If I had more time during the week I would be publishing more content daily.

Anyway, here's some odds-n-odds sitting on my back-burner.

Tell Obama No to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
I like the appointment of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff, however the appointment of Robert F Kennedy Jr. as head of the EPA or anything science based would be a disaster on the grounds alone that he is an anti-vaccination crank and promulgator of pseudoscience. I can only hope that President Elect Obama has not yet properly vetted this man.

Also Kennedy Jr. would just be too polarizing on these issues. We need a science guy in the White House where science informs policy, not someone playing politics with science like the Bush White House. Kennedy Jr. as head of EPA would be a bad choice. Now Gore for the EPA I think would be great, but would probably be to political of a choice.

Read more about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. by Orac, over on Science Blogs.

If good, science-base policy is a concern of yours, please contact the transition team and respectfully inform them how you feel. Rejecting Kennedy over this appointment is beyond partisan politics.

My letter:

Dear President-elect Obama and team,

Robert F Kennedy Jr should not be the head of the EPA nor should he direct health policy of any kind.

President-elect Obama made the statement to Scientists and Engineers of America that he would restore "scientific integrity" to the White House and in policy.

Robert F Kennedy JR would be a step in the wrong direction for his anti-science, anti-vaccination views.

President-elect Obama, I voted for you because I believed you would follow through on that promise to the SEA.

Thank you for your time,

MC Pickard

As always, it is the job of the people to govern and be the watchdogs over politicians in a democracy.

Besides, I can not stand Kennedy's voice – however that man ever made it on radio is beyond me...

Vatican Defends Beautification of Pope Pius XII

Pope Pius XII, otherwise known as Hitler's Pope, is on his way to becoming a saint.

If you can rub two brain cells together, you have to wonder why they would make this move to canonize the former Pope on incomplete evidence?

The Catholic Church, lead by Pope Benedict Ratzinger - a former Hitler Youth and protector of pedophiles, is making this move to protect the Catholic Church from future and past criticism of the church's complicity in the extermination of the Jews. I can hear it now...

"Look the man is Saint  for chrissakes, I don't know what your talkin' 'bout."

On the decision, Vatican's Number 2 official, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, stated that the selection is an internal affair and "a religious matter that requires respect."

Really, they are telling you to shut up.

Just because this is a religious matter, like religious beliefs, does not protect that belief or actions from criticism or ridicule.

By the way, the criticism is being lead by Jewish groups.

(Source)

Pope Meets With Muslim Scholars
In a move to patch religious division and establish understanding, the Pope met with twenty-nine religious scholars of each religion.

"We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all"

I know the discussion is between the two religions, but sorry, just because you believe that you can communicate to an invisible sky friend and wear funny robes to parade your ignorance and believe that a cracker can become Jesus' flesh after you utter magic words, or that images of Muhammad are sacrosanct, it does not mean that I have to show you respect. These are ridiculous beliefs which has caused unimaginable amounts of human misery through the centuries.

Again, ridiculous beliefs require only one answer, ridicule. Respect of your beliefs does not eclipse my freedom of thought, expression, and speech. You'll just have to live with it.

However, one thing that both Catholics and Muslims can largely agree on is that "justice for all"  does not apply to the gay and lesbian. For evidence, witness the inequality for homosexuals and women in respect to the Catholic Priesthood.

Hypocrites. Every damn one of them.

Incidentally, the Pope was correct two years ago denouncing Islam as irrational and inherently violent - but so is Christianity. I wonder why the Pope would leave that out?

(Source)

In government, the role of science holds an advisory position informing the President and as to how public policy should be directed.

During Bush's presidency, climate science and health science became politicized. Bush simply did not like the conclusions of these scientific investigations because of his prior political and religious commitments. There are well documented cases and hearings by the Committee of Oversight and Government demonstrating how science was bent or ignored and scientific integrity damaged.

With McCain we can rest assured that he will continue down the path that Bush has taken in regards to global climate change and health education, even though he would take – as Colin Powell describes a "maverick approach."

Barack Obama understands the importance of scientific integrity and the role of science in relation to good governance. Stating that he would "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees" in a questionairre to the SEA – Scientists and Engineers of America.

Ed Lazowska, chair of the Bill and Melinda Gates Chair of Computer Science at the University of Washington, a member of the academy of engineering explains why he endorses Senator Barack Obama over John McCain.




_____

It's also an understatement to say just how important the internet is in for all our lives. Vint Cerf, a computer scientist, and the "person most often called 'the father of the Internet," who holds honorary degrees and awards from include the National Medal of Technology, the Turing Award, and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, explains why net neutrality is import and why Obama receives his vote.



_____

Marty Chaife, this year's nobel prize winner (along with 60 others) in chemisty explains why he endorses Obama.

In order for the president to lead, he must make good decisions.

It's not a maverick we need at this time, but a president who is willing to listen and then wise enough to implement the advice he receives. McCain will only stay the course.

This is why that many prominent conservatives (here and here) judge Barack Obama as a man of good character and a man more qualified to direct policy and lead the United States over John McCain.

It is an understatement to say how important science is in our daily lives. Science is the best and only method of inquiry which we have to confront the challenges that we face and plan for the future.

Barack Obama gets it.

I have often read that understanding of science in the United States is appalling low. Reading some of the counter-arguments against me, it is frequently stated that I am wrong simply because of my "scientific views."

What? I wrinkle my nose at that accusation. Has science become so maligned in our society that it is hurled as a pejorative against someone who you do not like?

I think its pretty obvious that some of what I write are opinions, some are articles on basic logic and fallacies, many outright ridicule religion (my fave!), and from time to time I like to post pretty pictures. Yes, I do go out of my to troll on other blogs and kick up an occasional hornet's nest or two. Hey, we all have to get our kicks somewhere.

Anyway, I wanted to get something up real quick about the scientific method in preparation for tomorrow's afternoon post. The post will discuss evolution, creationism, and a common fallacy of logic in defense of creationism.

How Science Works is a pretty good primer for just what we mean by science. You'll notice that science is a continuum. A failed theory only begets new questions which leads to a new round of investigation.

Spend five minutes and play along. –CLICK HERE–
 

Other quick things to keep in mind about science.

Science is falsifiable. Science ceases to be science when it's methodology of open inquiry is discarded. Read more here.

Science is based upon philosophical naturalism. Science does not address supernaturalism.

Science is a methodology.

Science is not a belief system. 

In the past past eight years, we've seen an assault on science by Republicans and by other people who are vested in denying reality in service of their financial, ideological or religious needs.

No more so than the Bush administration. They are guilty of blocking stem cell research, altering data on safe sex and abstinence programs, and an ardent suppressor of global warming data which, in turn, affects our understanding of global climate change and has drawn out every non-specialist crank in the world denying multiple lines of evidence and from a number of interrelated specialties.

These cases are well documented, and hearings by the Committee of Oversight and Government demonstrate this fact conclusively – a republican war on reality.

Science provides us with the best answers as to the nature of reality, even if those answers are provisional and open to revision with the discovery of new data, information, and testing. No other methodology can deliver the goods. Unlike revealed "wisdom" of the religious variety, science shows us the facts on the ground or in the air. The role of science in government has become increasingly crucial in policy decisions. Science must be free of interference so that an electorate may be informed as to the consequences of our actions. A democracy can not function in any other way.

Ultimately, this suppression of reliable science puts people in jeopardy.

In February 2002, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) published a report Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making, responding to the politicization and the manipulation of science for political or ideological ends. While Republicans are mostly implicated, there are some Democrats who are just as guilty.

With this in mind, I read with great interest a recent questionaire by the Scientists and Engineers of America (SEA) to each presidential candidate (Obama and McCain's) about their positions and policies where science is concerned. There were fourteen areas covered: innovation, climate change, energy, education, national security, pandemics and biosecurity, genetics research, stem cells, ocean health, water, space, scientific integrity, research, health.

Only Obama answered. McCain has not yet responded. Perhaps, Palin will answer for him - an avowed opponent to the science of evolution and a young earth creationist. (Alternately, there is a comparison between each candidate's views from public statements, here.)

What is really encouraging is Obama's answer on Scientific Integrity, which the Bush administration has seen fit to drag through the mud. While promising to "restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees," and to issue an Executive Order that will seek to "establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of government publications." Obama also plans to appoint a CTO - a Chief Technology Officer. It's unclear to me if this is a new cabinet position, however, the job of the CTO is to coordinate between agencies with the necessary resources and information.

If you want specifics of Obama's policies and views toward science in his administration, I urge you to read it. The page also features fact-checking by the SEA at the bottom.

A really good, informative read.

(Source)

How does one discern fact from fiction? How do you know when someone is purposely deceiving you out of debt to religious dogma or from ignorance?

You do this by learning to think critically. You begin by examining the argument. Is the argument false or relies on a well known fallacy? What about the evidence? Is the evidence as rigorous in quality to satiate the burden of proof?

My own skeptical path took a different route. I was a skeptic of evolution, science and the historical method before I became to advocate for them. I was a skeptic of skepticism. I was also something of an Old Earth Creationist after deconverting from Christianity, basing my worldview in Eastern religions (Hinduism) and a love for crypto-zoology. I let my sci-fi fantasies get the best of me where the "face on Mars" was concerned. Yes, I believed at one time in advanced antidiluvean civilizations, ancient technologically-advanced civilizations on Mars, or that Mary and Jesus were part of an extra-terrestrial cloning experiment. And worse.....

Ultimately, that skepticism turned back on itself. I got online and tracked down the evidence and read what the skeptics had to say. Basically, I renewed my critical thinking skills.

Anyway, I want to suggest a few skeptical books and other resources from my own book shelf. I'm not including pure science books at this time, although, many of these books do rely on the scientific method.

Skeptical Books
The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. The late Carl Sagan writes about UFO and other spurious beliefs, but gives you tools to detect bad arguments and how to assess the evidence in respect to the claim. A really, great read. Essential.

Truth, Knowledge, or Just Plain Bull. Benard M. Patten. Great primer for you to develop your reason and to identify fallacies in arguments.

Why People Believe Weird Things. Dr. Micheal Shermer covers pseudo-science, creationism, and even holocaust denial.  A great book!

Scientists Confront Creationism. A series of short essays which examine the historical arc of creationism to the arguments that creationist use. Short and too the point, this book examines the argument of creationists and how they have not one new argument or shred of evidence since the Civil War. Edited by Laurie Godfrey.

Religious Skepticism
Atheism: The Case Against God. George Smith's hard-hitting skeptical book about belief in god. Clear, easy to understand.

The Case Against Christianity. Micheal Martin examines the claims of Christianity and why they do not work and are objectively false.

The Age of Reason. Revolutionary founder, freethinker Thomas Paine's classic book against Christianity. A crucial, necessary read and a great introduction to Enlightenment reason where belief in a god is concerned.

Podcasts
The Skeptics Guide to the Universe. Dr. Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptic Society, and the other rouges with Skepchick Rebecca Watson examine all the recent psedeo-science in the news. A great entertaining listen!

Point of Inquiry. DJ Groethe brings interviews with leading authors and skeptics defending science and reason and advancing a naturalistic worldview. Essential.

Skeptoid. Great podcast that examines everything from Free Tibet to UFOs and even Big Foot. A TV pilot is in the works.

Websites
Exchristian.net. A place for ex-Christians if you question your religion, or have recently deconverted for support. Want to debate religion? The Arena, the Colosseum, or the Lions Den may be the place for you. The Testimonies of Former Christians section is a must read. 

NeuroLogica Blog. Dr. Steven Novella examines the claims of psedeo-science and psedeo-medicine.

Skeptics Annotated Bible. Essential reference tool in examining the Bible skeptically. Fast links that index the violence, cruelty, absurdities, and  contradictions of the Bible.

Basic Logic
Atheism: Logic and Fallacies. Great introduction on writing clear arguments and associated fallacies.

NoBeliefs. List of Common Fallacies. Great quick read summarizing many basic bad arguments used on the web.

Of course, I can not include every book or resource out there - just the a few of the ones I am familiar with. There are other great authors you should consider. Bart Erhman and Robert Price on New Testament textural criticism. Anything by Carl Sagan or Micheal Shermer is a worthwhile read. On evolution, you can not go wrong with Richard Dawkins or Richard Leakey. On the nature of belief, I would also highly recommend Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett.

Have any favorite skeptical books or links to share? Add them here.
________

Programing note: I've had to cut back on the number of my post in the past week. I've been reading with my spare time and will be back in college, taking classes of interest this fall. I've missed school greatly! I expect a reduction in the number of posts. This will probably be of great relief to the haters out there.

In Jordan, there is debate developing as to whether or not a recent discovery of a cave underneath a Christian Church was used as an early Christian place of worship. If so, this cave would date Christianity around 1 ce, and make it "one of the oldest churches in the world", according to Abdel-Qader Hussein, Archaeologist and head of the Rihab Center for Archaeological Studies.

But there are dissenting views, Thomas Parker, a historian at the University of North Carolina-Raleigh, states:

"It's quite possible that there was a cave with earlier occupation which was later converted to Christian use. But to make the jump that this was actually used by Christians fleeing Jerusalem in the 1st century A.D. seems like a stretch to me."

So, what we are having is a reasonable debate about the provenance of this worship center. However, what is not reasonable is the declaration by Deputy Bishop Nektarious:

"It confirms that Christians in this region are not strangers," he said. "They are real citizens who have always had roots in this region from those days until the present."

It may very well turn out to be an early Christian worship site, but at this present time the evidence is thin and to proclaim certainty is premature.

As Parker points out that, in order to confirm this as a Christian site one needs to understand that the mosaics found "are difficult to date" and that the any of the artifacts still need to be peer reviewed, dated, and vetted. So clearly there is much work yet to be done. This is also an extraordinary claim, and therefore the evidence has to be as equally rigorous.

In this case, the reasonable option is to suspend a decision until such a time we have evidence to conclude with reasonable certainty that this cave was a Christian worship center. We may never have enough evidence to make a conclusion, other than what can be known, so our conclusion may always be provisional. And that is okay.

What is unreasonable is to declare without strength evidence as to the purpose of this cave. Our understanding of the world does not advance when we resort to creating beliefs by fiat and ending investigation.