Quackery And Supplementation - Ginkgo Biloney!

The most in depth scientific study conducted to date has shown that taking Ginkgo Biloba DOES NOT improve memory or slow mental decline.  However, scientists have shown that taking the supplement may 'cleanse' your bank account of unwanted cash.

The rather amusing item of the day, for me, is that after these results were announced this morning on MSNBC, the newscaster said promptly something to the effect of "but these findings are NOT expected to hurt sales of the herb supplement."  Says it all, doesn't it?    -    Read Published Results.

'What Darwin Never Knew'

NOVA's "What Darwin Never Knew" was a real treat. The segment covering HOX genes was too summary, but overall the 2 hour Evo-Devo special was superb and reminds me why PBS is our only, if tiny, answer to the BBC. Watch.

The Real Magic Of Our Universe

A great post from Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy.

New Gallup Poll Shows Lowest Ever Recorded Christian Affiliation Within U.S.

Religious affiliation in the U.S. appears to be steadily decreasing, according to the new Gallup poll.  Though the overwhelming majority of Americans still identify as Christian, it's nice to imagine a day when we can get the rate of mythical and superstitious credulity more in line with that of Sweden or Denmark.  The following has been reposted from Gallup.com:

"The trend results are based on annual averages of Gallup's religious identity data in America that stretch back over 60 years. One of the most significant trends documented during this period is the substantial increase in the percentage of American adults who don't identify with any specific religion. In 1948, only 2% of Americans did not identify with a religion. That percentage began to rise in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Eleven years ago, in 1998, 6% of Americans did not identify with a religion, a number that rose to 10% by 2002. This year's average of 13% of Americans who claim no religious identity is the highest in Gallup records." (Gallup.com)

A Christmas Present For All You "Science-Believers"...

Here's something to make you laugh.  Enjoy!

(Reposted from AtheistMediaBlog)

A Broken Chamber

Paul Krugman sees the harbinger of a terminally ill body upon looking at the Senate.  So do I.  The level of dysfunction due to the antidemocratic power structures that rule the chamber - in plain sight - have peaked since Republicans became the minority in 2006.  The filibuster is now used to threaten roughly 70% of legislation.  Any time the minority party wants to throw a wrench in the democratic process they have taken to it, without castigation from the public for choking majority rule.  It is no matter that they are currently outnumbered by 150%, the minority now wields kill-power without fearing reprisal.  The filibuster has become a given tactic on virtually every piece of legislation.

Of course it has - if the majority were to pass a good bill that was efficient and improved conditions for the American public, they would be rewarded electorally for governing effectively.  So as long as there are no public rebukes, it will always be in the political interest of the minority to derail any potential progress brought by the majority.  Regarding the healthcare bill, and last nights cloture vote, Krugman warns:

"the fact that it was such a close thing shows that the Senate — and, therefore, the U.S. government as a whole — has become ominously dysfunctional.  After all, Democrats won big last year, running on a platform that put health reform front and center.  In any other advanced democracy this would have given them the mandate and the ability to make major changes.  But the need for 60 votes to cut off Senate debate and end a filibuster — a requirement that appears nowhere in the Constitution, but is simply a self-imposed rule — turned what should have been a straightforward piece of legislating into a nail-biter.  And it gave a handful of wavering senators extraordinary power to shape the bill.  

Now consider what lies ahead.  We need fundamental financial reform.  We need to deal with climate change.  We need to deal with our long-run budget deficit.  What are the chances that we can do all that — or, I’m tempted to say, any of it — if doing anything requires 60 votes in a deeply polarized Senate?"

We, the most powerful democratic nation, are watching the machinery of government breakdown to the pace of, well, a filibuster.

Here fo the full article.

The Universe We Glimpse

Shown here is a breathtaking 6 minute space flight, zooming outward from the Himalayas, past the planets, and past the galaxy all the way to the edge of the known universe, before zooming home again.

The model reflected in this video is based on real mapping data.  Watch this video in full screen.

A Universe From Nothing

Dualist 'Deepities'

Thanks to AtheistMediaBlog...

It's Really Sciency When You Say Words Like Nano-Pharmacology!

    Dana Ullman has published an article on the Huffington Post called "How Homeopathic Medicines Work: Nanopharmacology at its Best."  It's another justification in support of an antique superstition that should by now have fallen into desuetude.  Ullman tries to hijack the mantle of science, unflinchingly appropriating words such as 'nanopharmacology' in order to seem as if he has approached the subject scientifically.  His title suggests that the article will explain the mechanism by which water, which he is a self-described 'expert' in using, works to cure ailments... but it never even comes close!

   

    Mr. Ullman can drink as much magical water he pleases, but as he tries to claim the sciences in support of his quackery, he shouldn't expect to get away with it.  Below is response I posted underneath his article:

"It is rather clear that you are selling homeopathy, and your book. You may not throw a bunch of scientific sounding language together to promote an unscientific practice and expect to get away with it free of criticism. As well, you have been rather nasty to your readers' comments.  

    Your "it could be this or that, I'm just guessing, maybe it's like submarines, maybe it's like liquid crystals even though water can not form a liquid crystal, maybe it's the nano-hydro-hexagonal-electrodynamical-fluid-memory" approach not only presupposes that homeopathic medicines are provably effective separate from placebo, it is entirely incoherent even upon cursory inspection.
    No matter how many pseudo-scientific phrases or fallacious metaphors you put together - no matter how many times you disparage the scientific method or scientists themselves (whilst claiming the mantle of science), homeopathy still means: dosing up on water (which is great of course, as long as you don't expect it to cure cancer... I make a point to "dose" myself with large amounts of water every day).

    If water has memory, then does it also remember the bladder of the brontosaurus that it passed through before it touched your lips... what are the therapeutic effects brontosaurus-bladder-water? Or, has science not figured that out either?
    Your response to the criticism you have received, has been primarily to insult... I will extract your words:

"Some...who have posted below may think that they're smart and erudite..they are embarrassingly un-informed and misinformed...they're palpably ignorant on homeopathy. It's ironic that these people hold themselves out to be "defenders of scientific medicine," and yet, they have verified themselves to have an unscientific mind... truly ignorance about..."

I'm sorry to be harsh, but you have been unfair towards your critics, and your science is lousy.  

A parting thought... If the doses get stronger the more dilute the water is, at what water purity do you overdose?"

Death To All... Spelling!

More from Funny Atheism Blog...

Somebody needs a Reformation...

Atheist Melon - Funny Atheist Video

Just came across a great collection of atheist comedy on www.FunnyAtheism.com.

Check out more content on FunnyAtheism.com...

Kent Hovind's Doctoral Dissertation Leaked - Masterpiece of an Infant Mind

Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation has been leaked and posted online.  Hovind, for those who didn't cringe upon his mention, is one of creationism's leading advocates (though he is currently in jail for fraud, his son, Eric Hovind, has succeeded him in preaching the downfall of evolutionary science).

I have never felt any guilt about persecuting the delusional preachings of dishonest people, who prey criminally on the ignorance of others for profit.  However, upon reading the drool that Hovind calls an introduction, I began to wonder if certain levels of stupidity should be considered extenuating.

Don't think I've selected the worst bits to exaggerate a point.  The whole thing is like this!  See for yourself.

Scientific ignorance and logical fallacies abound (hereditary predispositions, for the Hovinds), and the dissertation is written like a grade-school paper:

"I have been a high school teacher since 1976.  I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time.  As an evangelist, God has given me the opportunity to preach and teach the wonderful story of His marvelous creation over 400 times each year to churches, schools (public and private), parent groups, youth groups, on the radio, and in university debates."

- If it is the case that Hovind was preaching in the public school system, then the individuals who tolerated this violation should be dismissed.  That he taught children, well... that isn't really fair, is it?

"I believe that the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, inspired, perfect word of God.  I believe that the Bible needs to be read and believed as it stands... I am, without apology, a Bible-believeing Christian... I believe that God's Word is infallible and flawless in every detail.  If the Bible says that something was created in a certain way, the that is just the way it happened."

- Well, so much for science and the scientific method. Anyone who investigates the universe this way, the "because I said so, because God says so" way, can't exactly complain when they're laughed at for trying to critique well-established science.

"Many great thinkers and scientists have had and influence on me..."

- Wouldn't have guessed it.

"The chapters, and consequently the subject matter of this book, begins by discussing the history of evolution.  Where did we get this crazy idea anyway?  The second chapter deals with the fact that evolution is a religion and not a science, and therefore, should be excluded from public school curriculum."

- Except evolution is science because evolution is itself a fact, and because the theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains the mechanism, is also predictive and supported by evidence.  By the way, didn't he just admit to preaching the word of God in public schools?

"The third chapter deals with the effects of evolution.  What has the teaching of evolution brought to the world in the way of good or harm?  In the fourth chapter we deal with the subject of time.  How old is the Earth?  In the fifth chapter we discuss the big bang theory."

- Because the big bang and cosmology are relevant to the truth of evolution, apparently.

"In the sixth chapter we give information about the Geologic Column, the foundation of all evolutionary teaching."

"In chapter seven we answer questions about radio carbon dating.  Chapter eight gives the truth about cave men.  Chapter nine discussed the "best evidence" evolutionists have for evolution, that is, archaeopteryx."

- Wow, "cave men?"  You'd think he would use the proper terminology in his doctoral thesis.

"We took ten chapters of the book to destroy the edifice of evolution, and clear away the rubble so that we could build on a clean foundation..."

"In chapter thirteen we give interesting evidence that dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible.  I believe that dinosaurs are not only in the Bible, but have lived with man all through his six thousand year history... In chapter fourteen we deal with the question, "Are dinosaurs extinct?"

- Ha.  Also, ha.

"While all of the evidence is not in yet, I feel it is still the best option to take God's Word at face value. The Bible has never been proved wrong yet, and I believe it never will be.  Someone once asked me the question, "What did God do for all those billions of years before He made the Earth?"  That question indicates the faulty logic that God is locked into time like we are.  You must avoid that if you are to understand anything about God.  God created time.  He started it about six thousand years ago and will let it run until He is finished with whatever it is He wants to do. When we get to heaven, there will be no time... we will not be in heaven for billions of years. There will not be any years at all. There are many songs that allude to time in heaven.  For instance, "When we've been there ten thousand years." I'm sorry, but we will not be there for ten thousand years."

- "And now peas I would like to play for recess, becuz I finish my projek already."

Click here for more.

Deja Vu - Bad Media, Junk Science

This article reiterates (with appropriate outrage) what I wrote about yesterday.  You couldn't ask for a more satisfying tirade against the media's drug habit - that is - setting two antagonistic viewpoints in oppositional boxes to debate an issue on equal footing... even if one is a NASA Scientist, and the other is a guy named "Gary... who believes the sky is a carpet painted by God" (Dara O'Briain).

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if CNN ran a quirky, light-interest segment on Arizona Moonbeam, who would describe for us her daily conversations with the faeries that watch over us at all times - explaining that if we would just "open up" we could have magical interlocutors, too.

A friend phoned yesterday, sounding shaken.  He wanted reassurance that nothing would happen to him after having been immunized from Swine Flu - as he'd just been harassed by colleagues for doing so.  They warned that he might become paralyzed, or able only to walk backwards for the rest of his life (you think I exaggerate, but I don't).

This is not harmless conspiracy theorism, this is deadly stuff.  As Copley-Woods points out, another's decision to forgo the vaccination of their children not only affects their family, it can spread infection to yours or mine.  And fault lies, greatly, with a careless media.

Without the media helping to promote junk science, anti-vax leaders would, deservedly, be labeled the quacks that they are.

Read the full article. 

Thanks to Blair Scott for the link.

CNN Lends Credibility to Global Warming Deniers as Newsweek Takes it Away From Vaccine-Crazies

      This morning I experienced a profound desire to smash through my television and strangle the nitwit news anchor who was leading-in a segment questioning climate change on CNN.  Behind her, a flashy LCD displayed a rotating graphic (in eco-colors of course) that read:  "Global Warming: Trick or Truth."  Wow, props to CNN for becoming ever more like Fox.

      The desire to balance two sides of every issue in order to appear "fair and balanced" is contributing to an ignorant public.  With climate change, the weight of the evidence simply crushes the deceptive, fossil-funded deniers to smithereens.  The science is sound... there is no controversy.  So, flashing a headline such as "trick or truth" might catch the eye, but it is also ignorant and irresponsible.

      Likewise, we're forced to suffer prominently featured scare stories from the huge number of vaccinidiots who believe that vaccines will harm you in some awful way.  It seems ridiculous to have to remind people, as I have countless times, that one needn't run the experiment on their own children - we have some shining examples of vaccine-free areas in Africa, where life is as happy and healthy as can be.

Thou shalt not "balance" flat-Earthers and alien abductees against geologists and astronomers.

This Newsweek article about the antivax-movement and it's consequences is a good read.  Send it to those for whom you care deeply, and to those thwarted by the hysteria of celebrities giving deadly medical advice.

Stop The Insanity... End Minority Rule

If you were to ask me what should be done in a hypothetical situation 8 years from now, when a Republican controlled Congress is trying to privatize social security and increase spending (as they delight in doing while they're in power), while simultaneously deregulating the banks and cutting taxes for the wealthy, I would say "filibuster."

Of course I would want a filibuster, it's a powerful way to stop the other side from getting what they want in a patently anti-democratic way.  If the case could be made that it would be "better for the country" to stop the legislation aforementioned, then by all means, filibuster!  Isn't it great to have the filibuster in our arsenal?

No. It is breaking the institution of Congress, and vastly diminishing the power of our democracy.

"It means the minority party has a continual stake in Congress not really working, because that means the president can't really succeed... The filibuster will end when Congress decides that it wants to be an effective, powerful institution again. But that's the only incentive Congress has to end it. So long as it's simply a question of partisan power, someone will always be in the minority, and so someone will always see the filibuster as serving their interests."

-Ezra Klein has written an simple explanation that all should read... Click here to Read the full article.

Sarah Palin Is On Line #6,342,588

It's clear that Palin never bothered to learn much. Throughout her years in school, in office, and in time spent campaigning - she never learned:

•  how to form sufficiently grammatical sentences
•  the scientific method, why it's important, and how it should influence decisions/policy
•  that America was founded in response and opposition to the religious state
•  any significant understanding of the rationale behind legitimate policy differences
•  history

The clip below reveals willful ignorance and a very dangerous kind of thinking. When she says: "I think if we could get back to that, that humbleness, with that kind of contrite spirit, I think that um, uh, we would be able to be provided more of the answers, to so many of the great challenges that were facing," she exposes herself as thinking the solutions to the big  issues of our day, whether climate change, poverty, or health care, will be arrived at through revelation - they will be bestowed upon us (instead of our having to resolve them rationally).

Then, on prayer being answered by God on behalf of the entire nation, there's this:

"History has proven that principle to be so true and so right."

I must have inadvertently missed the entire field of knowledge that is 'The History and Evidence of Prayers Granted on Behalf of the State." What I remember is our having to fight for our liberty with blood and with the force of ideas.  We established our freedom of, and from, religion, slavery, authoritarianism and oppression. We did it ourselves, at great cost, and with as many or more of our enemies praying hard for opposite ends.

What she admits here, however less extreme, is analogous to the type of thinking that power hungry mullahs enforce on a national scale to justify actions that are otherwise indefensible without the pretense of divine authority.

Sagan, Dawkins, Hawking, and Feynman Sing!

Church Cancelled!

Play it loudly, with the windows down, whilst at a red light, in Alabama.

A Beautiful Vision Of The Galactic Center

The music is so... spacey.
WATCH:

(Click on the video while playing to watch in full)

Give Obama Credit... Then Start Crowing Again.

Take a moment to recognize "change," when deserved.  Research has shown that Obama has "changed the relationship between the White-House and lobbyists."  For that we should be thankful.

Now the rest:

• Significant Health Care Reform
• Women's Rights, Gay Rights, Reproductive Rights, and the Right to Privacy
• Financial Reform
• Climate Change Legislation that Actually Means Something

Read the full article at POLITICO.

Roger Ebert Slams Superstitious Creationists, and New-Agers'

Roger Ebert rips into the trendy New-Age phenomoenon, leading into a broader polemic on creationism, politics, and the media.  His critique of the way our media treats manufactured controversies, the evolution "debate" (which is, of course, nothing even resembling a debate), and religious literalism is refreshing.  Particularly so when it comes from a well-known TV personality:

• "My only purpose today is to state early and often that if a Presidential candidate believes early humans used saddles to ride on the backs of dinosaurs, as they are depicted at the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, that candidate should not be elected President. 

• And if a candidate counts among close friends and advisors anyone in communication with the spirit world, that candidate should not be elected President. 

• And if a candidate accounts for the fact that humanoid and dinosaur bones are never found at the same level in the fossil record by evoking the action of sediment after the Great Flood, that candidate should not be President. 

• And if a candidate has a spirit guide, consults his or her Chart and takes more than a passing amusement in the horoscope, that candidate should not be elected President. 

• I would be much relieved if the MSM would subscribe to these guidelines now, when our minds are clear, and not muddle them later in the fray of an election. Serious belief in either the New Age or Creationism should be as much a cause for ineligibility as -- why, not being born in the United States."

Read the full article HERE.

Probable Pair-Instability Supernovae Explosion

Scientists seem to have observed the explosion last year of a 200 solar-mass star. Stars this big are rare today but are thought to have been common in the early universe.  The heavy elements forged together in that massive nuclear furnace were detected in surprising amounts, leading scientists to regard Supernovae SN 2007bi as relevant to the early evolution of the universe.

"The heavy elements spewed into space in the deaths of similar early, massive stars may have stunted the growth of later stellar generations. That's because gas clouds containing iron and other heavy elements tend to fragment into smaller knots that give birth to relatively lightweight stars like the sun.... 

Though some less-massive stars also spew metals when they die, pair-instability supernovae are especially prolific polluters. "One such explosion can pollute an entire small ancient galaxy," Gal-Yam told New Scientist...  The dwarf galaxy where SN 2007bi occurred seems to have low metal content, the team says, which might explain how the star that went supernova was able to form."

Stars born with more than about 140 times the mass of the sun die as "pair-instability supernova" that spew heavy elements into space (Illustration: NASA/CXC/M Weiss)

More at New Scientist. 

Better Than Fantasy

These are some great Hubble images that Alan Taylor at Boston.com put together. Click on the animation to go to the collection.

I know the Eagle Nebula is super-serialized at this point, but it never ceases to shake me when I stare at it.  Each of those little 'pinches' diverging from the main column of gas and dust covers an area larger than the Solar System, and contains a star being born before our very eyes.

Make an Easy $110 as an Atheist

People are paying Atheists to perform various tasks for those who expect to be raptured... for those who eagerly await the privilege to sing the eternal praises of a celestial dictator.

Since they believe they will fly into the sky with Jesus, they are deeply concerned about their beloved pets who will not get a pass, no matter how righteous a life they have lived.  Their solution is to pay atheists to rescue and care for their pets once all the hocus-pocus begins!  Praise be to those who think ahead!

"For $110 per pet, the website Eternal Earthbound Pets says it matches up Christian clients with atheists who pledge to go to their homes immediately after the Rapture to rescue and care for their pets, who are believed to lack souls and would presumably not be saved."

More here.

A Protest

Andrew Sullivan has abandoned the caricature of what used to be the conservative movement... with a bang!  His announcement reads powerfully - a blistering critique of the modern Republican party which has itself become a factory of farcical policies, inherently venomous to American principles.

I will never agree with Sullivan's accomodationism when it comes to religion and superstition, but in his summary description of the impulses governing the modern conservative movement, he has been bang on:

• "I cannot support a movement that claims to believe in limited government but backed an unlimited domestic and foreign policy presidency that assumed illegal, extra-constitutional dictatorial powers until forced by the system to return to the rule of law. 

• I cannot support a movement that exploded spending and borrowing and blames its successor for the debt. 

• I cannot support a movement that so abandoned government's minimal and vital role to police markets and address natural disasters that it gave us Katrina and the financial meltdown of 2008. 

• I cannot support a movement that holds torture as a core value. 

• I cannot support a movement that holds that purely religious doctrine should govern civil political decisions and that uses the sacredness of religious faith for the pursuit of worldly power. 

• I cannot support a movement that is deeply homophobic, cynically deploys fear of homosexuals to win votes, and gives off such a racist vibe that its share of the minority vote remains pitiful. 

• I cannot support a movement which has no real respect for the institutions of government and is prepared to use any tactic and any means to fight political warfare rather than conduct a political conversation. 

• I cannot support a movement that sees permanent war as compatible with liberal democratic norms and limited government. 

• I cannot support a movement that criminalizes private behavior in the war on drugs. 

• I cannot support a movement that would back a vice-presidential candidate manifestly unqualified and duplicitous because of identity politics and electoral cynicism. 

• I cannot support a movement that regards gay people as threats to their own families. 

• I cannot support a movement that does not accept evolution as a fact. 

• I cannot support a movement that sees climate change as a hoax and offers domestic oil exploration as the core plank of an energy policy. 

• I cannot support a movement that refuses ever to raise taxes, while proposing no meaningful reductions in government spending. 

• I cannot support a movement that refuses to distance itself from a demagogue like Rush Limbaugh or a nutjob like Glenn Beck. 

• I cannot support a movement that believes that the United States should be the sole global power, should sustain a permanent war machine to police the entire planet, and sees violence as the core tool for international relations.

Does this make me a "radical leftist" as Michelle Malkin would say? Emphatically not. But it sure disqualifies me from the current American right.

To paraphrase Reagan, I didn't leave the conservative movement. It left me.

And increasingly, I'm not alone."

Bravo Mr. Sullivan.

Fund the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science

Intelligence Squared Debate: Atheism Is the New Fundamentalism

Richard Dawkins and A.C. bring the pain:

Click to redirect to Youtube video with parts 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.