BLOG

Stormy weather conditions have scrubbed today's planned launch.  NASA will try for another launch tomorrow at 3:26 p.m. EST.  Rats.  This happened the last time I tried liveblogging a launch. . .

If you care for such stuff, be sure to watch the launch of Space Shuttle Discovery at 3:49 p.m. EDT online via NASA's live television.  (Right now I'm watching the astronauts being strapped into their seats.)  The TV coverage is complete with live commentary, interviews, etc.  According to the launch blog, there was some lightning around the launch pad earlier, but so far all plans are a go.  If lightning is detected within about 12 miles of the pad near the time of liftoff, the launch will be postponed.

The New York Times has a story published this morning about the launch.  There has still been concern by some parties over the safety of the shuttles since the Columbia disaster in 2003, but NASA administrator Michael Griffin believes enough safety measures have been taken to ensure a successful mission.  Apparently one astronaut, Charlie Camarda, who flew on last year's Discovery mission, was fired for voicing too much criticism of today's launch (HT to Slashdot).

This mission, STS-121, will deliver cargo to the International Space Station, perform maintenance, and test new equipment and safety procedures.

 

Courtesy NASA

As much a this cell phone user hates to admit it, he is compelled by the honesty and truthfulness of the journalistic spirit to begrudgingly present a recent study to you, suggesting that using a cell phone (even a hands-free unit) is as impairing to a driver as being drunk.  The University of Utah study shows that the distraction of talking to someone else over a phone removes our attention from the road (as could be expected), to a similar extent as a 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level (perhaps not as expected).  The study emphasized that there was no significant difference in risk between using a hand-held or hands-free unit--contrary to some current city laws, I might add.

The study involved participants driving a simulator, either while talking on a phone or while intoxicated (0.08 percent blood-alcohol).  They had to follow a pace car that "braked intermittently." 

While I  have no reason to doubt the results of the study, and in fact am not really surprised, I'm determined to think up all the criticism I can muster against the authors' conclusions: “This study does not mean people should start driving drunk,” said Frank Drews, a U of U psychology professor. “It means that driving while talking on a cell phone is as bad as or maybe worse than driving drunk, which is completely unacceptable and cannot be tolerated by society.”  Let's see what I can do.

1.  Does this car simulator really give us an accurate picture of most driving situations?  Highways, for example, involve few stops and starts, and neighborhood roads don't normally involve tailgating.  Yet is a cell phone user just as dangerous in your neighborhood or in the express lane as a guy who's had one too many?
2. Does this mean that drivers should not talk to other passengers, or listen to the radio, while in stop-and-go traffic?  What about reading road signs?  What about distractions from other drivers' turn signals?
3. The car simulator involved in the study was a PatrolSim.  Does the study imply that police officers who communicate over phone or radio are as impaired as the DUI offenders they arrest?
4. Exactly who were these study participants talking to on their cell phones?  Members of the opposite sex from the U of U psychology department?  Were they trying to distract the drivers?

Certainly, there's something to be said for cutting down distractions, especially in driving conditions that are just plain dangerous, with or without cell phones.  But studies like the one above lead to laws--laws that restrain liberty in an attempt to eradicate our personal responsibility to avoid danger and harm.  On Germany's autobahn, drivers don't multitask like they do in the U.S.  But in the U.S. we have speed limits.  We also live in a culture where demands and responsibilities are tightly scheduled, and where instant communication is essential to productivity.  Indiscriminately banning cell phone use on the road would be a blind swerve around a pothole.

The following post is from Creationism and Baraminology Research News, written by Crevo (who has recently become a contributer at William Dembski's Intelligent Design blog, under the more biographical web name "johnnyb").  In it, he discusses the fundamental differences between Creationism and ID, and takes a stab at why the two groups are not always friendly.  A thoughtful analysis of a controversial issue.  I raise a couple questions about this post in the Research News comments section.  Post used by permission.

[title shamelessly stolen from a classic Internet post]

Intelligent Design seems to be the whipping boy of nearly every community. The Darwinists accuse the ID'ers of being Creationists, and the Creationists accuse ID'ers of either being evolutionists or of leaving out important details. I've thought about this for a while, and I think I finally discovered why ID is so hated -- neither of these communities has a clue about what Intelligent Design is all about.

The problem with both the Darwinists and the Creationists is that they are trying to look at Intelligent Design as a theory about origins. It simply is not. I understand where the confusion comes from -- ID'ers tend to say a lot about the origins debate. But the fact is that ID is not a theory of origins, but rather a theory of causation.

ID's main idea is that agency (also called "will" or "mind" -- I try to avoid "mind" because it is too intertwined with physical notions of the brain) is causally distinct from chance and necessity (also called natural law). This is not to say that agency is totally independent of the other two, only that chance, necessity, and agency have distinct ways in which they influence the world. This might not seem revolutionary to many, but to formally include agency as a causative force in science truly is.

Continue reading ID and Creationism--Of Holy Wars and a Plea for Peace

Scientific academies from around the world have issued a statement advocating the teaching of evolution to all children.  It's the sort of evolutionary propaganda you'd expect from the mainstream scientific establishment, but given in more direct terms.  Evolutionists are becoming increasingly forceful with their views, perhaps feeling pressure from ID theorists and Creationists.  If you have children (I don't) you should be even more concerned about this.

The Interacademy Panel on International Issues (IAP) "Statement on the Teaching of Evolution" argues that "scientific evidence has never contradicted" the following assertions:

1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

As you can read, the statement takes a dogmatic stance on the age of the earth and universe, granting them 4.5 and 11+ billion years, respectively.  The second bullet point seems to be a given and I have no disagreement with it.  In the third paragraph, the statement claims a specific age for biological life, and argues that plants coevolved with the atmosphere.  In the last paragraph, the statement attributes biological (specifically, genetic) similarities in organisms to common ancestry--clearly a case of interpreting data to fit one's own philosophy of origins.

The IAP statement strikes out with its own definition of science, which we understand to include Darwinism, and exclude all else.

Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and (ii) formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still unobserved phenomena.

 At the beginning of the statement, it had said,

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world, within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data, and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed, denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an understanding of the science of nature.

What's most disturbing about the statement is its intent to pressure parents, teachers, and governments to teach a specific philosophy of origins to children. In the face of Christians and other religious adherents, a culturally elite group (Darwinian scientists) is becoming increasingly hostile to disagreement, now urging "decision makers" (government officials?) to teach children only one theory--that they descended from apes.  Now they urge, will they soon demand?  Read these quotes by Yves Quere, Co-chairman of IAP, from the BBC story:

"We know of schools in various parts of the world where the children are told that the Earth is about 8,000 years old.  So in this statement we say you cannot teach this to children, it is wrong.

"In some countries, the simple theory of evolution is denied in the teaching of children in schools."

 So even though your kids belong to you, parent, it is "wrong" for you to teach them, or allow them to be taught, Creationism, Intelligent Design, or any alternative to what the science elites dictate--common ancestry, macroevolution, gradualism, Big Bang.  If any alternative theory of origins becomes available, it is the science elites who will give you permission to share it with your children.

Sounds like a Marxist doctrine to me, friends.  Just be thankful you still have the privilege of raising your own kids.

When all of us hoped it would go away, the global warming debate is front and center again, with sources like the BBC and the New York Times giving ink to global warming doomsayers.  The New York Times focuses on the "controversial field" of geoengineering, a branch of science that seeks to rearrange the earth's surface for the benefit of humanity--in this case to combat global warming.  A few of the harebrained ideas suggested include injecting sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, spreading iron in the ocean (in hopes of creating plankton blooms), or even creating mirrors to orbit the earth and shade it from the sun.

 More lemurs have been discovered in Madagascar, and this time they are about as small as mice.  Three new species have been named Microcebus mittermeieri, Microcebus simmonsi, and Microcebus jollyae.  This brings the number of mouse lemur species to 16 on the African island of Madagascar, the only country in the world where lemurs are found in the wild.

A snake has been discovered that can change its skin color like a chameleon.  Enhydris Gyii  is a poisonous water snake from Borneo that may be endangered.  Does anyone know if there are other known snake species that can change colors?

If you thought the advocates of homosexual rights have given up trying to scientifically squelch the idea of "choice" when it pertains to homosexual behavior, think again.  A Canadian study claims to point to "a prenatal origin to sexual orientation development in men."  The author of the study compared biological brothers with adopted brothers and measured their tendency toward homosexuality.  The results suggested that the biological brothers were most likely to share the homosexuality trait.  The author concluded that factors in the womb contribute to the development of gay tendencies in humans.  From the BBC story:

Andy Forrest, a spokesman for gay rights group Stonewall, said: "Increasingly, credible evidence appears to indicate that being gay is genetically determined rather than being a so-called lifestyle choice.

"It adds further weight to the argument that lesbian and gay people should be treated equally in society and not discriminated against for something that's just as inherent as skin colour."

 But what about the influence (or lack of it) of parents on the children?  It seems to me that parental influence is vital and complex factor that should be taken into consideration--especially when adoption is involved.  Also, even if it were true that some people had a tendency toward a behavior (say, to torture) does not excuse their wrong behavior.

Hershel Shanks, Editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, comes to the same conclusion I did about the "Judas Gospel" in his editorial for the magazine's latest issue (July/August).  He calls the National Geographic Society's promotion of the ancient gospel "unjustified sensationalism," and says "The idea that this new gospel might be an accurate historical report of the reason for Judas’s betrayal of Jesus is arrant nonsense."  Clearly, explains Shanks, the Gospel of Judas was publicized on the basis that it offered a possibly more historical version of Judas--one that contradicted the canonical gospels and traditional Christian teaching. Says Shanks,

The headline in The Washington Post . . . was typical: “Newly Translated Gospel Offers More Positive Portrayal of Judas.” The first paragraph of the story revealed that the newly translated gospel “depicts the most reviled villain in Christian history as a devoted follower who was simply doing Jesus’ bidding when he betrayed him.”

More than 33 inches later, the article notes that “Scholars disagreed on whether the gospel shed any new light on the historical Jesus and Judas Iscariot.” Even that’s an exaggeration. The fact is that it will be a rare scholar who will argue that this Gnostic gospel is historically trustworthy in its description of Judas’s motivation in betraying Jesus. If I am wrong, I hope some scholar who takes that view will contact me.

Yes, and please send me a copy of the message.

Images have raised Cain in the last few years.  From Abu Ghraib to Denmark, simple frames of color or black and white have incited protests and been blamed for violence.  Some photos have been graphic and disturbing.  Others just made people mad.

Some publishers have personal guidelines to help determine what is appropriate for print.  However, what is appropriate varies according to the nature of the publication and its current audience.  Issues of morality may come into play, and images that are permissible under the law may be unacceptable under religious conviction.

I interviewed two picture editors to ask them about the sticky area of image ethics.  One edits for a Christian news magazine, the other for a regional newspaper.

Continue reading the interview article " Image Ethics in Journalism."