Unfortunately for my readers from abroad, its entirely in Dutch. And, although it has me being very prolific at writing, it has kept me from working on this site. I'm hoping for my attention to swing back a bit in the future, and I do hope I do not find you gone by the time I do so.
Then again: the pictures just keep on coming! So, I'm hoping you will do so too!
February 21, 2006 - In the - and sadly so - continuing story of the intellectual mess that is intelligent design, the messengers of this mental christian dog crap have resorted to the tested scientific method of the petition. For, in the history of science, is there an end to the number of debats that have been resolved in this fashion?
It's an initiative by christian fundamentalist propaganda machine the
Discovery Institute.
It's also a try at a fallacy of the '5,000,000 Elvis fans can't be wrong'
variety, and thereby a pathetic try at an argument
from authority ánd an appeal
to the people at the same time.
No doubt there are a substantial number of scientists who will admit to
indulging in a spot of the metaphysical, the paranormal or even the religous
every know then. But no matter what believes or superstitions they adhere
to, there are very few scientists who will be convinced by a round of
voting.
Scientific conscensus is not a democracy.
So, as was to be expected, as of yet there does not seem to be much support
for the petition. So far only around 500 PhD's have signed up to it. (Mostly
American and not always from relevant areas of expertise.)
But whatever the final tally will turn out to be. I'm quite sure a statement
such as "Scientists should not lend their support to a petition
that is going to be wrongfully used as an argument in a scientific debate
- especially if the debat is removed from their field of expertise"
will amass more support.
(To illustrate, I give you the
petition by people called Steve who adhere to Darwin's theory of evolution
has gathered over 700 signatures in just a couple of days.)
Of course the crypto-creationists at the Discovery Institute are smart
enough to realise that in the real arena of scientific debate their beloved
arguments have been taken to shreds already. So they go for a rematch
in the public space via the hearts and minds of taxpaying, kids-to-school-sending
Joe Public out there. It's easier manipulating the soundbite audience
than it is reality. Especially if you start the mindfuck a young age,
that is. It's truth as a social construct in it's ultimate consequence
- the Orwellian method for knowledge gathering, if you like.
Though not without it's dangers, it's mostly just a bit of a ludicrous.
It's like Brasil is leading Andorra 4 to 0 in a football match and somebody
decides to pass round a petition aimed at sporting boffins containing
the statement 'Andorra is winning'.
There is one comforting thought: winners don't need petitions.
February 09, 2006 - The news
that H5N1 has reached Africa strikes me as somewhat worrying. Maybe I'm
guilty of reflexive-xenofobic anti-Africanism here, but I'm guessing that
in Africa's Darwinian pressure cooker all sorts of interesting stuff could
happen to the virus. What kind of bubonic birdy blood-cancer would result
from a lusty
liaison between H5N1 and, say, ebola or HIV, I can't help but wonder.
As far as I know, DNA recombination is most likely to happen between viruses
of the same family - which the ones mentioned are not
(they respectively belong to the orthomyxo-, filo- and retrovirus families).
Still, it would be nice if someone could please calculate the odds at
this happening? Given, that is, the renowened African efficiency with
which this problem undoubtedly will be dealt with.
Isn't it great we have such a wide choice of doom scenario's these days!
Whoever is doing the marketing of the Apocalypse is doing a hell of a
job!
Those among you who don't want to miss out on any of the mainstream doom scenario's, should pay a visit to Exit Mundi, the website that lists all the options neatly - and thank be to the gods, tongue-in-cheekishly.
November 03, 2005 - So busy doing this and that, I nearly forgot
to inform you about the new BBC-documentary that started last monday,
called Shadows
of Doubt. It's a three part series on the history of atheism,
or rather, disbelief, presented by Jonathan Miller. Try catch part two
next monday.
No doubt there will be more gems like Epicures' classic little gem from
the fourth century before the year 0, quoted in episode one:
- is God willing to prevent evil but not able, then he is not omnipotent
- is he able but not willing, then he is malevolent
- is God both able and willing, then wence cometh evil?
- is he neither able nor willing, then why call him 'God'?
Still as air tight a bit of reasoning as ever. Isn't logic wonderful!
Don't forget to check out the poll on the series website; it's on the right. If you want to listen to interviews from the series, you can go here.
If any answers are blowing in the wind at all, chances are you will find them here.
October 10, 2005 - Entry in the category 'just too good to be true': ogling tits 'n' ass is not beneficial to your health. No indications to the contrary either then, I guess.
This months New Scientist has the answer. It's all a matter of coherence, it turns out.
According to that dr. Lloyd mentioned in the item below, this supports the idea that women have orgasms the way men have nipples.
If you can't get enough of those orgasms, elsewhere on the same site there is a somewhat hysterical, yet not entirely unfunny response to Lloyd's conclusion that the female orgasm is an evolutionairy by-product without any determinable function.
Now, that might please those old-skool Calvinists who believe in predestination. But it bodes very bad news for the evangelical claim that some god or other gave us free will to believe in him, or not. If this isn't yet another logical proof there is no (righteous) god, I will eat my babel fish!
Please note that this does not preclude the existence of an ironic god, though. If the genetic basis for religosity aswell as homosexuality are instances of intelligent desing at work, this does suggest a sense of humor on the part of the designer - either that or it's sheer malevolence.
So, like language and tool usage and the rest, humor might not be a uniquely human characteristic after all. Well, that figures, doesn't it. To ascribe a sense of humour solely to homo sapiens is a self-flattering theory, and, like all self-flattering theories, it was bound to be proven wrong somewhere along the (punch) line.
Here's the first one infidels.org...
November 2004 - Have I discovered this on myself?
For every application of device that is connected wirelessy to another you need an extra wire or cable for it's power supply (be it continously or just for charging).
TEST YOU PSYCHIC POWERS - 100% FREE!!!
There is a lot of cash to be made if you are paranormaly gifted!
Want to test your powers? Just send your name and address through paranormal means to your local Parapsychology Professor or researcher.
If you don't get a reply within three days, you do not posses any supernatural
powers.
(thanks to: www.improbable.com)
 |
Try - The Constants of Nature by John Barrow. |
 |
Try - Dawkins vs Gould by Kim Sterelny |
 |
Try - Origins of Life by Freeman Dyson |