At American Creation, Tom Van Dyke looks at the questions paster Rick Warren asked Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama, with an eye to history.
George Washington probably would have flunked the test, had he been on the dais yesterday, Van Dyke notes.
Santayana’s Ghost shifts nervously.
"Washington Bible" - image from the Masonic Library and Museum
Leave a Comment » | 
Elections, First Amendment, History, McCain 2008, Obama 2008, Politics, Religion, Santayana's ghost, Separation of church and state | Tagged: 2008 Election, Barack Obama, History, John McCain, Politics, Religion, Santayana's ghost, Separation of church and state | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Every once in a while we get a glimpse of what the future would be like if the creationists ruled education and could teach some of the fantastic things they believe to be true as fact.
For example, creationists have for years complained that the basic chemistry of life somehow violates what chemists and physicists know as the “laws” of thermodynamics. Patient explanations of what we know about how photosynthesis works, and how animals use energy, and what the laws of thermodynamics actually are, all fall on deafened ears.
Comes Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian blogger at The Politics and Environment Blog, with this fantastic explanation about how the well-established notion of radiative equilibrium, simply doesn’t work.
“For the Earth to neither warm or cool, the incoming radiation must balance the outgoing.”
Not really.
No, really. Go read the post. And see these critiques, at Tugboat Potemkin, where problems with the rules of the principle of Conservation of Energy are noted, and Deltoid, where LOLCats makes a debut in explaining physics to the warming denialists.
Then go back and read the comments at Marohasy’s blog.
It’s not just the confusion of terms, like treating watts as units of heat. There’s an astonishing lack of regard for cause and effect in history, too:
Conservation of energy: it’s not just a phrase. The theory of radiative equilibrium arose early in the 19th century, before the laws of thermodynamics were understood.
Probably didn’t mention it here before, but Marohasy is also one of those bloggers who suffers from DDT poisoning. Among other things, she and Aynsley Kellow (whose book she recommends) use an astounding confabulation of history to claim DDT wasn’t harming birds at all, completely ignoring more than 1,000 research studies to the contrary (and not one in support of their claim).
Suggestion for research: Is the denialism virus that affects creationists, DDT advocates, and climate denialists, the same one, or are there slight variations? A virus seems the most charitable explanation, unless one wishes to blame prions.
Creationist physics, denialism in meteorology, physics, chemistry, and history. It makes a trifecta winner look like he’s not trying.
See also:
How many lightbulbs does it take to change the laws of thermodynamics?
One apparently.
1 Comment | Accuracy, Climate change, Creationism, denialism, Education, Global warming, History, Physics, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Tagged: chemistry, Climate change, Creationism, DDT, denialism, History, Physics, Thermodynamics, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Father Joe took issue with P. Z. Myers’s complaints about the Central Florida University incident at a Catholic mass held on campus. That’s fair. Anyone can see why a Catholic priest would find Myers’ complaints to be at least a sharp rebuke, if not offensive.
But Father Joe is off the track, following others. He insists that the church has no reason to call for calm, that the church is absolutely blameless if others, like Bill Donohue, either advocate violence or otherwise carry things beyond the pale.
In comments, the entire discussion grows very disturbing. Father Joe now claims that Myers encouraged acts of violence against the Catholic Church — a patently false claim — and he and others now list any act of vandalism against a Catholic Church, and blame it on Myers (see also here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). (Nor will Father Joe allow me to comment on that thread any more — the old fingers-in-ears defense against reason and criticism. Censorship is one of the first signs of totalitarian idiocy.)
Casting blame falsely — there’s a commandment against such action. Do you think these guys know about it?
The acts of vandalism, burglary and destruction noted at Father Joe’s blog, especially those in churches, are grotesque demonstrations of depravity. The culprits should be caught and punished. They aren’t the fault of science, they aren’t the fault of a guy who asks Catholics to back off of terroristic threats. From the use of religious symbols, we can be quite certain that few if any are committed by atheists.
Ironic, no? Asked to renounce terrorism, Father Joe claims to be a victim. Then he stirs up a mob with tales to cast blame on those who asked for calm and reason. If it’s true, as Father Joe claims, that “Dr. P.Z. Myers’ crusade against religion illustrates defects in civility, empathy and imagination,” then it is equally true that a Father Joe-led jihad against civility, empathy and imagination illustrates defects in religion.
Nuts. We can’t get these people to stop venting and pounding their breasts, let alone talk. Dare we let them alone in a room with one another?
We’ve seen it before. Beirut. Sarajevo. Berlin. Berlitz. Brussels. Segovia. On St. Bartholomew’s Day. In the Cultural Revolution. Madness creeps in, and soon is epidemic.
We wish worship services could proceed without interruption, without insult, with joy and encouragement of good deeds. We wish religionists would demonstrate the love they claim to seek, and that others would show it to them.
Some people are too busy nailing delinquents to crosses to stop and do the right thing. Can we at least lock up their hammers?
I wish Myers would apologize for unnecessary offense he may have made. He won’t. I wish the crazies calling for his scalp would apologize for the unnecessary offenses they may have made by insisting others grant their faith privileges it should not have, and especially for the unnecessary offenses from the threats by their fellow travelers. They won’t. ‘We were insulted. Death threats should be expected. If I didn’t personally make the threat, I’m not responsible.’ No one is a keeper of anyone’s brother. Claims of not being part of the mob are offered as reasons for why nothing was done to stop the mob.
If I had an answer for how to stop stupid bellicosity, I’d be on my way to Moscow and Tbilisi right now. Any suggestions out there?
_ _.
Update: Father Joe responded: “Urging people to steal hosts and to desecrate them is the sort of thing once reserved to crazy people and dabblers in the occult. It can escalate into all sorts of other crimes.”
Coming from anyone else other than a priest, that could easily be construed as a threat. Unfortunately, Father Joe gives us little ground to argue it should not be so considered in this case.
12 Comments | Nonviolent protest, Peace, Reason, Religion | Tagged: Host Desecration, Non-violence, Peace, Reason, Religion | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Gocta was unknown until a few years ago — to the outside world. Local Peruvians knew about it, but said little. Gocta turned out to be the third highest waterfall in the world
Lightning has struck Peru again: A week ago an expedition left paved-road civilization to document another very high waterfall, perhaps higher than Gocta, whose existence was only recently discovered, outside of local residents — who said nothing because they feared the reaction of the outside world, or they just didn’t think that anyone else would be particularly interested. The expedition includes “representatives of the sub-regional direction of Bagua Grande and Utcubamba, from Utcubamba’s National Institute of Culture, a topographer of the provincial municipality and a cameraman.”
Peru's Gocta, the third-highest waterfall in the world - Alberto Pintado photo
A local explorer, Obed Cabanillas Silva, who seems to be coordinating local efforts to make the cataract known, said there are “stone structures” on the path to the waterfall. Could there be undiscovered, uncharted ruins of former How does the rest of the world miss a waterfall higher than a 250-story building? Here’s a Google Earth challenge — how many other giant waterfalls are there in Peru, “undiscovered” by the rest of the world? Remember the recent discovery of an impact crater in Australia?
The expedition of “discovery” set off a week ago — can you beat them to the thing, on Google Earth, or with any other LandSat image? (The few pieces of data on the specific location I have are at the bottom of this post.)
Gocta itself came to light in 2005 when a German engineer working on a water project close by, persuaded the Peruvian government to survey the uncharted, unnamed waterfall. When the surveyors came back with a report the thing was 2,532 feet hight, the German, Stefan Ziemandorff, checked his National Geographic Guide, figured it was third largest in the world, and had the good sense to call a press conference to let everyone else know. (Ziemandorff first heard of the cataract in 2002.)
World Waterfall Database is more picky. They rank Gocta at #16 right now — something about free fall, flow amounts, other measures.
The discovery of Gocta produced documentation of other spectacular water features nearby, Catarata Yumbilla (870 m) and Cataratas la Chinata (580 m). One might wonder about what methodical search of the area might find.
2 Comments | Adventure, Conservation, Environmental protection, Geography - Physical, geology, History, Natural history, Natural resources, Science, Travel | Tagged: geography, Gocta, Peru, South America, Travel, Waterfall | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Longhorns must be proud. This is really cool science.
The University of Texas is hosting an open house for the Petawatt Laser. The Petawatt Laser is the most powerful laser in the world, creating “power output of more than 2,000 times the output of all power plants in the United States. (A petawatt is one quadrillion watts.)” The open house is August 28. (No, I didn’t get an invitation; Meg Gardiner’s husband got one.)
The laser is brighter than sunlight on the surface of the sun, but it only lasts for an instant, a 10th of a trillionth of a second (0.0000000000001 second).
'Not me teach - I didn't shine that laser on your whiteboard.' (Seriously - Dr. Todd Ditmire, University of Texas, operator of the Petawatt Laser)
The laser reached greater than one petawatt of output in a test run March 31, 2008, at the University of Texas’s Texas Center for High Intensity Laser Science. The instrument will be used to create and study in extreme conditions, “including gases at temperatures greater than those in the sun and solids at pressures of many billions of atmospheres.”
This will allow them to explore many astronomical phenomena in miniature. They will create mini-supernovas, tabletop stars and very high-density plasmas that mimic exotic stellar objects known as brown dwarfs.
“We can learn about these large astronomical objects from tiny reactions in the lab because of the similarity of the mathematical equations that describe the events,” said Ditmire, director of the center.
Such a powerful laser will also allow them to study advanced ideas for creating energy by controlled fusion.
The Texas Petawatt was built with funding provided by the National Nuclear Security Administration, an agency within the U. S. Department of Energy.
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub could use a petawatt laser, to keep the water in the tub warm, don’t you think?
Tip of the old scrub brush to Lying for a Living.
Resources (just for the sake of listing “ultrafast science”):
Bonus: Flag etiquette violation, below the fold.
4 Comments | Physics, Research, Science, Technology, Texas | Tagged: Cool Science, Laser, Nuclear Physics, Petawatt, Research, Science, Texas | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Today is the 63rd anniversary of “Victory Japan” Day, or VJ Day. On that day Japan announced it would surrender unconditionally.
President Harry Truman warned Japan to surrender, unconditionally, from the Potsdam Conference, in July. Truman warned that the U.S. had a new, horrible weapon. Japan did not accept the invitation to surrender. The announced surrender came nine days after the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, and six days after a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. The actual surrender occurred on September 2, 1945, aboard the battleship U.S.S. Missouri, anchored in Tokyo Harbor.
Celebrations broke out around the world, wherever U.S. military people were, and especially across the U.S., which had been hunkered down in fighting mode for the previous four years, since the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese on December 7, 1941.
I posted some of the key images of the day a year ago (go see), and repost one of my favorites here.
Alfred Eisenstaedt's iconic photo of the Kiss in Times Square, V-J Day 1945.
Resources:
5 Comments | Atomic Bomb, History, History images, Japan, Peace, World history, World War II | Tagged: Atomic Bomb, Famous Photograph - The Kiss, History, Japan, Peace, VJ Day, World War II | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Will Rogers, images from Will Rogers Museums, Oklahoma
After Mark Twain died, America found another great humorist, raconteur, story-teller, who tickled the nation’s funny-bone and pricked the collective social conscience at the same time. Will Rogers is most famous today for his sentiment that he never met a man he didn’t like. In 1935, he was at the height of his popularity, still performing as a lariat-twirling, Vaudeville comedian who communed with presidents, and kept his common sense. He wrote a daily newspaper column that was carried in 500 newspapers across America. Rogers was so popular that Texas and Oklahoma have dueled over who gets the bragging rights in claiming him as a native son.
Will Rogers ready to perform. Photo taken prior to 1900 - Wikimedia
Wiley Post was known as one of the best pilots in America. He gained fame by being the first pilot to fly solo around the world. Post was famous for his work developing new ways to fly at high altitudes. Post was born in Texas and moved to Oklahoma. He lost an eye in an oil-field accident in 1924, then used the settlement money to buy his first airplane. He befriended Will Rogers when flying Rogers to an appearance at a Rodeo, and the two kept up their friendship literally to death.
Post asked Rogers to come along on a tour of the great unknown land of Alaska, where Post was trying to map routes for mail planes to Russia. Ever adventurous, Rogers agreed — he could file his newspaper columns from Alaska by radio and telephone. On August 15, 1935, their airplane crashed near Point Barrow, Alaska, killing them both.
Wiley Post, first to fly solo around the world, in an early pressure suit for high-altitude flying - Wikimedia photo
On August 15, 2008, a ceremony in Claremore, Oklahoma, will honor the two men on the 73rd anniversary of their deaths. About 50 pilots from Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas and Arkansas will fly in to the Claremore Airport for the Will Rogers-Wiley Post Fly-In Weekend. Oklahoma Lt. Gov. Jari Askins will offer a tribute.
Rogers was 56, leaving behind his wife, Betty, and four children. Post, 36, left a widow.
Rogers’ life is really quite legendary. Historian Joseph H. Carter summed it up:
Will Rogers was first an Indian, a cowboy then a national figure. He now is a legend.
Born in 1879 on a large ranch in the Cherokee Nation near what later would become Oologah, Oklahoma, Will Rogers was taught by a freed slave how to use a lasso as a tool to work Texas Longhorn cattle on the family ranch.
As he grew older, Will Rogers’ roping skills developed so special that he was listed in the Guinness Book of Records for throwing three lassos at once: One rope caught the running horse’s neck, the other would hoop around the rider and the third swooped up under the horse to loop all four legs.
Will Rogers’ unsurpassed lariat feats were recorded in the classic movie, “The Ropin’ Fool.”
His hard-earned skills won him jobs trick roping in wild west shows and on the vaudeville stages where, soon, he started telling small jokes.
Quickly, his wise cracks and folksy observations became more prized by audiences than his expert roping. He became recognized as being a very informed and smart philosopher–telling the truth in very simple words so that everyone could understand.
After the 10th grade, Will Rogers dropped out of school to become a cowboy in a cattle drive. He always regretted that he didn’t finish school, but he made sure that he never stopped learning–reading, thinking and talking to smart people. His hard work paid off.
Will Rogers was the star of Broadway and 71 movies of the 1920s and 1930s; a popular broadcaster; besides writing more than 4,000 syndicated newspaper columns and befriending Presidents, Senators and Kings.
During his lifetime, he traveled around the globe three times– meeting people, covering wars, talking about peace and learning everything possible.
He wrote six books. In fact he published more than two million words. He was the first big time radio commentator, was a guest at the White House and his opinions were sought by the leaders of the world.
Inside himself, Will Rogers remained a simple Oklahoma cowboy. “I never met a man I didn’t like,” was his credo of genuine love and respect for humanity and all people everywhere. He gave his own money to disaster victims and raised thousands for the Red Cross and Salvation Army.
Post’s legacy is significant, too. His employer, Oklahoma oil man F. C. Hall, encouraged Post to push for aviation records using Hall’s Lockheed Vega, and Post was happy to comply. Before his history-making trip around the world, he had won races and navigation contests. NASA traces the development of the space-walking suits worn by astronauts to Post’s early attempts for flight records:
For Wiley Post to achieve the altitude records he sought, he needed protection. (Pressurized aircraft cabins had not yet been developed.) Post’s solution was a suit that could be pressurized by his airplane engine’s supercharger.
First attempts at building a pressure suit failed since the suit became rigid and immobile when pressurized. Post discovered he couldn’t move inside the inflated suit, much less work airplane controls. A later version succeeded with the suit constructed already in a sitting position. This allowed Post to place his hands on the airplane controls and his feet on the rudder bars. Moving his arms and legs was difficult, but not impossible. To provide visibility, a viewing port was part of the rigid helmet placed over Post’s head. The port was small, but a larger one was unnecessary because Post had only one good eye!
Last photo of Will Rogers (in the hat) and Wiley Post, in Alaska in 1935 (from Century of Flight)
Tip of the old scrub brush to Alaska bush advocate Pamela Bumsted.
Resources:
9 Comments | Airplanes, Education, Famous quotes, History, Humor, Politics, Technology, Texas history, Transportation | Tagged: Airplanes, Alaska, Aviation, Famous quotes, History, Humor, Oklahoma, Texas, Transportation | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
The thing with the flag? That was sorta funny. It was meant as humor.
This isn’t funny: The Bush administration is actively working to stop injured and ill veterans in Veterans Administration facilities from registering to vote.
These actions are most likely violations of the Voting Rights Act (under Section 2, or Section 11 – not my area of expertise, alas), but don’t expect Bush’s Justice Department to prosecute. These actions violate the VA’s own rules on helping veterans to vote. More pragmatically, there isn’t time for a big fight before the election. Veterans will be stopped from voting unless there is action now.
There is an easier, simpler solution — though we’re late. Bush should just rescind the order, encourage all veterans to vote, and help voter registration drives and attempts to get absentee ballots injured and ill veterans in VA facilities.
WHAT is the secretary of Veterans Affairs thinking? On May 5, the department led by James B. Peake issued a directive that bans nonpartisan voter registration drives at federally financed nursing homes, rehabilitation centers and shelters for homeless veterans. As a result, too many of our most patriotic American citizens — our injured and ill military veterans — may not be able to vote this November.
I have witnessed the enforcement of this policy. On June 30, I visited the Veterans Affairs Hospital in West Haven, Conn., to distribute information on the state’s new voting machines and to register veterans to vote. I was not allowed inside the hospital.
Outside on the sidewalk, I met Martin O’Nieal, a 92-year-old man who lost a leg while fighting the Nazis in the mountains of Northern Italy during the harsh winter of 1944. Mr. O’Nieal has been a resident of the hospital since 2007. He wanted to vote last year, but he told me that there was no information about how to register to vote at the hospital and the nurses could not answer his questions about how or where to cast a ballot.
Just a minor glitch, an information vacuum waiting to be filled? Go back and reread the last sentence in her second paragraph: “I was not allowed inside the hospital,” to register veterans to vote, she said.
Connecticut’s attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, and I wrote to [Veterans Affairs] Secretary [James B.] Peake in July to request that elections officials be let inside the department’s facilities to conduct voter education and registration. Our request was denied.
The department offers two reasons to justify its decision. First, it claims that voter registration drives are disruptive to the care of its patients. This is nonsense. Veterans can fill out a voter registration card in about 90 seconds.
Second, the department claims that its employees cannot help patients register to vote because the Hatch Act forbids federal workers from engaging in partisan political activities. But this interpretation of the Hatch Act is erroneous. Registering people to vote is not partisan activity.
If the department does not want to burden its staff, there are several national organizations with a long history of nonpartisan advocacy for veterans and their right to vote that are eager to help, as are elected officials like me.
The department has placed an illegitimate obstacle in the way of election officials across the country and, more important, in the way of veterans who want to vote.
Read the rest of her plea, which was carried in the New York Times last Monday, August 11.
And then take action. Bills have already been filed in Congress to force the Department of Veterans Affairs to allow veterans in its hospitals to register and vote. Frankly, time is running out. Many of these veterans will have to vote absentee — they need to be registered and have about a month to get the ballots and mail them back. There are 82 days to the election. Time is short.
So: Call George Bush and tell him to let veterans in hospitals register, and vote. George’s phone number for comments is 202-456-1111; if for any reason that does not work for you, try the general switchboard at 202-456-1414. Tell Bush I said to say “Howdy.”
The White House won’t put you through to George, but they will tally your opinion. If they give you a hard time, ask them: Why is George Bush afraid of the votes of wounded and ill veterans?
Ready to do more to support our veterans? Call the Secretary of Veterans Affairs: [::grumble:: Just try to find a general phone number for VA. Still looking. It appears the Secretary of Veterans Affairs doesn’t give a damn about veterans — they can’t call him, you can’t call him either. Still looking.]
Or you may write Sec. Peake at his office:
The Honorable James B. Peake
Secretary
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20420
I do not recommend on-line messages, since they clog a bureaucracy that should be helping veterans, but VA does not make it easy to contact them. If you wish to write an electronic message to the VA, try here.
“The federal government should be doing everything it can to support our nation’s veterans who have served us so courageously. There can be no justification for any barrier that impedes the ability of veterans to participate in democracy’s most fundamental act, the vote,” Sec. of State Byseiwicz said.
Absolutely.
This is no small group. Veterans in hospitals are numerous enough to swing elections in many districts, and nationally. They fought for our nation, and they deserve to have their voices heard, and their votes registered.
In her request, [California Secretary of State Debra] Bowen cited a 1994 executive order by President Bill Clinton requiring federal agencies to undertake the responsibility of registration when asked to do so by state election officials. A spokeswoman for Ms. Bowen said she was considering litigation.
More than 100,000 people reside for a month or longer at the V.A. campuses nationally, a number that has grown in recent years as more soldiers return wounded from the war.
In California, the federal Department of Veterans Affairs runs eight major medical centers and 11 nursing homes that provide care for more than 200,000 veterans.
What would George Washington do?
More resources:
Tip of the old scrub brush to Ed Brayton at Dispatches From the Culture Wars.
2 Comments | Citizenship, Civil Rights, Democracy, Elections, Government, History, Patriotism, Politics, veterans, Vietnam, Voting Rights Act, World War I, World War II | Tagged: Civil Rights, Government, Patriotism, Politics, Veterans Affairs, Voting Rights | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Even short-time readers know of the problems of DDT advocates, denialists who seen to think we can poison our way to health — or worse, that we can poison others, in Africa, to health.
Here’s a voice from the other side, an Australian anti-pesticide, go-back-to-nature site, that tells a dramatic story from California: The Permaculture Institute, “Pesticides, and You.” Clear Lake offered a dramatic example of the dangers of bioaccumulating chemicals, especially pesticides like DDT.
Without endorsing everything this group urges, I will say the clear, simple explanation of the events at Clear Lake is accurate, worth reading, and worth remembering. It’s what Rachel Carson sounded the alarm to warn us about, and but for the movement spurred partly by her book, Silent Spring, it’s what we would have faced at countless other locations.
Update 2014, California grebes: Mating grebes engage in the “weed dance,” where they present each other with nest-building materials. Photo: madesonphotography.com, via BayNature.org
Leave a Comment » | DDT, Environmental protection, History, Rachel Carson, Science | Tagged: Bioaccumulation, California, DDT, Environmental protection, History, Pesticides, Rachel Carson, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub passed the 900,000 clicks mark about 8 a.m. Central Time.
Thanks to readers.
Dear Readers, leave more comments! Anonymous visitors, you know who you are. Exercise your right to free speech, here, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.
"As people like Emma Goldman were prevented from speaking, societies formed to protect the right to free speech. A pamphlet created by Alden Freeman alerted people to the fight for free speech. It contains a tongue-in-cheek New York Times account of his attempt to hold a meeting where Emma Goldman could speak freely and without police restriction."
Leave a Comment » | Administrivia, Free press, Free speech, Freedom - Political, History, Personal, Weblogs | Tagged: Administrivia, blogging, Free speech, Personal | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Sometime in the spring I let a long-running discussion with pastor Joe Leavell taper off. I thought I’d be back to it more quickly. It’s that sort of summer.
In one of his last posts, Joe said he’d been to a lecture by some folks from the Institute for Creation Research, the same bunch that tried to hornswoggle Texas into letting them grant graduate degrees in science education and biology for teaching creationism to their students instead, as a way of injecting creationism into the schools stealthily but still illegally. Texas refused to give them the authority. ICR promises to appeal and sue for the privilege.
The response was rather lengthy, but they talked about the research that they have been doing over the past 7-8 years or so and the difference accredited scientists that are working for them. They also claimed that creationists get criticized for not writing peer reviewed articles in journals, but they claimed that they had submitted countless articles over the years and they all get rejected. They simply can’t get printed, was the claim, so they print their own stuff. They also pointed me to the RATE project, which honestly, without knowing a ton about science (though I do know some), is very convincing to me.
Here’s the link:
https://www.icr.org/rate/The main argument that I found convincing was the presence of helium in the rocks which wouldn’t be there if the rocks were millions of years old. They said they’ve been working on this project about 8 years and have spent $1.5 million on it. They also submitted all of their research to top labs in the country to make sure they weren’t accused of “fudging” the evidence. Check it out (if you have time) and let me know what you come up with.
I’ll be brief in my response here, at least to start: Same old fraud, not even new wineskins.
Dr. Russell Humphreys, a famous creationism crank (to serious geologists and other scientists), claims that the amount of helium he detected in some zircon crystals was so high that the crystals could not be more than a few thousands of years old, rather than the millions of years old all other dating methods by all other scientists produce. Humphreys’ findings have never been submitted to any science journal for publication, but were instead distributed to donors to a creationist ministry.
Oh, Joe: These guys depend on a lack of normal skepticism and a lack of knowledge to perpetrate these frauds on honest Christians. I do wish more Christians would hold their feet to the fire.
A few observations:
First, this project exhibits most of Bob Parks’ seven warning signs of bogus science. Those signs are:
Second, the conclusions have been challenged (“debunked” might be a better description) by scientists who know the subject matter. There’s a thorough discussion on Talk.Origins, by Kevin Henke (at the University of Kentucky); to summarize, there is no reason to think that helium could get out of those zircon crystals at depth, especially under the pressures at the depths the samples were recovered from; plus there are other problems:
Throughout Humphreys (2005), Dr. Humphreys stresses that his YEC conclusions must be correct because his Figure 2 shows a supposedly strong correlation between his “creation model” and vacuum helium diffusion measurements from Humphreys (2003a, 2004). However, Dr. Humphreys’ diagram has little scientific merit. First of all, his helium diffusion experiments were performed under a vacuum rather than at realistic pressures that model the subsurface conditions at Fenton Hill (about 200 to 1,200 bars; Winkler, 1979, p. 5). McDougall and Harrison (1999), Dalrymple and Lanphere (1969) and many other researchers have already shown that the diffusion of noble gases in silicate minerals may decrease by at least 3-6 orders of magnitude at a given temperature if the studies are performed under pressure rather than in a vacuum. Secondly, because substantial extraneous helium currently exists in the subsurface of the Valles Caldera, which is only a few kilometers away from the Fenton Hill site, Dr. Humphreys needs to analyze his zircons for 3He, and quartz and other low-uranium minerals in the Fenton Hill cores for extraneous 4He. Thirdly, chemical data in Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979) indicate that Humphreys et al. and Gentry et al. (1982a) may have significantly underestimated the amount of uranium in the Fenton Hill zircons, which could reduce many of their Q/Q0 values by at least an order of magnitude and substantially increase Humphreys et al.‘s “creation dates.” Dr. Humphreys needs to perform spot analyses for 3He, 4He, lead, and uranium on numerous zircons from all of his and R. Gentry’s samples so that realistic Q/Q0 values may be obtained.
The “dating” equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) are based on many false assumptions (isotropic diffusion, constant temperatures over time, etc.) and the vast majority of Humphreys et al.‘s critical a, b, and Q/Q0 values that are used in these “dating” equations are either missing, poorly defined, improperly measured or inaccurate. Using the best available chemical data on the Fenton Hill zircons from Gentry et al. (1982b) and Zartman (1979), the equations in Humphreys et al. (2003a) provide ridiculous “dates” that range from hundreds to millions of “years” old (average: 60,000 ± 400,000 “years” old [one significant digit and two standard deviations] and not 6,000 ± 2,000 years as claim by Humphreys et al., 2004). Contrary to Humphreys (2005), his mistakes are not petty or peripheral, but completely discredit the reliability of his work.
I think ICR is affect loaded. For years they argued that because there is so little helium in the atmosphere, the Earth cannot be very old. Helium gas floats to the top of the atmosphere and drifts off into space, so there can never be a large accumulation of the stuff in the air. ICR is making a similar argument here: That helium must migrate out of rocks and drift away. Alas, there isn’t much support for the claim that helium cannot be contained in a rock matrix, especially under significantly greater pressures achieved in large rock masses, deep underground. There are a lot of examples of gases being trapped in rocks; that helium in the air drifts away does not mean helium in rock will drift away.
Third, the RATE project tends to rely on disproven or highly questionable claims, rather than solid science. The claims of polonium haloes once were published in a reputable journal, but retracted by the journal after scientists trying to replicate the results discovered that the author had sampled much newer magma intrusions in granite*, and not the base granite at all (* that is, lava that squeezed into cracks in the granite). ICR continues on as if the paper had not been found faulty, as if the results had never been retracted. In any other context, this would be considered academic fraud at best. Were it done as research under a federal grant, it would be a felony.
Fourth, there is the issue of whether RATE can do anything other than fog up the area. One of the original goals of RATE was to date the rocks from Noah’s flood. As you know, claims that such a flood ever occurred are regarded as crank science among geologists. After several years of discussion and meetings, RATE participants announced they had been unable to distinguish which rocks on Earth are pre-flood, and which are post flood. Consequently, dating the rocks of the flood was precluded because they could not be found, reliably (or at all!).
This is long-term scam stuff, Joe. How many little old ladies and upstanding men in how many congregations have given how many millions of dollars to this quackery? Imagine what good could have been done had those dollars gone to honest enterprise among Christians.
Joe, does this stuff make you angry? It should. ICR confesses to have spent $1.5 million in this project over eight years — ostensibly a science project, and yet not one single publishable science paper out of it.
This is academic fraud of the most foul kind, to me. It angers me that ICR carries on these frauds with money contributed by trusting Christians. One has a right to expect better ethics from people who claim to be engaged in ministry for Jesus, I believe.
86 Comments | Creationism, Ethics, Evolution, geology, Higher education, History, Hoaxes, Physics, Religion, Science, Texas | Tagged: Creationism, geology, History, Hoaxes, Institute for Creation Research, Polonium Haloes, Religion, Science, Texas | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Photographic proof that George Bush has America backwards. (Avert your Cub Scout’s eyes — he shouldn’t see his president doing that to the U.S. flag. Your Cub Scout knows that the union should always be displayed to its own right — to Bush’s right, the opposite of how he’s holding it here.)
President Bush displays U.S. flag backwards, at Beijing Olympics. Ezra Shaw/Getty Images
Worse, there’s more:
But, by God! He’s wearing his lapel pin! Wearing the pin makes one immune to the rules of respectful flag display, one would assume, from the complaints of Sen. Barack Obama’s not wearing the lapel pin, and the remarkable silence from those same people about Bush’s many insults to the flag.
George Bush makes the case: We don’t need a Constitutional Amendment to make flag desecration illegal. We need Americans who pay attention to flag etiquette, instead.
Tip of the old scrub brush to Larry Perez, and to BuzzFlash, “The Diplomatic Decathlon: Bush’s Marathon of Olympic Blunders”
8 Comments | Flag etiquette, Patriotism, Politics, Presidents | Tagged: Flag Code, Flag etiquette, Patriotism, Politics, President Bush, US Flag | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Be sure to check out the customer comments, too.
I was looking for lesson plan ideas for government class. With my background in airline and airport management, this one just jumped out at me.
If only it were just fantasy for kids.
It may be useful for customer service classes and corporate training, too.
Big, wet and bubbly tip of the old scrub brush to This One Goes to Eleven.
Leave a Comment » | Airplanes, Classroom technology, Education, Government, Humor, Lesson plans, Politics, Travel | Tagged: Classroom Manipulables, Education, Government, Humor, Politics, Toys, Travel | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
This will be a short post, and so will confuse the long-winded but short-thought intelligent design advocates, especially those who claim to be philosophers, and especially those who claim to be philosophers of science who can see a role for intelligent design.
A short visit to Telic Thoughts last week produced a revelation that they have a new philosopher who wants to argue that intelligent design “philosophically” could be science, if. I answered that argument at some length, in lay terms, here: “Intelligent Design, a pig that does not fly.”
Dr. Francis Beckwith, at Baylor, appears to have dropped his campaign to teach philosophy in science classes since he rediscovered that God visits the Pope, and since he moved on to more serious philosophical pursuits and away from his practice of confusing people about the law of separation of church and state in America (especially confusing the Texas State Board of Education). We hope Beckwith sticks with philosophy and stays out of Texas textbooks.
So there was a vacancy in the phalanx of defenders of intelligent design, in the slot reserved for company store philosohers. Dr. Brad Monton volunteered for the job. Monton has a blog, here. Monton philosophizes at the University of Colorado.
What should be the role of theism in science? Exactly this: Theism should encourage scientists to be diligent, to be honest, to ask tough questions, and be kind. Theism should encourage scientists to be wise stewards of their lab resources and time, and to share the fruits of their work with humanity, for the benefit of all creation (no, not “creationism”).
That’s it. Honest and thorough, not mean. Work quickly and true.
If scientists stick to the noble purposes of their work, using these noble methods, we will see a quick death to creationism and intelligent design, which clamor and riot to be included in the science texts though they have not a lick of evidence to support them that is honest, true and nobly gained.
Philosophical debates do not belong in high school science classes, nor middle school or elementary school science classes. The fun of science, the honest ethics of science, the value of science, and the stuff of science are appropriate topics for those science classes. Especially school kids should not be encouraged to offer unevidenced, petulent denials of the facts as we know them. That will only encourage them to become larcenists, disturbed individuals, and Republican state legislators. Heaven knows we don’t need those.
Wes Elsberry agrees at his blog, The Austringer, but with more felicity:
The issue is not whether science could make progress in spite of re-adoption of 17th century theistic science, but whether theistic science could provide any benefit to the methods of science today. Monton, Plantinga, and the neo-Luddites have not convincingly made that case. Mostly, they haven’t even badly made that case. They seem to assume that science would be better off reverting to 17th century theistic science and become perplexed when scientists disagree with them. We had that debate, we call it “the 19th century”. Nobody has shown that the mostly-theistic body of scientists who decided to eschew supernatural conjectures as part of science were wrong to do so. Mostly, I think, because they were right to do so, and their reasoning still applies today.
Monton seeks a publisher. I wish he’d seek a course in botany, another in zoology, another in genetics, and one in evolution. He might find something worth publishing, then.
Philosophically, anything fits in science, if there is evidence to support it, and especially if there is theory that supports it and offers solid explanations that can be relied upon. But we don’t teach philosophy to kids. We teach the kids the evidence. Philosophically, any voodoo science could be considered science, if there were evidence to support it. Philosophically, the FAA should regulate flying pigs that pose a threat to commercial and general aviation. Pragmatically, however, pigs don’t fly. In regulation of our air space, and in our science classes, we rely on theory backed by hard evidence. I wish theists would all agree on that point, and shut up about intelligent design until some institute of discovery actually provides research results that provide evidence that ID is science, rather than philosophy.
See? I said it would be short.
10 Comments | Accuracy, Creationism, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Politics, Religion, Science, State school boards, Teaching, Voodoo science | Tagged: Creationism, Education, Evidence, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Religion, Science, State Boards of Education, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
300 popped up on some channel last night, and we got a time delay recording to watch it, which I did, mostly. Interesting stylization. Cartoonish characterizations, which one should expect from a movie intended as homage to the graphic novel that directly spawned it.
A monument to Leonidas I - Inscription, "Molon Lave," which roughly translates to "Come and get it!"
Several sources dated the climax of the battle as August 11, 480 B.C. — 2488 years ago yesterday. (The battle is said to have occurred during the Olympics that year, too.)
World history classes dig through that period of history in the first semester. Teachers, it’s time to think about how we’re going to facilitate this history this year. As always, some bright student will wave a hand in the air and ask, “Mr. Darrell! How do they know what happened if no one survived, and nobody had their Sony videocorder?”
At least one other student in the course of the day will be surprised to discover the movie wasn’t a filmed-on-the-spot documentary. But apart from that, how do we know the events well enough to pin it down to one day? And, since the Greeks surely didn’t use the Gregorian calendar, since it wasn’t invented until the 18th century — how do we know the date?
The short answer is “Herodotus.” The longer answer may resonate better: This is one dramatic battle in a year-long fight for the history of the world. The Greeks were understandably and justifiably proud that they had turned back Xerxes’s armies and navy (The Battle of Salamis, a bit after Thermopylae). So, these events were preserved in poetry, in the chronicles, in song, in sculpture, and in every other medium available to the Greeks. Your AP English students will probably tell you the movie reminds them of The Iliad. There’s an entré for discussion.
Turning points in history: Had Xerxes succeeded in avenging his father’s, Darius’s, defeats, and subjugated the Greeks, history would be much different. The culture the Romans built on, the trading patterns from east to west and around the Mediterranean, the technologies, the myths, and the stories of the battles, would be different. (Remember, one of Darius’s defeats was at the Battle of Marathon, from which we get the modern marathon racing event, the traditional close of the modern Olympics.)
How do we know?
How do you handle that question? Tell us in comments, please.
Resources and commentary on Thermopylae, Leonidas, and the 300:
3 Comments | 480 BC, Accuracy, Ancient history, Education, Famous Battles, Greece, History, History Methods and Tools, Movies, Travel, War | Tagged: Entertainment, Famous Battles, Greece, History, Leonidas, Movies, Spartans, Xerxes | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
You are currently browsing the Millard Fillmore's Bathtub blog archives for August, 2008.
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 