1. Anti-terror law requires God be acknowledged

Comment #293595 by RedPen on November 29, 2008 at 10:16 am

It's really unfortunate to see this. It's too bad Kentucky is so stupid.

2. We can't hide in our labs and leave the talking to Dawkins

Comment #292444 by RedPen on November 27, 2008 at 4:27 pm

When we leave the talking to just Dawkins, we see voices like Dinseh D'Souza go unchallenged. That's why we need more things like this blog post destroying Dinesh D'Souza and his awful arguments about atheists and science.

3. £35,000 of taxpayers' cash given to 'atheist bus' group

Comment #291742 by RedPen on November 26, 2008 at 5:44 pm

It is to these voices that we need to listen.

Good for the BHA.

4. Atheist Foundation of Australia Bus Slogan Rejected!

Comment #291735 by RedPen on November 26, 2008 at 5:16 pm

The more we get out the message, the better it will be. The people running this ad company should be ashamed of themselves.

Don't forget, the AFA can always use donations.

5. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #288972 by RedPen on November 22, 2008 at 11:24 pm

The truth of the matter about marriage is that it is an entirely secular, legal contract as far as the state is concerned.

When will these religious nuts learn that?

6. Uncertain times for US Religious Right

Comment #285031 by RedPen on November 16, 2008 at 2:57 pm

If the Republican party is going to rebound, it's going to be through their discriminatory views on social issues and science. It's likely the problem that is Bobby Jindal will make an anti-liberty and anti-science splash come 2012.

7. SC priest: No communion for Obama supporters

Comment #284527 by RedPen on November 15, 2008 at 11:44 am

So I guess no Captain's Wafers for Obama supporters? Shame

8. Obama will move to veto Bush laws

Comment #281137 by RedPen on November 9, 2008 at 7:46 pm

Maybe now American scientists can catch up with Japanese researchers.

Fuck Bush.

9. Japanese researchers make brain tissues from stem cells

Comment #280528 by RedPen on November 7, 2008 at 5:22 pm

The Japanese are pulling ahead. Let's hope Obama can change things.

http://forthesakeofscience.wordpress.com/2008/11/06/japanese-researchers-begin-to-pull-ahead/

10. The Trolls Among Us

Comment #223118 by RedPen on August 1, 2008 at 1:51 pm

What a large set of assholes.

11. The Return of Religion

Comment #212049 by RedPen on July 16, 2008 at 2:10 pm

"There are two reasons why people start shouting at their opponents: one is that they think the opponent is so strong that every weapon must be used against him; the other is that they think their own case so weak that it has to be fortified by noise."

Strawman dichotomy.

12. Tablet Ignites Debate on Messiah and Resurrection

Comment #204814 by RedPen on July 5, 2008 at 8:18 pm

This is clearly evidence for the repeated use of a literary device/style. However, I don't see how Christians aren't going to simply interpret this as a prediction of their messiah. This gets us nowhere definitive.

13. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #190595 by RedPen on June 9, 2008 at 9:29 am

Removal of foreskin is mutiliation in the same sense as cutting one's fingernails not because both grow back but because neither one serves much use. A better analogy may be the common cosmetic surgery of removing extra skin around the neck.

[quote]Only if you count the infections caused by medical and medically-ordained parental meddling with infant foreskins, as above.[/quote]

This is merely anecdotal, but every uncircumcised person I've known has had issues with infections at one point or another. In fact, one recently had his foreskin removed because the issue was so bothersome. Incidentally, he reports no change in sensation or sensitivity (just as every study has essentially concluded).

[quote](And I usually abhor spelling flames, but anyone who claims to speak with authority about circumcision should learn to spell it. The suffix "-cise" (meaning to cut) is invariable.)[/quote]

I make many typos, but rarely spelling errors. This is one of those rare instances. Thank you for the correction.

14. Male circumcision is a weapon in the sperm wars

Comment #189842 by RedPen on June 7, 2008 at 10:57 am

This is little more than political commentary and personal bias. It certainly is not good science.

First of all, the use of "genital mutiliation" is substituted for the neutral phrase "circumcision" more often than not. That should be the first hint that this is bull. Second, for this to be remotely plausible, a radical harem society would have to be in a place, and that is emphatically not a characteristic of most human societies, especially in the general population. Third, in most instances of circumcision it is the father and mother who have a say in what is done. If the idea is to reduce fertility and if there is selection pressure (there isn't), then it won't be long until parents who are against cicumcision dominate.

Finally, circumcision does not cause a change in fertility, it has a lower infection rate than uncircumcized penises (you have one shot to get an infected penis when circumcized and that's at the time of surgery; an uncircumsized penis gets infected relatively commonly), and if it can be considered "mutilation" then trimming one's fingernails or plucking one's eyebrows is certainly mutilation as well.

15. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #164933 by RedPen on April 20, 2008 at 9:20 pm

I realize there is a distinction between "artificial" and "natural" when speaking of modes of selection, but I disagree with number seven. While "aritifical" selection entails conscious selection by humans and natural selection entails unconscious selection, I feel "artificial" selection is fully a part of natural selection. The distinction would be more helpful to be labeled "conscious" and "unconscious" selection.

Humans are a part of nature just as much as any other animals. We are nature. We are selecting. Ultimately, whatever we do is fully a part of natural selection.

I will post a thread in Evolution and Natural Selection. I hope you will respond, Professor Dawkins.