Comments by soul_biscuit

1. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235374 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 11:12 pm

Let someone else get the benefit of a proper education instead.

As a professional educator, I can say that it boils down to this far more often than I would like. Some people simply refuse to learn.

2. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235261 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm

PennAndTeller, I'm having a hard time figuring out the point of your post. The God Delusion is well titled, because in that book Professor Dawkins is absolutely trying to promote atheism. The book specifically acknowledges that. In the documentary "The Genius of Charles Darwin," however, Dawkins is promoting Darwin, and evolution.

The book and the documentary are too separate things with separate intents. Different objects. Wholly unrelated to each other.

That isn't so difficult, is it?

3. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235116 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 12:47 pm

I only ask because it just didn't seem like the sort of thing a student would ask. I mean, when I was learning about the parts of speech in English or about integration by parts in maths, it never occurred to me to say "Hey, why should we learn this stuff?"

When I was in high school, my classmates asked questions like this all the time. In every subject. The teachers found it rather exasperating.

And with a topic that gets people as riled up as evolution does, it's not surprising to me that a student should question the teacher on it.

4. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235056 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 11:46 am

Y'know, like those properly frightened politically correct school teachers.

Well, here's one schoolteacher who is (improperly?) not frightened. I will start my first biology class in September, and I intend to begin with evolution, after enough time is given to the nature of science itself.

5. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235040 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 11:32 am

It is hard to look mature and rational when you engage in name-calling.

I'm irresistibly curious. Can you provide some examples of Prof. Dawkins' name-calling in the documentary?

6. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #235031 by soul_biscuit on August 22, 2008 at 11:21 am

I have indeed watched the documentary - well, the first two episodes so far. And I do honestly think you were guilty of promoting atheism in that classroom - I watched the classroom section a number of times to make sure. I'm going to watch the relevant bit of the episode again right now to be absolutely sure.

I would be interested to see a specific example from that segment of the film that demonstrates how Prof. Dawkins was promoting atheism. I remember that section rather clearly, and all I recall the Professor doing is challenging the students' embracing of creationism on a purely scriptural basis.

When religion conflicts with reality, promoting reality does not equate to promoting atheism.

7. Charlie Brooker's screen burn

Comment #223782 by soul_biscuit on August 3, 2008 at 12:16 pm

They're always spoiling our fun, pointing out homeopathy doesn't work or ghosts don't exist EVEN THOUGH they KNOW we REALLY, REALLY want to believe in them.

Awesome, but it should be pointed out that science doesn't tell us that ghosts don't exist.

It does tell us that there's no evidence in favor of ghosts existing, though, so maybe I'm just being a contemptible pedant.

8. We Urgently Need Your Help Now!!

Comment #195683 by soul_biscuit on June 18, 2008 at 5:03 pm

This is terrifying. I wrote my letter, but who knows if it will have any effect. It looks like he's pretty well decided.

A biology graduate from Brown, with his weight behind a laughably unscientific bill. I weep for my country today.

9. The List: The World's Worst Religious Leaders

Comment #159470 by soul_biscuit on April 12, 2008 at 8:53 am

"Fine examples of Pavlov's operant conditioning in reality."

Pavlov was responsible for classical conditioning. Operant conditioning was first worked out by B.F. Skinner.

10. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #155886 by soul_biscuit on April 6, 2008 at 8:38 am

Yeah. If selection is happening at these higher levels, what is being selected? On what basis is it being selected? Wasn't the kind of saltationism they're presenting put to bed years ago?

And was the score really settled in favor of Eldredge and Gould on punctuated equilibrium? They were certainly right that natural selection is a maintaining force most of the time, only favoring change when there's a change in environment, but Gould seemed to be pushing for something more revolutionary than that. That's what this article smacks of as well.

I'll have to pay attention to this. It is pretty exciting, reservations or not.

11. Christian Founders 3D Adventure Computer Game

Comment #153023 by soul_biscuit on March 31, 2008 at 10:20 pm

Bigorra,

I wrote a similar letter regarding HR 888 to my congressman, and got a similar response. Let's hope that pile of shit dies in committee.

EDIT: Come to think of it, he said nearly exactly the same thing: "While I do not sit on the Committee reviewing this current legislation, I will keep your thoughts in mind as it moves through the legislative process. "

Do they get together and copy off of each other?

12. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120793 by soul_biscuit on February 2, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Teratonis: "And that would be a problem how?"

The problem with these debates is that they legitimize the issue in people's eyes. People who don't know anything about science will hear it, and think that the ID lot genuinely have a valid argument to bring forth. This isn't a First Amendment issue; no one wants to forbid these debates. Scientists merely need not deign to take part in them.

This battle is going to be won by education. I can't imagine what else will do it.

13. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120211 by soul_biscuit on February 1, 2008 at 10:37 am

Judging by the filler, I'm fairly confident that KKMS is a Christian radio station, and if they're having fellows from the Discovery Institute on their shows, probably a fairly fundamentalist one. I think they would be classed more as "ID sympathizers" than "ID enablers."

14. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113989 by soul_biscuit on January 21, 2008 at 6:54 am

I sent the unedited form letter, but then feeling like that was not much good I wrote an original e-mail to my representative, Denny Rehberg in Montana. I hope that does some good. I focused on the history angle a bit more than the form letter did.

15. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #113839 by soul_biscuit on January 20, 2008 at 6:15 pm

I see very little chance this measure will pass. It's rather blatantly unconstitutional for one thing. For another, it debauches the tradition of greats like Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin, who were undoubtedly Deists (at most.)

Still, I'm going to follow the link and see what I can do.

EDIT: I may have posted too soon. That's a [i]lot[/i] of reps.

Residents of those states, [i]please[/i] let those creeps know how you feel. The rep from my state is a pretty staunch conservative too; I think I might send him a message.

16. Richard Dawkins on The Late Edition with Marcus Brigstocke

Comment #109842 by soul_biscuit on January 9, 2008 at 10:38 pm

It was pretty damn funny, especially the doll. Hot damn!

Still doesn't topple the Stephen Colbert spot for "Funniest Interview with Richard Dawkins" in my book, however.

17. Springer opera court fight fails

Comment #94863 by soul_biscuit on December 6, 2007 at 9:39 pm

"Some US States still do. Here's one: http://mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-36.htm "

Those laws are unconstitutional, and if challenged would be overturned in short order. The Constitution's Establishment Clause forbids laws against blasphemy.

18. Chimps beat humans in memory test

Comment #93675 by soul_biscuit on December 3, 2007 at 10:22 pm

The research found that young chimpanzees outperformed human adults. I wonder what would happen if they put young chimpanzees against human children? Perhaps human children have a capacity for photographic memory that declines with age, just as chimpanzees do.

Pretty stunning research regardless.