Science

The blogosphere has been making fun of absurdities at Conservapedia, Andrew Schlafly’s attempt to create a conservative-oriented version of Wikipedia. Orac points out that Conservapeia promotes the anti-vaccination Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (Schlafly is their legal counsel). Mark Chu-Carroll points out that even math has a liberal bias, according to Conservapedia. P.Z. Myers looks at some of Conservapedia’s coverage of evolution. Perhaps most entertaining is Jon Swift’s coverage of Conservapedia, which contains links to many of the Science Bloggers’ commentaries. ...

Last week in class David Paszkiewicz was discussing Adolf Hitler and the “Big Lie” propaganda technique. His example of a “Big Lie” being spread today: global warming. In Paszkiewicz’s backwards world, it’s not global warming denial that’s a big lie, it’s the scientific evidence supporting it. Kearny High School has taken action regarding Paszkiewicz’s continuing embarrassment of the school–by banning classroom taping without permission of the instructor. (They have also planned mandatory training for teachers on “how to interpret the Constitution’s separation of church and state and how it should apply to classroom discussions,” as I reported last month.) The New York Times has the story. ...

During my long plane flights this week, I used some of my time to catch up on reading back issues of The Economist. Here were a few of the stories I found particularly interesting in the January 6-12, 2007 issue: “Medicine at the Top of the World” (p. 65): LYING in an intensive-care ward is a world away from climbing Everest, but a connection will be drawn this spring when 45 scientists and 208 volunteers tackle the mountain to bring back information about oxygen deprivation. The reason they are going is that hypoxia (a lack of oxygen in cells, which can lead to death) is the one thing that links practically all patients in intensive-care wards—and there is no better place to study it than in the thin air of the world’s highest mountain.The story describes the Xtreme Everest expedition, which will take 250 people up Mount Everest, setting up mobile labs at various elevations to study hypoxia. The volunteers will climb up to 5,300 meters, and 16 climber-scientists will ascend to the summit to become the first to have blood drawn at the top of the world’s tallest mountain. The research will be used to try to identify the genetic basis of people’s ability to handle hypoxia, which couldn’t be easily be conducted on patients in intensive care due to not having enough of them in one place at the right time. “The logic of privacy” (pp. 65-66): ...

This is the seventh in a series of posts about the finances of the creationist ministries which were previously reported in Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2000 in an article by John Cole: the Access Research Network, Answers in Genesis, the Creation Evidences Museum, Creation Illustrated Ministries, Creation Moments, the Creation Research Society, Creation Worldview Ministries, the Institute for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute, and I’ll add Walter Brown’s Center for Scientific Creation to the list. ...

Glen Whitman at Agoraphilia points out how the common example of cognitive bias that “80% of us believe that our driving skills are better than average” can be a correct description of reality, when the median is greater than the mean. By example, the mean time to conception for women trying to get pregnant is 7 months, but 50% of such women are pregnant within 4 months and 75% pregnant within 6 months, so 75% of such women do “better than average.” ...

This is the third in a series of posts about the finances of the creationist ministries which were previously reported in Reports of the National Center for Science Education in 2000 in an article by John Cole: the Access Research Network, Answers in Genesis, the Creation Evidences Museum, Creation Illustrated Ministries, Creation Moments, the Creation Research Society, Creation Worldview Ministries, the Institute for Creation Research, the Discovery Institute, and I’ll add Walter Brown’s Center for Scientific Creation to the list. ...

The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (SICB) is holding its annual conference in downtown Phoenix next week, from January 3-7 at the Phoenix Convention Center and Hyatt Regency. The conference will include topics of interest to readers of this blog, including the session “Evolution Town Meeting: A Year After the Dover Decision” on the afternoon of Friday, January 5, and the session “Media Workshop: Hey, Wanna Read My Blog?” on Thursday, January 4, which will feature ScienceBloggers P.Z. Myers (Pharyngula), Grrl Scientist (Living the Scientific Life), and John Lynch (stranger fruit). On the evening of Saturday, January 6, from 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m. (during the SICB business meeting and prior to the SICB evening social event), Kat and I would like to invite readers of this blog and of Science Blogs to a social event at our home, which is near South Mountain, about 15 minutes from downtown. We would like to keep the event somewhat small (Kat has asked me to keep it to about 20 people), so RSVPs are required in order to get directions and specifics. To RSVP, please send an email to sicb at discord.org. If you will be attending the SICB conference, please let me know if you will need a ride or would be able to give others a ride. UPDATE (January 7, 2007): Several attendees have reported on the event, with photos: Brent Rasmussen, P.Z. Myers, and John Lynch; Grrl Scientist, you’re very welcome. Thanks to everyone who attended for the enjoyable company and conversation!

Matt S. at The Only Republican in San Francisco quotes from a Scientific American column by Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society to argue that conservatives are more generous than liberals: Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks argues in Who Really Cares (Basic Books, 2006) that when it comes to charitable giving and volunteering, numerous quantitative measures debunk the myth of “bleeding heart liberals” and “heartless conservatives.” Conservatives donate 30 percent more money than liberals (even when controlled for income), give more blood and log more volunteer hours. In general, religious people are more than three times more generous than secularists to all charities, 14 percent more munificent to nonreligious charities and 57 percent more likely than a secularist to help a homeless person. In terms of societal health, charitable givers are 43 percent more likely to say they are “very happy” than nongivers and 25 percent more likely than nongivers to say their health is excellent or very good.Matt says that, even though he’s not religious, he admires people of faith because of their morals, their value for community, and that “they walk the talk when it comes to generosity and tolerance.” Further, he concludes, “Faith, ultimately, is about optimism. Perhaps this is why I think it’s worth defending." He’s got a point, but Shermer’s piece is somewhat more equivocal about the evidence, observing that “Religious social capital leads to charitable generosity and group membership but does comparatively worse than secular social capital for such ills as homicides, STDs, abortions and teen pregnancies." I don’t think there’s any disputing the value of community and mutual aid, nor that the secular have had a harder time promoting those values, in part due to the fact that we are fewer in number and widely dispersed. But the nonreligious have made some very dramatic philanthropic contributions which are likely to have a much greater beneficial effect than any church tithing will ever have. ...

Ed Brayton’s detailed dissection of the Sternberg affair (see Ed’s post here and Steve Reuland’s here) has been responded to by Krauze at the Telic Thoughts intelligent design blog, including a response by Richard Sternberg. Ed Brayton responds quite ably.

John Lynch has a summary of the Intelligent Design movement’s achievements for 2006, along with a short list of things they failed to achieve in 2006.