Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Questions

Last week I had a brief post about Ken Ham (Answers in Genesis/The Creation Museum) coming to Japan to spread the creationist/ID gospel.

By a strange coincidence...

The other night I went to the convenience store with my daughter to pick up some ice cream. On the way back she surprised me a bit by suddenly asking me how come there are no dinosaurs any more. After a bit of discussion on the topic, she then turned to the matter of "monkeys" and humans (she's only six so, like a lot of grown-up people, she's still a bit fuzzy on the monkey/ape distinction). "Did people come from monkeys?" she asked. "How?" She seemed satisfied with my very brief and very basic version of natural selection/evolution, but it's clear to me that I'm going to have to brush up a bit, and fast!

I'm absolutely thrilled to hear her ask these kinds of questions. I let her know it, too. (I think she gets a kick out of asking me stuff, as well.)

--------------------

Returning to Mr. Ham, this week we find him "Reporting from Japan." Here's the first thing he writes:
As I looked out of my hotel room in Tokyo on Friday morning, I thought of the 13 million people or so who live in Tokyo—and the 130 million who live in all of Japan—most of whom do not know the Lord.

Caught up in Shintoism and Buddhism, Japan has probably only 0.1 percent Christians.
The guy has just traveled halfway around the world to Tokyo (Tokyo!), and he can't even step out of his own blinkered worldview long enough to wonder just how it is that the Japanese have managed to do so much with nary a thought of Jay-sus. What a fucking hick.

In fact Ham has nothing of substance to say about Japan at all, and shows not even the slightest interest in the Japanese as Japanese. To him they are only pagans or potential Christians, nothing more or less. (I'd express in more detail how contemptible I find this idiot to be, but I've already sworn once, and I'm trying to cut down.)

At the end of Ham's "report," he informs us that:
Making such presentations is very tiring for the translator and the presenter. I have to summarize the concepts but keep the talk flowing logically. The translator then has to put it in sentences that make sense—and it is a difficult job when I use terms that are a little out of the ordinary for such meetings (e.g., natural selection, genetics, mutations, etc.).
Read that again, friends, and tell me if it doesn't sound like a bunch of gibberish. Granted, it's no doubt difficult to give a clear presentation through a translator. But, how on earth could terms such as "natural selection, genetics, mutations, etc." be viewed as "a little out of the ordinary" in a discussion ostensibly trying to disprove "natural selection, genetics, mutations, etc."? What kind of double-talk is this?

Or (again!), does Ham somehow think the concepts themselves are beyond the ken of the Japanese, that they don't even have the vocabulary to discuss them? Pathetic. That's all I have to say about that.

--------------------

My little girl knows the English names of all the planets, and can recite them in order. She understands what a planet is, and that the earth is a planet, so the idea of something big hitting the earth and messing things up, while maybe a little scary, doesn't seem impossible to her. She knows that the stars are suns, only very far away. She knows that Japan is a country, and that there are other countries, some far away. She's seen a couple of them herself, with her own eyes! She knows that in Canada people speak differently and often do things differently than people in Japan.

At six years old she's already an infinitely more interesting person than an idiot like Ken Ham.

Friday, September 12, 2008

Wrong

From The Guardian's website, a silly person speaks:
Creationism and intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons, according to a leading expert in science education.

The Rev Prof Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society, said that excluding alternatives to scientific explanations for the origin of life and the universe from science lessons was counterproductive and would alienate some children from science altogether.

If I've got this straight, the good Reverend Professor is saying that science teachers should teach non-scientific things in science class to kids who don't believe in science.
He said that around one in 10 children comes from a family with creationist beliefs. "My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science," he said.

Finally, an explanation for why I suck at math. If only my teachers had accepted some of my wild guesses wrong answers I could be doing calculus today!

Friday, September 05, 2008

You Know...

... it just occurred to me that the weather here in Miyazaki this year is a lot like it was when I first came here ten years ago. Maybe global warming is over. Just sayin...

Monday, March 31, 2008

Dick to the Dawk to the PhD.!

This is the funniest, coolest thing I've seen in a while. Watch it! Share it!



[H/T: Brendan]

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Analyze Meme

Eli over at Multi Medium was tagged with something (I think) is called the "123" meme:
Take the nearest book, turn to page 123.
Look for the fifth sentence, then post the three sentences following the fifth sentence.

Eli himself hasn't actually tagged anyone, but has invited those who want to volunteer to do so. I've decided to participate because 1) I'm desperate for any excuse to actually write something, anything, in the hope that the simple mechanical act of clacking away at the keyboard will somehow, like magic, stimulate my brain and give me back my writing mojo; and, 2) the book that happens to be nearest me, Follies of the Wise by Frederick Crews, has a pretty interesting passage at the mark indicated by the meme.

Writing about the "prepsychoanalytic" Sigmund Freud, Crews tells of a man who believed that his hysterical patients were all harboring repressed memories of early abuse and who cured them by "unknotting their repression". As Crews continues, however, Freud "suffered a failure of nerve; too many fathers were being identified as perpetrators," a development that lead Freud to psychoanalysis, "a doctrine that ascribes incestuous design not to adult molesters but, grotesquely, to children themselves."
Freud finally had to cope with the disagreeable thought that his hysterics' "stories" of very early abuse had been peremptory inventions of his own. He did so, however, through a dumbfoundingly illogical, historically momentous expedient, ascribing to his patients' unconscious minds a repressed desire for the precocious couplings that he had hitherto urged them to remember having helplessly undergone. That is how psychoanalysis as we know it came into being.

So, while a bit of Freud might inject some fun and liveliness into literary discussions, it's not very good science. Well, it's not "science" at all, actually. Psychoanalysis was the result one layer of bullshit being papered over with another...

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Science Update

Apparently a big chunk of the universe has gone missing. I wonder if that's where all my ideas went...