Journal of Imaginary Sciences

The Caring Neanderthal

2010-10-15T10:49:00.002+01:00

Good morning and I hope people are going to have a pleasant weekend.

It gives me great pleasure to post about a new article and book on the evolution of compassion which has been co-written by one of my close friends. The Prehistory of Compassion, by Penny Spikins, Holly Rutherford and Andy Needham is a book concerning empathy and the role it plays in our evolution.

The proposal focuses on the concept that altruism and compassion derive from a successful evolutionary tactic according to Dawkins’ “Selfish Gene” concept. Spikins, Rutherford and Needham use this idea to evaluate whether or not compassion is a successful tactic and one that may have assisted us in our evolutionary success.

Penny Spikins, a Professor of Archaeology at the University of York and first author, has been interested in the evolutionary role of emotions for a few years. The ideas present in her book and the evidence she provides with her co-authors are matters that she’s discussed in seminars. This article shows the culmination of these debates and touches on a lot of evidence that was used in the seminars. As a result, the book shows a wide-range of ideas in how compassion evolved, the use of it in evolutionary terms as well as possible limitations.

As a former student of Penny’s and a former devil’s advocate to Andy’s ideas, I find it hard to find many criticisms in their paper. The concept is valid and has plenty of evidence in the form of burials, primatology and palaeopathology. However, is it the major factor in all of these cases? Are there other emotions that have played just as important parts in our evolution that haven’t been considered? Has the evidence been misinterpreted in some cases? These are possibly some of the questions that the researchers might give answers on soon.

In conclusion though, the main aspect to remember is this. We are social animals. Empathy and compassion are needed in these situations as strategies to cope with group living. The examples given from primates demonstrate that these social animals display similar qualities. As a result, Spikins, Rutherford and Needham argue strongly for emotions, especially empathy and compassion to be given consideration when establishing the factors for human evolution.

Relevant Links

Guardian Article

University of York article

Sample of the book

Penny Spikins' University of York webpage

Burial Outrage

In other news, the Ministry of Justice have imposed restrictions on human remains from archaeological excavations. The Ministry has decided to impose the 1857 Burial Act upon archaeologists which has caused outrage as it requires the remains to be reburied within 2 years.

Now I am confused on why they have done this. I can understand some people’s reluctance for human remains to be kept in the hands of archaeologists and this is why most burials that are attributed to particular religions are given to those religious authorities, therefore Christian remains are overseen by the Church and Jewish remains by the Jewish authorities, etc, etc. This I feel is a fair system, allowing a bond of respect to exist between the archaeologist and the religious.

Furthermore, two years is not particularly a long time to study remains. For my dissertation I looked at 17 skeletons from a collection of 63 which had been excavated in 2002. I started looking at these in 2007, five years after! In addition, the analysis done by the archaeologist on site was considered shoddy by many of the experts I consulted, misidentifying pathologies and in some cases not noticing them.

Another question that must be asked is what happens to those remains that have been in teaching collections? Does this mean the University of Bradford has to rebury its extensive collection of archaeological remains and therefore lose its reputation as the University to study Osteology? Photographs are only so helpful when analysing remains and often archaeologists encounter diseases, such as Leprosy, TB and syphilis which had greater effect on us before antibiotics. This could be a severe blow to the archaeological as well as the medical community.

With all these flaws in the argument as well as the aspects outlined in the Guardian I feel that this is going to cause a lot of outrage in the archaeological world and I do wonder how many collections will mysteriously become less than two years old.

Article is here

Other News

Is the White Horse of Uffington a dog?

Druidry is now a religion

2010-10-03T21:05:00.000+01:00

Hello,

Recently I read on the BBC News site that Druidry or Druidism has been recognised as a religion by the Charity Commission. The story here, outlines the acceptance of this belief.

Now the problem I have with Druids is not their core beliefs which worship the natural world, but the appropriation of prehistoric monuments and remains by their faith. The current model comes from 17th-19th Century Romantic views on Iron Age practises and are in conflict with current archaeological thought. Druids avoid sacrificing animals and people in the modern era because it goes against modern ideas. They have essentially made up this Romanticised ideal of how Druids used to be, if they actually existed. For example, I recommend noting the Druid, King Arthur Pendragon's name, which sounds to me, linked to Thomas Mallory than any actual "Celtic" Arthur or druid.

Druids also come into conflict with archaeologists over prehistoric human remains which they claim repatriation rights. This article from the BBC here, shows how they fought for the remains of a Neolithic child from Avebury, an era of prehistory far removed from their "Druids" by about 2 000 years.

My main concern is that this will give a form of legitimacy to the druids, letting them argue more eloquently for monuments and remains which are not related to them. This would be bad for archaeology as it could mean that prehistoric monuments are treated by druids as their Churches, creating additional conflict between them and archaeologists.

In other news, here is an article outlining the faulty reporting made by journalists on the ADHD story. Whilst I appreciated the scientific coverage and rebuttal by experts in the news, I feel that some, such as one Professor on the BBC, may have been a little too harsh on the journalists trying to interview him on his opinions on the case.

And unfortunately a new ID centre has opened in the UK. Claiming to focus on science rather than religion, hopefully it shall go the same way as Christian Voice, unheard and ignored.

Finally, the Guardian has some good articles on the problems the coalition will cause by cutting funding to science research, an area which frequently produces a good profit.

Science Funding in the UK

Don't cut science funding – you'll start a brain drain

The definition of kinds

2010-09-24T17:46:00.000+01:00

Recently, as I’ve been working with animal remains, I’ve become increasingly aware of the difficulties creationist thinkers have with defining the word “kind”. They use it a lot to try and get round the problem of speciation. Most creationists try and use it to suggest that animals can speciate within their own kind, but no further, so fish cannot evolve into an amphibian and no matter how many pennies you get, you can’t make a pound. Now the many problem with this is that they never define what a “kind” is. In one topic, I discussed with a creationist, he came up with three definitions, a genus, a biological family and types of enzymes. This short essay attempts to show why the current terminology for taxonomy is adequate for its task and that the concept of “kinds” used by creationist thinkers is fundamentally flawed and has no bearing on taxonomy.

Firstly, let us deal with the idea that a kind is a species. Unfortunately for creationists this is disproven by numerous account of speciation. For example here are a few papers which document these events in both the lab and the wild:

A Molecular Reexamination Of Diploid Hybrid Speciation Of Solanum raphanifolium by David M. Spooner, Kenneth. J. Sytsma and James F. Smith, Evolution, 45(3): 757-764 - DOCUMENTATION OF AN OBSERVED SPECIATION EVENT

Chromosome Evolution, Phylogeny, And Speciation Of Rock Wallabies by G. B. Sharman, R. L. Close and G. M. Maynes, Australian Journal of Zoology, 37(2-4): 351-363 (1991) - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Evidence For Rapid Speciation Following A Founder Event In The Laboratory by James R. Weinberg Victoria R. Starczak and Danielle Jörg, Evolution 46: 1214-1220 (15th January 1992) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Evolutionary Theory And Process Of Active Speciation And Adaptive Radiation In Subterranean Mole Rats, Spalax ehrenbergi Superspecies, In Israel by E. Nevo, Evolutionary Biology, 25: 1-125 - DOCUMENTATION OF OBSERVED SPECIATION IN NATURE

Experimentally Created Incipient Species Of Drosophila by Theodosius Dobzhansky & Olga Pavlovsky, Nature 230: 289 - 292 (2nd April 1971) - EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Founder-Flush Speciation On Drosophila pseudoobscura: A Large Scale Experiment by Agustí Galiana, Andrés Moya and Francisco J. Alaya, Evolution 47: 432-444 (1993) EXPERIMENTAL GENERATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN THE LABORATORY

Pollen-Mediated Introgression And Hybrid Speciation In Louisiana Irises by Michael L. Arnold, Cindy M. Buckner and Jonathan J. Robinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 88(4): 1398-1402 (February 1991) - OBSERVATION OF A SPECIATION EVENT IN NATURE

Attempting to claim speciation does not occur is therefore foolish and displays an ignorance of biology. The fact that creationists working in the field of Baraminology have not settle on this definition shows that they to find this problematic.

Another proposal is that a “kind” is a genus. Now, to me, working with animal remains and having to look up their names, the problem is already apparent. Let us look at the Pig Family or Suidae. Now the domesticate pig and Wild Boar are in the same genus (Sus), however, the Warthog genus (Phacochoerus) isn’t. Therefore, even creationists cannot accept this proposal as acceptable as according to them, they are “pigs”. The same also applies to the Cheetah, (Acinonyx jubatus) which is not part of the Panthera genus of lions, leopards, tigers and jaguars yet is clearly a big cat and related to them. Therefore this concept of “kinds” being the equivalent of the genus is wrong.

Concerning the biological families, this backfires on creationists spectacularly again. If we consider the Homindae family, this contains us, chimps, gorillas, etc. If we ask any creationists, I’m sure they will deny that we have a common ancestor with chimps nor that we belong in the same kind as them! This renders their concept of “kinds” as being unable to apply to their own standards.

Furthermore, with the two above definitions, scientists have come up with them for specific purposes. In taxonomy terms, genus and family have specific meanings and this alternative idea, “kinds” serves no purpose. Genus and Family are used to describe how closely related species are according to traits, both physical and genetic. This leads to a system which accurate describes how closely related modern species are to one another. Whilst it is very good at this, it is not so good when referring to past specimens such as Australopithecus, Ardipithecus and this has led to researchers in this field to describe the system as imperfect (taken from a seminar with Terry O’Connor). As a system it is not good at showing how one genus may evolve out of another (for example, Homo from Australopithecines), nor is it completely reliable when we examine extinct species such as Homo habilis (which may or may not be a species). However, this may be due to Linnaeus purposefully designing a static system as he was unaware of Evolution (Holmes, 2009, Pg 48).

Another suggestion from creationists is that a kind could be:

“Taxonomically, a kind is a group of organisms that share a basic set of exclusive synapomorphies. Members of the same kind, usually, should be able to interbreed although the resulting offspring may prove to be infertile.”

Taken from here

Now let us look at the Big Cats again, especially from the genus Panthera. In this case, Lions and Tigers definitely can interbreed and so can Lions with Leopards and Jaguars, in fact all of them can with one crucial exception. Leopards and Tigers have all be noted to have never produced any living hybrids. Furthermore, Leopards can produce hybrids with Pumas, a Pumapard. So is the Puma included into this “kind” despite the fact it can’t mate with anything else in the Panthera genus? What about the Wholphin? It is clear that by using the word “kind” in this context would seriously confuse taxonomical issues and would be impossible to use. Furthermore, this is not delving into the term Synamorphy which confirms Evolutionary theory concerning common ancestry.

The problem encountered with the Big Cats also arises with the Larus Gull. This genus is known as a Ring Species. Does that mean that these species are all the same kind?

In general the concept of “kinds” is wrong on various grounds mainly:

1. There is already established words for taxonomy.

2. No creationists can define the term in a rigorous fashion that is of benefit for taxonomy.

3. Animals interbreed in such a variety of ways and produce various hybrids that defining a category for “kind” is near impossible.

4. It admits the possibility that humans could have evolved from an earlier version (which no creationist will admit to) defeating their argument.

With this in mind, we are then directed back towards the normal methods of taxonomy, using definitions of species, genus, etc. Whilst there is some debate occasional about what constitutes as a species, (see the species problem) the system allows the definitions to be rigorous and furthermore provides more precision than “kinds”. Furthermore, it can be adapted from its original static state to show the evolutionary past of a species at the present moment in time. The subclass Elasmobranchii, which includes Skates, rays and sharks, indicates that these fish are more closely related to each other than a shark would be to a rabbit fish. These members of the class Chondrichthyes would be more closely related to each other than another member from the Infraphylum Gnathostomata (vertebrates with jaws) such as a crocodile.

Therefore, whilst the current system of taxonomy can obscure the fluidity of Evolution at the same time it can provide a great aid in deducing the relationships and connections between current species, genera, etc. The current system provides a service for biology that Baraminology, the creationist study of what constitutes a “kind”, cannot provide.

Holmes, R., (2009) The Age of Wonder, Harper Press UK

Interesting articles

My bright idea: humans found a nicer way to evolve

Cuts to science funding will 'destroy UK's potential' as world leader

A secularist manifesto

Its a kind of magic

2010-09-08T19:50:00.002+01:00

A sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic according to Arthur C. Clarke. This statement sums up the current situation with science. As a populace we consider science as magic, carried out by a select few who can understand the arcane secrets of this discipline.

Terry Pratchett along with Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart have also noticed this trend and satirises it in a series of science novels called “The Science of the Discworld”. Set on Pratchett’s Discworld, the novels feature the adventures of the wizards as they try and understand the Roundworld (our world) which they created in a magical accident along with some science lessons provided by Cohen and Stewart. The novels deliberately draw parallels with scientists and wizards as well as the university structure that many research scientists work within.

When considering this idea, it does not seem so far-fetched. A lot of scientific disciplines derive from studies that could be considered a form of magic in origins. For example, Astrology, with its magical abilities to predict the future produced the modern science of Astronomy. Alchemy paved the way for Chemistry and it was a theologically trained Natural Scientist (Charles Darwin) who overthrew the Church’s teachings of Creationism and wrote Origin of Species, producing the science of Evolution. It does seem apparent then that science and magic have common origins. Both try and influence our perceived reality.

However, as most students of science will probably be thinking now, science relies on something that separates it from magic. Science relies on observable reality and the concept of repeatability. A psychic radio presenter may have been able to entice a cat to her home (probably due to luck more than any powers she might have), however, it is unlikely that she would be able to perform this feat again, unless her neighbours regularly lose their cats. Magic, or anything that invokes a supernatural (i.e. unobservable) force is not subjected to the same rigour in any shape or form.

Unfortunately, not everyone is aware of the rigour, or if they are, they assume that their particular brand of mysticism is subject to the same scrutiny as a scientific paper, running the gauntlet of peer review. This has led to a popular following amongst the Pseudo-sciences, creationism, homeopathy, psychics, etc, who refer to half-baked “scientific tests” that they have been subjected to and found to have “worked”. As there is a lack of criticism sometimes for these people, their followers can use their mystique to ape science, effectively blurring the line for the general populace between what is science and what is magic.

The lack of knowledge in how science works has led to pseudosciences being considered on par with actual science. People are unable to distinguish our advanced technology from the magic of detox baths and ear candles which are touted as scientific. In essence, science has become too “hard” for the layman. All the explanations we learn at school are inadequate and seem unrelated to real life. This is why scientific theory and the scientific method are the most important aspects of science as it is a useful framework which produces far more benefits that memorising ligand colour changes as they react (an activity I was required to do for my A2 chemistry and has thankfully been dropped). Science is indeed a kinda of magic to people, especially with the effects you can get from some special experiments like Old Nassau (a fairly impressive colour change experiment). However, it is not magic, it is how the world works.

Interesting articles

Peer Review is no picnic

Science research cuts possible

Restarting (again)

2010-09-01T16:28:00.005+01:00

Hello and I am back again from another vacation from the blog. Currently I am working as an intern for a museum and I hope to share some of the experiences with you at a later date. Firstly though, I wish to start off discussing stereotypes.

Here are a few letters I have noticed from the Metro newspaper that I’ve been reading on my way to work.

Andrew McRae claimed atheism is not based on faith. However, it is equally impossible to scientifically disprove the existence of God as to prove it; belief is required to get to either conclusion, so therefore atheism is as much a faith as any other. Except, of course, that it does far less good for society as a whole. Has anyone ever heard of Atheist Aid or Atheists Against Poverty? No, I didn’t think so.

by Jeremy Clack

All the swans on my lake are white. There has never been a swan on the lake that was not white; therefore all swans are white. To an Australian, the arrogance and illogicality of this assertion would be breathtaking and yet it is the standard of argument advanced by atheist correspondents. If your neighbour were to win the lottery several weeks in a row, you would suspect something was amiss, yet the atheist assertion that life arose by random chance is many more times less likely than this. To deny that this requires faith is questionable at best.

by Jonathan Youdan

Now to me I’ve noted several untrue stereotypes and strawmen in these arguments:

Atheists are arrogant.
Atheists don’t give to charity.
Atheism is illogical.
Atheism states that life is random chance.
Atheism says there is no God, for certain.
Australians find atheists arrogant (which of course calls into question the existence of Tim Minchin).

Now as someone who has some understanding of what atheism and science is, I find the letters puzzling. They make several assumptions that are ignorant. Let’s go through why this is the case.

1. Atheists are arrogant

Again I disagree. In fact, someone like myself, who only postulates that as there is no evidence for any deity then there is no point in worshipping one, I find this bewildering. I’m not saying I am definitely correct, I am simply applying a logical argument. It is arrogant to state for certain any way and the atheists that do this could be considered arrogant in their beliefs. If we consider the case of Darwin, who turned away from the traditional Christian God due his life experiences, would anyone consider him arrogant?

2. Atheists don’t give to charity (or be involved with them).

Again, I used to regularly give money to the NSPCC and I have walked dogs for two charities. Furthermore during the Haiti earthquake, the British Humanist Association (a registered atheist charity) set up an organisation to allow people to donate to secular charities that were assisting the aid for Haiti. This initiative actually came under criticism from atheists as they felt that this was un-necessary and that they were just giving to any reputable charity. I honestly cannot see how being religious in this case makes someone a better person.

3. Atheism is illogical

Atheism is the simple lack of belief in any deity as there is no evidence. As someone pointed out in the Metro, not believing in unicorns is considered logical.

4. Atheism states that life is random chance.

This one is partially true, if we ignore the fact that atheism is not science. It is chance that life exists on Earth in its present form, but as we understand Evolution is not completely random since there is some form of selection, natural selection. As we are unaware of the exact circumstances surrounding the start of life, it is a bold claim. Until we can produce a living cell from elements without artificial intervention and tinkering like Craig Venter did, we cannot say for certain how random a chance life is. It could be that with the huge amount of space and time in the universe, life is certain.

5. Atheism says there is no God for certain

Again a fictitious claim. Especially as the BHA bus slogan was “There probably is no God”.

6. Australians find atheists arrogant

A very bold claim considering there are Australian atheists such as Tim Minchin who would have a field day with this bloke.

In all, this article shows that the people here are writing from ignorance. They have picked upon a general stereotype generated by people about atheists. Now this stereotype is very unpopular which is a pity as it prejudices people against those without any religious convictions and helps create inequality. Now I could ruin this point completely and act in a manner which confirms some of these beliefs in atheists right here. I could slate religion completely and as such completely invalidate myself. But I will not simply to prove otherwise. I consider Quakers as a very open-minded sect and I enjoyed the time I spent at Bootham School as the values mirrored my own and I suspect the values of many atheists. Now as Quakers are very individualised, this means that I cannot stereotype them, however, the values that they preach at places like Bootham School and the Quaker societies in York, mean that I can label some of the Quaker groups that show the thoughtfulness of some religious people.

Stereotyping in essence is something we’ve produced from our instincts. Spotting patterns is an intrinsic part of being human and this predictive “software” can be faulty. Instead, careful thought is required in order to avoid this.

Historical Science

2010-06-19T19:14:00.002+01:00

Recently I've come across a rather peculiar argument from the creationists which is the subject of my last post.

From Answers in Genesis:

Operational (Observational) Science: a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.
Operational science is the type of science that allows us to understand how DNA codes for proteins in cells. It is the type of science that has allowed us to cure and treat diseases, put a man on the moon, build satellites and telescopes, and make products that are useful to humans. Biblical creationists believe that God has created a universe that uses a set of natural laws that operate consistently in the universe. Understanding how those laws operate is the basis for scientific thinking.
Some events defy natural laws. Christians refer to these things as miracles, but naturalistic science must find a way to explain these occurrences naturally. This approach rejects miracles in the Bible because they cannot be explained using natural laws. Such scientists occasionally try to explain the miracles in the Bible as natural phenomena, but this ultimately undermines the authority of God and His Word.
Historical (Origins) Science: interpreting evidence from past events based on a presupposed philosophical point of view.
The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable; so interpretations of past events present greater challenges than interpretations involving operational science. Neither creation nor evolution is directly observable, testable, repeatable, or falsifiable. Each is based on certain philosophical assumptions about how the earth began. Naturalistic evolution assumes that there was no God, and biblical creation assumes that there was a God who created everything in the universe. Starting from two opposite presuppositions and looking at the same evidence, the explanations of the history of the universe are very different. The argument is not over the evidence—the evidence is the same—it is over the way the evidence should be interpreted.
Evolutionists often claim that people misuse the word “theory” when discussing science and don’t make a distinction between a scientific theory and the common use of the word “theory.” You may say, “I have a theory about why Mr. Jones’ hair looks funny” but that theory has never been compared to a broad set of observations. This is not the sense of a theory in science.

From here

I included the first part for comprehension and whilst its wrong, as creationist literature is, it is the second part that puzzles me. The past is not directly observable, testable, repeatable or falsifiable according to AIG. From this they extrapolate that the science used to study the Big Bang and Evolution is flawed, subject to interpretation. Which of course, is bullshit and twisting historical studies.

I cannot deny that our perception of the past is often interpretation. Stand two archaeologists in front of an excavation and more often and not they will produce different interpretations of what is going on. And so far, creationists look to have understood this part. However, what they have failed to grasp is that this is due to variables that require direct observation. In a court case, this argument would be pretty weak if the defendant's fingerprints were on a gun used to shoot and kill someone which was found in his possession after he was seen running away from the scene. It is very unlikely that someone else killed them (despite the stories in Luther and Life on Mars). Even then, you could more or less guarantee that the murder weapon was a gun. People are often unpredictable elements requiring observation to guarantee their actions. Other things aren't always as whimsical. If I looked at a skeleton and saw an arm like this:

I can guarantee that the individual suffered from an infection around his ankles. This is undeniable and the message behind my previous post. Evolution relies on the same type of evidence, using the same techniques which have been tested throughly on modern samples and then adjusted for possible rates of decay/error. It also uses more than just physical objects but molecules as it looks at DNA and the current evolution of species. Answers in Genesis have ignored this in their pretty little hypothesis and it has led them to formulate a deception.

Hopefully next week I shall also look at why people practice these deceptions....

Scientists find sell by date

2010-06-19T18:42:00.001+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, 2010, Vol 34

Scientists find sell-by dates on bones

A new discovery made by scientists has shown that scientific evidence has a sell-by date as a controlled collection of skeletons has disappeared from the Manchester Museum.

The scientists set up the experiment to falsify a claim made by the Creationist group, Answers in Genesis, that historical scientific theories are interpretations rather than objective concepts of scientific evidence. In order to do this, they demonstrated that this meant the scientific evidence such as human remains would have a sell-by date. They attempted to demonstrate this by seeing if any evidence would change under observation.

"As we came in one morning the bones were found to be missing. We would normally suspect somebody stealing these remains, due to their value, however, since they were part of this test, we suspect that the people in Answers in Genesis were right and that the open window is a concidence."

Answers in Genesis spokesperson commented:

"This highlights the problems with historical theories such as Evolution and shows how we should treat Creationism on par with Evolution."

Placebo, the new wonder drug

2010-06-06T18:56:00.002+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, 2010, Vol 33

Placebo pills, the new wonder drug

Doctors have released a new wonder drug today which they state has a 60% effectiveness against all known illnesses. The drug known as the Placebo is a little white pill which doctors claim has the same impact as homeopathy and other alternative medicines. A leader doctor had this to say.

The great thing about this new drug is that there are no side-effects, unless needed, it is extremely cheap to make, will reduce the dependency on antibiotics that people have and it is based upon observable medical trials. Currently we are advising doctors in the best ways in which they can present the medicine in order to assist the success rate.

The drug's ingrediants are being kept under strict secrecy at the moment, but from the display of different products, it seems that it has a wide variety of uses as well as being able to be dispensed in a variety of ways. However, some alternative medical practioners have other ideas.

This is mocking our ideas and concepts. They are using our own methods and practices but merely using sugar to try and treat people. It is outrageous they would do this.

Teaching, serious business.

2010-05-30T19:49:00.005+01:00

And I'm back. I apologise for the lack of posts, but it has been a very busy two months.

Last month I withdrew from the teacher training course I was on as I felt it wasn't for me. Towards the end I was working constantly day and night trying to keep up with the workload. With that in mind, I'm glad I left the course as it has considerably improved my life. However, I have been left with the utmost respect towards teachers with their considerable workload. So if you ever see one of your old teachers in the pub, buy them a pint. After all, they spent hours trying to drill into you, knowledge that you need for later life, thinking of the best ways to do it, whilst coping with political demands for how they should run their jobs and losing a lot of social time during it. Especially as you may have been taught by them during puberty, a period of development that most parents dread, nevermind the less respected teacher...

I would go through the news, however, I feel places such as Bad Science which are mentioned on my blog, give far more detail than I could manage here.

However, I thought I would have fun with a dissection of idiotic drivel and a humorous post making fun of the concept of Pascal's Wager. Please note dear reader (in case you are one of the people unable to read the motto) this is only a satire and I do not think these highly respected and elderly individuals would get up to such energetic disputes. They might have a heart attack!

Here is an email my girlfriend got at work. If you receive this email, you may wish to write back with the following criticisms.

Sorry, i was wrong!

In the age of fifty years Mohammed married a six years old girl (Aisha bint Abu Bakr), the apostle of the Islam started to sexually abuse the child when it was nine years old. Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr and one day when Mohammed visited Abu Bakr's house, he got to know her. Aisha was a cheerful, liveliest small girl and Mohammed was very impressed of her kind, so he started joking with her . . . Sahih Bukhari 7,62,64: Aisha told that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death) (1). Mohammed was a friend of slavery and was caught by one of his many wifes, when he had sexual intercourse with his slave Maria al-Qibtiyya. Maria herself was a present of someone . . . The holy Quran (24:33): "If your slave girls desire to keep chaste, you shall not force them to prostitution. And whoever forces them, then Allah, seeing that they are forced, surely is Forgiving, Merciful."

Muslim 8,3371: Abu Sirma said to Abu Sa'id al Khadri: 0 Abu Sa'id, did you hear Allah's Messenger mentioning al-'azl? He said: Yes, and added: We went out with Allah's Messenger on the expedition to the Bi'l-Mustaliq and took captive some excellent Arab women; and we desired them, for we were suffering from the absence of our wifes, (but at the same time) we also desired ransom for them. So we decided to have sexual intercourse with them . . . But we said: We are doing an act whereas Allah's Messenger is amongst us; why not ask him? So we asked Allah's Messenger, and he said: It does not matter if you do not do it, for every soul that is to be born up to the Day of Resurrection will be born (1). Muslim 8,3432: Abu Sa'id al-Khudri reported that at the Battle of Hanain Allah's Messenger sent an army to Autas and encountered the enemy and fought with them. Having overcome them and taken them captives, the Companions of Allah's Messenger seemed to refrain from having sexual intercourse with captive women because of their husbands being polytheists. Then Allah, sent down regarding that: "And all married women (are forbidden unto you), except those whom your right hands possess" (Quran Sure 4:24). This means that Mohammed, the apostle of the Islam, and his friends have raped defenseless, married women and that Mohammed really tried to justify this through religion (1)! Rape of married women, child abuse through an over fifty years old man and a live full of blood, fear, violence, oppression, massmurder, dispossession and slavery, Mohammed surly had also many good ideas, but of course he wasn't one of the holy messengers of God, it never has given a need for five Islamic prayers a day, for Ramadan, to wear a headscarf . . .

There are two different opinions regarding to the emergence of this world, some people think, that this world with all live and all events would be a tiny part of the logical causal chain which started with the big bang, the others are convinced of it, that it is finally the fault of Adam and Eve because they have not observed the one holy law of God: "When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her . . ." According to the religious view the big bang is a willfully deception of God, a scientific explanation for the emergence of this world which was given, because without the doubt in God, it wouldn't be possible to test the faith and unbelief of mankind and the sense of this world would get lost. On the other hand, a causal chain out of cause and effect can not have a beginning respectively emerge out of nothing, this contradicts to the laws of science, therewith there's not only no cause before or for the big bang, but also no energy which would have been necessary for the big bang, even not a tiny disbalance between anything. If two fingers are pressed together, is nothing between them or rather no matter, thrust therein that the universe, the human himself and the bright world which surrounds the human not emerged out of the completely harmless nothing between two fingers or without God, this is simply an imagination which was invented by some humans and which is finally impossible. In the first states of the USA such stories were deleted already successfully from the curriculum, so that they weren't taught any more to the children in the schools. Depriving children of their faith is a serious crime, it's in the hands of our generation to stop the systematic and unfair education of many million children to the unbelieve!

If the big bang could have happened without God, practically everything could have emerged out of this, but this universe was build exactly so, that the suppositions for live are given, for example without voltage no brainwaves could flow, without radiation this world would be dark and ice-cold, without atoms and the possibility to build molecules live would be impossible, the same would be without many other chemical properties and reactions or without elements like oxygen or carbon or hydrogen or . . ., also the lost of continuity or time or space or matter or the three states of matter or movement or physical or chemical energy or different agencies or . . . would make live finally impossible. Without intelligence something absolute senseless would have emerged out of the big bang or out of nothing, but of course no live. Yes, the frightening recognition is, that the universe was constructed deliberately exactly so, that the suppositions for live and higher live are given!

For the alleged chemical evolution of live, a first living and survivable unicellular organism would have been necessary, but a just 10 µm large cell, a very complex, perfectly compound, three-dimensional puzzle or a survivable machine out of at least 10 quadrillion pieces (16 g/mol), atoms of different kind and attribute, impossibly could be washed together in an unrealistic puddle out of cytoplasm, be bound together in the same second by many different chemical processes into a flexible unit and get enliven also in the same moment, to start to breathe, to eat, to grow . . . and to produce randomly complete and living self-copies, which will grow up some day to intelligent structured humans. If we are honest we must admit, that even not only one single dead DNA strand could be washed together in a liquid. Already the DNA strands of the first survivable cell must randomly have conformed exactly to the cell construction, beside this DNA strands are written in a very high programming language, until today nobody can understand how or by which encoding systems this codes get transcribed into commands, movements and material constructions. For the DNA strands and for every of the different cell organelles of the first survivable cell must also have been directly there the belonging to copysystems or already the first cell division would have been impossible, the human even wouldn't be able to build the technology of only one material system which could copy itself, try to build a computer which could copy itself!

The functions of cells partially happen on the molecular and atomic level, if the dateless old atoms, out of which we and the cells are set together, would be as big as table tennis balls, an average human brain with 1250 to 1375 g would take in a little bit more space than the whole planet earth with its diameter of 12700 km (13,5 g/mol, the volume of a table tennis ball is 33,5 cm^3), it's a wonder that a grown thinking machine of such complexity ever could work without going defect. If the 10 quadrillion atoms of a 10 µm large unicellular organism would be as big as table tennis balls, this unicellular organism would take in the whole city Tokyo by a hight of more than 500 meters. If God would build a machine out of 10 quadrillion atoms of different kind and attribute, this machine wouldn't die any more after its commissioning, because it really would start to breathe, to eat, to grow, to move . . . to survive independently in its world and to divide itself many trillion times, to conquer the planet and to travel to the moon. If God would construct a machine with such properties, it would be so small, that we even couldn't see it with our multicellular eyes. We have got no idea about the intelligence of God, the creator out of nothing, but surly it's not grateful to use the by God constructed brain to say, that a dirty puddle was the inventor of live.

A just 10 µm large unicellular organism is a very complex, perfectly compound, three-dimensional puzzle out of at least 10 quadrillion pieces of different kind and attribute, but a chemical evolution even wouldn't be able to wash correctly together a DNA string or a two-dimensional computer program character string out of 1000 signs, which is written with only 10 different letters, because with every sign, which will be attached after the first sign, the probability that the program was written correctly sinks by the factor 10, so the probability that a computer program out of 1000 signs will be written correctly by random or will be washed together in a dirty puddle is 10^1000 (a 1 with one thousand 0). In contrast to this, today we know, that the whole universe contains less than 10^100 atoms totally and that it is less than 10^18 seconds old. If the universe would be 100 times smaller or younger, the chance that the chemical evolution really happened would be 100 times less, if the 1000 sign computer program would be 100 times shorter, the chance that the chemical evolution really happened would be 100 times bigger, so we can stroke out the zeros: 10^1000 - 10^100 - 10^18 = 10^882. We have reduced the whole universe to one atom and an age of one second through only 118 letters! So the iron proof for the absolute impossibility of a chemical evolution was written down!

A long time ago was created a world which seems to be produced and controlled by random and in which we can decide without the fear of God, so it would be good to decide just like Jesus would have done (1,2). Even if this world seems to be produced and controlled by random, Jesus told us that God decides about everything, even on which side a coin will fall or when a bird will die. Jesus said that whatever a man sows, this he will also reap, so the good and the bad that we effect, in any way will also be our own destiny. It was also said that the good what we can reach for God in this world, will be our own richness in the eternal Paradise. The live in this world seems to be real and its existence is also only a wonder, so are we the causal chain out of nothing, a network in the dark which thinks about itself and starts to believe in God or are we made by an insidious and everything-observing intelligence? Some humans will be happy for 100 years and some will be sad for 100 years, but when this life ends the eternity will begin, so why to life for a worthless dust particle when it comes about the entire universe.

This chain letter was sent to millions of people worldwide and can also be published or forwarded.

This email was sent over an anonym remailer string and can't be answered.

1. Whilst Islam may have its faults, so does Christianity. I will not go into details trying to refute any points as I know next to nothing about this religion, however, I feel that when we look at the behaviour and apparent justifications of some Christians, it is extremely hypocritical to even consider pointing out the flaws of Islam from a fundie perspective which considers us all sinners because someone in our mythical ancestry ate an apple.

2. The author of the email does not know anything about the science behind the Big Bang. Physicists have been pondering what caused this sudden expansion and have derived a number of scenarios including string theory. The problem is testing these ideas, however, Turok has some interesting ideas on how to do this...

Wired article here

The great thing here is that it underlines the whole beauty of science. Fundies, such as the author of the email, have an answer. They stick to this answer because it explains things very neatly to them, however, it does not answer a lot of questions nor does it become useful in any particular way. Science on the other hand, demands some way of testing these answer, to attempt objectivity and restrict personal bias. It allows people to think and question interpretations and in general, make people aware of how brilliant things are as well as keeping us humble with what little we know.

3. So before I was even conceived of as an idea, never mind my parents or grandparents or great grandparents, two people condemned us to be sinners because they were told by the ultimate power not to eat some fruit? Shouldn't this power have already anticipated and expected this? To me it seems rather sadistical. And lacking in evidence.

4.

If two fingers are pressed together, is nothing between them or rather no matter, thrust therein that the universe, the human himself and the bright world which surrounds the human not emerged out of the completely harmless nothing between two fingers or without God, this is simply an imagination which was invented by some humans and which is finally impossible.

If anyone can interpret this sentence I would be grateful. I honestly don't understand it. All I can say is that there is loads of space if we consider it, between the fingers. The electrons in the atoms are repelling each other apart, this means nothing ever touches each other.

5. In the United States, the founders intended to separate Church from State, to ensure that no religion is able to be more influential than the other. This First Amendment protects this fundies rights along with everyone else in this country. I feel it is a justified law which goes far in respecting a child's right to learn about other ways of life and not be blindly indoctrinated as the author suggests.

6. The author makes the mistake of assuming that because the conditions are right on this planet for Earth, God exists. This is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy which equates this to firing three shots and drawing bullseyes around them before declaring yourself an expert marksmen. A dose of Douglas Adams is highly recommended.

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Furthermore, I have just read Stephen Jay Gould's amazing book: Wonderful Life which argues against this idea that everything is set in stone in elegant prose. I recommend it to everyone.

7. The author then mistakes Evolution with abiogenesis. Evolution simply explains the diversity of life and how it evolved from one cell. Abiogenesis is the field which examines how life arose. This is not relevant and many theists believe that Evolution works.

8. This paragraph is a bit of a Gish Gallop, so this might take some time. The author makes the argument from design using irreducible complexity. This idea is flawed in many ways, not at least as scientists look at structures, they often find that IC is disproven. This idea stems from lack of knowledge, we don't know how this happened at the moment, so we won't find out later. This is what science should always avoid as it is clear that given enough time, something new will be found out. Abiogenesis is a fairly new science and extremely exciting. It has been proven very recently that we can create artificial life, i.e., using scientific equipment and methods to construct a cell, see this exciting article for more. With this and the research carried out on abiogenesis, it shows that it is possible to produce good ideas of how life arose.

9. Now the author says that DNA is too hard for us to understand therefore, life could not arise naturally. I find this extremely arrogant and amusing. I spent a minute on wiki before finding a relevant article which shows how DNA works, suggesting the author is making arguments from personal ignorance. Considering we have only had knowledge about how DNA works for less than 60 years, I think this is an "I dunno" argument. This should be ignored or extra information asked for.

10. Besides the usual, "this is so complex it couldn't have happened naturally" argument, the author begins to discuss chance. Now the problem is, as most people know about Evolution, it isn't chance. Evolution has natural selection selecting positive traits with some neutral mutations also occurring. So if something is advantageous, it will be fixed into the DNA because of the principle that if you can survive to breed, it is passed on. Richard Dawkins discusses this in the Blind Watchmaker, using the computer program generating random letters to form the words "Methinks it is like a weasel". I'll let Dawkins explain the rest:

We again use our computer monkey, but with a crucial difference in its program. It again begins by choosing a random sequence of 28 letters, just as before ... it duplicates it repeatedly, but with a certain chance of random error – 'mutation' – in the copying. The computer examines the mutant nonsense phrases, the 'progeny' of the original phrase, and chooses the one which, however slightly, most resembles the target phrase, METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL.

By repeating the procedure, a randomly generated sequence of 28 letters and spaces will be gradually changed each generation. The sequences progress through each generation:

Generation 01: WDLTMNLT DTJBKWIRZREZLMQCO P ^[2]
Generation 02: WDLTMNLT DTJBSWIRZREZLMQCO P
Generation 10: MDLDMNLS ITJISWHRZREZ MECS P
Generation 20: MELDINLS IT ISWPRKE Z WECSEL
Generation 30: METHINGS IT ISWLIKE B WECSEL
Generation 40: METHINKS IT IS LIKE I WEASEL
Generation 43: METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL

He continues with:

The exact time taken by the computer to reach the target doesn't matter. If you want to know, it completed the whole exercise for me, the first time, while I was out to lunch. It took about half an hour. (Computer enthusiasts may think this unduly slow. The reason is that the program was written in BASIC, a sort of computer baby-talk. When I rewrote it in Pascal, it took 11 seconds.) Computers are a bit faster at this kind of thing than monkeys, but the difference really isn't significant. What matters is the difference between the time taken by cumulative selection, and the time which the same computer, working flat out at the same rate, would take to reach the target phrase if it were forced to use the other procedure of single-step selection: about a million million million million million years. This is more than a million million million times as long as the universe has so far existed.

In essence what Dawkins is saying is that natural selection decreases the time taken significantly in this program. This highlights the flaw in the author's argument, Evolution and abiogenesis are not random, if something works just slightly better than the rest, it will be selected. Change is gradual, not sudden.

11. The author finally ends up with a meaningless paragraph stating that God controls everything. So why did he make two humans that were without choice, eat an apple that he knew they would do and controlled them to do so before punishing them? Furthermore, how does the author know he is right, or for that matter, how does he know the Bible is God's word?

I feel that this is required and furthermore, accurately demolishes the author's illogical argument.

Any comments or any requests to gain access to Craig Venter's paper just email.

Pascal's wager

2010-05-30T19:21:00.003+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, 2010, Vol 32

Pascal's Wager causes riot amongst religious leaders

Today religious leaders had to be separated as a theological discussion turned into a argument of might.

Since Darwin produced his ideas on natural selection, religious leaders have been attempting to combat this idea with worked out creation stories, suggesting that you should believe in religion due to Pascal's Wager. However, one of the key criticisms presented by scientists was that there are too many religions to determine which creation story should be taught.

With this thought in mind, religious leaders including the Pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, some senior rabbis and imams, proceeded to organise an event to determine which faith should be represented.

During the three day event, leaders of every faith proceeded to make arguments for their cause. However, this turned violent as the arguments began to focus on the negative qualities of each religion.

"Well, it really began when one senior Muslim official heard a Jewish rabbi refer to Mohammed as a paedophile. Then it turned nasty" said one anonymous source. There was a lot of name calling, then pushing and shoving before finally, someone nearly pushed the Pope over. Then, the Archbishop of Canterbury used his mace to crack a few heads open. Last thing I saw was the Archbishop in a headlock with a cardinal shouting something about Henry the Eighth..."

Atheist observers were extremely amused at the scene and helped restrain some of the more violent religious officials.

"I thought we weren't meant to have the moral high ground here..." one atheist chortled. "At least it shows that no matter what religion, people are generally the same....

Human brain mutations.

2010-03-31T15:47:00.003+01:00

I stumbled across today, an interesting article on Colin Blakemore's proposition that a single mutation caused a massive development in the human brain. Unfortunately, whilst I can have great respect for Professor Blakemore's previous work, I am not entirely convinced by his propositions.

Let us see what Professor Blakemore has to say:

How Human Brains got bigger.
BBC News interview

Now Blakemore is not saying, Evolution did not happen in these cases, nor that the Evolution that occurred but that it seems to be a mutation that has not been influenced by Natural Selection.

I was asked to give the Ferrier prize lecture at the Royal Society and as this is the society's 350th anniversary I decided to do something special and face up to the issue of the human brain. The question is: why is it so big compared to the brains of our predecessors, such as Homo erectus? Until 200,000 years ago, there had been a gradual increase in brain size among hominins, starting three million years ago. Then, abruptly, there was a remarkable increase of about 30% or so.

Now I've just ferreted out one of my favourite graphs on this situation. People that are familiar with Talk Origins may be familiar with this graph:

As we can see, from the cranial capacities, the trend in general is an increase. Now if we look at the increase in cranial capacity from 250 000 years to now, there is no startling, fantastic changes to be honest. The rate of growth seems to fit the general trend of cranial capacity growth, in that it has increased in the predicted gradient.

How have scientists explained this jump in brain size?
Many have argued that if there was a dramatic increase in brain size, there must have been a fantastic advantage that came with it: improvements in tool construction, more complex language and other cultural changes. In other words, they say simple natural selection explains what happened.

I think Blakemore underestimates the power of tool construction. Making tools is one of the major human accomplishments. We do it in a way which is far more complex than any other animal. We can visualise the shape we want in the rocks, we can use tools made out of bone and wood and this only really occurs later, even after we gain this massive brain. Furthermore, I think he's putting the horse before the cart. The increase in brain capacity allowed society to advance, as can be shown by the level of culture and the relationship to brain size. In all, Blakemore seems to show very little understanding of these matters.

So what is your take on this view?

I think they're fooling themselves. There was very little change in human behaviour at this time, as far as we can see from the fossil record – certainly not one that is explained by a sudden jump in the size of the human brain. These hand-waving arguments about tiny changes in culture explaining the emergence of such a huge change in brain structure just doesn't hold water. It's like arguing that a reptile suddenly developed fully formed wings and then sat around for 200,000 years before suddenly saying: Oh my God, I've discovered I can fly. It's ridiculous.

No Colin, its like letting a child learn how to count, then, once their brain is developed enough, teaching them that 2+2=4. That's a completely fallacious argument. If you never taught a human how to count and then give them a spontaneous equation to solve, you don't expect them to do it. What it is more like is having the reptile using flaps of skin to glide, before eventually, after some evolution, to start to fly. There is no lack of evidence that Homo erectus used their brains to form social connections and advanced tool making. What the difference is, however, like anthropologists including Stephen Mithen have said, is that they were limited in comparison to us. Increase in intelligence led to better social skills, better imagination and better tools, that is clear evidence for a mutation to have a positive effect, which leads to it being selected. All the bullshit about it not being part of natural selection is rather problematic.

So what did happen?
Genetic studies suggest every living human can be traced back to a single woman called "Mitochondrial Eve" who lived about 200,000 years ago. My suggestion is that the sudden expansion of the brain 200,000 years ago was a dramatic spontaneous mutation in the brain of Mitochondrial Eve or a relative which then spread through the species. A change in a single gene would have been enough.

OK, now here are two major problems. Firstly, Colin is making the statement that Mitochondrial Eve or a relative is the one that got this massive mutation that expanded the brain. He puts it at 200 000 years ago. Now I think he's misinterpreted the Mitochrondrial Eve Theory. What the theory proposes is that Mitochondrial Eve is our last comon ancestor. Yes all our DNA can be traced back to her, but this is because other lineages have become extinct in the 200 000 years. Evolution happens at population level, not individual level.

The second problem is that this does not account for our sister species, the Neanderthals. A species with an equivalent and even greater cranial capacity which is missing from Colin Blakemore's argument. I think we can safely establish that Neanderthals are definitely a separate species from our own.

The arguments that Colin Blakemore puts forth are riddled with problems, some of which I think may be derived from his lack of expertise in the field. Whilst I can see that within his own field he is definitely an established expert and if I had the experience I would hesitate to even begin to criticise him, I think he has gone outside his field completely. I've not touched upon the genetics behind this, nor the arguments put forth in published journals testing this problem. I suspect that his standing has led the Guardian and the BBC to take his word as granted in this area without judging the worth of his arguments.

The Flight from Science & Reason

2010-02-21T17:48:00.003Z

Recently on my half term break I finally managed to pluck up the courage to read The Flight from Science and Reason, a collection of essays by scientists on the pseudosciences, which were attacking science quite vigorously.

Previously I've used it for the occasional essay, such as this one, about James Trefil's contribution, however, I've never read it from cover to cover which is a pity. This time though, I managed to cover the whole book.

One of the things that struck me is the lack of some issues which skeptics seem to miss. Afrocentrism and Feminist criticism of science are one of two areas. After reading one article on ecofeminism, I turned to the net and started analysing the sources on ecofeminism, the belief that it is a patriachal society which is destroying the environment.

After a bit of searching, I came across this article. What is Ecofeminism anyway?

The article is by Catherine and Colleen McGuire.

Lets start out with the basics shall we?

As a practice, ecofeminism is as ancient as our species. Many ecofeminists believe that the nature of our species is more in line with how we lived prior to the debut of written history. This period, extending back as far as 250,000 years ago, was a time when cooperation—not competition—was valued and necessary for species survival. New archeological discoveries of early civilizations in Mesopotamia yield a vast array of evidence that an egalitarian lifestyle and a unity with nature were prevalent among ancient peoples of those regions. Theories supporting territoriality, survival of the fittest, or man the great hunter are appearing to be inadequate, if not false.

Somehow they've managed to make a strawman of archaeology here. The fact that humans are both hunters and gatherers has been evident throughout our history. This seems romanticised. What's next? Should we not be blamed for the extinction of the Neanderthal?

Women's spirituality, such as goddess spirituality, has likewise left a distinct imprint on ecofeminism. Alienated by male-centered hierarchical religions, Westerners—especially women—are increasingly turning to spiritualities which validate female divineness and equality. Many people are also (re)embracing shamanism, the ancient, nature-based spirituality that was originally practiced by all humans everywhere, and preceded female-centric spirituality.

Here we have a bold claim. Ecofeminists are spiritual. This should set anyone's woo meter blinking. This was a major criticism made by authors in FfS&R, in that eco-feminism concentrated on this spirituality reference rather than the cold hard facts.

Although there is no one "correct" ecofeminism, most ecofeminists would agree with the core precept that the domination of women and the domination of nature are fundamentally connected. In other words, violence against Mother Earth came to be intertwined with an emerging urge to subdue and control women. These twin oppressions were created and are perpetuated by an ideology called patriarchy. Pinpointing the origins of patriarchal thought and practice is as elusive as trying to identify who invented the wheel. Suffice it to say, Western patriarchy arose roughly 5,000 years ago and has discombobulated our planet ever since.

So all women care for nature? What about the men? If there is one thing I hate is a reverse sexist position that some feminists produce. Note though the woolly claims. No substance and nothing to tie into the archaeological record.

The Western patriarchal belief system also places higher value on linear, mechanistic, analytical, and rational qualities. The intuitive, emotional, anarchic, and earthy are negatively perceived as passive, weak, irrational—and female. Nature is paradoxically considered inert, dead mass and a wild, chaotic force. By either reckoning, nature is to be dominated and harnessed for human ends. By extension, the patriarchal mind objectifies, controls, and devalues all that is labeled "female."

I suspect there is a sly attack on science there. Last time I checked, it was a male scientist who came up with some of the best points about nature, Darwin. To quote him:

There is a grandeur in this view of life.

Both women and men are socialized to accept these man-made values. Although men, too, are harmed by patriarchal practices, they nonetheless benefit from them at the expense of women. For example, men own 99% of the world's property while women perform two-thirds of the world's labor. Another example: men rarely shoulder the physical, social, political, or psychological consequences of the experience of rape (unless sexually abused as children or as prison inmates). It is women of all ages who are burdened with the psychic fear induced by a climate in which the threat of sexual violation looms like a distant rain cloud: sometimes miles away, other times hovering right over us.

Wow, a fear speech. I think what is confusing is that later on we get this claim:

Attacking patriarchy is not the same as male-bashing. The masculine sex is not "the enemy." Rather, patriarchy is a particular way of thinking whose practitioners can be of any gender.

OK, this is a separate section and might not have been written by the McGuires, however, its clear that it goes against what they say. Furthermore, they also say:

We as a species are in an arrested state of adolescence as insecure egos (mostly male)

A few more points:

Overpopulation is inevitable when the control of reproduction is wrested away from women, and educational and contraceptive resources are not broadly disseminated.
In ancient times, women exercised exclusive self-determination over their bodies. Our foresisters had extensive holistic knowledge about birth control, abortion, birthing, and other gynecological concerns.

Maaaaaaaaaggggggggic eh?

I can keep on, but its obvious that from points made by articles such as this, eco-feminism is merely a front for another form of reality denial. This romanticised idea of history (or should that be herstory?) and the rejection of logic makes these a topic of skepticism. The only problem is that as a member of the gender with the cursed chromosome, my viewpoint is probably patrichal and biased, despite my private beliefs on equality. Furthermore, it is disrespectful towards those who work against climate change by confusing the issue with woo and pseudoscience/ the rejection of science.

This is not real...

2010-01-31T17:26:00.002Z

Good evening and I thought I would start this post with a reminder that the preceeding article is not real. This is due to reports that yet again someone has actually mistaken my blog for the real thing. I can definitely assure people that Gavin Schofield is not in a coma although I do find the fact he described stomach pumps as rocking slightly disturbing, however, this might be due to excessive alcohol consumption after the event if this is true.

I've been following the 10:23 campaign recently and it looks very interesting.

Possibly with the combination of the recession and the campaign, MPs are expected to publish a report concluding that homeopathic remedies should not be on the NHS. I think this is a good idea and in the words of Professor Ernst may make pharmacists like Boots, healthcare professionals, not the shop keepers.

The Guardian has an article by Martin Robbins which outlines his reasoning behind joining the campaign and the evidence which shows the problems of homeopathy. Another article to read on this matter is Ben Goldacre's discussion of his Lancet article in 2007.

In all I hope this campaign has had the impact it intended. For further information please visit 10:23 Campaign Website.

500 Skeptics hospitalised in overdose horror

2010-01-31T13:48:00.005Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, 2010, Vol 31

10:23 Campaign is marred by hospitalisations

Yesterday, tragedy struck as 500 protestors against homeopathy were rushed to hospital after suffering from the massive overdose they took.

The 10:23 campaign was designed to protest against the selling of homeopathic remedies at the pharmaceutical store, Boots. In order to demonstrate that these pills were apparently non-functional, the campaign managers suggested that the protestors should down a bottle of homeopathic pills each at 10:23, a symbolic note of the Avagadro's constant, the number of atoms that make up one mole.

The campaign was organised by Michael Marshall, head of the Merseyside Skeptics Society, a branch of Skeptics in the Pub and was carried out, outside Boots stores across the country in Edinburgh, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, etc.

However, tragedy struck, as a few minutes after the videos were took, the protestors started to feel unwell.

"Well a few minutes after I took the medicine, I started to feel very nauseous, and promptly threw up. Thankfully I did because it stopped me from absorbing most of the effects" one protestor said.

Currently, Gavin Schofield, leader of the Greater Manchester Skeptics as seen on the video, is reported to be in hospital in a coma, whilst Michael Marshall, the head of the campagin is said to be recovering in his bed, but still in a critical condition.

Paula Ross, chief executive of the Society of Homeopaths, stated:

"This ill-advised stunt shows the dangers of skeptics becoming closed-minded in the effects of alternative medicines. I feel sorry that people are stupid enough that they overdosed on these medicines in an attempt to prove these ineffective. I hope the survivors will have more sense in future."

Ben Goldacre, author of the book Bad Science, doctor and journalist for the Guardian column "Bad Science" commented:

"I've commented several times on homeopathy being ineffective from clinical trials. After seeing the results first hand from yesterday I am shocked I ever thought homeopathy was harmless."

James Randi, the famous magician cum skeptic has also been criticised for his part in this misadventure. Years ago, Randi was noted for including in his act, a description of how he overdosed on a bottle of homeopathy pills in front of an audience and suffered no side effects. This account, along with the later attempts by Belgian Skeptics is thought to be the inspiration for Michael Marshall's foolish attempt.

The first podcast!

2010-01-23T16:32:00.003Z

After a bit of work I've successfully completed my first podcast!

The Genetic Evidence for Human Evolution

Also here as well:

I apologise for sounding blocked up on it, but comments and suggestions would be appreciated greatly.

Links for the cast are as follows:

Cann, RL; Stoneking, M; Wilson, AC (1987), "Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution", Nature 325 (6099): 31–6

Jones, M. 2000, The Molecule Hunt, UK

Leakey, R. & Lewin, R. 1993, Origins Reconsidered, UK

The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium, 2005, Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome, Nature, 437: 69-87

Nishikimi, M., R. Fukuyama, et al. (1994) "Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man." Journal of Biological Chemistry 269: 13685-13688.

Nishikimi, M., T. Kawai, et al. (1992) "Guinea pigs possess a highly mutated gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the key enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in this species." Journal of Biological Chemistry 267: 21967-21972.

Ohta, Y. and Nishikimi, M. (1999) "Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulano-gamma-lactone oxidiase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbind acid biosynthesis." Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1472: 408-411.

Futuyma, D. (1998) Evolutionary Biology. Third edition. Sunderland, MA, Sinauer Associates.

Todaro, G.J., Benveniste, R.E., Callahan, R., Lieber, M.M., and Sherr, C.J. (1975) "Endogenous primate and feline type C viruses." Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol. 39 Pt 2:1159-1168

Lebedev, Y. B., Belonovitch, O. S., Zybrova, N. V, Khil, P. P., Kurdyukov, S. G., Vinogradova, T. V., Hunsmann, G., and Sverdlov, E. D. (2000) "Differences in HERV-K LTR insertions in orthologous loci of humans and great apes." Gene 247: 265-277.

Enjoy!

Podcast next week

2010-01-17T16:49:00.003Z

Hi,

I'm currently preparing a podcast to be posted next week. It will explore the genetic evidence for Human evolution in about 15 minutes and try and show how scientists have constructed phylogenetic trees in accordance to the evidence. I may also include another podcast detailing the fossil evidence for human evolution too.

See you then.

Human Evolution 101

2010-01-10T20:15:00.003Z

In this series I hope to point out the specific areas which show that Humans evolved. In this I will be covering the fossil record, showing that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps.

As pointed out earlier, there are a number of fossils which show Evolution between humans and our last common ancestor with chimps.

Here we see a number of fossils from the hominins. Names are below:

* (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
* (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
* (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
* (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
* (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
* (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
* (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
* (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
* (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
* (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
* (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
* (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
* (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
* (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

Notice how they start to look like us as we go forward in time? The increase in brain size also confirms this.

The picture includes the relevant study as well.

Now we know that all ardipithecines, australopithecines and the ones from the genus homo are bipedal. This can be deduced from the fact that the structure of bone in their femur shows the cancellous bone to be adapted for bipedal walking according to Wolff's Law. Another piece of evidence is the foramen magnum. In all of these fossils, the foramen magnum is more vertical than chimps, highlighting that these are bipedal animals.

For more information on the subject of bipedalism read these papers:

Crompton, R.H., Vereecke, E.E. & Thorpe, S.K.S., 2008, Locomotion and posture from the common hominoid ancestor to fully modern hominins, with special reference
to the last common panin/hominin ancestor, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 501–543

Harcourt-Smith, W.E.H. & Aiello, L.C., 2004, Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy: 204, 403-416

Richmond, B.G., Aiello, L.C. & Wood, B.A., 2002, Early Hominin Limb Proportions, Journal of Human Evolution, 43, 529–548

Rodman, P.S. & McHenry, H.M., 1980, Bioenergetics and the Origin of Hominid Bipedalism, American Journal of Physical Anthropology 52:103- 106

Stanford, C.B., 2006, Arboreal Bipedalism in Wild Chimpanzees: Implications
for the Evolution of Hominid Posture and Locomotion, American Journal Of Physical Anthropology 129:225–23

Steudal-Numbers, K.L., 2006, Energetics in Homo erectus and other early hominins: The consequences of increased lower-limb length, Journal of Human Evolution, 51: 445-453

Furthermore, for more papers which show the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with chimps read:

Bastir, M., O’Higgins, P., Rosas, A., 2007, Facial ontogeny in Neanderthals and
modern humans, Proceedings of the Royal Society B; 274, 1125–1132

Cobb, S., 2008, The facial skeleton of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 469–485

Dean, C., 2006, Tooth microstructure tracks the pace of human life history evolution, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22;273(1603):2799-808.

Lewin, 1999, Human Evolution: An Illustrated Introduction, Blackwell Science, UK

Lucas, P.W., Constantino, P.J. & Wood, B., 2008, Inferences regarding the diet of extinct hominins: structural and functional trends in dental and mandibular morphology within the hominin clade, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 486–500

Sherwood, C.C., Subiaul, F. & Zawidzki, T.W., 2008, A natural history of the human mind: tracing evolutionary changes in brain and cognition, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 426–454

Tocheri, M.W., Orr, C.M., Jacofsky, M.C. & Marzke, M.W., 2008, The evolutionary history of the hominin hand since the last common ancestor of Pan and Homo, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 544–562

Wood, B. & Richmond, B.G., 2000, Human Evolution: Taxonomy and palaeobiology, Journal of Anatomy, 196, 19-60

Wood, B. & Lonergan, N., 2008, The hominin fossil record: taxa, grades and clades, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 354–376
Wynn, T., 2002, Archaeology and cognitive evolution, Behavioural and Brain Sciences 25, 3: 389-402

If human evolution is false then we would not see links between these species, which we do as I have many more papers which also detailed the cognitive evolution, showing how society has evolved in co-existence with the physical evolution of humans.

Another conundrum which Evolution solved is Lucy's hand. Chimps and gorillas have a feature in their wrist which allows them to do a form of quadrapedal walking called knuckle walking. It locks the wrist so that it cannot bend back like ours can, evidenced by Smith fractures. Now somewhere, we have lost that trait in our ancestry. Strait, et al, in an anatomical examination of Lucy the Australopithecine, found that these hominins have it whilst later ones such as Homo erectus do not!

Paper is here

This provides proof that this species is not a chimp nor humans as it is bipedal and has a feature only found in other Great Apes excluding ourselves!

Furthermore, if Evolution was false, we would not find this transition in the fossil record. Instead of this gradual increase in brain size, etc, we would see fossils like Homo erectus in the wrong place, a typical "Precambrian Rabbit problem." This shows that the fossil record supports Human Evolution.

Next week, Genetics!

Any papers you want to read? Please leave a message and I'll get back to you.

2010-01-10T20:02:00.003Z

Hello again,

Firstly I would like to draw people's attention to this campaign.

The 10:23 Campaign

I've signed the petition, and just for you lucky people, I'm going to link back my favourite homeopathy article from when I started this blog. Homeopathy Kills

Over on Greater Manchester Skeptics, Gav brought my attention to it. I recommend signing it as it as Chemists such as Boots shouldn't really have expensive crap on their shelves, it should be real medicines.

Also, I did this overview of Human Evolution, 101, setting out the reasons why experts know that Human Evolution happened from the fossil record. Next week, I'll discuss the genetics......

Happy New Year

2010-01-02T15:48:00.002Z

Hello and welcome to the first edition of the Journal of Imaginary Sciences in the new decade. I hope everyone has had fun this Christmas. I managed to get a illustrated version of the first edition of Origin of Species which I'm enthralled with and a review will be written once I've read it.

I have recently watched Man on Earth, a climate change documentary with Tony Robinson. Tony Robinson, aka, Baldrick, has spent many years narrating Time Team and you can tell that it has rubbed off. I'm impressed with some of the theoretical archaeology that is discussed in this programme with an extremely deft touch. Whilst some critics are arguing that the Neanderthal extinction fails to examine the latest evidence (Banks et al, 2008 and this if you can't access it), I find that considering there are so many views on this area, that this is just another of the many plausible scenarios to consider. Things such as the conservative nature of the Neanderthals could have played a larger role in adaptation to the new conditions. The researchers in this seem to fail in studying the "human element", whether the Neanderthals might have been influenced by cultural choices, problems with a food supply, etc. As one archaeologist that I know has commented, we don't even know whether they ever met! They may have been around certain areas at different times, we don't know.

Anyway, if you wish to see a more subtle and intellectual programme, try and catch up on this. It will be worth it.

We're not here atheists!

2009-12-23T19:30:00.003Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, 2009, Volume 30,

Atheists on the attack

Once people used to turn the lights off and pretend they weren't home when the Jehovah's Witnesses came to call. Now, they have to fear not just the righteous, but the sceptical.

In a quiet street in Cambridge, two people are knocking on doors. Normally, when this happens, you expect two soberly dressed, crew-cut young men to greet you and introduce you to the "Good News". Instead we have two normally dressed people, one an older woman and one a younger man, asking people if they think God exists.

This new ministry has been set up by the local chapter of the British Humanists and we interviewed Richard Dawkins to discuss what the purpose of this new practice was.

"As a scientist and popular author on evolution I regularly get many religious people trying to save me." Dawkins explained. "For a lot of people in this country who are non-religious, these attempts are quite frankly idiotic and annoying. So rather than sitting back and ignoring them, we decided to turn the tables."

These tables, as Dawkins explained, represent people doing the same as evangelicists. But rather than indulging in explanations for God, these atheists, discuss the scientific evidence and the problems with religion.

"We hope to provide an alternative viewpoint to the religious fanatics and to hopefully increase their worry about their tactics" said Dawkins. "Hopefully, if we target some of the Jehovah's Witnesses themself, they might realise how annoying their tactics are. And if we innoculate some people from the religious fanatics they might stop their tactics."

Dawkins then shows me what they do. The video shows two people discussing with an eldery couple whether God may or may not exist and what the evidence is present for a lack of belief. They leave, promising to come back and help out with some minor chores around the house.

However, Jehovah's WItnesses aren't pleased at all with the ideas.

"This is prepostorous!" Said one senior Witness. "These people have no message to send but death and immorality! They mock our moral obligations to the local people completely!"

Whilst this may be so, it is indeed a novelty to open your door to find someone not trying to convert you to believing in their God.

Merry Christmas, now bugger off and steal something else from another winter solstice festival

2009-12-21T18:26:00.004Z

Well after a hiatus caused by massive workloads, I'm back and ready to write.

Yesterday I had tremendous fun turning away Christian missionaries from the door. I was just about to make dinner for me and my girlfriend when I hear a knock on the door. Next thing I know, I've got two soberly dressed young men asking me if I've heard of the good news from the gospel. And of course, when I politely suggest they move on as I'm not interested and they must be getting cold, they offer to come in!

I have this regularly every month with people who wish to convert me and my girlfriend. I'm currently contemplating which is the best way to get them to leave us alone. Currently, I'm contemplating a counter-campaign of simply asking them if they would appreciate someone trying to convert them to Islam or Atheism. This ideal, whilst appealing, has the regrettable tendency for religious blindness, i.e., they will simply come up with the fact that they have a book which is right, no matter what the other religion says.

Other ideas would be appreciate, but please, I'm looking for the novelty of breaking their pattern of thinking, not trying to frighten them away. Hard to do but...

More to come soon.

Evolution is true!

2009-11-21T20:38:00.000Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 29, 2009

So we were talking about Evolution says Creationist Scientist

Creation Scientists admitted to day that they may have been discussing Evolution in their writings. This occurred after scientists pointed out a recent entry in Answers Research Journal happened to suggest Evolution.

The entry: Purdom, G, 2009, The Role of Genomic Islands, Mutation, and Displacement in the Origin of Bacterial Pathogenicity, Answers Research Journal 2: 133-150. indicated that mutations may have occurred in bacteria which then were naturally selected for in their environment.

"On examination of this paper we find that this does indeed contain aspects of Darwinian theory" stated Ken Ham, "However, we feel that this suits the creation model as it describes Evolution according to the Bible. Thus we propose that Evolution is merely the mechanism described in the Bible."

When pointed out that the Bible contradicted the current model of Evolution Ken stated: "Ah, however, this is our version and I'm sure with a little research we'll be able to make an argument."

How to teach a Creation Science lesson

2009-10-27T19:27:00.002Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 28, 2009

How to teach a Creation Science lesson

Due to the demand from faith schools, the JIS has drawn up guidelines on how to educate young Christians in Creation Science. The recommended literature is mainly The Bible, especially Genesis whilst further reading includes the Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and Of Pandas and People.

The aim of this course is to educate young creationists in the theories surrounding the Earth's creation. This centres on (mainly) the idea that God created the world as stated in the Bible, around 4004 BC. This requires reading Genesis 1-9 and analysing the theological importance of these words.

It is recommended that the subject matter is learnt by rote rather than allowing questioning of principles surrounding creationism. Pupils must be informed that if reality does not fit the Bible then it is wrong and should be explained using supernatural measures.

Teachers are advised to take the children to Creationist institutes such as the Noah's Ark Zoo in Britain. Close links with RE teachers must also be maintained as well.

Older students should be aware of the competing theories that try and undermine Christian values such as Evolution. In this, pupils are encouraged to think critically and find flaws with Evolutionary biology. Material by creationists such as Ken Ham, Kent Hovind and Michael Behe should also be accessed. If possible, Ben Stein's film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, should be used to demonstrate the ways that the scientific elite silence objections to their views.

Evaluation should take the form of testing, which marks should be awarded for intelligent use of theological concepts such as irreducible complexity and Biblical accuracy.

Mass deportations seem very distant.....

2009-10-27T18:48:00.002Z

Good evening and welcome to another post from JIS. This week I am pleased to announce that the Merseyside Skeptics have added me to their grassroots blogroll. In return I am adding them to mine and I highly recommend that if you are in the Merseyside area that you look up their Skeptics in the Pub events which according to one of my good friends, seems to be a great event.

Onto racism. I find racism very, very similar to pseudoscience, especially when we add their "scientific" methods of justification. I was highly amused the other day when I found out that Nick Griffin was allowed to go on Question Time. Despite the controvesy it caused, I was pleased that the program seemed to be a whole hearted dismissal of the BNP and Nick Griffin was proven to be a smug, lying pompous idiot with the knowledge of a peanut and the honesty of a wanted paedophile. I found the hour program had been posted on Youtube here (my apologies for the racist comments that may be on the comment pages of these videos):

Besides this, I was also amused when I found that Nick Griffin stated that true British people are those that can trace their line back 1700 years! As far as I am aware, I can only trace my grandmother's side back to 12th Century (thanks to an extensive piece of research on a very obscure surname) and my surname to the Scandinavian/Norman roots. With comments like this, it is no wonder why the BNP will probably slip back into insignificance again after that scenario.

And for those that wish to have their dose of true pseudoscience, here is this week's RaptureReady poster with how the world looks as old as it is:

Ok y'all stay with me.

For this Experiment you will need: a Bible, one brand new sheet of paper, bowl full of water, hair dryer, blue,yellow, gray, and brown crayons, a lighter, and a pen

Look at the sheet of paper, note that it is brand new.
Step 1: Open Bible to Gen 1 and read verses 1-5
Step 2: Using pen draw a circle on the sheet of paper and label it earth
Step 3: read Gen 1:6-13
Step 4: using crayons draw clouds, water, land, grass, plants, and trees
Step 5: Read Gen 1:14-19
Step 6: Using crayons draw the sun, moon, and stars
Step 7: read Gen 1:20-23
Step 8: Using the pen draw fish in the water and birds in the air
Step 9: Read Gen 1:24-31
Step 10: Using pen draw cows, spiders, and a cat or dog. Then draw two people and label them Adam and Eve.
Step 11: Sit back and look at picture. See how wonderful and perfect it looks?
Step 12: Read Gen 3
Step 13: Using pen draw a snake
SIN has entered the world

Step 14: Crumple your picture and straighten it back out. Do this 10 times. It doesnt look so brand new now does it?

Step 15: Read Gen 6&7
Step 16: Throw picture into bowl of water, crumple and straighten it out
Step 17: Read Gen 8:1-14
Step 18: Using hair dryer, dry your picture compleatly. Your picture is looking a little worse for wear.
Step 19: repeat step 14
Step 20: Using lighter burn hole in middle of picture and quickly put it out.
(I SAID THE PAPER NOT THE HOUSE!!! call fire dept! )
Step 21: Repeat step 14

WOW!! Your picture doesnt look new anymore. Its only a few minutes old!!! But because of it being crumpled and straightend, drenched in water, being blow dried, and set on fire, your drawing looks like it could be 100 years old.

God created the Earth 6,000 years ago. But because of SIN, a flood, earthquakes, and volcanoes it only LOOKS 4.5 Billion years old.

Now look at your Bible. Look at how new it is. Did you know that the words of the New Testament are about 2,000 years old? The Old Testament is even older than that! How cool is that? God can take something so old and make it brand new!

The thread is here however, you need to be signed up to see.....

Ray Comfort edited!

2009-10-12T15:23:00.002+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 27, 2009

Ray Comfort edited!

Last week I mentioned that the evangelist, Ray Comfort was producing a censored copy of Origin of the Species. Due to this, I have decided to produce an edited version of Ray's post on his blog "Atheist Central". Red is my own words on what Ray might actually mean....... Blue are the words deleted.

"If Darwin’s theory was true (which it is but since I'm making money from all this, better we ignored this), there (are) should be buried within the soil, the skeletons of millions of animals changing from one species ("kind" (my own arbitrary definition which has no relation to biology)) into another. But Darwin admitted that they didn’t exist (he didn't know of any because they weren't aware of them). There were none at all in the geological formation (that they knew of). He asks, "Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."

Unbelievably, instead of questioning his theory, he blames deduces geological record (is at fault)! Yet he is forced to admit, "So that the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great." If Charles Darwin was right, the amount of skeletal remains must have been inconceivably great, and yet in the same passage he again admits to "not finding fossil remains of such infinitely numerous connecting links." They were infinitely numerous (millions upon millions) and they have all (most have) disappeared (due to diagenesis, which I know absolutely nothing about). All of them.

And after 150 years of desperate searching, they still can’t find any (that I won't ignore, despite of the numerous occasions I have been presented with the evidence)."

I feel a lot better now. Apparently this editing lark is quite fun!

I also sent this (as a friendly gesture towards Ray) post which I will copy here for reference:

Dear Ray,

As you disallow urls I would recommend visiting my site, The Journal of Imaginary Sciences on the same blogger network as yours. Please find enclosed under today's date, a post of yours which has been edited for scientific accuracy. This comment is also repeated on my own site as well.

Now as a trained archaeologist, let me take you to task for your discrepancies. Firstly, let us tackle the issue of fossilisation. Look at wiki Ray it is your friend. You might want to note that not all things fossilise. The conditions that the remains are buried in need to be perfect in order to ensure that they survive. It is quite clear to both of us that just leaving out a dead body causes a massive stink and the soft parts decay. After a while, we are left with the bones. But these don't always remain do they Ray? I recommend visiting a nice little place in England called Sutton Hoo, a famous Anglo-Saxon ship burial of a possible early Christian. The body was buried in acidic sandy soil. Bones decay in these conditions Ray and produce what are called "sand mummies" the outline of the remains only.

This outlines that due to natural conditions, remains decay, even the bones, especially if we go outside the Biblical time frame (which scientists do because of the evidence). Even then, a lot of remains would have disappeared because of physical and chemical processes as well as biological ones. A field you may want to look at is diagenesis (using it in an archaeological context) as well, which gives all this information.

Now secondly, let us move onto the hominin remains found in Africa suggesting clear links between us and apes. A paper I would like to direct you to is one by David Strait on knuckle walking, the referencing is given below:

Richmond, Begun & Strait, 2001, The Origin of Human Bipedality, The Knuckle Walking Hypothesis Revisited, Physical Anthropology 44:70–105.

This categorically states that human ancestors such as Lucy had morphological features in their hand which are closely associated with knuckle walking. These hominins however, are defined as bipedal due to the morphology of the foremen magnum being far more similar to modern humans than a chimp!

This of course is to not forget other articles such as:

Cobb, S., 2008, The facial skeleton of the chimpanzee-human last common ancestor, Journal of Anatomy, 212: 469–485

Which examines the facial anatomy of our ancestors including other hominins.

Dean, C., 2006, Tooth microstructure tracks the pace of human life history evolution, Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 22;273(1603):2799-808.

Again this analyses hominin teeth and shows clear evidence of evolution!

Harcourt-Smith, W.E.H. & Aiello, L.C., 2004, Fossils, feet and the evolution of human bipedal locomotion, Journal of Anatomy: 204, 403-416

And finally evidence for the evolution of our feet.

It is clear, from the fossils we do have, that there are transitional fossils. Ray, I highly recommend you correct your mistakes in your post.

Thank you

Largenton

Any articles you wish to read, please contact me via email for more info.

New Term, new tricks

2009-10-05T17:49:00.002+01:00

From today I am officially a PGCE Science student, learning how to educate children in the facts and philosophy of science. I must admit it sounds daunting, especially after all the paperwork we've been given and the suggestions on what we need to do. But I picked it for the simple reason that I want to ensure children become scientifically literate, that they understand how science works and avoid the traps of those seeking to infect others with their delusions. Whilst I love archaeology and I would love to go into academia in that area, I feel that I am not ready for this. Furthermore, I would prefer going into this rich and varied career and coming out confident enough to do a post-grad degree and knowledge of the education sector. Anyway, enough about that, let us tread into the weekly news.

It is with great regret that I found out this week that Kirk Cameron & Ray Comfort, they of the banana fame has announced their proposal to published an "altered" version of the great book, On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. This edition is rumoured to be heavily edited, with almost half the pages of the original. As the copyright on Origin of Species has run out, it is perfectly legal to do what they are doing, censoring a scientific work to produce their own propaganda. I wonder how many people are going to read this new version and start rehashing tired old arguments of design simply because of idiotic censorship turning quote mines into actual quotes. For more info links are here:

http://www.inlookout.com/2009/09/22/kirk-cameron-to-distribute-new-origin-of-species-that-discredits-darwin-theory-of-evolution/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/22/kirk-camerons-origin-of-s_n_294349.html
http://doctore0.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/kirk-cameron-ray-comfort-change-the-origin-of-species/

In further news, the remains of Ardipithecus ramidus was given a special treatment in Science with several research papers being published on it.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1001/1

I think I am going to try and abuse my university ATHENs account to try and get my hands on the papers.........

Onto reviews and yesterday for the first time I more or less couldn't stop laughing after seeing a fat, flightless, green parrot dance on a zoologist's head. Last Chance to See brought us the kakapo, a rare and endangered parrot from New Zealand. I must admit, whilst the format is generally the same (45 minutes of analysing conservation efforts in the area along with other rare species, followed by the last 15 minutes on the actual species), you've got to love the animals they see.

And just for everyone, here is Sirocco's famous moment on TV.....

Lucy prefers a bitter

2009-10-04T19:58:00.002+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 26, 2009

Missing link is found in British pub

The English pub is noted for its availability for conversation and some good drinks to quench your thirst. However, scientists have recently found that it was home to much more than alcoholic drinks.....

Analysing the anatomy of several locals from a selection of village pubs around England, scientists found that their features closely resembled several species of hominin "found" in the fossil record.

"After analysing several members of the communities and then comparing their measurements and bone structure we found that they closely resembled specimens such as Lucy, Turkana Boy and Shanidar skeletons." said Dr Afreud, Lecturer in Christian sciences at the Patriot Bible University. "We can even demonstrate this with the fact that the Piltdown man was discovered to be human too. This conclusively proves that these fossils that are being dug up by anthropologists are merely the remains of pre-Flood humans. Any discrepancies from this can also be explained as breeding between the Nephilim and the more perfect humans from the time."

After wandering into several British pubs, it seems that the research can be confirmed. In the York Arms, outside the York Minster, several misformed and grotesque individuals can be detected nursing their pints in quiet corners. In any rate it seems that the Piltdown Man's drink of choice is a local bitter.....

Evolution rising

2009-10-01T18:46:00.003+01:00

Good evening and welcome to another week. Unfortunately this week I have had little time to read or see TV programmes, however, I do have a few things to say.

Firstly, Richard Dawkins' show "The Genius of Charles Darwin" is being broadcast on Channel 4 again for UK viewers. The show was in celebration of Darwin's birthday and book this year and I highly recommend it as an interesting review of how people still cannot believe Evolution works.

Tonight David Attenborough's show on Charles Darwin also starts on BBC4. I saw this just before I started writing this blog and again I recommend seeing a great British naturalist present a magnificent show on Evolution.

This week's blog post is a blatantly stolen idea from Ben Goldacre's Bad Science on the Brain Gym. In his review of the pseudoscientific babble that Paul Dennison spouts, Ben Goldacre suggests that waggling his ears could be included into this programme. The other suggestion however, was my own work, building on that. For more information, I recommend Bad Science.

During the past two weeks I have spent my time observing in a local primary school. Coming back into Primary School approximately 11 years after I left the place I was pleasantly surprised to find that this Primary School was a well-run and friendly place with extremely hard-working teachers, a real contrast to my time at Woodley Primary School in Stockport. From my experience I've learnt just how much time teachers have to teach vital subjects and from this I can conclude it isn't enough. This afternoon I spent a session assisting the Year 5 teacher (9-10 year olds) teach about the heart and the circulatory system. Whilst I'm satisfied with the job we did, this took up the entire afternoon, meaning that other subjects which we planned to cover had to be postponed for another day. All the teachers in the school constantly complain of too many government objectives to reach even in reception class (4-5 year olds). I remember (very vaguely) that most of my time spent in reception involved a lot of playing and much less work than the current batch are doing. On the other hand, I have noticed that Phonics (teaching the sounds of the English language to assist reading) and foreign languages have made their appearance in these schools. I personally think this is a good idea, especially when teaching children to learn how to pronounce new words. The foreign languages also helps correct a long term problem with the image of the monolingual English man.

Finally, a little chuckle at Dinosaurs in the nativity!

And....

Had to be done.....

On your head

2009-09-30T21:05:00.003+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 25, 2009

Schools encourage standing on head whilst learning

The founders of the popular education programme, Brain Gym have released new guidelines in order to encourage learning prowess and increase the susceptibility of kids to absorb new information. Paul Dennison revealed today that he had divined some new activities to use in the classroom before and during teaching. These include standing on their heads and wiggling their ears.

Brain Gym is the controversial exercise program which relies upon stimulating points of the body to encourage learning. Its methods include drinking small sips of water to wet the palate in order to increase water access to the brain and stimulation of "brain buttons" to encourage circulation to the brain. As a result it has been proven popular with primary school teachers who have claimed that it has been helpful in calming children down and making them receptive to education.

During the interview Paul Dennison stated that:

"After careful consideration I realised that in order to encourage the brain to work efficiently, more blood needed to be pumped to the head. I concluded from this that standing on your head may help with this, using gravity to send more oxygen to the brain. I also realised whilst trying out this position myself that wiggling my ears may also increase my ability to tune out distracting sounds in the environment."

In order to demonstrate this property, Paul Dennison carried out the succeeding question and answer session after wiggling his ears and then standing on his head. Unfortunately, he became woozy after a few minutes and had to cut short this question and answer session that he had with the media.

Rest and relaxtion is over.....

2009-09-22T19:43:00.002+01:00

My apologies for the lateness of this post, however, I arrived back in England from Belgium last Saturday and due to me starting my university course, I am currently busy at a placement in a primary school.

During this time I had plenty of opportunity to read two great books on Evolution and watch two episodes of Last Chance to See. The first book I read was River out of Eden, one of Dawkins' books. Dawkins discusses genetics in this book and likens it to the Biblical quote which the book title is based upon. He explores several fallacies such as argument from personal incredulity and displays the problems with these in a systematic fashion. Short and easy to read, this book is probably one of the best books to start with for those looking to explore his work.

The second book is one that again explores the fallacies creationists often propose to try and prove Evolution false. Why Evolution is True, by Jerry Coyne, examines these fallacies and reveals how to avoid them whilst providing clear examples. This is a fairly new book but I highly recommend it for those that are daunted by Dawkins or dislike his negative commentary towards religion. I would possibly question his data involving hominin evolution (such as the neutral manner over the confirmation on whether the Hobbit is a separate species and lending credence to the claim of hypothyroid cretenism), however, these are very minor controversial points in what is generally a very well-researched book. If you do wish to learn how to avoid the pitfalls of non-scientific thinking on evolution I highly recommend this book.

Onto the episodes of Last Chance to See, a TV programme that I am very excited about and I am not being disappointed at all. Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine have seen rare rhinos, chimps, gorillas, lemurs and chameleons in this fascinating show and it really has been a pleasure to watch. The programme is intelligent, informed and fascinating, showing rare species and the measures being taken to conserve them. Its the one show that makes you want to become a conservationist, for the simple reason of protecting these fascinating creatures.

Darwin made me do it!

2009-09-22T18:46:00.003+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 24, 2009

Darwin made me do it, Dawkins explains serial killings.

Earlier today Richard Dawkins, former advocate of Evolutionary Biology was found guilty of murder on 15 accounts and charged with life imprisonment. After the trial we were able to get an exclusive interview with the man where Dawkins explains the reasons behind his murders.

"Well I've often been accused of not following true Darwinian philosophy, being a generally law-abiding person, so when a random Creationist loudly pointed this out to me last year I thought about this a lot. I realised that he was completely and utterly right and that I was being completely hypocritical.

Evolution states that it is "survival of the fittest", that there are no laws, no commandments from God, no morals, etc, just who is the strongest wins. After thinking on this I changed my lifestyle.

I started murdering people shortly after, often picking on the weak as they were obviously not fit for survival. Those that actually did survive, I admire them for their strength. I used my natural abilities including my brains and devised elaborate traps to test their fitness. Those that failed died.

This lifestyle lead me to be selfish and hedonistic, as my book the Selfish Gene depicts. I killed mainly men to clear the competition too, so that I could impregnate as many women as I could, as Darwinism preaches.

I believe I've done nothing wrong. After all, aren't I just trying to re-introduce Darwinism back into the lives of people? The fact that somebody caught me merely shows that I am weak and not fit any more to pass on my genes."

Last Chance to See

2009-09-12T19:35:00.002+01:00

I often wonder whether or not some creationists are mentally ill. Whilst I agree my last post was a little over the top, it does make me wonder whether some of the illogical things they have been known to do for their faith are the acts of a disturbed mind. Ignoring the religious fundamentalists that blow themselves up to promote their visions, creationists can be some of the most dangerous religious people around. Acts of illegal censorship, hoaxes, frauds and down right lying show how far these people will often go to keep their reality intact as well as attempting to propagate it. Those vocal and energetic defenders of the faith who tour countries, write books, spam web forums, fake evidence just to try and prove a belief without ever questioning the ethical dilemma this poses are indeed worrying people. Only logic and the outcasting of such insanity can truly hope to banish it to the fringes again.

I watched the extremely good first episode of Stephen Fry's Last Chance to See. The show is based upon the original series of the same name presented by Stephen Fry's friend, Douglas Adams, who become a passionate conservationist after researching the series. After Douglas Adams' death, Stephen Fry and Mark Carwardine (the original zoologists that Douglas Adams did the show with) set out to discover how the rare species from the first series 20 years ago, fare today.

The first trip took us to the Amazon where Fry and Carwardine saw the rare manatee, a type of underwater cow for lack of a better description. In this, we saw how rare these animals were and what steps were being taken to try and save it from extinction. At the same time we got to see some pink river dolphins (possibly the best way of hooking the audience by showing them one of the most loved animals around in a pretty shade of pink) and Stephen unfortunately breaking his arm towards the end. However, I found the shots of the animals together with Fry's boyish enthusiasm combined with his exquisite vocabulary entirely viewable. Rhinos tomorrow I think.

Creationism, the new mental illness

2009-09-12T19:07:00.002+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 23

Creationism, the new mental illness

Today mental institutions were in shock as it was announced throughout the medical community that the people who propose the idea that a deity created the Earth as it currently is, without any acceptance of Evolution are to be considered mentally disturbed and in some cases dangerous.

A report was recently published in the scientific journal Nature, which demonstrated the lack of connection between creationists and the modern world, showing that prominent creationists such as Kent Hovind, Ken Ham, etc, were living in a fantasy world of their own devising which could cause them to resort to extreme measures in order to maintain these illusions.

Dr Suess of the Royal Institute for Mental Illness stated this morning that:

"The people that often propose the literal translation of the Bible is true, often have been found to resort to deceit, threats of violence, intimidation, paranoia and immature behaviour in order to propagate their own world view. Evidence of this includes attempts of illegal censorship, death threats towards prominent scientists and the common practice of internet trolling. This has been found not only occurring with the prominent figures supporting creationism but normal internet posters. After extensive study of their behaviours including laboratory tests, psychological researchers have requested that some of the prominent figures in the creationist campaign are put in a secure institute for the safety of others and that re-education should be attempted.

Doctors at a range of mental institutes have reacted with horror at the news.

"We're going to run out of facilities in religious areas" moaned one un-named psychologist. "With a high percentage of people in places like the Bible Belt in the USA, it'll mean putting whole communities in the institutes! We haven't the room!"

Outside the Texas Home for the Mentally Frail, a shot of Kent Hovind is shown, being dragged in a strait jacket into his new home whilst angry protestors demand his release.

"This isn't fair, you can't lock up people simply for having a different viewpoint" cried one angry protestor. "Afterall, its just as equally valid as Evolution!"

Whilst this may be a successful day for reason, it seems a dangerous day for free speech.

And we're back

2009-09-05T18:46:00.002+01:00

After a long summer, I have finally got my net sorted again and I am happily typing new stories for the Journal. Hopefully, over the next few weeks whilst I have a lot of leisure time, I am planning to devise new stories with the extensive material I've gathered during my free time reading.

Over the holidays I managed to read 2 great books, Bad Science by Ben Goldacre and The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins.

Bad Science, by Ben Goldacre covers the world of bad medicine mainly. It looks at practices such as Homeopathy and Nutritionalists and covers the problems with their science. It explains how scientific fraud can be carried out and how to detect it. With its analytical nature and good writing, I feel this is one book I would definitely recommend for anyone interested in delving in a more complicated side of the pseudosciences. After reading it I

The Blind Watchmaker is another of Richard Dawkins books. In this book Dawkins analyses the criticisms with Evolution and how they are overcome as well as presenting his own views on the various stances in Evolutionary Biology. A great comprehensive and accessible guide to the subject which helped me learn more about the ideas behind it as well as open my eyes to other aspects such as convergent Evolution.

Finally, we mention this week's Journal entry, water memory. I found this particular link to the wiki fascinating:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory

Man dies from Strychnine poisoning in Homeopathic rememdy

2009-09-05T16:54:00.006+01:00

The Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 22, 2009

Man dies from Strychnine poisoning in Homeopathic remedy

An unknown man was admitted to hospital today after suffering from Strychnine poisoning caused by a homeopathic remedy which he had recently taken. The remedy was a new drug, being tried out for the first time in order to treat convulsions.

Homeopathy relies on the idea that by diluting the causes of symptoms (e.g. strychnine for convulsions) it would cure the problem. This is done by diluting the substance in water about 30 times and shaking it (succusation). This apparently creates a memory in the water in which the remedy uses to work upon. Unfortunately this caused the patient to suffer from the same convulsions that the remedy was trying to prevent.

The man was later reported to have died in hospital.

Extended hiatus

2009-07-18T17:08:00.002+01:00

I have recently moved into my new house with no internet and my computer is at my parents and I am currently typing this in a rather funky bar/net cafe in York called the Evil Eye which I really recommend. I will be living without it for a while whilst me and my girlfriend find jobs. Then I will be organising a internet package with Virgin. I will start posting then.

My apologies

So simple it must be true!

2009-06-28T18:53:00.002+01:00

The Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Volume 21, 2009

So Simple it must be true!

The team at Answers in Genesis have recently unveiled a new debate strategy against Evolution. Their founder, Ken Ham, revealed the new strategy on the site in a recent post.

"Often wisdom comes from the mouth of babes. Previously we stated that teaching your children at a young age the truth about the young age of the world and God's creative power was a good thing. However, research on my own offspring their own offspring has revealed that even they as young children were able to recognise the truth of the Bible and have rejected this message from evolutionists. Their acceptance of this fact demonstrates that the Bible is correct as even children are capable of recognising the truth of God's statement."

Holidays beckon

2009-06-27T17:37:00.002+01:00

Good afternoon and welcome to another week of articles, etc.

I am sorry to say that next week there will be no updates as I will be in Belgium and whilst I could update, I would rather spend time on more pressing things, i.e. the girlfriend I will be with. Updates will hopefully resume as normal the week after.

I might also add, the article may be late this week as I am busy today. Fear not, because the news shall still be posted here.

Firstly, this reposted article on RD.net made me stop and think. It kinda makes you think how much creationism considered the lunatic fringe and really has no place in science. Unfortunately, with their tendency to shout and scream as well as throw their toys out of the pram, creationists are a serious threat. Simply because the doctrine is idiotic.

I managed to get my July edition of Current Archaeology today. One of the things I noticed was their feature on Alice Roberts. It seems that the general archaeological community is supporting her program as fairly good. There is a brief extract in the link, but the article does back up the claims Alice Roberts makes.

The free paper on British transport, The Metro, had this article on exorcisms done on homosexuals in Britain this week.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?Homosexuals_left_traumatised_by_ceremonial_cure&in_article_id=692445&in_page_id=34 (please note, the link was problematic for me)

And a week ago I was complaining about practices in the Middle East!

On and on a lighter note, LucidFlight posted this on the RD.net

Expelled Star gives up on modern living

2009-06-20T14:23:00.002+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 20, 2009

Expelled Star gives up on modern living

Today, Ben Stein announced he was giving up his lifestyle as an actor and economist as he w\as about to go back to nature.

The star of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, announced that due to the reliance on evil science in the modern world, he was going to return to nature in order to avoid the comforting evil brought on by modern Godless, science.

The star explained that this derived from a comment he once made, in which he stated that:

"Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."

Someone, he said, pointed out that all modern technology was brought on by science. He then decided that this meant he must renounce technology and live in the woods like the animals. He then proceeded to tear his clothes off and run stark naked into the woods behind the press conference centre.

Several hours later, Mr Stein, was escorted into an ambulance and treated for hypothermia. Police are also cautioning him for public nudity.

Pseudo-science, no excuse for manslaughter

2009-06-20T13:36:00.002+01:00

Good afternoon and welcome to another sunny weekend. For once, I have not one but 4 news articles which have attracted my attention this week. Let's look at the all.

Firstly, my attention was brought to this amusing site Election Meter

If you notice, it has the all too predictable poll on Evolution vs Creationism. I would like to also draw your attention to the part of the graph which marks the 2nd of May.

This my friends, is what happens when PZ Myers encourages people to vote on an issue. I'm glad it shows quite a nice bias to a scientific theory. As a result it brightened up my day a little.

Onto some more sober news, the Saudi Gazette has published a story which detailed the arrest and trial of a 70 year old man, accused of witchcraft. Now I don't know about you, but 840 lashes and a 3 year prison sentence for having different beliefs is fucking inhumane. I'm seriously glad that I live in the UK where this thing is not supported by law (with the humorous exception of the Stockport Witches, which I might add, only includes barring them from worshipping in another religious place). Its shocking that some people are so closed minded that they can't accept people examining other options. I would advocate more on this subject, but it seems rather tricky to comment upon, considering the nature and the tensions in the area.

Onto faith healing now and another trial is taking place in Oregon, where a couple have been accused of manslaughter. Again we've seen another trial, which suggests an increase in common sense on these issues. I'll be glad if people finally see that conventional medicine actually does work.

And finally, a more peculiar article. Apparently, some homeopathic remedies may have side effects. Now I'm rather confused with this idea. Somehow, someone isn't diluting them like they apparently should be doing........ I'm rather confused here......

Supermarkets show record levels of tin foil being sold.

2009-06-13T14:43:00.003+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 19, (2009),

Supermarkets show record levels of tin foil being sold.

Supermarkets have displayed a record level of tin foil being sold since May 2008 last year. The manufacturers have stated they are currently lagging behind demand as tin foil is continuously being reordered by supermarkets.

"We're not entirely certain what the cause of this is" said one supermarket spokesperson. "There is no cause as far as we can see really."

When independent researchers did a survey of the people buying tin foil, many of them simply said "cooking", however, one or two referred to a documentary they saw recently called Expelled.

Subsequent research demonstrated that the sale of tin foil increased more or less to the day that the film was released. Discovery Institute had this to say:

"We are pleased to note people are wearing the hats as they encourage reception between themselves and the Designer". The scientists who describe this as rubbish are on the same side as the evolutionists who are suppressing our free speech".

Tin Foil Hats

Censorship and free journals

2009-06-13T14:07:00.005+01:00

Hello and welcome to another week.

Today several news items have caught my eye. Firstly, I would like to bring to attention this video:

As we can see, the DI seem to have been caught filing illegal claims. Besides the obvious legal problems with this, it is clearly an act of a black hole coloured kettle describing the "apparent" matte finish of the pot. These are people who complain science is out to censor them. Its clear what they want is simply to impose their own idiocies in place of actual science. As a result, I'm happily putting up (in big flashing lights) DonExodus's video here. Maybe I'll put it up next week too.........

Onwards to my life. Now on my course, there are people that despite my own bemusement, believe in creationism and want to become science teachers. Whilst I have only minor unvoiced problems (any problems that occur due to this are going to be thankfully away from me), I don't enjoy it when I get preached at. I'm not religious, I don't want to talk about God, I just want to get on with my life. As I was leaving college the other day, I get one of my coursemates proceeding to engage me in a conversation on my opinions. Whilst I am happy to explain my opinions, I do expect a degree of respect for them. If I say I am agnostic, it is respectful to understand why I said that, because quite simply I don't know if there is a God and I find them utterly impossible to prove. However, stating my opinion is crap and is fence sitting shows a certain stupidity which I do object to.

Another habit I have is reading science books when I have free time before/after/during my classes. I enjoy learning about science and opinions on it from professionals. So when I get the forementioned person commenting on my reading material (its crap) I do get annoyed, especially when this person a) is a YEC and b) has never read these books. I don't know about you, but having this shoved in your face is irritating to the extreme and whilst I would usually ignore it, today you lucky people have a page of ranting from yours truly.

Onward to something cheerful. I found this enjoyable link today which allows you to subscribe to a free Evolution Education journal. Simply register and the articles are free.

Evolution: Education and Outreach

Please enjoy and may I add, thank you for those scientists setting this wonderful journal up.

Enjoy the rest of the articles this week.

Science works

2009-06-07T20:27:00.004+01:00

And hello again on this blog. My apologies for last week, however, I was busy and since I am starting to prepare for my big move to York to live with my girlfriend, there may be problems occasionally putting up posts.

As you can see, I've started a new post relating to hilarious pseudo-scientific methods of debate made by those wacky pseudoscientists. I made a draft of some points last night, however, I feel it is incomplete and as a result, each month I will update the post with new and funny posts I have found on the net. Let's just hope that "Dr" Davison (apparently he's very keen to have people refer to his title despite his retirement) whose blog wall I wrote on recently, comes over here to debate with me as he hinted. However, I think this may be an empty threat as I see a certain apathy when it comes to debating the problems with his objections to modern science.

Onto reviews. I've been able to watch a further 2 episodes of Dr Alice Robert's series: The Incredible Human Journey and I'm still fascinated. I've heard from people that the show is often too "poppy" and using non-peer reviewed material, but I'm not entirely certain. The show I watched on Europe fits into my archaeological knowledge (and what I know as standard archaeological ideas) and the series also has the excellent Chris Stringer helping research it. Trawling through the net I'm hard-pressed to find any negative reviews by the tv critics either. If anyone knows of any critical reviews, I would love to see them so that I can understand where I may have missed something. But so far, I'm glad series like this are present on the BBC.

The other day I also found this article on a friend's facebook account. Now this story really pissed me off. Now let me outline something Thomas Sam, I have eczema. Your point you made in your speech that:

"Conventional medicine would have prolonged her life ... with more misery. It's not going to cure her and that's what I strongly believe."

Is fucking stupid. Of course conventional medicine doesn't cure us, its a disorder which is genetic. What you could have done, is use conventional medicines to prevent her scratching. I use E45, a salve in Britain which helps moisturise. This child could have been living if you, her parent had kept her skin moist! Just taking care, ensuring this child had the right clothing/soaps/moisturisers/food, etc could have kept her alive and prevented your stupidity.

Conventional medicine would have indeed prolonged her life and as a sufferer I can say it can make it livable. I probably didn't have the same problems or the same severity of this child (my eczema is mild at this present time), however, I've had infected cuts from scratching in my sleep, which was treated thanks to a good doctor.

People like this just sicken me with their inability to comprehend that modern medicine works.

Article on Thomas Sam's daughter

Davison's blog article

How to debate as a pseudo-scientist, quotes

2009-06-06T19:17:00.002+01:00

I thought, as a follow up to my last article I would now quote from examples in this matter. These are a list of quotations taken from pseudoscientists which are mostly, quite amusing. Most of these are from creationist sources simply because they are convenient and take up most of the webspace in this.

1. Preaching

FSTDT always has beautiful quotes:

"Physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity'. And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus..."

From here

2. Spelling and Grammar

Robert Byers is a world leader in this field. Look him up on FSTDT

3. Credentials.

I am reminded of the dentist, Stephen B. Lyndon, who constantly seemed to have lied about his credentials in his blog. Check the discussion here on RD.net for more.

4. Ignore their points.

I recently got into an argument on John A. Davison's blog. This was because one of his supporters, VMartin, ended up systematically ignoring my points.

As you can see there was a reason I decided not to return, which was due to the abusive nature of Davison and his webmaster. Interestingly enough they haven't decided to post here........

5. Argue from Improbability

I found this discussion here

6. Generalise.

There are many arguments like this. However, I found this wonderful one here

7. Hitler

Godwin's Law is ancient. Therefore, let's have a giggle here:

"
Almost every issue Hitler was for Hussein is also for.
Hitler was all in favor of human experiments. Obama loves to support murdering babies and human embroyos.

Hitler believe in evolution. Claimed to be a Christian. Was for gun control. Started the brown shirts. Believe in labeling anyone who disagree with him as potential danger to the father land. Hitler's picture was everywehere . Obama picture is everywhere. Hitler was immoral goddless and a meglamaniac. Obama is far more evil and ego is only surpassed by Satan .

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1009/1009_01.asp

Nazi Germany under Hitler commited unspeakable crimes against humanity.

Obama commits unspeakable crimes against the innocent babies so don't tell me that Hitler licensed murdering and Obama doesn't!!!!

Obama upcoming forced volunteer force will be larger than the US military according to Obama nazi squad. "

8. Quote Mining

Please see this article here by me for more.

9. Mud-slinging

Again, I find Davison's vitriol against me as an anonymous poster incredibly interesting considering he has a webmaster that is anonymous.....

10. Mis-applied Science

This is possibly a classic:

"One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE. Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it. "

Emphasis added by the person who added it to FSTDT.

See here

This post will be a work in process as I get more and more quotes. My apologies if this seems unfinished, but it will be worked upon.

Largenton

How to debate as a pseudo-scientist

2009-06-06T18:54:00.000+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 18, (2009),

How to debate as a pseudo-scientist

As an eager follower of the pseudo-sciences you may wish to engage in debate with others in order to convince them of the joys of your particular belief. Here is a guide produced by some of the foremost debaters in these circles on the net.

1. Preach. You need to educate your foes with what they are dealing with. Preaching your points at them prevents them from actually raising points of their own which could damage your argument. The more you say, the less they can produce.
2. Spelling and grammar. This is optional. It doesn’t matter whether you can type anything, just as long as you think it supports your argument.
3. Credentials. All arguments seem better when you have credentials. If you haven’t got any, imply you have. Don’t worry about being called a liar, they won’t find out…….
4. Ignore their points. Why bother listening to their arguments? You know you’re right.
5. Argue from improbability. Scientists come up with strange and fascinating arguments, but they are all improbable. State that.
6. Generalise. All scientific objections against your points are easily evaded when you show in general terms how daft their arguments are. Classics include that your family aren’t descended from monkeys. This will result in them trying to raise more and more objections until they can’t remember what they were arguing about.
7. Hitler. Everyone knows Hitler was a bad man. So if he did something, it must be bad too!
8. Quote mine. Quoting is a good way of putting forward your argument from authority and if the quotes need editing well so be it.
9. Mud-slinging. These people who you debate are often vile unbelievers who need to be shown the errors of their ways. Remind them of that.
10. Use mis-applied science. Often science can be used against itself to show the problems with the idea. An example is the second law of thermodynamics which contradicts Evolution.

All these are good and tried methods of debating and have worked exceedingly well against sceptics. One of thing you must remember is this. You’re always right and that the belief from whichever book or leader you have, is always correct. Ignore those who seek to waylay you, you know the truth.

Diploma-Mill Creationists win University Challenge!

2009-05-30T21:51:00.001+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 16, (2009),

Diploma-Mill Creationists win University Challenge!

After a thrilling series of University Challenge, a surprise team from the Patriot Bible University defeated the Oxford University students in the Grand Final. The team, comprising of a creation science student, a Christian educationalist student, a MA student in homeopathy and a PhD student in advanced spiritualism took on the Oxford students in a thrilling and gripping finale.

The team were noted for their accurate answers especially in their main subjects of Christian theology. Indeed, on some occasions they successfully corrected the questions that Paxman gave them.

Bob Doubt, a biology student from Oxford said:
“I’m surprised at the accuracy of their answers. We never really stood a chance. I wish we had gone to this diploma mill rather than the prestigious Oxford.

Jeremy Paxman commented on the final saying:
“I don’t know how they did it. They put me in my place with their extreme accuracy and frighteningly intelligent questioning.”

When discussing the victory with the Patriot Bible students they said:
“It was obvious we were to win. God made it so we studied hard and managed to cover the correct areas in the questions. It shows his love of us and the fact that he can reward those who worship him”.

Links
Patriot Bible University

(more to come tomorrow)

Intelligent Falling, the new alternative to the Theory of Gravity

2009-05-23T18:15:00.003+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 16, (2009),

Intelligent Falling, the new alternative to the Theory of Gravity

At the Discovery Institute today, the Intelligent Designists revealed a new campaign placed to challenge the existing status quo. Whilst they have spent years debating Evolution, Intelligent Design advocates have now turned their eyes on the Physics world.

“We wanted to look at how a designer may have implemented the physical rules that we see operating in our world today” said Michael Dembski. “We soon came to realise that the Designer had made several complex and intricate laws that are irreducibly complex. We have decided to now start a new campaign which tries to teach the alternative theory to the Theory of Gravity”. We argue that without the exact precision that the Designer implemented into these laws, we would have not come about and this universe would not be as it is today. The Theory of Gravity is like the Theory of Evolution. As a result we argue that our Designer tells things to fall and commands gravity. Using the equations surrounding gravity we were able to calculate an unknown factor, intelligently deciding what things should fall. For example, look at the fact that people and heavy weights fall whilst airplanes can fly. This is obviously evidence for a designer at work.”

Prominent physicists such as Stephen Hawkings have criticised the idea, describing it as “ludicrous” however, Dembski replied with:

“Stephen Hawkings said that “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.". So this indicates he may be hiding his opinions here when it comes into Intelligent Falling. After all, we have described before in “Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed” the conspiracy of the mainstream scientists trying to prevent research into an Intelligent Designer. It is clear that our friend Stephen is being motivated by these people to speak untruths”.

*Please note that the quote attributed to Stephen Hawkings is a quote mine for the purpose of this satire. This is not what Hawkings meant and a link has been inserted to show the correct quotation

Quote mine

The News 9

2009-05-23T18:04:00.004+01:00

Books, Books and more Books

Welcome to another week. I’ve been fairly busy at the moment, so I’m only writing the one article this week, satirising the Intelligent Design claims with the infamous Intelligent Falling. Hopefully next week I should have had time to get up to date with articles and be able to watch my backlog of science programs.

Recently, I have been browsing my local Waterstones whilst waiting for the train. I’ve found a few tasty books on Science including Ben Goldacre’s “Bad Science” and many, many books on Evolution. Unfortunately, as I browsed the section I’ve found a few dedicated to the topics of creationism, intelligent design, etc. Not to advocate them, but to defend Evolution against them. It is unfortunate that this happens. Evolution shouldn’t need to be defended, it’s a robust scientific theory. However, some people do not understand what science is.

I would also like to add that the Stephen Hawkings quote is a purposeful quote mine and should not be used to espouse any suggestion that there is a God.

Bibliography
Stephen Hawkings quote mine
Bad Science
Intelligent Falling

Campaigners for repatriation end all forms of archaeology.

2009-05-16T17:48:00.002+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 15, (2009),

Campaigners for repatriation end all forms of archaeology.

Universities across the globe have been closing their archaeology & anthropology departments today as repatriation campaigners successfully claimed back all the remains and finds collected by them.

The repatriation debate has been carried out for some time, as ethnic groups, complaining against the imperialistic attitudes of scientists who stole bodies from them, have mounted successful campaigns to get their ancestors back. Indeed, laws have been passed in Australia and America in order to allow these minorities to claim their ancestors from musty shelves in collections. Whilst this was seen as a good compromise by some, it was argued that it was not just the remains that were being disrespected. Several campaigners argued that all artefacts found with these remains were grave goods and as such should be reburied along with the bodies. This line of reasoning was also extended to all artefacts as the campaigners argued that the people wouldn’t want strangers messing around with them.

“Its terrible,” said one archaeologist. “We can’t study the remains any more as the ethnic minorities have reclaimed them, now we can’t study their artefacts! We can’t do anything any more except make wild claims. Without the evidence we’re as bad as the Eric von Däniken guy who stated the pyramids were made by aliens!”

As the universities close, some ask what the archaeologists can do now they haven’t any jobs.

“Go and become builders” said one happy campaigner, “at least you’ll be doing an honest job!”

You’re a fraud and you know you are says spirit to the medium.

2009-05-16T17:46:00.000+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 14, (2009),

You’re a fraud and you know you are says spirit to the medium.

Today the spiritualist community was shocked as a spirit hit back against the so-called mediums through a medium. Madam Mystic was performing a usual séance with her clients when a spirit, calling itself Arthur Doyle apparently spoke through her.

“We were all set-up, ready to perform the usual weekly séance when it happened”, said Mrs Smith, “I was there to see if I could speak to my husband George, who passed away 2 years ago and Madam Mystic was just preparing herself to call her usual spirit guide- Big Chief Bob when this strange English voice started to speak. It said that Madam Mystic was a fake and that to be perfectly honest, no-one on the other side really wanted to know what people were doing here as it was far better there.

Another client, Mr R Derrick, spoke of his satisfaction of seeing Madam Mystic being outed.

“I’ve been to a few of these “so-called séances before, only to think that these people were trying to collect money. I’ve been trying to gather evidence to prove these charges against them until today. Madam Mystic was busy, preparing her act and then suddenly she jerks, right, looking like she’d seen a ghost. Then this guy’s voice started speaking, I mean, she looked totally baffled by what this voice was saying and it was clear she had no control over it.”

According to eye-witnesses, the spirit introduced itself as Arthur Doyle, as in the famous novelist. After apologising to the guests for his lack of manners, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle proceeded to inform them that this woman was a charlatan and that they on the other side weren’t too bothered about what was going on. Apparently, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle informed them that it was the amount of people getting to the afterlife, to find out their relatives didn’t know about the talks that they had been having, that drove the spirits to do this.

Unfortunately, both Madam Mystic and the late Sir Arthur Conan Doyle were unable to comment.

The Ancestor’s Tale

2009-05-16T17:39:00.002+01:00

And another week has passed. This week I managed to finally see the first episode of “The Incredible Human Journey with Dr Alice Roberts. I must confess, with the opening credits and the deluge of programmes on Evolution, I was initially sceptical of this program. Sure, it covered a different angle (looking at how we colonised the world), but it seemed rather “trendy” than serious science. Dr Alice Roberts, has a tendency to speak in book titles, with some occasions I was expecting her to quote some like “Bones, Stones and Molecules” and “The Ancestor’s Tale”. Despite this, I really enjoyed it. Once Alice Roberts started going into the details she provided clear demonstrations of modern anthropological views, making details such as the differences between our species and the other human species, incredibly clear, even to those without the training that I’ve received. Despite my study of the topic with some excellent lecturers at the University of York, Dr Alice Roberts managed to emphasis how brief my degree’s coverage of Human Evolution was. The difficulties getting through the Sahara Desert were brought to life in a way which I’ve never experienced in the seminars I’ve attended and the papers I’ve read. Despite the apparent over-dramatical start, Dr Alice Roberts has produced a programme I want to watch, if only to learn more.

Unfortunately, the programme won’t bring those who need to learn more about Evolution. Those that scoff it and insist on the literal truth of their religions will ignore it, which I find sad. We have these wonderful attempts by people passionate for their subjects, who are always attempting to learn more about who we are, what we’ve done and everything about a beautiful world and they get ignored by those who think God created the Earth in 6 days. There was an Ancient Greek school of philosophers who used to teach rhetoric and oratory, who used to think they were capable of arguing black was white. They were called Sophists and to be quite honest, they remind me more of those sophists that Socrates and Plato railed against, rather than the great philosophers of that time.

This week, I also introduce something close to my heart, Repatriation. I’m all for repatriation in some particular cases, I would gladly give back aboriginal remains to the Australian Aborigines and the Native American remains to their descendents. But we can’t take this too far. The study of human remains should be continued, otherwise we get the old practice of grave-robbing again. Those that object to the showing of mummies in museums should also remember that if we’re talking about respect, maybe we shouldn’t show their possessions too. Covering them with a modern white linen veil like the curators of Manchester Museum have done, will not afford them any more respect at all.

Crocoduck found. Creationists state that this disproves Evolution

2009-05-09T19:26:00.005+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 13, (2009),

Crocoduck found. Creationists state that this disproves Evolution

Breaking news was found as a new species was discovered today. Creationists and Evolutionary biologists are in shock as the new species, named Crocoduck was revealed.

The species, known as Anas Crocodylidae was predicted by Ray Comfort, a creationist known for stating that the banana was intelligently designed. Ray’s argument was that one species should give rise to another species with qualities that are in between. He then argued that an example would include the crocoduck for the transition between lizards and birds.

However, when news of this new species had arisen, Ray then backtracked, stating:

“This marvellous crocoduck is evidence against Evolution as the evolutionists have been telling me for years that this is not how it works. In that case, it proves God’s existence.”

Bibliography
Crocoduck
Ray Comfort

Warning: May Contain Sarcasm

2009-05-09T19:14:00.005+01:00

Hello, and welcome to another week of satire. Distind at FSTDT has been generous and sometime this weekend he will be adding this blog to his Friends of FSTDT. It is a pleasure to have such a well-known website working together with this blog to demonstrate the ridiculous ideas of the fundamentalist.

Now, as you might know, I received this comment from an “Anonymous” poster this week:

“This blog is a total satire, out to make fun of Ken and creationism. You can safely dismiss anything it says as untrue.”

Now earlier this week I had a fundie commenting on another website that my blog was a lie and referred to that same post. Jeff Wallen was the name of the poster and I suspect he was the anonymous person informing people about it being a satire. Jeff, if it was you, don’t worry. For all those people like you who are unable to read the words “Why Answers In Genesis is truly ridiculous.” in my slogan I shall change it to: Warning: May contain satire. I can understand that as a fundamentalist you are unfamiliar with humour Jeff, so I’ll make it easier for you. Maybe you might want to also look at all that evidence I provided for you on that board.

Just in case Jeff doesn’t read this blog, I will send him a link to it. I hope to see many more “helpful” contributions Jeff…..

AIG- The ultimate Poe

2009-05-02T18:06:00.001+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 12, (2009),

AIG- The ultimate Poe

Creationists were shocked today as Ken Ham revealed that Answers In Genesis, his company which promotes the teaching of creation science in education is a hoax.

The prominent creationist told journalists that:
“We are sorry to announce to creationists that the organisation, Answers in Genesis is a hoax. The organisation was created in order to satirise creationist beliefs and the example taken from our creationist museum highlights this. Unfortunately, people have taken this seriously and as a result have perpetuated this hoax far more than we could ever do. We must state that creationism is truly ridiculous and should not be used as an example of how God created the earth.”

Evolutionary Biologists and science educators claimed that this particular hoax was extremely damaging.

“We had no idea it was a Poe” said Eugenie Scott. “We’ve been struggling against them for years, raising our blood pressure with their ridiculous arguments and then they go and tell us they were joking? Do they know how much time and effort has been directed away from research and instead defending Evolution? This really has wasted the time of academics and teachers everywhere….”

Creationists have also expressed their opinions on the matter.

“Ken Ham is a godless man and his lies and deceit will be noticed and punished by God. The creation sciences will overthrow Evolution and prove that God made the Earth as stated in the Bible.”

A Flight from Science & Reason

2009-05-02T17:36:00.001+01:00

Hello and welcome back. Whilst last week was relatively quiet, I have some snippets of news this week as well as some discussions.

As Volume 11 shows, I have turned a blog post towards the idiocy that is the creationist battle cry “It’s Just a Theory!” This is probably one of the oldest and stupidest arguments that a creationist can claim. If they use it, it indicates that they sincerely do not know what science actually is, or more succinctly, they don’t know what the words scientific theory mean. It is amazing that they don’t consider this in light to other theories. Cell Theory, Germ Theory, Collision Theory, Atomic Theory and the theories of General and Special Relativity. I mean, I could name hundreds of these theories and they will not insist that these are just “theories”. They will insist that there is evidence for them. So why exactly are they called theories? Because theory has a particular meaning in science.

I decided to look at this in more detail during an essay of mine for my course. I had found, in a book I particularly enjoyed, an essay by James Trefil called “Scientific Literacy”. In this, Trefil argues that understanding how science works is more important than facts and figures and considering creationists, I think it is a brilliant point. For those interested, the paper is from a conference called “A Flight from Science & Reason” (see Bibliography).

Another thing I saw this week was again from my friend Gav. He introduced me to Penn & Teller, Bullshit! I’ve put the link on my site, but I absolutely love the way they are able to explain how science works in a way which is great for anyone that has no background in science. The creationist episode which involved a rabbit to demonstrate the lack of democracy in science was particularly well done I think. I highly recommend watching at least a few episodes.

My other post this week I couldn’t resist. I’m sorry but sometimes I truly do wonder whether Ken Ham and co. are seriously trying to fuck with our heads, ala Andy Kaufmann style.

Bibliography
Trefil, J. (1996), Scientific Literacy, In Gross, PR., Levitt, N. & Lewis, MW. (1996), The Flight from Science And Reason, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Volume 775

Just a Theory

2009-05-02T15:03:00.000+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 11, (2009),

Just a Theory!

Today a ground-breaking decision was made as the American education authorities agreed that Evolution was indeed “Just a theory”. However, their decision shocked creationists as they also stated that flat-earthism, geocentrism, Intelligent Falling, homeopathy and other alternative theories would be added to the science curriculum besides creationism.

“But, but, but, they’re all rubbish”, stammered a creationist follower. “They have no basis in fact, they aren’t science!”

This general feeling of shock was espoused among other creationists too, however, other supporters of the various theories mentioned expressed their shock and disapproval.

“The creationists disapprove of the mediums, the mediums disapprove of the flat-earthers, etc, everyone seems to be upset that another group is going to be taught alongside their particular theory” stated a nervous official. “We only wanted to try and accommodate everyone who complained about standard scientific theories being just theories.”

The education boards advise that these theories are taught alongside the ones proposed by science in order to let the children make their minds up. As a result of the new information being added to this curriculum, the authorities have recommended that science classes have been extended to include more time for these. As a result, pupils will be expected to spend approximately 30% of their week studying science, or as the educational authorities have renamed it, “Explanations for the natural and supernatural” lessons.

Whilst the educational authorities are indeed trying to assist the people that have been arguing against the past science curriculum, it seems that they have done too much in the way of assistance.

In relation to this, foreign Universities are now refusing to teach anyone wanting to do science subjects after taking this new curriculum. A spokesperson stated that until America can figure out what science is, they will not let people with no qualifications in this field study the subject at degree level.

TV Evangelist cures deaf man of Blindness

2009-04-26T12:12:00.001+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 10, (2009),

TV Evangelist cures deaf man of Blindness

Today the Christian community declared it was amazed as a deaf man was cured of blindness by faith healer, Peter Popoff. H. Martin attended Popoff’s service, intending to see whether God could heal his deafness, a problem which had been growing steadily worse over the past few years. However, when Popoff spoke to him, he did not heal the deafness, instead he stated that he had healed the cataracts in the man’s eyes. H. Martin’s response to this was “Whut? Speak up man!”.

Popoff is a well known faith healer having worked for many years healing people of their illnesses.In the 1980s, James Randi brought accusations against Popoff, accusing him of faking his miraculous powers. As a result, Popoff, filed for bankruptcy in 1987. However, several years later he made a comeback and is continuing his ministry.

When requesting an interview with Popoff, he declined and instead made an official statement:

“The healing that was carried out on Mr Martin was to remove the cataracts which would form in his eyes. God reached down and spoke to me saying that demons were planning to give this God-fearing man blindness. Instead I prevented this from happening and the family is very grateful. I am sorry that I was unable to cure his deafness too, however, God has informed me that it is a test for him to overcome.”

Unfortunately, when we came to interview Mr H. Martin the only response we got was: “Whut? I can’t hear you because that preacher shouted down mai ears!”

Stars hoax Astrologers

2009-04-26T11:51:00.001+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences, Vol 9, (2009),

Stars hoax astrologers

The predictive science of astrology was shocked today as star-readers discovered obscenities written in the night sky. As star-gazers looked into the night sky, they discovered that the words “Fuck you Astrologers” written plainly across the sky.

“We’re baffled” stated Mystic Meg, expressing her opinion. “We’re still trying to find an explanation for it. Currently one person has suggested that it is fuck your astrologers and that people will be meeting tall dark astrologers and engaging in sexual relations with them.”

When questioned about whether this states that the stars might not care about the lives of people thousands of light years away, Meg replied,
“I think the fact we have this message from the stars indicates their deep concern with us and that they are trying to encourage us to listen to them with their suggestions on how to improve your sexual relations.”

Whilst this may be a controversial message from the stars it may indeed be admitted that there is no harm carrying out the wishes of the stars. Indeed, we found out that Meg had a very comfy bed.

As this is being sent to press, another message has appeared in the stars. Whilst it is confusing, reports seem to suggest it spells the words “Fucking Idiots”.

Busy, busy, busy......

2009-04-26T11:42:00.001+01:00

Hello and welcome back from the two week hiatus of JIS. My apologies for not posting last Saturday but I have been busy the entire week with my course and whilst I enjoy this, real life comes first.

I’ve done one story so far, but there will be another one tomorrow or later on today. After that, the postings should continue on normally.

During Easter I visited Belgium to see my girlfriend. I had a lot of fun, roaming round, seeing places like Ghent, etc. One of the best bits was the opportunity to visit the Natural History Museum in Brussels. In all, I enjoyed it. The exhibits were amazing and whilst I’m not used to paying for Museums, it was worth seeing some great collections.

The museum was great at providing interactions at many levels. A variety of displays including interactive ones were included and this meant that it was entertaining and informative for adults and children. The display on Evolution was also great as it provided many opportunities to learn about natural history and how animals evolved and in what ways.

One thing I particularly liked at some of the exhibits was the use of four languages to describe certain exhibits. For the Evolution and Dinosaurs exhibit, information Dutch, French, German and English were present and I was thankful for the thoughtfulness of the museum staff, especially as the English was well-written. After seeing this, I would enjoy seeing this in other museums, as I’ve very rarely seen in British displays. It would be nice to have, in the EU, a requirement that well-written English, German and French are put on displays in addition to the local language to encourage foreign visitors. Unfortunately, there were some displays which weren’t up to date to include this and as a result I was left disappointed when viewing the Prehistory section (Human Evolution). Hopefully, if I get chance to visit again, this will have been rectified.

Hitler the Creationist

2009-04-11T01:35:00.000+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 8 (2009),

Hitler the Creationist

The Creationism vs Evolution debate was plunged into new depths today as Evolutionary biologists resorted to publishing notes stating that Hitler was a Creationist. Whilst this has been known for some time, it seems that the supporters of the Theory of Evolution apparently have been shouting insults and jibes at the shocked Creationists.

Reports of “You’re a Nazi and you know you are” and “My tropical fish are laughing at you” chants have been shouted by the supporters of Darwin’s theory. Creationists such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind discussed this new ad hominen attack approach by the “Evolutionists”.

“Well I’m completely and utterly baffled by this hostility towards us” stated an upset Ken Ham. “We’ve been treating these misguided people with respect for years and now we are getting these horrible and ungodly jibes at us. I’ve had crowds singing the Flintstones theme song all day at me……”

Likewise Kent Hovind has been calling for Evolutionists to cease their jibes. In a statement on his website, published by friends of the Texan state prisoner, he states that:

“This attack on the creationist view point is nothing more than an invocation of Godwin’s Law. The use of Hitler in this argument merely speaks of their inability to fufill the task set upon them to prove Evolution works according to my test.”

Unfortunately, when Evolutionists were asked to comment upon this, the replies tended towards the vulgar. However, one person stated:

“I’m not entirely sure you should be treating the words of “Dr Dino” with respect, especially as he is a tax-dodging diploma-mill graduate.”

As we can tell, this vicious and unprovoked attack on creationists looks set to continue further.

Dangerous Faith

2009-04-11T01:33:00.001+01:00

Hello and welcome to another news article. I am sorry to say that there will be no news next week as I will be spending a well earned week away with my Girlfriend. I will, however, have some stories from the Journal put up next Sunday, but unfortunately only one story this week.

This week, I looked at the slanging match that is often seen in the Evolution vs Creationism debate. One of the old and tired claims is that Hitler was an Evolutionist, which is basically trying to damn by association. The problem is, it merely ignores that Creationists have no evidence against Evolution and that it is an attempt to shift attention. I thought it amusing to see what would happen if this name-calling was reversed and it does highlight the fact that there is again a delicious sense of irony when confronting the ad hominen attacks.

Last week I reviewed Psychic Surgeons in the Journal. I gave a good account of what seems to be a bunch of magic tricks carried out by the people operating. A James Randi video was also included for entertainment and illumination on the subject.

This week, I watched Gary: Young, Psychic and Possessed. This BBC programme was an interesting account of 2 months spent with a faith healer in Britain. The programme examined the evidence that apparently claimed that Gary Mannion was a faith healer. Unfortunately, despite what seemed to be a positive bias on the presenter’s side to Mannion, none of Gary Mannion’s claims of healing were ever proved. Despite this, Gary remained convinced and seemed to unsettle the presenter in his calm faith.

The presenter emphasised it was faith and hope that meant the people that came to Gary Mannion thought they were healed, which is a classic display of the placebo effect. The programme ends with this seemingly thought to be a good thing, I disagree. The programme ends on the idea that healers should lie to patients to gull them into thinking they were healed. That’s wrong in my view, in fact I would class that as evil, manipulating the trust of others. Gary Mannion has the ability to relax those around him. That’s a nice ability and if he actually became someone in the health profession I would applaud him, he would be using his abilities to use his talents for actual benefit, not fleecing the guillible. If these people need help from the placebo effect it should be noted and ways of promoting trust in the health care profession as well as relaxation should be provided in order to help treatment.

The programme seemed very light on its criticism, almost reluctantly giving it. Unfortunately, for those who watched it with a sceptical eye, it is extremely frustrating as there is a lot of things which need to be question. Why does Gary Mannion have a Biblical figure in his head, portrayed as in churches? Where is any rigorous testing of this claim. How come it wasn’t noted that a believer, who worked for him, would probably come to his defence. Why was the only apparent “science research” that was being carried out, was so reluctant to allow the cameras in? Even the claim with Alzheimers was flawed, especially to those who have watched Terry Pratchett’s marvellous programme on this disease and know how vague a problem it is. I think, whilst the programme came to the correct conclusion about Mannion being a fake, it did not discuss that Gary Mannion was rightly called a Fraudster by Bad Psychics. He is as he is getting money from those who believe it works when it doesn’t. Even for those that believe that they are psychic, etc, they are still defrauding the public.

Psychic Surgeon removes three hearts from patient.

2009-04-04T13:29:00.001+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 7 (2009),

Psychic Surgeon removes three hearts from patient.

A Psychic Surgeon today has come under fire as he managed to remove not one but three hearts from the patient he was operating on. Dr Nograles managed to remove these hearts from the patient who was not aware at all that he possessed 4 hearts.

The patient, who wishes to remain anonymous stated:

“I’d only came in to have my gallstones removed by this man, but when I looked down he seemed to be around my chest, but I couldn’t feel anything. Then I noticed he pulled out a heart and then another and another and another. I tell you, my remaining heart nearly stopped then!”

Psychic Surgery as carried out in the Phillipines, refers to the practice of the healers carrying out operations with no anaesthetic, no pain and miraculously, no scars. Often it is thought to be sleight of hand as the magician James Randi has shown.

The hospital stated:

“The doctor in question was completely incompetent. He should have realised that this man was no “Time Lord” and that three removed hearts would be noticed, especially as he was only meant to produce gallstone! As a result, he has been sent for retraining at the Magic Circle”.

Dr Nograles was unavailable for comment.

2009-04-04T13:25:00.000+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 6 (2009),

Ben Stein saved by Science!

The actor, Ben Stein, who is known for his out-spoken views against science, had life-saving surgery yesterday as it was revealed he had suffered from appendicitis.

Ben Stein had the surgery late last night as he was rushed to hospital in Beverly Hills complaining of bad stomach pains. There, doctors found that his appendix was inflamed and close to bursting. As a result, he was immediately operated on in a routine surgical procedure which is carried out regularly. The surgery was hailed a success and Ben Stein is currently recovering quietly in hospital.

Ben Stein is noted for his out-spoken view against the influence of science in society, stating that “science leads you to killing people” on an interview with Paul Crouch Jr for Trinity Broadcasting Network. Despite this, his wife, Alexandra Denman expressed her and her husband’s gratitude for the work of the doctors and surgeons who successfully treated Ben Stein’s problem. Ben Stein was also reported to have said he felt like he maybe had made a mistake with the interview for Trinity Broadcasting Network.

Whilst this is certainly an ironic situation, this case certainly highlights that no matter whether people disagree with scientific ideas such as Evolution and the Big Bang, science is a major, life-saving part of people’s lives.

Isn't Fundamentalist atheist an oxymoron?

2009-04-04T12:55:00.003+01:00

Hello and another week has passed us by. A few things have transpired this week which are worth talking about.

Firstly, I have already noted that James Randi’s Educational Foundation Youtube account is now back up. Here is James Randi on the matter.....

As we can see, there has been an issue with copyright protection. Whilst I am gratified that Randi is back on the net, it does make you wonder whether there was anyway of dealing with the issue in another way. For those interested, here is a link to PZ Myers on the subject.

My next point is that I watched an enlightening account of a Christian perspective of Evolution and God. In the programme, “Did Darwin Kill God?” Connor Cunningham made a provocative statement on the issues surrounding the Creationism vs Evolution debate as well as offering a theological explanation on how religion and science can co-exist.

The programme, unfortunately seemed to be attempting to provoke controversy. Whilst intelligent and well-informed, it also seemed to be attempting to paint over the complexities of some of the issues that Cunningham raised. For example, how exactly is someone a fundamental atheist when atheism is defined as a “lack of belief in a deity”. Does that make a Buddhist monk a fundamental atheist? Atheism is too big and wide an idea to turn into a dogmatic belief system. Dawkins does not insist that there is no God, but that there probably is no God and criticises religion. And why not? It is perfectly acceptable to do so and is no new thing, look at Marx, for example.

What Cunningham fails to outline is that Dawkins and Dennett are practising a philosophy of reductionism, questioning whether or not God exists and building an argument for the lack of evidence and the possibility of life existing without a deity. That’s just simply using their minds and asking questions. In this they are showing intelligence. They might be wrong, I might be wrong and Cunningham might be wrong, but without exploring avenues of thought at this moment, we can’t discover new things. This is opposed to the forms of Creationism which don’t allow this thought and attempt to restrict Dawkins and Cunningham together. Furthermore, if Cunningham is attempting to suggest that these ideas aggravate creationists, then it must be remembered that the continued attempts of creationists to brainwash people like Dawkins and insult him, amongst others has caused this. Visiting the Richard Dawkins site, I have noticed that since my registration in 2006, a forum has been made called “Debunking Creationism”. This was due to the fact that creationists visited the forums in order to try and convert the forum members. This has meant the moderators have separated these areas to allow serious discussion of Evolution to occur without fundamentalists rudely interrupting. Furthermore, it may be noted that the forum allows more tolerance towards these people, with attempts to show creationists that they are using incorrect arguments, compared to creationist boards which ban and censor such attempts.

Its not atheists that have caused this or even fuel this debate. It is those creationists who insist on preaching to those who actually know something on Evolution. All the same, it is an interesting programme to watch and draws splendid attention towards those Christians who actually stand for Evolution.

Links and References

Did Darwin Kill God?

News

2009-03-30T20:49:00.002+01:00

Well its not often I come out with more news in a week. Some of you may have noticed that the James Randi links I have in my last news piece have been blocked. This is due to the account being suspended by Youtube. Now I'm not going to jump on any bandwagons, however, I am puzzled on why Youtube has done this. A certain part of me thinks that this could be a mistake of youtube, being overzealous in its usage of DMCA's. However, if you wish to complain about the issue, please go to this link:

Youtube complaint center

Go down to the end and click on New Issue.

I will update this post as I learn more.

Fossil Fly found with hook attached. Adnan Oktar vindicated.

2009-03-29T20:59:00.001+01:00

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 5 (2009),

Fossil Fly found with hook attached. Adnan Oktar vindicated.

The paleontological world was in shock today as a rare fossil fly was found to have a hook sticking out of its behind. The fossil, found preserved in amber, confirms the hypothesis made by Muslim creationist, Harun Yayha, also known as Adnan Oktar.

Adun Oktar was noted for producing a spectacular book called “The Atlas of Creation”, which stated that species have never changed and instead went extinct. This idea was ridiculed throughout the scientific community, especially as the book contained photographs of what appeared to be fish lures for fly fishing. However, this new find has confounded palaeo-entomologists across the globe.

“This is extraordinary! It turns everything on its head” says Dr Bee-keeper of the Unseen University “All this time we’ve jokingly dismissed Harun Yayha for the apparently fake photographs he had and yet we find this! The text books have to be re-written.”

Evolutionists were also throwing up their hands with dismay as well. The evidence of the fly disproves the Evolutionary notion of there being “no rabbits in the Cambrian”, i.e., species are found at distinct periods of time with no modern species being found where they should not be. With the fossil Caddis Fly being found outside its period of history, this pours doubt on this notion.

Evolution, Evolution, Evolution

2009-03-29T20:45:00.005+01:00

Well another week has been and gone and so far I must thank the people that have visited the blog. It is gratifying to know people are enjoying the articles. As a result, I have decided to post two articles a week, instead of the one. Hopefully this should keep people entertained.

This week I posted an article on homeopathy. If anyone is interested, there is a great video of James Randi, a magician and sceptic who shows how illogical Homeopathy is (see links). This inspired the use of the Homeopathy article and combining it with the DHMO spoof shows how ignorant people are of chemistry. Thank you to Gavin Schofield, a close friend of mine, who showed me James Randi’s humorous and enlightening video.

The second article deals with the amusing tale of Adnan Oktar who stole photographs from a fly fishing website. For more details see the references.

As this is the 200^th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth along with the 150^th anniversary of Origins of Species, the past few months has resulted in some great programmes on Evolution. During this week I have downloaded 4 programmes from the BBC iPlayer about Darwin and Evolution. The 3^rd instalments of Jimmy Doherty and Andrew Marr, “What Darwin didn’t know” and “Our World: Darwin’s footsteps”.

So far, during this year, I have seen this amazing response in promoting understanding of evolution. I would love to have recorded properly, Jimmy Doherty’s three programmes as they would be ideal for school teaching. The programmes make me realise how truly amazing this world is, with how things behave as they do, explained by a scientist who never gave up asking questions, wanting to know more and inspiring millions in their work. In a way this makes me pity those who do not accept this scientific knowledge as it might damage their belief in their deity. For those creationists that do not push this agenda, trying to censor this theory, I sincerely beg you to please read some books on Evolution. For Christians, I recommend the work of Kenneth Miller, a Roman Catholic Evolutionary Biologist who has written many books on the subject. I would say that I have read the Bible, I have understood it and I think there are some lessons to be taken away from it. But please, do me a favour and just learn where Darwin was coming from and why. I don’t ask you to accept it, just to understand it.

For those that do push the issue, such as Creation Scientists from Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute, I will continue to ridicule and attempt to humiliate you in this blog. Every claim you make against Evolution I will attempt to satirise for your lies, deceit and censorship. Figures such as Ken Ham, VenomFangX and Adnan Oktar are clearly criminals who are so scared of people thinking independently that they have to try and bribe, scare, lie, blackmail them in every unethical way to get what they want.

To be honest, religion isn’t the problem here. Its moronic fundamentalist stupidity.

NB I have just checked James Randi's youtube account and found that the account has been suspended. I will update as I find more information about it, but currently its a big mystery.....

Links and references

http://www.dhmo.org/

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/well_fly_fishing_is_a_science.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link - PZ Myers on the fly lure found in The Atlas of Creation

http://www.atlasofcreation.com/index.php For more information on the Atlas of Creation....

http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=613864#p613864- One of the posters from this site actually wrote a letter to the person who Adnan Oktar stole the photographs from. May need to be registered on the site.

2009-03-28T13:48:00.001Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 4 (2009),

Homeopathy banned as high levels of dangerous chemicals found in drugs.

The homeopathic drug industry collapsed today as high levels of a dangerous drug were detected in their products.

A recent review of the preparation processes found that the industry regularly used this dangerous chemical to dilute their medicines. The homeopathic industry expressed their shock when they learned of the dangerous properties of the chemical, dihydrogen monoxide.

“We had no idea about the dangerous properties of this chemical” said the spokesman for Homeopaths Against Regular Medicine (HARM). “We believed it was completely safe and we were shocked to find out that we were using it to dilute the medicine not once or twice, but at least 20 times. As a result, we’re ruined, the regular practitioners of medicine have won….”

Dihydrogen Monoxide is known to be extremely deadly indeed. Scientists have already noted its presence in acid rain and the contribution it makes to global warming. In a solid form, it is known to cause severe burns and induce radical changes in the landscape. It is a corrosive substance, causing the accelerated oxidisation of many metals too. Besides this, it has been found to cause electrical faults and decreased efficiency in car brakes. It is also noted that only 2 inches of the chemical is required to kill a person.

Dihydrogen Monoxide has been noted for being a dangerous chemical for at least 20 years. In 1994, the webpage www.dhmo.org was created to attempt to inform the public on the dangers of this chemical.

Due to the dependence of the homeopathic industry on this chemical it has led to the industry being warned that it must withdraw the products with the chemical. As this has involved all of their products, this has resulted in the collapse of their industry. As the homeopathic industry grinds to a halt, it looks like regular medicine is now the only regular product in pharmacies.

The News

2009-03-21T14:46:00.003Z

Hello and welcome to the News section. In this particular bit of the blog, I discuss the weekly news in relation to its value on science and the pseudo-sciences as well as discussing briefly the satire I’ve wrote for the week.

As this is the first week, I have included the two original pieces which prompted me to start this blog. The first piece is the Endothermic Candle, which was based upon an experiment I did on my Chemistry Enhancement Course. It illustrates how experiments can be manipulated by pseudo-scientists to create their own results, whilst the Petition delves into the money making aspects of pseudo-science and plagiarises a comment Bill Hicks once made on the Republicans, noting that as they were voted out of office in America, “along died half my fucking act”. I sincerely believe that the only use for pseudo science in this world is simply to keep the exceptional comedians such as Bill Hicks, in business. The fact that the pseudo-sciences make so much money due to the gullibility of people (another topic which will be highlighted next week), is something that truly sickens me as Creation Scientists, astrologers and homeopaths (to name but a few) play upon our fears and hopes for their own monetary gains.

Moving onto the news, I watched Andrew Marr’s second episode of “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea” and the more light-hearted, “Jimmy Doherty in Darwin’s Garden” this week. Andrew Marr was indeed intelligent and articulate, highlighting the abuses of Darwin’s theory as well as the modern political ramifications for it, however, I felt uneasy at the lack of distance between the theory proposed by Darwin and the sinister proposals made by the Social Darwinists. A quick perusal of literature on the internet about Hitler reveals an entry on the “Hitler was a Creationist” note by SkepticWiki. We can see clearly from this that the Nazis, whilst following a corrupted version of Herbert Spencer’s famous meme, were not following what Darwin had stated. Marr’s commentary hardly dwelled upon this and I feel that Creationists and Intelligent Design followers may take aspects of this programme to form strawmen attacks on Evolution. However, this could be myself worrying over a point which was not on the agenda of the programme makers, who seemed to be more concerned highlighting the political ramifications than evaluating the flaws within the political thinking. However, when it came to the modern political discussions, Marr did an excellent job of relating Evolution to pressing issues such as Dr Lan’s proposal concerning intelligence (which was dismissed by the scientist present in the programme). However, the whole programme still leaves me uneasy, wondering whether Andrew Marr is supporting the scientific theory or against it or simply trying to give a “balanced viewpoint”.

When it comes to Jimmy Doherty’s programme, I was eagerly awaiting his recreations of Darwin’s experiments. Doherty, whilst presenting as intellectual a figure as Marr, certainly provided a great simple programme on the experiments of Darwin. Last week I truly enjoyed the programme, wishing I had some way to record it onto DVD in order to save the programme for teaching science as the experiments would have been great to carry out with kids in a science club. I particularly enjoyed the emphasis on scientific method, often an overlooked part in science education and one I hope becomes more dominant as science teaching progresses. I particularly agree with James Trefil (Trefil, J. 1996) that scientific literacy is needed more than the minutiae. Ordinary people won’t remember the minutiae and it does not assist them particularly in their lives. However, learning how scientists do things in the way they do is a vital part of understanding science and may help dismiss the pseudo-sciences.

After watching Doherty in the second programme I was not disappointed. The programme sticks to science and provides a ground level which is perfect for teachers when teaching Evolution in schools. The experiments are possible to achieve in Science clubs and there is even one that fails to work, which is great considering it shows that sometimes, scientists get things wrong and that science is about reducing these errors to get closer to the truth. The only qualm I have about the programme is the structure, some things that Jimmy Doherty discusses don’t actually appear on the programme which seems slightly sloppy. Despite this, I truly enjoyed this programme and can’t wait for next week.

Links and References

http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Hitler_and_evolution
Please also note that whilst Hitler may have believed in God, it is a false argument using "Godwin's Law" to try and attribute this to other Christians.

The Lenski Affair

2009-03-21T14:44:00.001Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 3 (2009),

The Lenski Affair

Sometimes, real life is just too extraordinary to be satirised. One such example is the mess that Conservapedia got itself into over the work of Professor Richard Lenski.

For those who are unaware of this organisation, Conservapedia is the brainchild of Andrew Schafly, a Christian creationist lawyer who set up his own online encyclopedia after complaining that Wikipedia was too "left-winged" and "Evolutionist biased", as well as censoring his objections. He then set up the for-mentioned website which was designed to be a Christian right winged and American based. In June 2008, New Scientist published an article by Professor Richard Lenski which documented the 20 years of evolution and mutation in a strain of E.coli to start utilizing citrates, something that it was previously unable to do. As this was clear evidence of well-recorded evolution occurring in the lab, Schafly decided to demand the data that Lenski produced. Now rather than actually describing the rest myself, I’ll let the two opponents do the talking. RationalWiki, has the full, unaltered version and I am using the letters from there as Conservapedia has a history of known censorship, especially in this affair.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Lenski_affair

Whilst I would love to post these things here, I am aware that people might be put off by the blocks of text, however amusing this may be to people like myself.

For those interested, the links to the New Scientist article is here:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

We can clearly see that evolution does occur and furthermore this is the clumsy and often ridiculed attempt to try and decredit it. Unfortunately for Schafly, he has now let himself be known as an insufferable sophist which seems to be the case for most out-spoken creationists in institutes such as Conservapedia.

The Journal of Imaginary Sciences Petition

2009-03-21T14:41:00.000Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 2 (2009),

The Journal of Imaginary Sciences Petition

Dear Sir/Madam,

We, the Journal of Imaginary Sciences, are campaigning for the protection of the scientific practices carried out by Astrologists, Creation Scientists Homeopaths, Psychics and other disciplines involved in the supernatural.

It has come to our attention that many individuals such as James Randi, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Eugenie Scott have tried to suppress these ideas with the introduction of hard scientific evidence and cold logic. Despite the fevered media campaign to “Teach the Controversy” with lectures, posters, talk shows and even the film: Expelled, there still remains a rabid body of dispassionate scientists who refuse to allow us these beliefs to be preached in classes. They claim that this is not “science” and that these subjects are nonsensical, even going so far to call the people con-artists and frauds.

We at the Journal of Imaginary Sciences are campaigning along with Facts Are Killing ESP (FAKE), Creationists Opposing Natural Selection (CONS), IDers Informing Our Teachers on Science (IDIOTS) and Homeopaths Against Regular Medicine (HARM) to advocate the protection of these businesses against real science. Due to the popularity of the scientific theory, Evolution, recently brought about by the celebration of Darwin’s 200th birthday (and the 150th anniversary of Origins of Species), the earnings of these institutes have dropped. Combined with the current recession, the organisations involved in these practices are feeling that they are unable to continue their opulent spending. We are asking you to send donations in to us so that they may continue to be a drain on our resources, churning out their propaganda and assuring us that God is indeed pleased with these actions.

We would also like to state that many prominent comedians have also requested to this Journal to continue with this campaign as these institutes are enabling them to support themselves in their jobs. These have included the prominent comedian Bill Hicks, whose materials, I am assured, have featured these sorts of organisations before.

Thank you for taking time to read these petition and please send any donations to the address provided on the envelope.

Yours Sincerely
Mr Bob Doubt

Editor of the Journal of Imaginary Sciences.

2009-03-21T14:35:00.000Z

Journal of Imaginary Sciences Vol 1 (2009)

The Endothermic Candle

Sam C. Carter. BSc, MBuSh

Department of Bogus Science, The Unseen University, Duncomedy, BO08 1ES

Abstract

An experiment in measuring the Enthalpy of a candle reveals that fire can be an endothermic reaction. This pours doubt on the claim of flames being an exothermic reaction only.

Introduction

In order to test this hypothesis, a candle was placed under a beaker of water. A thermometer was placed in this beaker and linked to a data logger to record the temperature change on a laptop using the program LogIT. The candle was then lighted and the time against temperature was recorded for several minutes.

Results

Humans have been using fire for centuries as a method of keeping warm due to the supposed exothermic properties of combustion. Combustion is seen as an exothermic reaction as the making of the new bonds results in energy being given out as a flame. However, since flames are generally seen as an exothermic product, no one has thought to test this claim.

Candles can be seen to be endothermic as shadows grow longer when we use them for light. Dr I. Amalooney predicted that this was due to the possibility of the candle?s structure making up anti-energy bonds, absorbing energy from its surroundings. Unfortunately, the general scientific community has discounted these ideas as ravings from a madman since they were written on toilet paper and produced in the International Journal of Creation Science. Unfortunately, this has led people to discount the possibility and incorporate combustion into the scientific dogma of Energetics.

Method

The results from the LogIT graph clearly show a decrease in temperature, demonstrating the ability for the candle to draw the heat from the water and surroundings. Bob Doubt (BBuSh) recorded a significant lowering of light levels in the laboratory as well as a significant weight gain on the Boll Ocks scales.

Conclusion

The candle showed clear endothermic properties, taking heat in from the surrounding sources. This clearly shows the levels of genius that I am able to achieve in the Bogus Sciences. As an encore I shall be proving next week that Gravity does not exist and instead Intelligent Falling is present...

Evaluation (written by Dr A. Skeptic)

Unfortunately S.C.Carter's results were the result of too much use of the hallucinogenic substances him and B.Doubt kept using in the lab. The results were skewed by a previous reaction which warmed up the beaker before the candle was used, which was of insufficient heat to warm up the beaker as it was too far away. For the safety of the public, the two ?scientists? in question have safely been removed from public life.

Introduction

2009-03-21T14:34:00.001Z

Hello and welcome to the Journal of Imaginary Sciences. This blog is dedicated to satirising the claims of pseudo-science institutes such as Homeopathy, Creationism, Intelligent Design, Psychics, Astrology and all those little things people use to con those with a limited understanding of the scientific method.

I have spent a few years discussing Creationism on the internet as well as studying (both for a degree and for pleasure) Evolution and the scientific method. Currently I am training to become a chemistry teacher and with this, my fascination for what constitutes as ?good science? has arisen again. In my articles I hope to outline the straw men that these pseudo-scientists create in order to exploit the hopes and fears of ordinary people.

I would like to iterate that this blog is solely about the pseudo-sciences. Whilst I would enjoy people emailing me with stories they wish to contribute to this blog, I will not accept anything that constitutes as simple attacks on religion, unless it concerns itself with pseudo-sciences, for example, Creationist claims from organisations such as Answers In Genesis. I would rather concentrate on making these claims appear ridiculous in order to defuse arguments against ?good science? than attacking religions. It is not the purpose of this blog and it demeans those religious people such as Kenneth Miller who have spent time denouncing the works of pseudo-scientists.

As this is the first week, I am displaying two articles of my own, The Endothermic Candle and the Petition of Pseudo-Scientists. With these I am posting this introduction, another article on Lenski?s Letter to Conservapedia and the news from this week. Each week I will post one of my own articles (along with any contributions from others that are suitable) and a post on the news. Unfortunately, I do not have the time nor energy to do more as I have to do other things, such as my course.

I would like to thank my friends as well for encouraging me to make this blog. I would also like to thank especially my tutor, Jim Wilson who gave me the ideas for the first article and suggested how to improve it. I hope everyone enjoys this and it makes you realise the world really is an incredibly silly place.

Sam