Carnivalia and an open thread

Hey, it's been a while since I did one of these, so let's catch up!

The Tangled Bank

Karl Mogel will be hosting the next Tangled Bank at The Inoculated Mind — get moving and send those links in to me or host@tangledbank.net by Tuesday!

And of course, this is an open thread, so say whatever you please.

More like this

Good reading on a snowy day! Philosophia Naturalis #15 I and the Bird #63 Grand Rounds 4.10 Humanist Symposium #11 Friday Ark #167 The next edition of the Tangled Bank will be on Wednesday, 5 December, at Life Before Death. Send you links to me or host@tangledbank.net by Tuesday!
Another Tangled Bank is coming up next week at Science Notes. Send those links to science-related blog posts to Mona Albano, me, or host@tangledbank.net by Tuesday! In the meantime, while you're waiting for the Tangled Bank, you can read these other fine carnivals. Animalcules 1.7 Carnival of…
Here's some reading material for your Sunday afternoon. The Freethinker Sunday Sermonette is amusing today. The Hourglass, a new carnival on the biology of aging. I and the Bird #79 Humanist Symposium #22 Carnival of the Liberals #69 Carnival of the Godless #96 Friday Ark #200 The…
Animals and education await you at these fine carnivals: Friday Ark #135 Carnival of Education #115 I and the Bird #47 It's time for the Tangled Bank next week, at About Archaeology — send your tired, your poor…wait, no, send those links to science articles to me or host@tangledbank.net by Tuesday!

DEBATE: Atheism vs. Theism and The Scientific Evidence of Intelligent Design

Stanford University will play host to a debate entitled Atheism vs. Theism & the Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design. This debate is being organized by student groups at Stanford: IDEA Club at Stanford,The Stanford Review and Vox Clara: A Journal of Christian Thought at Stanford.
WHO: Christopher Hitchens vs. Jay Richards
...
Sunday, January 27th at 4pm PST
Stanford University
Dinkelspiel Auditorium
471 Lagunita Drive
Stanford, CA 94305

What, they're going to debate ID, which has nothing so ever to do with religion (wink wink nudge nudge) together with theism? How very strange. Also strange that they should invite a political journalist to debate a question of scientific evidence. I suspect he'll do pretty well though.

By Reginald Selkirk (not verified) on 20 Jan 2008 #permalink

An open thread? Really?

When I was 14, I got a penny stuck up my nose and my dad had to help get it out. He later almost got a penny stuck in his nose after he tried to figure out how I did it.

I posted this earlier and it was ignored. It might mean something important like the tide is going out on the fundies.

On the bright side and slightly OT. McCain beat Huckabee the Xian Dictatorship guy in S. Carolina, barely. A bit unexpected really. SC is a center of Xian Dominionist power and they are still totally ticked off about losing the civil war. And Huckabee promised them a Xian Dictatorship and a one way ticket back to the Dark Ages.

Only 30% of the SC voters wanted to scrap our 21st century civilization.

Oh, this is what Crowther said about the video:

Dallas TV Report on Teaching Evolution and Intelligent Design

Robert Crowther

This CBS News report falls immediately into the hole of stereotyping the debate over
evolution as simply a religious issue. The reporter ominously opines: "How did life begin? The question often divides faith and science." This is an all too familiar setup for an Inherit the Wind style treatment of the issue -- as if the only questions about Darwinism are religious ones. Not so. There are a lot of scientific questions at play in this debate -- indeed, all of the serious questions about the evidence are scientific.

Yet, as the report goes on, it manages to climb out of that hole to give a better, fuller look at the overall debate. This story shows that while there may be philosophical or religious implications to the science, it is the science that is at the heart of the debate. It's an interesting clip, and the reporter has an insightful commentary at the end, where he says:

If we as adults keep our minds open, and are willing to explore all possibilities, that is one of the most important lessons we can possibly pass along to our children.

So they seem solid enough that Crowther has many objections, yet they blather on into the whole "explore all possibilities" sinkhole. No, nitwits, you explore all sane possibilities, you don't consider "God" a possibility no matter how often everyone has failed to find evidence for "God" or its purported handiwork.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Well, if I can say anything I want, I'll say that I can't wait to see Torchwood next week, particularly because I really want to see if there's more of John Barrowman kissing James Marsters than shown in the early clips. And if there's any Barrowman on Gareth David-Lloyd action, I certainly won't be disappointed.

(Yes, I'm aware that it is on the internet now, but I'm trying to wait for the official showing.)

The UDites came up with "nine predictions of ID" (DO'L), none of which are apparently entailed by ID, and most of which include some violation of logic or of scientific reasoning (let alone grammatical sense). Although it's repetitive, I'll point out yet again the only general marks of design that anyone would be able to detect, and of course it has to be on non-ID forums such as this one, due to the censorship that IDists must impose if they are to prevail on their forums:

Actual designs (including alien designs that we should be able to detect) are distinguishable through their rationality, apparent purposefulness, their lack of evolutionarily-imposed constraints, and by novelty and/or promiscuous borrowing. Not every one of these must appear in each artifact, but one or more must whenever we are not familiar with the objects and their creation.

There you are, Denyse, find any of those and you'll actually have some evidence for your "hypothesis" (actually, apologetics). Anything else is just bullshit, which is why ID continues to output only bullshit.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

On the bright side and slightly OT. McCain beat Huckabee the Xian Dictatorship guy in S. Carolina, barely. A bit unexpected really. SC is a center of Xian Dominionist power and they are still totally ticked off about losing the civil war. And Huckabee promised them a Xian Dictatorship and a one way ticket back to the Dark Ages.

Only 30% of the SC voters wanted to scrap our 21st century civilization.

Independents gave him his margin, probably along with Fred Thompson (though the claim that Thompson's votes came only at the expense of Huckabee seems unlikely).

But anyhow, it's a good thing, as Martha Stewart would tell us. I just hope that McCain, Romney, and Giuliani don't split the non-evangelical vote enough to let Huck do well in Florida, or God-forbid, actually win it. Above all, though, it appears that Huckleberry's not going to get much other than the evangelical vote, with all possible primary wins being in the South. Spoiler, maybe power broker, almost certainly not the nominee.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Why doesn't Tom Cruise just admit he's gay? Would he be expelled from scientology, what's their position?

I'm trying to wait for the official showing.

The official showing (ie BBC terrestrial analog broadcast) already happened here (UK). :-/

When does Pete(r) Stark get to show he's still electable as a known atheist.

Oops, there was meant to be a question mark at the end of that question.

Political predictions:McCain will be incapacitated a major stroke, stoking a national reflux of the Schiavo right-to-die debate. Sex videos of Giuliani and his first wife/second cousin will surface on the Interwebs, Huckabee will gain support in the South and lose it elsewhere after openly calling for a revival of witch-burning, Romney will win the Republican slot be default, then blow the general election after choosing Tom Cruise as his running mate (after all, it doesn't matter which bizarre dogma you believe, just that you believe bizarre dogma.)

By Reginald Selkirk (not verified) on 20 Jan 2008 #permalink

I am now groovin to Marvin.

Thanks MAJeff.

I am now groovin to Marvin.
Thanks MAJeff.

One year, in an intro-level race and ethnicity class, I did a session on protest in black popular music. Played Strange Fruit and Marvin, along with Nina (Mississippi Goddamn). In three sections (prob about 80 students), only about 5 students had ever heard of Billie Holliday, and 2 had heard her. One person, upon hearing "What's Going On?" said, "I thought Fred Durst sang that."

I wanted to cry.

"Mississippi Goddamn" is new to me. Hell of a song.

I do know who Billie Holliday was. I have to admit that I have not heard much of her music. Not really my thing.

Fred Durst! Christ on a pancake.

That is sad.

Too many people have no sense of history.

I remember watching the news when they announced that Marvin had been murdered by his Dad.

"Mississippi Goddamn" is new to me. Hell of a song.

Nina never had a great voice, and she could occasionally be a bit crazy (or more than a bit depending on who you talk to), but man was she an amazing interpreter of song. I still think her "Black is the Color of my True Love's Hair" is the version. I love Billie, too, but Nina's version of "Strange Fruit" (at the link above) has been growing on me.

Listening to the two songs you posted made me think of Fiona Apple. She must have been influenced by them.

I do not know Nina Simone but perhaps I should.

That is such a sad and wonderful song.

I do not know Nina Simone but perhaps I should.

Yes. Yes, you should. Like I said, not a great singer, but a magnificent interpreter.

Additionally, I've got a different version of Billie doing Strange Fruit on my iTunes--just her and piano--that I think I like better. The simplicity really makes the song more powerful.

I put a best of CD on my Amazon wish list so I do not forget.

I find that expanding my music horizon is never a bad thing.

Thanks

my pleasure. One of the tags I have at my blog is the "Nightly Music Club." I try to mix things up, play interesting combinations, have fun, talk about how music has impacted me and stuff (BA is in music--concentrations in voice and history).

I don't know if people listen to much (I have one friend in particular who I know does), but it's probably my favorite part of my blog. I often just have my own blog open in one tab, playing music, while I do other stuff.

That and recipes.

I added your blog to my feed.

I will check it out.

My favourite Nina Simone track is I've Put a Spell On You. Playing on my iTunes right now. I agree that she is a wonderful interpreter of a song, in this she sounds petulant but is not apologising for it, perfect.

By Peter Ashby (not verified) on 20 Jan 2008 #permalink

My favourite Nina Simone track is I've Put a Spell On You. Playing on my iTunes right now. I agree that she is a wonderful interpreter of a song, in this she sounds petulant but is not apologising for it, perfect.

I ended up putting up a couple more tunes--that was one of 'em. (So was Ooh Child)

Hi Dianne - lots of bloglove and thanks for your clear, fact-filled posts responding to olvlzl, whose only answers so far have been even more incoherent sputtering.

On the bright side and slightly OT. McCain beat Huckabee the Xian Dictatorship guy in S. Carolina, barely.

Not sure that's a bright side, as McCain is the only candidate on the Republican side who scares me in November. Yes, he's this year's Bob Dole; yes, he's tarnished his reputation as "principled" by osculating W's anus... but he's also the only Repub candidate who isn't transparently crazy (Hucakbee, Paul), sleazy (Giuliani), or empty (Romney, Thompson). If he picks the odious Joe Lieberman (who is not necessarily broadly recognized as odious except by those of us in CT whom he theoretically represents) as his running mate, he might match up better than I would hope with either Obama or Clinton.

Of course, McCain would probably be the least horrible of the Repubs if he became president... but "least horrible" is hardly good enough at this moment in history: Anything less than a complete reversal of the direction this country has taken under W will be an epochal disaster.

Huckabee is dangerous in his own right, because he's by all accounts a very skilled, personally appealing candidate... but if he were the nominee, it would at least make November a moment of clarity: Either we as a nation will reject that sort of theocratic lunacy once and for all, or those of us who are sane will know our country has finally abandoned us, and we can start making our emigration plans.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 21 Jan 2008 #permalink

Duncan Hunter

Who?

In your review of Republican candidates, how could you overlook Duncan Hunter?

The better question is, how could you not?

Seriously, I thought he'd dropped out, roughly at the same time as Tom Tancredo. Silly me. I almost didn't list Fred Thompson, thinking he might have dropped out as well... funny how much "dozed off" resembles "dropped out," isn't it?

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 21 Jan 2008 #permalink

Duncan Hunter, Republican candidate for president. He's got a 100% rating from the Christian Coalition, an "A" rating from GodVoters.org, 100% from the National Right to Life Committee. He wants a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, and would selectively appoint theistic judges. He's been endorsed by Ann Coulter. Be warned: his web site slows my browser way down, there might be some sort of malware at work.

By Reginald Selkirk (not verified) on 21 Jan 2008 #permalink

Obama talks faith

One piece features photos of Obama praying with the words "COMMITTED CHRISTIAN" in large letters across the middle. It says Obama will be a president "guided by his Christian faith" and includes a quote from him saying, "I believe in the power of prayer."

By Reginald Selkirk (not verified) on 21 Jan 2008 #permalink

Obama talks faith

Everybody talks faith, if they hope to get elected. The day when an atheist (or a non-theist of any stripe) can get elected to a major office in this country is far in the future. All of the Dems have professed some degree of faith, and I have no reason to disbelieve their sincerity... but they all also believe in the importance of secular government. Obama's saying he would be "guided by" his faith is no different from anyone saying s/he would be guided by whatever his/her source of moral guidance is. Listening to one's own internal moral voice, whatever its avatar looks like, is not the same as enforcing a particular primitive ancient code of behavior on an unwilling modern populace.

All the Dems understand that distinction; none of the Repubs do. Atheists who withhold their votes from Dems because they're not atheists will be repeating the Naderite error.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 21 Jan 2008 #permalink

I don't want anyone making decisions based on their faith.

I want them based on facts, rationality, and what promotes the greatest good.

Faith is useless.

I don't want anyone making decisions based on their faith.

I want them based on facts, rationality, and what promotes the greatest good.

Yah, me too. Now suppose you show me the atheist candidate I can support this year without simply marginalizing my own voice and leaving the field to the right-wing theocrats.

I repeat: To hold out for the perfect nontheist candidate is to repeat the Naderite fallacy.

By Bill Dauphin (not verified) on 21 Jan 2008 #permalink

I don't care if a candidate is a theist or not.

I just want them to make it clear that they will not base their policies on faith.

They need to make it clear that they understand the secular nature of our government.