May 5, 2008
Category: Public Perception of Science
Since the beginning of March, I've been putting in a lot of time at a part-time job. I needed to get out of the house a lot more than I had been, and a friend needed people for his smoothie cart business. It's not rocket science, but it's not all that bad a way to kill time while making a little bit of money. It's also given me some insights into various aspects of life that I hadn't spent much time thinking about.
One of the insights involves just how many people there are out there who are on diets that they absolutely don't understand.
I've lost count of the number of people who have asked me if the fruit smoothies that I'm selling are "low-carb". When I tell them that the drinks are real fruit smoothies, containing lots of real fruit, a distressingly large percentage of them say something like "OK, I'll take a large strawberry banana."
I do understand that there are a lot of people out there who don't understand that sugars and starches - all sugars and starches - are carbohydrates. I don't think that speaks well for the overall state of science literacy, but it's probably not knowledge that most people are going to need all that often. If you're on a low-carb diet, though, it really might be a good idea to take the time to educate yourself about just what carbs are.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 12:57 PM • 9 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
Category: Personal
You may have noticed a lack of new posts on this blog over the last few weeks. There are a few reasons for this, most of which involve being busy doing other things. I've been working a lot of hours at a part time job that doesn't allow for much online activity. We're also getting ready to relocate (again) - this time to Pensacola, Florida. Both of those factors will pretty much be done with by the middle of June. Until then, though, I'm not going to be able to blog as much as I'd like.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 11:22 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
April 30, 2008
Category: "Supporting" the Troops
Back at the beginning of April, ATA airlines suddenly went out of business. With no prior warning, they filed for bankruptcy and suspended all flights. This decision was sparked by FedEx's still unexplained decision to drop ATA from the group of airlines that they use to fulfill their military charter contracts as of October 1st.
Before going belly-up, ATA did a lot of military charter business. So much, in fact, that the loss of the carrier means that troops are still facing delays of several days in coming home from the war zone. Apparently, FedEx has been unwilling to suck up the extra costs that they'd face if they brought in another carrier to make up the lost flights.
Of course, the military authorities don't seem to think this is actually a problem:
According to Sgt. Douglas DeMaio, an Army Central Command spokesman, the entertainment offerings on base in Kuwait keep most troops happy while they wait for flights.
That's right. You may not have seen your family for 15 months, and you may be stuck in Kuwait for another week just because there's no airplane to take you home, but it's all good - you can play Donkey Kong while you're waiting.
Good job, guys. Take another $1.93 out of petty cash, and buy another magnetic ribbon for your SUV.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 8:42 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
April 22, 2008
Category: Presidential
Senator Hillary Clinton has apparently decided to join John McCain in calling for a "gas tax" holiday for the summer. Their plan would suspend the 18.4 cent per gallon tax on gas (and the 24.4 cent tax on diesel fuel) from Memorial Day to Labor Day, giving consumers a temporary break from the high cost of fuel. If, that is, the companies that sell the fuel don't decide to raise their prices and erase the relief.
In a Presidential campaign season that's been marked by more than its fair share of stupid ideas, this one's still a standout. Nothing says "responsible leadership" (or, for that matter, "intelligent campaigning") in times like this than proposing a measure that would:
- Potentially result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs that are created by the federal highway projects that the gas tax pays for.
- Result in a massive spike in gas prices at the end of the summer, two months before election day.
- Create benefits for the average consumer only if the gas companies don't decide to raise their prices to collect some or all of the federal subsidy.
- Encourage consumers to buy more foreign oil this summer.
- Increase demand (and possibly well-head prices) during the summer.
- Provide a disproportionate share of the benefits to consumers who purchase massive, gas-guzzling SUVs.
Thank you, Senator Clinton, for once again reassuring me that backing Obama isn't as bad an idea as the alternative.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 12:23 PM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
Category: Public Perception of Science
On Sunday, Chris Mooney and Randy Olsen both tried to make the case that Ben Stein's "Evolution Caused the Holocaust" movie was a success at the box office. Both of them have been rather spectacularly condemned for calling Expelled a success, but I'm not sure that they're entirely wrong. I just don't think that they took a hard enough look at some of the issues involved.
Let's start with the basic facts. Expelled hit theaters on Friday. It was aggressively marketed prior to release, and opened on 1,052 screens - the most ever for any documentary. On Sunday, estimates suggested that the movie would bring in well over $3 million for the weekend, but the actual figures were not quite that high. That's probably because (Randy Olsen's assertion notwithstanding) ticket sales fell off rapidly over the course of the weekend. (Expelled brought in $1.2 million on Friday, but only $990,000 on Saturday, making it the only movie in the top 50 in theaters this weekend to drop from Friday to Saturday. The slide continued on Sunday, when the movie brought in $775,000.)
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 11:27 AM • 23 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
April 17, 2008
Category: Anti-Evolutionism
Casey Luskin is currently in the middle of a multi-part "rebuttal" to Michael Shermer's review of Expelled. In the latest installment of his whine, Casey (again) brings up the case of Richard Sternberg. Sternberg, some of you might remember, orchestrated the publication of a pro-Intelligent Design paper near the end of his term as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
As punishment for this heinous crime, Sternberg suffered the indignity of not getting fired from the unpaid editorship that he had quit months before the paper actually appeared. His punishment further included the cruel and unusual steps of not dismissing him from his unpaid position as a Smithsonian Research Associate, not declining to renew the unpaid position when the term expired, and not firing him from his paid job at NIH. The draconian nature of the consequences that he ultimately suffered - some of his colleagues said bad things about him - obviously makes him the ideal example of an open-thinking scientist railroaded by the Darwinian Inquisition.
I'm not going to deal with the vast majority of Casey's attempt to obfuscate the real events that surrounded the whole Sternberg affair. He raises absolutely no new points, and all of the points that he does raise have been rebutted before. Instead, I'm going to focus on two points in Luskin's post where he massively misrepresents things that other people wrote.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 11:36 AM • 81 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
April 15, 2008
Category: Accidental
Bruce Chapman has an article up over at the Discovery Institute's Media Complaints blog that is really a must read. There are several statements in there that would qualify as absurd even by DI standards (like the one where he talks about someone being "outranked" by other scientists), but one in particular is so totally off the top that I'm having problems thinking of an anti-evolutionist statement that tops it. (If you can think of one, feel free to cite it in the comments.)
The following quote is taken directly from Chapman's article. I'm going to place it below the fold to give you a fair opportunity to stop eating or drinking before you read it.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 1:15 AM • 12 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
April 7, 2008
Category: Politics
The anticipation of reading is almost always wonderful, but the actual reading is often frustrating. You can spend hours enjoying the wonderful indecision of the bookstore before you walk away with the comforting weight of a new release hardcover in your hand. The book can sit on the coffee table for days, weeks, or months before you finally find the time to sit down with it. At some point, you finally find time some quiet evening to pick up the book, sit yourself down with a nice glass of the beverage of your choice, and open the cover. And by page six, you're wondering what on earth the author could possibly have been thinking.
That's what happened to me last night. I get home from work, get a glass of scotch, sit back, put my feet up, and pick up that book that I've been anticipating getting to for the last week. (I'm not going to tell you the title just yet, for reasons that will be clear shortly.) The introduction was good, but very shortly into the first chapter, I was treated to a display of the author's willingness to substitute her assumptions and prejudices for rational thinking and research. The topic of her little excursion from rationality involves the military, politicians, the media, and the use of language. Specifically, it involves the question of just how corruptive the use of the word "troops" can be:
It is difficult to determine exactly how, why, or when this locution began to enter the common language. Soldiers were almost never described as troops during the Second World War, except when a large military operation (like the Allied landing on D-Day) was being discussed, and the term remained extremely uncommon throughout the Vietnam era. My guess is that some dimwits in the military and the media (perhaps the military media) decided, at some point in the 1980s, that the word "soldier" implied the masculine gender and that all soldiers, out of respect for the growing presence of women in the military, must henceforth be called troops. Like the unremitting appeals to folks, the victory of troops over soldiers offers an impressive illustration of the relationship between fuzzy thinking and the debasement of everyday speech.
I can definitely see the involvement of fuzzy thinking here, and it's possible that a dimwit was involved. But I'm not looking in the same place as the author. She's looking at the military, the media, (perhaps the military media), and politicians. I'm looking at her.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 1:23 PM • 16 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
April 3, 2008
Category: Climate/Weather
This one probably isn't the hardest quiz I've come up with, but give it a shot anyway. Here's the question: how is the specific airplane in this picture connected to atmospheric science research?
Let's try something new this week: email your answer to me at dunford@scienceblogs.com instead of posting it in the comments. I'll announce the names of everyone to get the right answer on Monday.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 11:25 AM • 9 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
April 1, 2008
Category: Religion in Schools
Given that today really is April 1st, let me start by saying that although Behe is a fool, this post isn't a joke. Everything you're about to read is real. This is the third part of my post on the summary judgment decision in the California Creationist Case. Part 1 is here, and part 2 is here.
It would seem that Mike Behe has, once again, managed to shoot an own goal in the courtroom. The last time that he was an expert witness, during the Dover case, the judge quoted extensively from Behe's testimony, but not in a way that he particularly liked. Ultimately, it seems that he scored more points for his opponents than he did for his friends. He's also an expert witness in the California Creationism Case, and he seems to have once again managed to put the ball right through the wrong goal.
Behe's contribution to the pro-science side of the case appears on page 40 of the written order:
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 3:50 PM • 179 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
Category: Religion in Schools
(This is Part 2 of a three part post on Friday's summary judgment ruling in the ACSI v. Stearns creationism lawsuit. Part 1 is here; Part 3 will be up later today.)
If you read Judge Otero's ruling on the summary judgment motions in the California Creationist Case, you'll see that he discovered something that most of us already know: if you're looking for dubious argument tactics, you'll almost always find them when you're reading things written by professional creationists. In the case of the California lawsuit, the Christian schools are being represented by the law firm of Wendell Bird. Bird is no stranger to creationism battles - he served as the general counsel for the young-earth creationist Institute of Creation Research, threw a wrench into Arkansas' efforts to defend it's pro-creationsim policies in the McLean v. Arkansas case, and represented Louisiana's interest in promoting religion during the Edwards v. Aguillard case. After so much time spent working on behalf of creationist groups, it probably shouldn't be surprising that Judge Otero spotted many of the same argument tactics in the Christian schools' legal filings that we see when we look at the day to day output of anti-evolution groups such as the Discovery Institute.
There are some real gems scattered through the ruling. I'm just going to hit on a few of the high points.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 2:56 PM • 6 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
Category: Religion in Schools
On Friday, Judge James Otero of the Central District of California issued a ruling granting the University of California's request for partial summary judgment in the California Creationist Lawsuit. I've written about this case several times before now, but it's been a long time since the last update, so before I get into the details of the ruling, I'm going to quickly review the details of the case.
In 2005, a group of plaintiffs that includes the Association of Christian Schools International, Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murietta, and the parents of several students filed a lawsuit against the University of California. In their suit, they claimed that UC unfairly and unconstitutionally refused to accept a number of courses taught at Christian schools as meeting UC's admissions criteria. The courses in question covered a range of topics, including English, history, religion, and government, but I've mostly focused my attention on the biology courses that failed to make the grade, because that's the area that I know the most about.
One of the specific issues that the Christian Schools are challenging in their lawsuit is UC's decision to reject any course that uses either the A Bekka Books or the Bob Jones University Press biology textbooks as the primary text for the course. As I've said before, this decision makes perfect sense to me. Even the most cursory look at some of the things that these books claim is enough to show that the unfortunate students who are forced to use this text are being taught things that are totally incompatible with science. The Christian schools, it should go without saying, disagree with my assessment.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 10:30 AM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 31, 2008
Category: Anti-Evolutionism
Last week, SUNY Stony Brook neurosurgeon and anti-evolution mouthpiece Michael Egnor decided to keep driving on with his "you don't need to understand Darwinian evolution to understand antibiotic resistance" crusade. His post is - predictably enough - a mass of loosely connected logical fallacies. One of the most egregious of these is his attempt to assume one of the points that he wanted to argue:
First, two definitions:
Natural selection is selection in nature, presumably arising without intelligent agency. An example of natural selection would be the differential reproduction of organisms in nature, without the evident guidance of an intelligent agent.
Artificial selection is selection caused by intelligent agency. An example of artificial selection would be the intentional breeding of bacteria by a scientist in a research lab.
The distinction between natural selection and artificial selection is at least matter of definition, and perhaps there are empirical differences as well.
His definition of natural selection is poor - if I saw it on a quiz in an introductory course, I'd have a hard time justifying giving him even half credit - but it's not nearly as troublesome as his definition of artificial selection. If you think back to some of the previous discussion about Egnor's line of argument, you'll remember that many of us don't think that placing bacteria in an environment that contains an antibiotic and allowing them to freely reproduce is actually artificial selection. Egnor's attempting to beg the question by simply making his conclusion part of the definition that he expects us to accept without further argument. And that's where my dog comes in.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 2:44 PM • 57 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 30, 2008
Category:
One of several reasons that my posting frequency has been low lately is that my internet connection has been miserable. As in dial-up speed miserable. As in so slow that the online tools that measure connection speed have been showing me that I'm getting download speeds that I haven't had to experience since I upgraded to a 28.8k modem back in the mid-90s.
So I call Comcast. Yes, their tools also show a big connection speed problem. No, there's probably not anything I can do on my end to fix it. Yes, they can set up a service call to have the problem fixed. They'll be able to squeeze me in on Thursday afternoon. Gotta love prompt service.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 9:45 PM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 25, 2008
Category: The Homefront
It's been just over 5 years since the start of the Iraq war, and we've just passed another of those morbid little milestones that get so much attention in the press. This particular milestone has a nice round number on it - 4,000 - which apparently makes it somehow more important, or significant, or something than less neat numbers like 2526, or 3981, or 1135. The media's spent a little while circling over the battlefield, waiting for the 4,000th American corpse to hit the ground. The milestone arrived and passed more or less on schedule, and the media will settle back down and wait for the next round number. But these numbers, round or otherwise are nonsense. They're worse than meaningless. They allow us to care about this war on cue for some fraction of a news cycle. But by the time we've gone to the fridge, grabbed a beer, and slapped our fat asses back down on the sofa, things have moved on to the story of the drug-addled starlet's custody fight with her 5th ex-husband. In six or seven months, when the number's climbed to another round increment, the press will spare a few more minutes of air time and remind us to care again briefly. Between now and then, most of the deaths will be back below the fold on page A-39.
Somehow or another, I doubt that the parents of the 3683rd soldier to die are somehow injured less than the parents of the 4,000th. I doubt that the parents of the 4010th will feel any differently. And, of course, American soldiers aren't the only ones who have died in the course of this disaster. We don't know how many Iraqis have died. Every estimate that's been published so far has been the subject of some controversy, because the different estimates aren't in complete agreement with each other. After five years, the whole country is still so comprehensively screwed that it's not possible to safely conduct the censuses and surveys needed to come up with an answer that everyone can agree with. The survivors of the family that becomes the collateral damage from an American air strike don't mourn any less than the family of the American soldier killed by friendly fire.
Every single person who has died in this war leaves behind a hole. Their absence is felt by their families, by their friends, by their colleagues, no matter who they were or why they fought.
And those aren't the only holes that are left.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 6:15 AM • 13 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 21, 2008
Category: Accidental
PZ Myers got expelled from the line to see the movie Expelled tonight, apparently for the crime of actually being PZ Myers. That's definitely ironic, and possibly hypocritical. His family and his guest were allowed to go in and watch the movie. His guest was Richard Dawkins. Yes, that Richard Dawkins. That particular move was so amazingly stupid that they're gonna need to come up with a new word for it.
No, I'm not kidding. No, this isn't a premature April Fools joke. No, it's not an attempt at satire.
It's just creationists managing to shoot an own-goal hat trick.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 2:19 AM • 4 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 20, 2008
Category: Picture Posts
There's an island visible in the picture below. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to identify the island, it's location, it's relationship to science, and (for extra credit) its relationship to American pop culture. The answer (or a hint) will be posted on Monday.
(as always, you can click on the image for a higher-resolution version of the shot).
Posted by Mike Dunford at 2:05 PM • 8 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
Category: Flaming Small-Minded Stupidity
I'm not Zuska, but I suddenly find that I've got an almost uncontrollable urge to puke on someone's shoes. There's a new breaking story out about Hillary Clinton, junior senator from New York, and Democratic Presidential candidate. It's so shocking that over 1300 news articles have already appeared. Everyone seems to have gotten behind this one. The AP has several articles. The Washington Post made note of the story. CBS seems to think it's news. ABC apparently thinks that the story falls into the category of "investigative journalism". The Boston Herald's totally into this one.
The shocking revelation? She was apparently "home" (as in somewhere in the White House) on one or more occasions when her morally defective husband was receiving sexual favors from an intern.
Gee, I wonder why anyone would think that she's had to deal with sexism during her run for the White House.
(
HT: Shakesville)
Posted by Mike Dunford at 11:23 AM • 3 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 18, 2008
Category: Picture Posts
In Saturday's photo quiz, I posted a very cropped version of a picture, and asked people to identify the item that's in there. This was simultaneously one of the most and least successful photo quizzes I've posted so far. It was successful in the sense that it's attracted more comments than most of the previous photo quizzes have; it was unsuccessful in the sense that it seems to have been too easy.
Here's the full image (as always, you can click on it for a larger view):
Nathan was the first to post a comment, and the first to get the answer. This is the first stage of a Saturn V rocket. In fact, it is the one that Chas saw in Houston - when the rocket began to show signs of significant deterioration, an enclosure was built over it.
Congrats to all who got the right answer. I'll have a new photo quiz up on Thursday.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 11:20 AM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 15, 2008
Category: Picture Posts
This photo quiz is a bit different from the others I've done so far. Instead of giving you a full picture, I'm going to put up a piece of the image and a hint. Your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to try to figure out what this is a picture of.
First, the picture:
Now, the hint: This item shares a name with a place where it's never been.
I'll post the answer (or possibly a new hint) on Tuesday.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 1:45 AM • 13 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 13, 2008
Category: Anti-Evolutionism
Dr. Michael Egnor, of SUNY Stony Brook and the Discovery Institute, doesn't think that evolution is relevant to trying to figure out how to combat the spread of antibiotic resistance. The interesting areas of research, he believes, lie in other areas of biology:
The important medical research on antibiotic resistance in bacteria deals with how the mutations that give rise to resistance arise, exactly what those mutations are and how they work, and what can be done to counteract them. The important medical research involves genetics, molecular biology, and pharmacology. Darwin's theory is of no substantive value to the research because, as Mr. Dunford admits, there is no difference between antibiotic resistant bacteria that emerge through artificial intelligent selection and antibiotic resistant bacteria that emerge through natural selection. Antibiotic resistance is a phenomenon that occurs because there are often a few bacteria in a large population of bacteria that have a mutation that renders them less sensitive to the antibiotic. These bacteria that aren't killed by the antibiotic eventually outnumber bacteria that are killed by the antibiotic. Survivors survive. Does this mundane observation really help Mr. Dunford understand things he may not have otherwise understood? It certainly doesn't advance medical research in any meaningful way. New insights into genetics, molecular biology, and pharmacology do advance medical research.
I realize that I'm just begging for Dr. Egnor to take what I say out of context again, but he is not entirely wrong. If I was working on ways to fight antibiotic resistance, I would certainly want to focus more on the molecular mechanisms that are involved in the development of resistance than on the question of how resistance spreads through a population of bacteria after it appears.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 3:12 PM • 20 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 12, 2008
Category: Moral Flexibility
Someone once pointed out that when a dog pisses on a fire hydrant, it's not committing an act of vandalism. It's just being a dog. It's possible to use that analogy to excuse a creationist who takes a quote wildly out of context, I suppose, but I don't think it's really appropriate. Creationists might indulge in quote mining with the same casual disregard for public decency as a male dog telling his neighbors that he's still around, but, unlike dogs, the creationists are presumably capable of self-control. We've simply grown blase about their propensity for twisting other people's words because they do it so often.
Still, I expected more from Michael Egnor. He's not some diploma mill hack, who really might not know any better. The man is a professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at SUNY Stony Brook, and is actually the vice chairman of neurosurgery. He's been in academia for some time, and presumably has some understanding of the importance of intellectual integrity. When he picks and chooses which words to quote to make it appear that someone has said something very different from what they meant, he has very clearly chosen to tell a lie. And that's just what he did when he quoted from one of my posts.
Here's what he wrote:
Zoology graduate student and Darwinist Mike Dunford at Panda's Thumb has replied to recent posts in which Dr. Jonathan Wells and I pointed out that Darwin's theory is irrelevant to medical research on antibiotic resistance, and that antibiotic resistance itself is irrelevant to the debate about intelligent design and Darwinism. Remarkably, Mr. Dunford, referring to a recent advance in research on antibiotic resistance, concedes both points. He writes:
The scientists worked in a lab. They artificially replicated a set of conditions (an antibiotic-rich environment) that occur in nature. Finally, they placed the bacteria into this environment - something that happens spontaneously outside the lab...We'll pretend that anything that happens in a lab must be artificial selection, and that it is totally and completely wrong to use the phrase "natural selection" when referring to these experiments.
Mr. Dunford is right. Selection that happens by design in a lab is artificial selection, not natural selection. This distinction is of fundamental importance in this debate. Why? Consider Mr. Dunford's next observation:
Now, here's what I actually wrote. The portions that Egnor skipped over are highlighted in boldface:
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 3:47 PM • 58 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 10, 2008
Category: Doing Science
Last Tuesday, I posted another one of my picture quizzes, asking what a particular device is, and what it's used for. Jonathan was the first to get the correct answer - it's a Niskin bottle. A Niskin bottle is used to collect a sample of water at a particular depth. It's put into the water with both ends open, so that water flows through it freely as it descends. When it reaches the desired depth, the two ends are sealed and water trapped inside. As Dave S. notes, the bottle in the picture is a small one, and it's being used in a low-tech setup.
The picture was taken during a field trip that was part of the Marine Ecology and Evolution course (Biol 301) at UH Manoa during the Spring, 2005 semester. The field trip was a half-day excursion on the R/V Klaus Wyrtki. The Wyrtki is a converted 57 foot long-line fishing boat that's operated by the UH Manoa School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, and is used primarily for short research trips in Hawaiian waters.
To give you a sense of how quickly you reach deep water off the coast of the Hawaiian Islands, the Niskin bottle that is visible in the picture is part of a string that sampled water down to about the 1000 foot mark. The land that you can see is not the closest portion of the shore - at the time, we were less than 2.5 miles from the coast.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 1:20 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 9, 2008
Category:
The President devoted yesterday's radio address to explaining why he vetoed the Intelligence bill Congress sent him. He concluded the address with the following gem:
We have no higher responsibility than stopping terrorist attacks. And this is no time for Congress to abandon practices that have a proven track record of keeping America safe.
What are these practices that our terrorist-loving Congresscritters so nicely asked the President to abandon? They're nothing special - just you're run-of-the-mill-Spanish-Inquisition-torture-type-stuff.
It's frustrating enough watching the President of the United States fight tooth and nail to keep torture available to the CIA as an "interrogation technique" for use on suspected terrorists. More frustrating still is watching the President demonstrate that he is completely unaware of what his "highest responsibility" actually is. As a reminder, here's the oath that he swore, twice, "so help me God", when he was inaugurated:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
It's the Constitution you're supposed to be defending, Mr. Bush. The founders risked their lives to establish and defend that. Why should they expect any less from us?
Posted by Mike Dunford at 12:08 PM • 10 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 7, 2008
Category: Anti-Evolutionism
Everybody's favorite creationist neurosurgeon is back. Today, Michael Egnor brought forth yet another remarkably inept attempt to find a way to justify egnoring the relationship between natural selection and antibiotic resistance. This time, he's apparently decided that there's no hope in finding a substantive argument, so he's resorting to nothing more than a childish rhetorical game. One of the authors of a recently published scientific paper that examined antibiotic resistance left a comment at The Panda's Thumb noting that his research did in fact rely on Darwinian evolution. In a spectacular display of combined arrogance and ignorance (aka Egnorance), Egnor decided to inform the authors that they are mistaken if they think that natural selection was actually involved in any way:
Dr. Dardel is both candid and mistaken. His comment that the use of Darwin's theory is "unusual in structural biology" is obviously true, and refreshingly candid. He is, however, mistaken about the application of Darwin's theory to his recent work. His assertion that "...we selected bacteria...by plating..." is artificial selection, not natural selection. Artificial selection is breeding, in this case microbial breeding. The principles of breeding date back thousands of years, and owe nothing to Darwin. In fact, Darwin claimed that non-teleological processes in nature could produce changes in populations just as teleological processes like breeding could. Even Darwin didn't claim that his theory explained the outcome of intentional breeding. It's astonishing that a modern professional scientist like Dr. Dardel doesn't recognize the difference between artificial selection and natural selection.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 12:44 PM • 104 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 6, 2008
Category: Public Perception of Science
Henry Gee and I have been talking, on our blogs, about how the public views science, and what can be done to change that. That's hardly a new topic for scientists. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen or heard the topic discussed. It's a water cooler conversation topic at universities and government labs. It gets raised on email lists, discussion boards, and blogs. It's featured in journal editorials, at seminars, and at conferences. There's a widespread consensus that we could, should, and must do a better job of talking to the general public. On this issue, the consensus is wrong.
We don't need to do a better job of talking to the general public. We need to start talking to the general public.
OK. That last statement was a bit over the top - I was clearly indulging in hyperbole - but I probably wasn't as far over the top as you think. Here's why:
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 2:34 PM • 9 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
Category: Religion in Schools
First, the Discovery Institute didn't seem to know about the anti-evolution bill introduced in Florida last week. Now, they don't seem to actually understand what the bill does. Both of these things are quite strange, considering that the Discovery Institute folks actually wrote all of the substantive parts of the bill.
Rob Crowther just devoted most of an article over at the Discovery Institute's Media Complaints Blog to scolding the media for their coverage of the Florida legislation. Apparently, most of the news coverage made the outrageous claim that the "Academic Freedom Act" would actually permit the teaching of "alternative theories" to evolution. Crowther is outraged, claiming that the bill does no such thing. He thinks that the various media outlets have "been fed some 'smelly crap'" by pro-evolution groups such as Florida Citizens for science. I think it's because the various media outlets have actually read the bill.
Read on »
Posted by Mike Dunford at 1:37 AM • 19 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 5, 2008
Category: Public Perception of Science
For the next few weeks, I'm going to be busier than normal - I'm picking up a few bucks by working for a friend who has a beverage concession at the Houston Rodeo. I'm mentioning this in part because working at the Rodeo has inspired a few thoughts that are relevant to a blog discussion that I've been having with Nature editor Henry Gee. I'll probably have my response to his latest post up sometime after I get home from work. His post focuses on how scientists have been getting scientific information to the public. He focuses on the problems with the media's usual treatment of science, and has some suggestions about things that can be done to fix the problem:
The message is that scientists intent on being journalists should realize that their lofty aim of spreading scientific literacy more widely will be stymied unless they set their goals higher than just writing about it in blogs or in the mainstream media. They must become news editors, too, so that, in good marxian fashion, scientists can take over the means of production.
I'm not entirely sure that our problems are primarily related to the media's treatment of science. I'm less sure that fixing the media's treatment will fix all, or even most, of the problems. I'll have my own thoughts on where I see the problems and solutions a bit later on. In the mean time, I'd be interested in hearing what you think about his perspective on things.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 12:23 PM • 0 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 4, 2008
Category: Picture Posts
Here's another picture quiz for you. The picture below was taken in February of 2005, just off the coast in Oahu. Can you identify the piece of equipment that the two people in the picture are using, and do you know what it's used for? The answer will be posted on Thursday.
Posted by Mike Dunford at 9:17 AM • 5 Comments • 0 TrackBacks• View blog reactions
March 3, 2008
Category: Biology
In Friday's picture quiz, I posted a picture that I took that contained two Hawaiian Monk seals (Monachus schauinslandi), and asked you to take a guess at what percent of the total population of the species appears in the picture. As David noted, if you're asking that sort of question, the answer isn't likely to be good. It certainly isn't good in this case.
The Hawaiian Monk Seal has been on the Endangered Species List since 1976. A five-year assessment of the seal's current situation was concluded in August, and examined whether or not the species has met the three biological factors required to change its status from "endangered" to "threatened":
1. Aggregate numbers exceed 2,900 total individuals in the NWHI;
2. At least 5 of the 6 main sub-populations in the NWHI are above 100 individuals, and the MHI population is above 500;
3. Survivorship of females in each subpopulation in the NWHI and MHI is high enough that, in conjunction with the birth rates in each subpopulation, the calculated population growth rate for each subpopulation is not negative.
[NWHI = Northwestern Hawaiian Islands; MHI = Main Hawaii
Mike Dunford is a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studies evolution. He's also a contributer to 
