Rachel’s Musings

Just released on DVD, Nova’s show “Intelligent Design on Trial” chronicles the trial in Dover, Pennsylvania where parents and science teachers fought the edict of a religiously driven school board to read a 1-minute statement that Intelligent Design (ID) is an alternative theory to evolution. The show explains in good-old Nova fashion the background of evolution while recreating parts of the trial. The witnesses on the side of evolution present their case first. One of their key witnesses was biologist Ken Miller who educated the judge and the journalists covering the trial about the breath-taking facts of the theory of evolution. He points out how evolution had been threatened by genetics, when that field was a science in its infancy. Instead of debunking Darwin’s theory, genetics turned out to support it remarkably. Another witness was Philosopher Barbara Forrest who probably dealt the harshest blow to ID by showing that it simply is Creationism in new clothes (which the U.S. Supreme Court only in 1987 ruled to be incompatible with teaching science). In subpoenaed drafts of the textbook the ID people were trying to force onto Dover students, she found the same definition for ID before and after the 1987 Supreme Court ruling: Before, that definition was defining creationism; after the ruling it defined ID. She even found words that had evolved from creationism to intelligent design but only imperfectly. Obviously, nobody had spell checked the draft…

From the ID side, the key witness was, of course, Michael Behe and his idea of irreducible complexity. It is almost saddening to watch how his testimony imploded: His assertions rested on ignoring evidence, which was presented to him by one of the lawyers from the evolution side. In volumes. It was difficult even for Behe to continue to ignore that evidence when it was right in front of him. In a court room. Irreducible complexity is simply bogus, especially in the example he brings up. And so the whole case for ID goes down the tube.

Judge John Jones, who was appointed by George W. Bush, ruled that ID is not a scientific theory and that teaching it in school would introduce religion. Thus it is unconstitutional for ID to be taught in public school. His ruling was greeted with insults (a former Dover School Board Member called him a “clown” who should sit on a “circus bench”) and death threats. Apparently, those people who think there is no good without God become immoral as soon as somebody points out reality to them.

Sidenote: Ken at Open Parachute has an interesting commentary on Behe’s book, “Darwin’s Black Box.” He argues that the book is rather depressing because it is lacking the usual forward moving ideas from science. “God” as the answer to science question is a depressing discussion stopper.

The Pew Forum has published their results of their U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. The survey results are based on a sample of about 35,000 adults, which, since they used random digit dialing, should be representative of the U.S..

Here is my summary of the survey highlights (or lowlights…). Of course, my first interest is in looking at overall religious affiliations. The top 4 religious affiliations in the U.S.:

• 26.3% Evangelical Protestant Churches
• 23.9% Catholic
• 18.1% Mainline Protestant Churches
• 16.1% Unaffiliates

Now, what might that “Unaffiliated” category be?      Continue reading this post » » »

Chip Conley’s book “Peak: How great companies get their Mojo from Maslow” applies Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs to the world of work. He summarizes Maslow’s famous pyramid: “Maslow believed that each of us has base needs for sleep, water, and food (physiological), and he suggested we focus in the direction of fulfilling our lowest unmet need at the time. As those needs are partially fulfilled, we move up the pyramid to higher needs for physical safety, affiliation or social connection, and esteem. At the top of the pyramid is self-actualization, a place where people have transient moments called ‘peak experiences’” (p. 9). Conley collapses Maslow’s five pyramid levels into three: Survival (Maslow’s physiological and safety), success (social/belonging and esteem), and transformation (self-actualization). He then adapts this transformed pyramid to the three primary stakeholders to every business, using his hospitality company as the development example: employees, customers, and investors. Each stakeholder, Conley argues, has a unique pyramid and the role of a successful business is to move each stakeholder up the pyramid to the transformation level.
     Continue reading this post » » »

There is a Buddhist distinction between pain and suffering: a tooth ache is a pain, the suffering is created by her mental processes around the pain. But isn’t that distinction a luxury? To tell a person who is starving that they’re suffering because they’re attached to food (or worse, it’s their bad karma) just seems plain ridiculous and arrogant. Yet, there is something attractive about that distinction: is it because it allows us to blame the victim? I think so: As long as suffering is defined as happening when we create it ourselves by being attached to something, nobody else has to do anything about our suffering. Throw in some karma for good measure and you’re off the hook for eternity (if there is such a thing).

“Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues of The Environment, Health and Medicine, and Science and Technology Policy.

This started as a concerned citizens initiative and is now cosponsored by the AAAS, the Council on Competitiveness, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, and signed by over 100 leading American universities and other organizations.”

Go sign it!

In another twist to make an insult into a compliment – similar to Richard Dawkin’s out campaign – Tina Fey on Saturday Night Life turned the accusation that Hillary Clinton is a bitch into a slogan: “Bitches get things done!” She deflates other snide remarks made against Clinton as well but this one is most certainly the crown. Since we can’t seem to reason with the Right, we might as well redefine their terms. It worked with “queer,” there is no reason it can’t work with atheist or bitch!

You can watch the video here at Gigglechick. She also offers buttons. Unfortunately, they endorse Clinton, which I am not ready to do even if bitches get things done…