That would depend on your definition of the word "round" – UPDATED

How many people are actually this dumb? Will there be anyone able to operate the utility grids a generation from now, or will we all be intelligently designed flat-earthers?

UPDATE – Enlightening commentary from Bad Astronomy Blog here and here. It’s even worth quoting:

Anyway, when Whoopi Goldberg (who is actually pretty smart) presses her on this, Ms. Shepherd demurs, saying that it’s more important for her to know how to care for her son. This is almost legitimate. Almost. But it misses. If this were a thousand years ago, and she were toiling in a cave someplace with no access to information and spending 20 hours a day trying to keep her family fed, then sure, some knowledge may simply be too esoteric to be useful and, worse, distract from the actual task of survival.
But that isn’t the case. Here we have an actress and singer who is living, if I read my calendar and atlas correctly, in the 21st Century in the United States. Has she never seen a picture of the Earth from space? As it happens, a vast majority of people in the U.S. can hold a job, care for their family, and also know that the Earth is, y’know, round. Some people (though sadly, not enough) also know it takes the Earth a year to go around the Sun, that gravity makes things fall, and that DNA is a big molecule in which genetic information is coded. None of this is needed to feed your family (unless you are a science writer), yet humans are in general capable of handling a vast amount of information not directly pertaining to immediate survival.

Share

I am a scientific atheist!

You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I’m not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.

Scientific Atheist
83%
Apathetic Atheist
83%
Spiritual Atheist
75%
Angry Atheist
75%
Militant Atheist
58%
Agnostic
58%
Theist
17%

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

Share

We are very very very very small…

Some more food for thought from this guy’s report from YearlyKos:

[P]hysicist Sean Carroll of Caltech and Cosmic Variance addressed a vastly different subject that, nevertheless, led him back to a similar theme. Sean’s talk was about, well, the nature of the universe. Mystery solved: It turns out that it’s roughly 5% stuff like us, 25% “dark matter,” and 70% “dark energy.” Or as Sean joked: “The good news is that we understand a lot about the universe. The bad news is that it makes no sense.”

 

But even as Sean gave us a complete and highly entertaining tour of reality, he hit on a much broader theme. The latest research in cosmology suggests that the universe is friggin weird. Indeed, there’s probably no bigger blow to the human ego than the fact that because it is of an incomprehensible “dark” nature, “most of the universe can’t even be bothered to interact with you,” as Sean put it. Nevertheless, he concluded that there’s something deeply uplifting about a way of thinking that allowed us to not only uncover but embrace this jaw-dropper of an inconvenient truth — something that we would never have expected to find, but that becomes inescapable once you survey all the evidence. And by the same token, Sean pointed out that there’s something rather shallow and small about an outlook that can’t be bothered to confront facts of this unsettling nature.

One problem I always had with my religious upbringing and much of religious thought nowadays (and I know this does not apply to everyone) is the way it encourages complacency–God/Jesus/Etc. loves you, and that is all you need to know. If there is a God(s), He has been incredibly busy, and there is much more of his creation to be admired than we could possibly imagine. It at least puts sporting events into their much broader persepctive.

Share

Bottled idiocy

Apparently San Francisco’s mayor just banned the use of city funds to buy plastic water bottles. I always sort of pictured San Franciscans as having bottles of Evian water and French poodles at their sides at all times, but I’ve also never actually been to San Francisco. This certainly seems like a great idea, though. I have long been flummoxed by people who rely on bulk packs of Ozarka water in individual bottles to service their daily hydration needs–what’s wrong with a tap and a filter? That way, you replace the filter every so often and generate a small handful of plastic waste compared to bottle drinkers. Plus, they make re-usable bottles that you can easily clean!

Leaving aside the absurd cost per gallon of bottled water, there are so many silly things about it. It really can’t be about cleanliness or purity (yes, I’ve read A Civil Action and know all about trichloroethylene), since you can make any water on earth seem gross this way: the total amount of water has remained pretty constant on earth throughout its history, so there’s a good chance that the water you are drinking right know was once pissed out by a dinosaur. Or a tree sloth. Think about it.

Share

Doctors now refusing to prescribe any medicine because of religious beliefs (not really)

Numerous doctors throughout the United States are now refusing to utilize any products offered by the pharmaceutical industry, based on religious conviction that God will heal the faithful. A doctor recently responded to multiple complaints to the American Meidcal Association that his professional diagnosis for at least fifteen cancer patients was vigorous prayer. Incidentally, all of the patients succumbed to their illnesses.

Okay, to the best of my knowledge none of the stuff I just described has actually happened. I made the whole thing up (I hope).

But there are doctors who refuse certain types of treatment based on their own religious beliefs, and the law protects their right to not do their job. Now, if someone has a moral objection to a particular procedure and does not want to perform it, that is fine and dandy–so a person who morally opposes the morning-after pill might want to stay away from jobs where there is a high likelihood of treating recent rape victims. Likewise, someone who opposes contraception but really loves being a pharmacist might consider passing off those customers to another pharmacist.

It is also important to note that I am not even talking about abortion here, but rather contraceptive services, involving prevention of fertilization of an egg or implantation of a fertilized zygote. None of these events yet involve a distinct biological entity–I could go on about how many fertilized zygotes never actually reach their destination of the uterine wall anyway, so if keeping a zygote from implantation is murder, the Mother Nature is the greatest murderess of the all. But that is rather beside the point.

Generally, the women (it’s always women) who are denied services are allowed to seek treatment elsewhere, but they lose crucial time in seeking out a doctor or pharmacist who will leave the women’s decisions to herself and do his or her job.

I suppose an analogy in my own life, being a lawyer, might involve certain criminal offenses. I do not practice criminal law at all, but even if I did, I would be uncomfortable representing someone charged with, say, sexual abuse of a child. Nothing in my professional duties requires me to take this person’s case, but I also cannot do anything to delay him (or her) from seeking counsel elsewhere. The timeframe in law is also much longer than it often is in medicine, so this person would likely have time to find another lawyer–out of professional courtesy, I would probably provide names of some good criminal defense attorneys.

Maybe a better analogy is a doctor who holds deeply-held religious convictions that homosexuality is wrong and a mortal sin, etc., etc. If that doctor comes upon a homosexual who has been shot in the gut and is slowly bleeding to death, can that doctor just walk on and not render any sort of aid? Can that doctor refuse to treat that person if he/she is brought into his ER? How far as a society are we going to take the coddling of people’s religious beliefs when it conflicts with the jobs they studied, trained, applied, and interviewed for, and are quite frankly luck to have?

Share

Eve, you saucy little tart…

I am always up for making fun of Kentucky’s Creation Museum, and I’m also always up for non-sequitur posts about hotties, but I never thought these interests would coincide. Now, thanks to Jesus’ General, I see that Eve, in fact, was seriously freakin’ hot!!! Check this out:

If the picture doesn;t appear here, just click on it. Kinda old school.

Share

The best book on global warming that wasn’t actually about global warming

Nightfall and Other Stories (Crest Science Fiction, P1969)Nightfall

Nightfall, by Isaac Asimov–both a short story (1941) and a novel written with Robert Silverberg (1990).

I cannot speak to Asimov’s original motivation in writing the short story in 1941, but the plot certainly seems relevant today in many ways: A group of scientists make discoveries strongly suggesting an impending global cataclysm, which much of society rejects. In this case, a planet lit by six separate suns, whose people have never known a moment of Darkness, faces an eclipse (during a period where only one sun is visible) by a heretofore-unseen moon, leaving half of the planet in total darkness for about fifteen minutes. During this time, the stars finally become visible for the first time in recorded history. For people who have an instinctive fear of any sort of darkness, this cause widespread insanity and the breakdown of civilization. A religious cult preaches that the Stars are divine punishment for the sins of humanity and predicts the End of the World. In desperation to get some source, any source of light, panicked humans set fire to the cities. It turns out that this is a repeating cycle: the same eclipse occurs every 2,049 years, with approximately the same results each time.

Luckily, we are not headed for any comparable conflagration anytime too soon, but these stories are some interesting food for thought.

Share

Hottest new real estate investment opportunity!!!

Be sure to grab your piece of newly-discovered possibly-habitable planet 581c now, before all the corporate colonization funds get in on it! Only about 20 light years away, so it’s still reasonably convenient from Midtown Manhattan.

Photo

Share

Hold on a second…

From the Dallas Morning News:

The Rev. R. Albert Mohler Jr., one of the country’s pre-eminent evangelical leaders, acknowledged that he irked many fellow conservatives with an article this month saying that scientific research “points to some level of biological causation” for homosexuality.

Proof of a biological basis would challenge the belief of many conservative Christians that homosexuality – which they view as sinful – is a matter of choice that can be overcome through prayer and counseling.

However, Dr. Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., was assailed even more harshly by gay-rights supporters. They were upset by his assertion that homosexuality would remain a sin even if it were biologically based, and by his support for possible medical treatment that could switch an unborn gay baby’s sexual orientation to heterosexual.

Far be it for me to say what’s what on matters of faith, but I gotta say that Dr. Mohler can’t have it both ways. Either it’s a lifestyle choice, in which a remarkable number of people have chosen ostracism (and fabulosity!); or it’s a biological defect, in which case we’re darn lucky to have someone like Dr. Mohler to repair God’s gigantic fuck-up.

As I have often wondered, now that we’ve solved the gay problem (clearly proscribed in Leviticus 18:22), when are we going to deal with all those men who “cut the hair at the sides of [their] head or clip off the edges of [their] beard” (Lev. 19:27)?

Share