Reilly gives the headlines of the major stories he will be discussing. But there was no teaser for his interview with Dawkins. Likewise, when he goes to a commercial break he tells you what is coming up later in the show. But there was no mention of Dawkins until the commercial break right before that segment (which came roughly half…