Monday, March 24, 2008

Hey! Where's the science?!

For many years now, the annual science and technology survey (2008 available here) has reported that the majority of Americans get their science knowledge from television (with the internet becoming a growing source). It has also revealed that, on average, Americans only get about 8 questions out of 15 regarding various topics correct.

Could this poor science aptitude have something to do with their source?

This looks like it may be the case. This new journalism survey for 2008 reveals just how little time the media spends on science. Out of 15 categories the study looked at, science got the absolute least coverage ranking in at less than 1% of the air time on cable. Evening news was slightly higher getting as much as 2% of the airtime.

Surprisingly, among top stations CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, MSNBC actually had the least amount of science coverage (most likely as a result of the extensive 2008 election coverage in which MSNBC strongly outranked other stations). Perhaps the low priority on science for MSNBC explains this stupidity.

Regardless, it's no wonder science literacy is so pathetic in this country (and I'm not just talking about evolution) when the primary source for information on the topic is far more concerned with celebrity gossip.

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Flare Research: Observations have been made!

Earlier, I reported that I've been in contact with Paul Butler to see if he could observe any of the stars from the Schaefer paper I mentioned in my first post on this topic. I got an Email the other day saying four of the nine stars have been observed (including κ Cet, which had been previously observed). The data analysis is still in the works, so no word yet on whether or not they have planets, but it's a good start in a new direction.

From here, I think the next step may be to start looking at archival data of these stars: both the ones that have been known to have flares to see if they've done anything else exciting, as well as the ones that are known to have close in planets to see if they've done anything exciting. At some point next week I'll also be meeting with another one of the professors in the department who's more experienced with observational astronomy than the professor I'm working with who focuses more on astrobiology than stellar properties.

Well that's just stupid...

Awhile ago, I blogged about a judge that let a felon using stolen credit cards, get out of jail time because he knew Pslam 23.

Now, we have a judge letting someone guilty of murder, attempted murder, domestic assault, and drug trafficking out of of prison if he goes to church once a week for 2 months.

I have nothing against counseling services being offered by churches so long as they're secular if the government is forcing people to go to them. But going to explicitly religious services as a court requirement? Well that's just stupid.

Especially in light of the fact that prison ministries that are mandatory have been ruled unconstitutional.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

Who got the tickets? OR The Flip Flops of Stuart Blessman.

In this whole affair with PZ getting kicked out at Expelled, one of the things that is glossed over by the creationists is that tickets weren't necessary. But apparently some people got them. Stuart Blessman said,
Our head pastor [of his campus church] was recently offered two pairs of tickets to go see an advanced screening of Ben Stein’s “Expelled”...
Orly? So religious organizations get invited? I still wonder why Creationists are confused when others see this an an inherently religious message.

Especially when, of the 18 screenings listed on the sign up page, 13 are explicitly religious organizations. The rest are colleges. I'm not familiar with them, but anyone want to take a bet as to whether they're going to be religious universities or hosted by campus churches? Yeah. I wouldn't tag that bet either.

Regardless, aside from the bit about the tickets, it looks like Blessman's account is a bit twisted. In the main body of the post (which was appended later), he says,
Yet in the comment Blessman had left earlier, he had said,
So which is it Stu? Was there any way that it could be inferred that he was being disruptive? Didn't think so.

Additionally for someone that claims to have been "literally 3 feet away", he didn't seem to listen too well, given that the claims,
the man [PZ] certainly didn’t identify himself.
Yet PZ even admits that the security guard asked him if he was PZ Myers and PZ affirmed that he was!

I'm also skeptical of Stu's comprehension skills given that he claims
...the film’s main point was that Intelligent Design should be taught in conjunction with Evolution.
Really? Everything I've heard about the film, from much more experienced reviewers and a good deal of other sources, is that the main thrust of the film is "ZOMG! We're persecuted by evil atheist scientists who are directly responsible for the Holocaust and Planned Parenthood!" Stu even affirms this, saying,
Sounds like he's switching his story again...

So Stu can't figure out whether or not PZ cause a "disturbance", can't remember if had revealed his identity, and can't even figure out what the movie's main thrust is. Yet the Creationist camp has been all over this inconsistent account. Really is about their standard isn't it?

Friday, March 21, 2008

ITT: I disprove the second law of thermodynamics

Right. So we all know that a favorite Creationist argument is to say that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution and the big bang.


First let's take a look at the usual definition:
The Second Law of thermodynamics says that everything tends to go from an ordered state, to a disordered state. Thus, there is no way that life (order) could have risen from a pre-biotic soup (disorder) or even increased in complexity (order) as it supposedly evolved.

Similarly, the Big Bang must be wrong because it says that the universe started off in an explosion (disordered) and spontaneously formed galaxies (ordered).
Hm. That definition that creationists use so much seems to be missing something....

Oh yeah! That bit about closed systems and energy not being put into the system! We'll let's add that back in and start testing the second law out in a thought experiment.

Let's imagine I have a pot of water. If we take a look at water at a molecular level, it's rather disordered. The arrangement of the molecules in regards to one another has no rhyme or reason.

As I just noted, if you add energy to the system (boil it), using the creationist definition with that bit about adding energy actually added, this would indicate that we should see more "order". However, the exact opposite is the case. If energy is added (ie, heat) the water turns to gas and there is even less order. In the other case, if energy is removed from the system, it becomes ice which, on a molecular level, is a highly "ordered" crystalline structure.

The second law got it backwards! Looks like I've disproven it.

I can has Nobel prize now?

Note: This is not actually intended as a proof against the second law. Rather, it's a demonstration of how pathetic the creationist definition really is. For a more comprehensive definition, take lots of math and science and eventually a few courses on thermodynamics. Or just visit the Talk Origins page on it (which still requires a bit of Calculus understanding).

And it just keeps getting better...

And just when you thought that the producers of Expelled couldn't get any dumber, they do. Apparently, for a movie that's all about promoting free inquiry, they don't do a very good job. In fact, they'll go so far as to kick people out who have signed up for a free screening. Yet apparently, even after interviewing Dawkins, they missed kicking him out too. Oops. Hypocritical and dumb.

As always, this just goes on the growing list of dishonety in Expelled I've been compiling.

PS: Did you know - Expelled was screened at the Creation Museum of AiG's last month? And IDists wonder why we think it's a religious agenda?

Monday, March 17, 2008

Flare Research - Well damn...










Tuesday, March 11, 2008

It all makes sense now!


Monday, March 10, 2008

Mother in the Sun: Take 2

As if it weren't stupid before, it seems another 50 people in India have lost their vision trying to see the Virgin Mary by staring at the sun.

According to one doctor, “Most patients may hopefully improve their vision.”

How about next time we hopefully improve their intelligence?

Novel mutations

One of the silliest creationist arguments is that there's no such thing as a beneficial mutation. Even if we get them to admit that there is, then they make the argument that in order to get a beneficial mutation, they have to do damage to themselves.

This is obviously falsified by nylonase, and now, is falsified by a new species of bacteria that can metabolize hairspray.

Both of these discoveries come from the Japanese. Shame that things coming from Japan tend to go right over the heads of Creationists, who still think Pokemon is actually how evolution works.

Sins: New and Improved!








Sunday, March 09, 2008

Oh my, OK

It looks like Oklahoma is up to some stupid new tricks. A new anti-science bill (HB 2211) is about to pass the House and go on to the Senate. What does it do?
I'm not going to point out the obvious abuses of this law if it passes.

But in reality, I'm not sure that it's impossible to get around. It just teachers need to be a bit smarter about asking the questions. Instead of asking, "What is the age of the universe?" they should change the question to, "According to all available scientific evidence that is not based in logical fallacies (ie, Creationism) and recognized by the scientific community, what is the age of the universe?"

Unless a student's religious beliefs tell them that lying is appropriate, they can't change what the scientific community has actually said, even if they disagree with it.

Of course, that's a mouthful to stick before every question, so it would be better to just stick that foreword as a disclaimer at the beginning of each test, or even to the class in general. Then students have no excuse not to at the very least learn and understand what's being taught.

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

More on Expelled - Did he really say that?

I added Google's Analytics to my blog a week or two ago and have been taking a look at where my traffic comes from and where everyone goes here. It seems that a significant amount of traffic comes from Google, and that the most common keywords people are finding me through, was various searches for information on the Expelled movie.

I haven't written much about it, aside from a post when the movie was first announced. It didn't really say much about the film other than apparently it existed and producers lied about their intentions.

But since it comes up high on the search for Expelled I figured I should put in some real info. So I've gone back and written up a summary of everything that's been released about the film and its methodology. I'm not going to bother reposting it here, but if you're interested, check it out.

Meanwhile, in pulling together all the information from that post, I found a quote from Ben Stein that absolutely astounded me:
Assuming it all did happen by Random Mutation and Natural Selection, where did the laws of gravity come from? Where did the laws of thermodynamics come from? Where did the laws of motion and, of heat come from? Where, I guess that's the same as thermodynamics. Where did all these laws, that make it possible for the universe to function, where did they all come from?
Seriously? Evolution doesn't explain gravity?!

And just when I thought creationists couldn't get any dumber...

They'll take anyone

It looks like the Coast to Coast radio program recently had the producers of Expelled on their show. Must be a high honor for the ID crowd. After all, they're finally finding a place to fit in: On a show that has repeatedly invited moon landing deniers.

(Note: I should remember that IDists already have a place where they fit in seamlessly.)

Monday, March 03, 2008

Oh Kansas...

Kansas weather is wild.

Yesterday I was walking around downtown in shorts and short sleeves. It was 70º and absolutely beautiful outside. Today, the high shouldn't even get above freezing.

The labs I teach are Monday and Wednesday nights. Last Monday, as I walked home, I nearly fell twice. The first time was on a north facing hill that the sun didn't hit which was still covered in ice from the frequent snows we've been getting. The second time was on a south facing hill that was mud. Oh, and it was snowing. While it was 34º out.

Kansas weather is wild.