There’s an old joke about [insert your favorite group to be japed at here] planning to send a rocket to the sun. “Won’t the astronauts burn up?” is the standard question, to which the reply is, “No, because we plan to land the rocket at night!”

Strangely, there is a serious real-life analogue that exists: a photograph taken of the sun… at night. By Japanese scientists, no less. [See photo below.] At least, partly at night. It was accomplished by capturing the image through the Earth, or at least partly so–half of the image was collected at night, as it was taken over 503.8 days and nights, with neutrinos. Since neutrinos can travel through the Earth rather easily, collecting them from the sun at night is not a hindrance.

Hat tip again to Cosmic Variance.

A week ago, I reported that we had 12 planets. Now we’re down to 8. Either the Death Star is hard at work out there, or astronomers keep changing their minds.

As cool as the former explanation would be, it’s the latter. Now, Pluto, Ceres, and Xena have been demoted from the “planet” category, and are now classed as “dwarf planets.”

As much as I would have preferred more planets, I can see the sense to this. The question is, is this really the last word? They seem to be saying so now, but then again, they seemed to be saying so last week, too.

I remember back in elementary school when another student made a science fair project and I noticed a few errors in it. One was that the solar system had eight planets. I mean, how outdated a source must that student have been using? Even if I hadn’t been an astronomy buff at that early age, I probably still could have told them that there were nine planets in the solar system.

Five extra-terrestrial planets have been known about since ancient times, since they are visible to the naked eye and can be observed changing position relative to stars (“planet” comes from the Greek word for “wanderer”). While people had inklings that they were not just points of light or some other mysterious forms of matter, it was not until Galileo that it was generally recognized that planets are worlds, like (or not quite like) our own. The original six planets did not grow in number until 1781, when William Herschel discovered Uranus (no jokes please, despite there being no real good way to pronounce that planet’s name in English). Interestingly, Uranus was first observed as early as 1690, but was not recognized for what it was, and even Herschel initially thought it was a comet. Later, he tried to name it “George’s Planet,” for the British monarch, but was overruled by the international community, which then began to set the commonly accepted rules for naming new planets.

Another celestial body was discovered between Mars and Jupiter in 1801, but was later considered not to be a planet because it was one of many objects that would later be classified as “asteroids.” That first asteroid found in 1801 was Ceres. More on that in a bit.

After that, it was a game of gravity: Uranus’ orbit was slightly off from what calculations said it should be, and so we started getting inferred planets–the idea was that the gravity of a then-unknown planet was affecting Uranus’ orbit. This led to the discovery of Neptune in 1846–although Neptune, like Uranus, was observed long before. In fact, the first confirmed sighting of Neptune was by Galileo in 1612.

Neptune’s observed orbit, however, seemed to also be unexpected, leading to another search for a planet that might be affecting the new discovery. That led to Pluto, but not immediately. It took almost a century to find the ninth planet, partly because Pluto, in fact, was not disturbing Neptune’s orbit. In fact, Neptune’s orbit was just fine–the astronomers had made a mistake in calculating the planet’s mass. But the error led to the search that finally ended in 1930, when Clyde Tombaugh, following the work of Percival Lowell, discovered Pluto. The name was actually suggested by an 11-year-old girl named Venetia Phair (which is also a cool name), and was accepted not only because it fit the rules of planetary nomenclature, but because the first two letters (now making up the planet’s sign) were evocative of Percival Lowell’s name.

But Pluto would start arguments among astronomers which would lead all the way to today’s news: is Pluto really a planet? When it’s size (smallest of the nine planets, even smaller than the Earth’s moon) and orbit (highly eccentric and well off the orbital plane of the rest of the planets) were determined, the differences between Pluto and the rest of the solar system cause many to believe that Pluto was not a planet, but some “captured” object, unworthy of planetary status. That’s where the debate remained until now.

For the past two years, astronomers have been debating the classification for what constitutes a planet, and many believed that Pluto would be demoted. Well, the results seem to be in, and though it won’t be official for another week, it seems that not only will Pluto remain a planet, but that three other objects will be added–and maps of the solar system will have to be re-written. Mind you, that’s not due to any new discoveries, only an artificial construct of vocabulary. The new definition is:

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

In other words, it has to be round and orbiting the sun. Kinda inclusive, don’t you think? It could lead to a whole bunch of new objects out there joining the planet club, despite being kinda dinky. Maybe they should set an arbitrary size limit as well–“you must be this tall to join the solar system.” But for God’s sake, leave Pluto in!

Pluto will indeed remain a planet, and another object, now only named 2003 UB313 (the discoverer wants to call it “Xena,” but the convention of scientists is leaning towards “Persephone”). But there are two surprises: first, Ceres will become a planet. Though part of the asteroid belt, it is big enough, and, I guess, round enough to be considered a planet. The other surprise: Charon, which until now has been recognized as one of Pluto’s moons (it has three in total). Charon will join Pluto as a planet, in a new category called “Plutons,” which describes any Kuiper Belt-like objects (beyond Neptunian orbit) that have been or may be found. Charon and Pluto may become more like co-planets rather than planet and satellite; both orbit each other presenting the same face all the time.

There are a lot of other large spherical objects out there that could in theory join the club, so stay tuned. As for me, the biggest adjustment will be fitting in “Ceres” between Mars and Jupiter–it just seems so strange, kind of like getting used to the idea that Jupiter has 63 moons. I grew up with 12; 63 just isn’t right. And I guess that’s the whole point for some people.

Ever get into an discussion with a creationist or an ID’er, and they throw some factoid at you “proving” evolution is fake? Or have you just read some creationist tract and are interested in the other side? Or, even more challenging, are you a creationist or ID’er and you want a healthy test of your beliefs? (Ha! As if.)

Well, in any case, check out the Talk Origins Index to Creationist Claims. Even if it is of no immediate practical use, it’s a very well-documented and exhaustive list of “arguments” forwarded by creationists to “disprove” evolution, each with an excellent explanation of why each claim is bogus. From “evolution is only a theory” to the “half an eye” argument and far beyond, it’s all there. Very interesting reading.

And if you ever get the chance, watch this PBS documentary on evolution, narrated by Liam Neeson. Excellent series.

On Saturday, I related the story about how I was hit by lightning, complete with an audio recording of the incident. I was amazed by being hit, wondering what the odds against that were.

Today, I found out something that makes the odds beyond astronomical, almost beyond belief: one of my co-workers, a professor whose desk is right next to mine, was also hit by lightning–same day, approximately the same time, and same intensity of electrical shock, but in a different part of town.

I know, your first reaction will be that they are pulling my leg. No way something that unlikely could happen. Probably they’re having fun with me, maybe they didn’t believe my story and are being sarcastic. What a sucker I am, right?

I’ll admit, I can be gullible, but I can guarantee you that this is not the case this time. I trust this person implicitly; their personality is completely incompatible with that kind of a gag. My brother-in-law, that would be a different story. By this particular co-worker, not a chance. It’s true: we were both hit by lightning the same day, at roughly the same time.

My co-worker, as it turns out, was jogging in a park near her home at the time (about 10 km away from where I was). Like me, she had misjudged the weather, and was caught off-guard by the sudden thunderstorm. In her case, it was already raining a little and she was wet when the lightning hit. She saw a flash and felt the electrical shock down her left arm as the thunderclap and lightning flash hit. Like me, she was startled, though my reaction right after that was, how cool was that! whereas my co-worker was much less enthralled by the experience. She ran for the nearest shelter, a small utility shed in the park, and waited out the lightning storm there.

But really, what are the chances? I calculated the odds, very, very roughly, of both of us being hit at 90 billion to one–but that’s just for any two people being struck by lightning, and does not factor in the circumstance that we both work together in a small office. I have no idea how to factor that in, but I’m sure that if you did, the odds would go up to the point where you’d need a few sheets of paper just to contain all the zeroes involved.

Stranger than fiction….

Crooks and Liars has a pretty good wrap-up of the Schiavo affair. As it turns out, all the claims made about Terri Schiavo being conscious or aware were false. One of her nurses made claims about Terri speaking and reacting that the autopsy proved to be outright impossible (the nurse now faces loss of her license). Bill Frist’s famous diagnosis of Terri as having responded to visual stimulus was thoroughly discredited by the autopsy, which showed Terri to have been completely blind. All 89 complaints against Michael Schiavo, including allegations that he beat and drugged Terri, that he denied her care, and much, much worse–every single one was proven to be absolutely false.

And yet, there are still multitudes of right-to-lifers out there who live in denial, seeing Terri as having been conscious and happy, and her husband Michael being a vile murderer. Such is the fundamentalist mindset, valuing belief over fact, faith over reason, and their own self-serving version of “truth” over reality.

This from the AP/San Francisco Chronicle:

Men who have several older brothers have an increased chance of being gay, researchers say, a finding that adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation has a physical basis.

The increase was seen in men with older brothers from the same mother — whether they were raised together or not — but not those who had adopted or stepbrothers who were older.

For a long time, conservatives have been fighting the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis. The obvious reason they do so is that if homosexuality is biological, that means it is natural, and therefore not a “lifestyle choice.” If being gay is natural, it would mean that most of the anti-gay arguments made by conservatives would collapse and they would no longer have a ostensibly “rational” shield to disguise their homophobia. Even more, a natural genesis for homosexuality would suggest for creationists that God made homosexuals the way they are, which would devastate many religious homophobes, unless they came to the conclusion (which they probably will) that God created these evil people as a test of our morality.

I’ve even heard conservatives go so far as to claim that gay people themselves say it’s a choice; to do so, they had to dig way back into the early days of the gay rights movement and find a few radicals who made that claim as a way of asserting control over their sexuality. Few gay people make such claims, however; an overwhelming majority report being gay as a natural consequence, one they did not choose. The common phrasing is, “why would I choose to be someone who is so discriminated against?”

We’ve long heard the idea that homosexuality is biological; various researchers have come to that conclusion, and in that sense, this new study is nothing really new. Nor is the study conclusive. It does, however, bolster the general case, and helps opens the way for further study and research.

Conservatives naturally refute these findings:

Tim Dailey, a senior fellow at the conservative Center for Marriage and Family Studies disagreed.

“We don’t believe that there’s any biological basis for homosexuality,” Dailey said. “We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development.” …

“If it is indeed genetically based it is difficult to see how it could have survived in the gene pool over a period of time,” Dailey added.

That’s another common argument against homosexuality having a biological basis: how could the genes for such a thing be passed on? Well, of course, there are many answers to that. For example, if it is genetic, it can be passed on as a recessive gene. But this study, which found that homosexuality occurs more often in men with many brothers, strengthens the case for homosexuality being a consequence of fetal development, and therefore not in the least dying out because a homosexual man does not have children. Apparently Mr. Dailey did not even understand the basis of the new study, or else this lame non sequitur was all that he had to fall back on.

There is also a biological and evolutionary advantage to homosexuality that has been forwarded, one that fits in very well with the idea that men with several older brothers have an increased chance of being gay. If a family group in prehistoric times had too many children and not enough caregivers, it could put the group in danger of not having sufficient resources to raise the children well. Gay members of the group would therefore be an advantage, adding to the number of caregivers who themselves do not produce offspring. The fact that this would kick in only after several heterosexual offspring were produced bolsters the case, suggesting a natural evolutionary solution to a life-threatening problem: family groups with more caregivers once a population threshold had been reached would be more likely to survive.

It is also heavily ironic in light of the policy of many religions which pressure their adherents to have larger families, especially with an emphasis on producing many male children. Such religious mandates would have the effect of increasing the homosexual population.

In any case, this theory, if true, would explain homosexuality quite nicely in evolutionary biological terms. Or even if you don’t believe in evolution, it still would make the case for natural, and therefore God-ordained homosexuality.

If the theory can be proven, that would go a very long way to breaking down the societal objections to homosexuality, and perhaps, in time, even overcome the more primitive foundations of homophobia. One can hope. Just don’t expect it soon.

There’s a news report making the rounds about a team of researchers who claim that they will be able to produce an “invisibility cloak,” or a “cloaking device,” depending on whether you like Harry Potter or Star Trek more. The idea is that a “metamaterial” (“self-referential material”? Material that refers to itself?) will take light from one side of an object and bring it around to the other, as if it passed through the object. Thus, the cloaked object would be invisible–and not just to the eye. Light beyond the visible range as well as sound could also be warped to hide something.

Needless to say, I am taking this report with a grain of salt so big that nothing could cloak it. First of all, stories like this surface in the press every few months or so. Researchers somewhere claim that they’re working on something amazing, and they’re not too far from success in developing it. Usually it’s a clean, cheap, and plentiful new power source, but almost as often it’s some amazing gadget based on a startling new principle. The thing is, you always see news stories about these claims that they’re on the brink of getting the thing… but you never hear of them again, there’s never a report that they actually did it. See, that’s the gold standard I’m waiting for: show me the money. Show me an actual cloaking device, and I’ll be amazed. Tell me one is in the offing, just you wait, and I’ll interpret that as another Brooklyn Bridge deal. Especially when you use words like “metamaterial.”

But the real tell was in the details of the story:

He added that a cloaking material might not take long to develop, assuming there is sufficient research.

“If there is adequate funding, I’d have thought it would take in the order of five years,” he said.

“Five years.” Those are the magic words. (Not to mention “in the order of.”) You see, I once heard an engineer say that when a project is vaporware and the team has no idea whatsoever when the thing will be finished, if even at all, any question about when the project will be finished will be answered: “It’s five years away.” Somehow five years is the magic amount of time. Some engineer apparently figured that five years was just close enough to sound promising, but just far enough away to allow for something to intervene by the time the deadline came up. Or people would just forget by then. I mean, really, if these “cloaking device” guys come up with nothing in five years, will you actually remember and say aloud, “Hey! Where’s that cloaking device we were promised?”

Of course, the second tell was when he said the words “adequate funding.” That’s kind of a giveaway. Actually, it turns out that another team claimed that they were working on a cloaking device a few months ago. All this sounds like perpetual researchers vying for money from gullible people (like Dilbert’s “Vijay, the World’s Most Desperate Venture Capitalist”). Like this second team is trying to one-up the first team: “No we’re working on a cloaking device! Really! Give us the money!” It brings to mind that scene from The Life of Brian where Brian is up on his cross with other condemned people, and when a clemency order comes along for “Brian,” and he doesn’t respond, others chime in: “I’m Brian, and so is my wife!”

A very informative story in the L.A. Times today, showing up the utter fallibility of abstinence-only sex education:

Virginity pledges, in which young people vow to abstain from sex until marriage, have little staying power among those who take them, a Harvard study has found.

More than half of the adolescents who make the signed public promises give up on their pledges within a year, according to the study released last week.

The findings have raised the ire of Concerned Women for America, a prominent conservative organization that advocates adolescent sexual abstinence.

“The Harvard report is wrong,” said Janice Crouse, a fellow at a Concerned Women for America think tank.

Yeah! How dare they suggest that teenagers, especially ones who promised not to have sex, actually go and have sex! I’ll bet that never really happens! Especially not my kids! Even if I had them!

I guess that this is an excellent example of “faith-based reasoning,” as opposed to “reason-based reasoning.” The idea that your kids are going to be perfect angels, that Christian kids are going to be less libido-driven than other kids, that you can actually get teenage kids to overpower their mammoth sexual drives by telling them nothing about sex except that they should promise not to have it until “marriage,” which, to a teenage kid on hormonal surge, might as well be never. Complete, utter denial.

The conservative group, however, claims to have proof for how wrong those Harvard ninnies are:

“This study is in direct contradiction with trends we have been seeing in recent years,” Crouse said. “Those who make virginity pledges have shown greater resolve to save sex for marriage.”

Ah, nothing like facts and figures to resolve an argument. Well, at least from the Harvard people, who have an absolutely killer explanation as to why these conservative researchers are in the dark, aside from the obvious reasons, of course. The Harvard researchers, dealing with a survey population of fully 14,000, had the smarts not just to interview kids when they took the pledge, and then interview them again one year later–no, they were smart enough to come back again, five years later, and re-interview the grown-up people, with all that nonsense and adult-supervised pressure long absent from the scene, so they could get some honest answers.

And guess what? They found that of the kids who said they didn’t have sex a year after they took the pledge, fully 73% fessed up to lying five years later. They did have sex, but were too embarrassed to admit it. Five years afterward, having grown up some, they were more willing to be open about their activity as teenagers.

Who’d have thought? Teenagers who promised not to have sex, actually having sex, and then lying about it! No! It can’t be!

No wonder the “Concerned Women for America” were fooled. Moms pressuring their kids into making abstinence pledges, the kids breaking the pledge, and then swearing to mom that they didn’t have sex. A completely unforeseeable course of events.

I am very much a fan of science, as well as science fiction. I am pretty certain that other life and civilizations exist out there, and am quite keen on the concept of contacting that life.

That said, I don’t think SETI will ever accomplish anything. Here’s why.

Imagine there is a tribe of primitive people on a remote and small archipelago in the south Pacific (where these imaginary tribesmen are usually located), who have never encountered anyone else in the world. They are way off of sea and air traffic lanes, so they have never even seen any evidence of others living on Earth. They do know the Earth is curved (they see boats going to their most distant island disappear over the horizon) and vast, and they wonder: are there any other people, any other tribes out there?

So they send their smartest people off to try to contact others using the most sophisticated communications technology they possess. These big brains climb the tallest mountain in the island chain, start a fire, and begin sending up smoke signals. The communications team figures that if anyone exists out beyond that horizon, surely they will see the signals, and if they do, they will reply in kind. The intrepid team spends weeks up on the mountain, sending signals and keeping a keen and vigilant watch on all horizons for any reply.

Eventually, after receiving no answers to their many signals, they decide to pack it in. Either there is no one else out there, or they aren’t watching for smoke signals, or they aren’t advanced enough to understand or send them, or they just don’t care to reply. Regardless of which is true, they cannot find any evidence of life out there.

And as they walk down the mountain in resignation, they are completely unaware that at that instant, countless radio signals from dozens of highly advanced civilizations on Earth are coursing through the very space they occupy.

In this analogy, we are the tribesmen.

It has always surprised me that this probable truth is never discussed, that I have encountered at least, in public discourse about the search for intelligent life in the universe. No one seems to consider or at least speak aloud the most likely case that alien signals abound around us–but we simply don’t have the technology to pick them up.

Think of the scientific arrogance: we are supposed to assume that the long-range communications technology we possess–electromagnetic radiation signaling–is somehow the ultimate in scientific achievement. Here we are, just beginning our scientific development, still without a unified theory on how the universe works, and yet the technology we developed just a hundred years ago–the blink of an eye by cosmological standards, and just the very beginning of what is likely a long technological evolution–is the end-all-be-all of cosmic telephony. I find the idea highly unlikely. You might say that there is no better conceivable technology than radio to communicate–but I’m sure that what was thought of the last best way to talk before radio technology was developed.

I have little doubt that decades, centuries, or even millennia in the future, we will discover if not one, then many more advanced stages of communications technology, and when that time comes, we’ll discover why things seem so silent in the universe when we listen just with radio telescopes.

Twenty years ago today, I had a class at the Computer Senmon Gakkou school in Toyama. I recall coming into the front office for the school, out of the snow. The staff there was excited, and asked if I’d heard the news. What news? They pointed to the TV mounted from the ceiling, where the news was playing. Very soon, they showed the clips available at the time, of the space shuttle Challenger blowing up. It was a devastating blow for me, as I had always been a fan of the space program. They showed it over and over again. Then I had to go to class.

I’m not one for conspiracy theories, usually. But I am not one to dismiss them out of hand, either. From the evidence out there, I believe that Flight 93 was shot down and a panicked Bush administration didn’t want to admit it. I don’t believe, however, that Bush or his people knowingly manufactured 9/11. If the evidence is strong enough or compelling enough, then I’ll give credence to a theory, and will not allow fear of ridicule or popular disbelief sway me.

The Challenger disaster has always been a matter of suspicion for me. Before the shuttle lifted off, engineers from Morton Thiokol, the company that made the twin boosters on either side of the main fuel tank (the big orange tank the shuttle rides on), warned that the cold temperatures could lead to the erosion of the O-rings holding the booster segments together. If the O-rings went, the shuttle would explode. NASA officials dismissed the warnings and went ahead with the launch.

The question is, why did they do that? NASA has been famous for canceling launches at the drop of a hat. Now they were receiving warnings that the shuttle might explode (in fact, Rockwell engineers also warned about ice damage to the orbiter), and they dismissed them? Mainstream reports hold that NASA had been embarrassed by delays and cancellations in 1985, and that was what compelled them to override safety concerns and launch anyway. However, I don’t fully buy that; it’s out of character with NASA protocols and past actions. And there is an alternate explanation which makes much more sense.

Politics has always influenced the space program. Presidents and other politicians, though disdainful of the money spent and often ignorant of the commercial value of the space program, are always instantly ready to bask in its light and use it to their political advantage. The selection of Morton Thiokol and the segmented booster design, in fact, was influenced by Thiokol being based in Utah, the home state of the senator in charge of the committee which made the decision to buy.

But the major political influence of that day was the fact that President Reagan was set to make his State of the Union address just hours after the launch, and boast about how we had just sent a schoolteacher into space. That administration was famously known for its love of theater and backdrop, and was intensely committed to playing up such drama to the hilt. Education was to be featured in the address, a schoolteacher was on the flight, and already NASA had pushed back the launch by a week. The week-long space flight was originally scheduled to be ending just as Reagan gave his address. Another delay, and Reagan would not be able to use the majestic flight and historic teacher-in-space to his political advantage. The wording from the address that he was scripted to use was this:

Tonight while I am speaking to you, a young secondary school teacher from Concord, New Hampshire, is taking us all on the ultimate field trip, as she orbits the earth as the first citizen-passenger on the space shuttle.

Christa McAuliffe’s journey is a prelude to the journeys of other Americans and our friends around the world who will be living and working together in the permanently manned space station in the mid-1990s, bringing a rich return of scientific, technical, and economic benefits to mankind.

Mrs. McAuliffe’s week in space is just one of the achievements in space which we have planned for the coming year.

Adding to the legitimacy of administration pressure to lift off on Tuesday was the abortive flight cancellation the previous weekend. Challenger was schedule to take off on Sunday. Usually, because weather at the Cape is so volatile, the shuttle would be fueled up and the astronauts would board and the decision to launch would be made at the last minute. However, on Saturday night, bad weather was predicted for the next day, and NASA made an uncharacteristic decision to cancel the night before. The reason: if the launch was scrubbed on Sunday, then the unloading of fuel from the shuttle would mean they could not try again until Wednesday–which would be too late for Reagan’s address. The fact that NASA cancelled early is a persuasive indication that the State of the Union address was a strong factor in the decision to launch.

Tragically, Sunday’s weather was perfect, and had it lifted off then, Challenger would most likely have been safe. Instead, it was delayed until Tuesday. There was pressure from the engineers to scrub. There was pressure from the top to go. The question is, did the pressure from the top come from NASA, which was predisposed to safety? Or did it come from the White House, with Reagan chief of staff Donald Regan reportedly demanding, “Tell them to get that thing up!”

Unless someone makes a deathbed confession, we’ll probably never know. But I do know which is more likely, and certainly which is much more in character.

Talking about “coincidences,” the right-wingers like to debunk and mock global warming as often as possible. Recent weather patterns, they tell us, are just the high end of a “normal” weather cycle, nothing to be concerned about. Well, if that is so, then explain this:

Last year was the warmest recorded on Earth’s surface, and it was unusually hot in the Arctic, U.S. space agency NASA said on Tuesday.

All five of the hottest years since modern record-keeping began in the 1890s occurred within the last decade, according to analysis by NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, NASA said in a statement. “It’s fair to say that it probably is the warmest since we have modern meteorological records,” said Drew Shindell of the NASA institute in New York City.

“Using indirect measurements that go back farther, I think it’s even fair to say that it’s the warmest in the last several thousand years.”

So, is that a “coincidence”? If it’s the high end of a weather cycle, then it’s still the highest end in thousands of years. And it’s not just that and the fact that we had a record number of hurricanes last year, there is wild weather all over. How long will we live in the fantasy that we can dump 22 billion tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the earth’s atmosphere each year, year after year, and not see any adverse changes in global temperatures?

And to those who guffaw and talk about how it’s snowing more where they are, the overall warming trend does not mean it’s getting warmer everywhere, it means that the overall increase is affecting and shifting weather patterns and creating global climate change–which includes more cold weather and snowfall in some areas. Like, say, here in Japan. “Global warming” is almost a misnomer; “global climate change” is perhaps more accurate.

Perhaps a little bit more serious consideration is in order.

See if you can decode this statement by John McCain to an MTV audience:

“Every young American should be exposed to every point of view. I’m not saying [intelligent design] should be taught in science classes. But I’m saying young people should be exposed to it. I also believe that God had a hand in creation. I certainly don’t believe the Earth was created in seven days. But when I stand on the rim of the Grand Canyon and look at that grandeur, I detect the hand of God there in the time before time. I see no reason why students should not be exposed to all theories, recognizing that Darwin’s theory’s certainly one that is generally accepted in most of the scientific community. I think it’s not inappropriate to say there are also people who believe this. Let the student decide.”

This is what I hear: “Intelligent design blah blah blah I’m not getting behind this BS but I want to at least minimally please the right wing core blah blah blah students rock.”

I mean, really–“let the students decide”? Decide what? Not whether to have ID in science class according to his earlier statement, but if not that, then what? Or is this code for “ID is not science and doesn’t belong in the science class but let’s get it in anyway wink wink”? In a true academic environment, the students don’t decide the curriculum–but then, McCain’s statement was probably never intended to mean that students should have any say, but rather that parents, and through them, right-wing school boards and churches should. Steve Benen commented on this aptly:

In related news, McCain said he’d like to see students decide whether to believe the earth is flat, the South won the Civil War, the value of pi is exactly 3, and one can contract the AIDS virus through tears and sweat.

Maybe all the parents who want their children to learn only what is popular and/or approved by the church or the right wing should get together and occupy a deep-red state so only their kids get this claptrap. And then they can collectively wonder at why their kids score lowest on tests, and can’t think straight or get jobs when they grow up.

On the other hand, probably McCain’s “let the students decide” is more like a general utterance designed just to please students and the MTV crowd. Just as the “ID is not science” to please those who want science to be secular, and “the hand of God” to please the fundies. You can’t please everyone but it really sounds like McCain is trying.

That makes you believe he’ll probably try a run for the presidency in 2008. And he’d be the smart choice for the GOP–but he also clearly is not willing to give the fundies what they demand, which is full obeisance and compliance. They’re willing to forgive a veneer of independence, but not nearly as much actual free agency as McCain would probably need. Which means they may get Frist and trash McCain, in the style of when they backed Bush. Which would be great; while McCain is probably the least objectionable Republican to Democrats, he’s also too much of a party man and a GOP apologist to stem the tremendous damage that the GOP would continue to inflict on the country. He’d be a hundred times better than Bush, but he’d still be bad as he’d fully enable the GOP. And if someone like Frist were the candidate, the Dems would stand a much better chance of winning.

Well, Judge Jones himself predicted that the ID’ers would try to brand him as an activist. And here they go–from the Discovery Institute in Seattle, an organization bent on pushing ID:

“The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won’t work.”

“Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case. Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur.”

Of course, if you read the decision, you’ll see that it is taught, going no further than is necessary. Every step is mandated and covers the legal arguments made before the court. There is no question but that if Judge Jones had failed to cover any of his points, these same fundamentalists would then be using those gaps to claim victory.

Not to mention that Jones is not “stopping the spread of debate” in any way, shape or form.

“Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world. Americans don’t like to be told there is some idea that they aren’t permitted to learn about. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory.”

Which, of course, is an inane statement. Jones did not ban anyone from learning about ID. The same students can spend every waking moment studying ID if they so please. Judge Jones simply ruled that it was not part of a science curriculum. Neither, I believe, does it purely ban ID, rather, it bans school boards from requiring it.

And again, he is not attempting to kill off interest or stop ID from developing; in fact, he states clearly that “[we do not] controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed.”

“Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools. But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis.”

This is a rather blatant lie. If they opposed efforts to mandate ID, why are they not in favor of this opinion? Further, they suggest here that ID cannot be discussed in the science classroom. I am fairly sure it does not do that–the ruling stated clearly that “it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom” (italics mine). A teacher should be able to bring up the ID argument without problem.

In short, these people are full of it. But there is some base, visceral enjoyment in seeing these people get hopping mad and braying this contrived pap as uselessly as a dog barking at the moon. Reason won out this time–sorry, Charlie.

It’s official: U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III has handed down his decision in the Dover School Board case on ID, and he says it has no place in science classes. Jones ruled that ID was not science, and could not uncouple itself from its creationist underpinnings. I have yet to get my hands on a copy of the ruling, but from what initial reports say, the judge was almost contemptuous of those trying to get ID in the science class:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

This case is significant because it will act as precedent nationwide and will influence other courts, should ID’ers elsewhere try the same tactic in getting creationism into the public science classroom. Even better, since the people of Dover chucked out the entire 8-member school board that brought the case and replaced the entire board with Democrats, it’s clear that the new school board will accept this ruling and of course not appeal, meaning that the ID’ers will have to work that much more to impose religious doctrine into public schools.

More on this as I get more information.

Update: the decision is now available online. It makes for excellent reading, and acts as an exhaustively researched and well-written analysis of ID, a seminal view of all the arguments for and against. Excerpts include:

…we conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. …

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. …

After a careful review of the record and for the reasons that follow, we find that an objective student would view the disclaimer as a strong official endorsement of religion. Application of the objective student standard pursuant to the endorsement test reveals that an objective Dover High School ninth grade student will unquestionably perceive the text of the disclaimer, “enlightened by its context and contemporary legislative history,” as conferring a religious concept on “her school’s seal of approval.” …

In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. …

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. …

As referenced, the concept of irreducible complexity is ID’s alleged scientific centerpiece. Irreducible complexity is a negative argument against evolution, not proof of design, a point conceded by defense expert Professor Minnich.

And one of my own pet arguments:

ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41 (Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this Court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed “contrived dualism” in McLean, was employed by creationists in the 1980’s to support “creation science.” The court in McLean noted the “fallacious pedagogy of the two model approach” and that “[i]n efforts to establish ‘evidence’ in support of creation science, the defendants relied upon the same false premise as the two model approach . . . all evidence which criticized evolutionary theory was proof in support of creation science.” McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267, 1269. We do not find this false dichotomy any more availing to justify ID today than it was to justify creation science two decades ago. … we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design.

The judge concludes:

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

Excellent. Just excellent.

While ID proponents may well try to frame this as judicial “activism,” a quick read-through dispels any doubt whatsoever about that being the case. This is obviously well-grounded in law and reason. Even if it were challenged by appeal, It’s pretty clear there would be zero chance of it being overturned.

This story from the LA Times is out today:

A federal appeals court panel appeared sharply critical Thursday of a ruling this year that ordered the removal of stickers in science textbooks stating, “Evolution is a theory, not a fact.”

Judge Ed Carnes of the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the lower court judge had misstated facts in his ruling, overstating the influence religious protests had on the school board’s actions. He also said the words on the sticker are “technically accurate,” and that the Cobb County school board was justified in singling out the theory of evolution for comment.

“From nonlife to life is the greatest gap in scientific theory,” Carnes said. “There is less evidence supporting it than there is for other theories. It sounds to me like evolution is more vulnerable and deserves more critical thinking” than other subjects.

Well, it seems Carnes either has a personal bias in favor of Creationism, or he’s just not too bright. He doesn’t even seem to realize what the “theory” of evolution is. That’s a rookie mistake, like believing that the “theory of gravity” is about whether or not gravity exists. The “theory of evolution” is not a theory about whether evolution exists, it’s a theory as to how evolution works. Evolution itself is clearly real, as proven by all the evidence–fossils dating back a few billion years, life forming more complex organisms as time progresses, with clearly defined branches of forms developing, one creature into two or more, one creature into another in a chain, leading up to present-day life. The core idea of evolution–that life changed from less complex forms into more complex ones–is about as solid as it gets.

You could argue that “evolution” has come to mean the theory of how, instead of meaning evolution as a whole. But not in this context. The people who put the stickers on those books clearly believe that evolution did not take place at all, and want students to get the official word from the government that God created all life in its present form. The phrase “Evolution is a theory, not a fact” is “technically correct” only if you completely ignore the context.

Further evidence that Carnes is bending things comes from his statement about “nonlife to life” being the “greatest gap in scientific theory.” This only covers one part of the theory of evolution–the beginning–and completely ignores the remaining fossil record. One could still believe that God created the most primary life forms and let things snowball from there, and evolution is still real and present. But even that is still a “God of the gaps,” using God to fill in for segments of scientific understanding not yet achieved.

Science can, without any contradiction or complication, be described as understanding “how God did it,” not “whether God did it.” Understanding that, evolution as described by science can be seem as an attempt to understand how life formed, whether as directed by God or not. The same can be said of how life began. If God did it, He must have used some method, one that could be described by science. Why is it so all-fired important for some people to believe that it was somehow magical? That it was not God directing the laws of molecular interaction so as to lead to the grandeur of life we see today, but rather some instant, mystical, clap-some-clay-together-and-poof-there’s-life miracle that would be beyond science’s ability to explain?

The outlines here are clear: people who believe that an old-looking guy with a beard and maybe a belly button slapped clay on clay and made life, and that’s that; they believe that evolution is wholly untrue. This is a religious belief, and they’re pissed that the evidence of the world contradicts that, and worse, that the government allows this contradictory evidence to be taught in schools. These are people who believe that all of evolution is untrue, and want this religious doctrine to be reflected in universal education. That’s what the stickers are about; anything else is a snow job.

Note to Judge Carnes: get a grip on the issue.

Via DKos, this scientist makes an argument which by itself knocks the so-called “Intelligent Design” theory completely off the stage. He points out that our “intelligently” designed bodies are not quite so intelligent: there are many flaws in our construction which can only be explained by evolutionary processes. These same flaws make absolutely no sense in a creationist paradigm. Our pelvises slope forward, for example, a throwback to a time when we did not stand erect, but used our knuckles to aid in walking. We have too many teeth for the size of our mouths, a product of a shortened muzzle or snout. The appendix and tonsils are unnecessary. And a list of other problems on top of these.

Certainly, a good examination of the structure of the human body would reveal a number of things that make no sense if it were supposed to be a pinnacle of design–or even a mediocre design, but well-built. These imperfections do not make sense if you assume a designer–but they make perfect sense if you assume an evolutionary process. This is similar to the fact that the universe is built in a way that contradicts a 6,000-year-old cosmos. The universe that we observe demonstrates light that has been traveling towards us for billions of years, and a momentum that points to a big-bang beginning about 14 billion years ago. Why would God create a universe with such built-in contradictions? Would He really construct a universe full of light heading toward us as if it had already been traveling for eons? The best (though pitiful) explanation is the whole “God is testing us” theory. But if God is omniscient, then He would have no need of tests. And if the test is purely for us, then isn’t it kind of an unfair test? Or did God imbue us with with the quality of reason as a cruel joke?

I prefer to believe that the universe we live in and the bodies we inhabit are not a tissue of lies.

I found this image on a Hubble site; it shows the center of the M51 galaxy, the image being hundreds of light years across:

According to NASA:

The “X” is due to absorption by dust and marks the exact position of a black hole which may have a mass equivalent to one-million stars like the sun. The darkest bar may be an edge-on dust ring which is 100 light-years in diameter. … The second bar of the “X” could be a second disk seen edge on, or possibly rotating gas and dust in MS1 intersecting with the jets and ionization cones.

Me, I think they’re huge fans of The X-Files and are trying to tell us something; see one version of The X-Files’ logo below, and compare:

The Truth Is Waaaaay Out There.

Boy, the appearance of this moon almost freaks me out. I mean, it almost looks like a diseased, pockmarked vegetable pod split open rather than a moon of majestic Saturn. This photo of Hyperion courtesy of the NASA Cassini orbiter probe, taken Sept. 26, 2005 while 62,000 kilometers from the moon. Click on the image below for a larger (1024-pixel-square) version of the photo.

This raw, unprocessed photo from a few days ago, meanwhile, looks like something right out of a science fiction movie: the small moon Prometheus hovering just above Saturn’s ring plane, while another moon (Dione?) passing in front of what I assume is Titan (again, click for the larger image):

I love this stuff.

Let’s say it simply: science does not deny the existence of God. Science simply explains what we observe in the universe in a mechanical sense. It is fully possible to accept both science and religion wholly. Science only “contradicts” certain religious doctrines in the interpretations, and these details are when the doctrine attempts to use scripture to establish science. Historically, religion has always evolved to accept what science has found; where churches attempted to establish religious-based scientific dogma (the concept that the Earth was the center of the universe being the best example), they eventually changed the dogma to accept what science showed was true. It often took a great deal of time and they wound up cowing and punishing a lot scientists along the way, but it always happened. And so it will with evolution. It’s just a question of how long it will take the fundamentalists to “forgive” the scientists for reporting what they see.