3. Other Stuff

The Reptile-Mammal Transition: not only a slam-dunk for Macroevolution but Antievolutionists pay no attention to it

2003 “3 Macroevolutionary Episodes” illustrated TIP summary
Brick to throw at those claiming no evidence for macroevolution

Paper on “A Tale of Two Citations”

Taking “Teaching the Controversy” seriously, or:
Discovery Institute no better at sweeping fossils under the rug than their predecessors

Portable Map of Time (No Assembly Required)
The Universe & History of Life on Earth to scale on one page

2009 “Tortucan” concept lecture (Kennewick WA Free Thought Society)

How do people believe batshit stupid things? Take a few minutes to meet the Tortucans

NOMA Revisited: The Limits of Evidence

2013 lecture on Intelligent Design for Peter Boghossian’s class (Portland State University)

The pressing need for a global secular Bill of Rights
The grim population figures say it all

8 Jan 2017 lecture to the Seattle Atheist Church

The Ann Coulter series:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter1.cfm

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter2.cfm

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/coulter3.cfm

22 April 2014 Seattle Federalist Society debate (45 min VIDEO) with Patrick Garry on then pending Greece v. Galloway SCOTUS city council prayer case

8 thoughts on “3. Other Stuff

  1. What map of “time” “. You would be more “correct” if you said “the best accepted” map of time. I have designed and built a standard mass flow qualified to National Bureau Standards. All five measurement had to be certified to +/- .0001 %. which meant that all my measurements had to be accurate within .00001%

    Let’s use gravity as an example. Man doe not know what, where, how or why it is. We only know the effects on what we call mass.

    Can you tell me the “standard” that was used to verify the so called “red shift”. Why should it be accepted as some how “proving” how long the universe has existed?

    Remember it wasn’t that long ago “man” knew “ether” had to exist for light to travel from the sun to the earth.

    Like

    • If you want to re-fight the last century of science, fine and dandy, by all means take that up with astrophysicists. I don’t find any of your work among the technical literature I am aware of. Do let me know of your published efforts in that regard. The red shift is an observation, the recession of galaxies from one another is the entirely reasonable explanation to account for those consistent observations. Since you brought the age of the universe into things, do say how old you think things are, and by what means you came to that view.

      Like

  2. I’m new to most of the discussion of science versus religion, but particularly to your site. I watched your Dinesh D’Souza piece this morning and was relieved to hear that I wasn’t the only one who thinks Trump’s rhetoric smacks of that of every other tyrant of whose speeches we have records. Living with a man who doesn’t want to vote for any but republicans is pretty trying, but for once he agreed with my assessment. Who voted for this man? I hope your predictions don’t come true, but I fear the state of science education in this country is going to suffer. People like us, the intelligent ones, have to be vocal about our reasons for wanting to keep up standards.

    Like

    • Thank you Linda. Trump falls off the map methodologically in a way other presidents have not. Bush II was essentially a decent person, fell in with a highly Tortucan set of bright guys (Cheney, Rumsfeld etc) who talked him into that Iraq war misadventure (an expensive one, though not necessarily anything so bad as a grand strategic blunder, like WWI). Nixon was an often brilliant student of politics and history, fatally tainted by his nasty enemies list get even mindset. But temperamentally there’s never been anyone so narcissistic as Trump as POTUS, nor one so fundamentally ignorant and mired in a childishly stupid tit-for-tat personal combat style. I can’t think of any President (especially the great ones) who had such sadly limiting features. His lack of political leadership skills manifested in the ACA debacle, and his willingness to turn on a dime and make deal with Democrats just to get some good press he could bask in suggests how unpredictable he will be. As yet he hasn’t instituted any of his main economic policies (to the extent he has any at all) but the double down trickle down plus head in sand deregulation temper of what appears in store doesn’t bode well for long-term economic prosperity (except for the ones at the top, who Trump might bump into in his golden properties).

      Like

  3. A correction to a subordinate detail in “NOMA Revisited”: “A nice example was William Clifford, a brilliant American mathematician and freethinker” (p. 2). Clifford was born in England and lived there all his life.

    Liked by 1 person

    • You are absolutely correct, Miles. For some reason I had recalled him as being American, and only later discovered my error. Glad someone finally spotted it, shows some do read carefully. You get points!

      Like

      • If you are interested in reading an account of what the ecclesiastical term “Magisterium” actually means, and how perverse Gould’s attempt to appropriate it for secular philosophical purposes is, I refer you to a piece that I posted on my blog some years ago: “And When I Know Precisely What Is Meant by ‘Magisterium'” (http://skepticaljew.blogspot.com/2013/08/and-when-i-know-precisely-what-is-meant.html). I will paste a single paragraph from it here:

        >>The ecclesiastical use of the term “magisterium” differs from Gould’s appropriation of it on several points. First, in ecclesiastical usage, a magisterium is not a “domain” of teaching authority: it simply is teaching authority. There are, of course, discussions of the range of matters in which the Church has this authority; but the word “magisterium” signifies the authority itself and not the subject matter to which it pertains. Hence, in ecclesiastical usage, it would be plain nonsense to speak, as Gould sometimes does, of the magisterium of this or that subject matter (e.g., natural fact, ethical values, etc.). The magisterium is the magisterium of the Church. Second, the pertinent sense of “authority” is not merely epistemological but also institutional: the magisterium of the Church is the authority that a certain body, the Catholic episcopacy, has over the faithful in matters of faith and morals. Third, the term “teaching” here is not a byword for “inquiry” or “discovery” but signifies the handing-down of conclusions by those in authority to those who are obliged to accept them. The magisterium of the Church has nothing to do with procedures for posing questions and resolving disputes. The Church may have these, but they are not what the word “magisterium” signifies. Rather, it signifies the status of the upper priesthood’s conclusions as divinely revealed truth. Fourth, the term occurs (so far as I have found) only in the singular form, never in the plural: there is no ecclesiastical talk of “magisteria,” but only of the magisterium of the Church (Magisterium Ecclesiae). Thus the term does not serve to demarcate one subject matter from another or one way of answering questions from another, but only to identify who or what bears teaching authority in matters of revealed truth.<<

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s