From the mouth of the discovery institute comes "The More They Know Darwin, The Less They Want Darwin-Only Indoctrination" where they say that polls show that the more a country knows about the Theory of Evolution, the more they want to teach "alternatives" like Intelligent Design or Creationism.
Hmmm... I can't think of anything LESS relevant to the entire topic of evolution and education. Since when do we go out polling the population to see what should be taught in science classes? Imagine a physics professor in front of a group of university students saying, "Hey kids, instead of teaching the intended String Theory class, I'm going to give you how atoms are controlled by little fairies kept in bottles on the moon. The US population has decided that it should have equal weight."
Seriously - it is completely irrelevant.
Ken Miller was dead on when he said "If I had to give a prize for the best idea that anyone in the antievolution movement has ever had, I'd award it to whomever came up with the term 'Intelligent Design'."
The term itself is all anyone usually knows about it. After that, all the BS and sciency sounding jargon is enough to fool most people. What's the alternative to 'intelligent design'? Something un-intelligent and non-designed I guess.
Some things cheese me off. The Discovery Institute is one of them. They are a bunch of scientific minded individuals, who are smart enough to know better, but practice spinning lies to the population in hopes that they will convince some people to believe their BS. I doubt there are more than one or two in their think-tank who actually believe what they are saying. Certainly not Michael Behe or William Dembski, both of whom are complete and utter liars who aren't just misguided morons, but know enough to realize that what they are saying just isn't true.
You'd think that Behe would go away after having his books completely trashed by intelligent five year olds with a passing knowledge of evolution, or that Dembski would finally man up and produce some math that other people could actually see. Dembski's promise of an equation that can tell the difference between designed and non-designed items (genetics, mountains, sculptures?) has been in the works for 10+ years and is still just a no-show. Strangely enough - there are people who still take him seriously.
Scientifically speaking, intelligent design and creationism are the same as astrology and voodoo for what they add to an understanding of the complexities of life. The world would be a better place if they didn't exist.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, August 31, 2009
New Zealand News
I love New Zealand. I moved here eight years ago and it was one of the best decisions of my life.
However, TV news is pretty bad . Two things that get me:
1. A half hour news program has 10-15 minutes of sports coverage. Rugby is the hot topic, even high school rugby gets in-depth coverage. Cricket is a close second.
2. If there is any sports related news, some scandal or even a high school rugby fight, it is presented not as sports new, but as regular news, eating into the ACTUAL regular news.
It is almost like the producers and writers are little kids who can't help but talk about the stuff they love, happily putting aside more important news, like shootings or catastrophes.
The only positive that I can say is that it is better than US news, which pretty much dumbs down information to the point where it's actually taking information away when you watch it.
However, TV news is pretty bad . Two things that get me:
1. A half hour news program has 10-15 minutes of sports coverage. Rugby is the hot topic, even high school rugby gets in-depth coverage. Cricket is a close second.
2. If there is any sports related news, some scandal or even a high school rugby fight, it is presented not as sports new, but as regular news, eating into the ACTUAL regular news.
It is almost like the producers and writers are little kids who can't help but talk about the stuff they love, happily putting aside more important news, like shootings or catastrophes.
The only positive that I can say is that it is better than US news, which pretty much dumbs down information to the point where it's actually taking information away when you watch it.
Treating Maori like everyone else
This is an interesting quote from wikipedia on the state of Maori (for those not from New Zealand, Maori are the native population):
"Despite significant social and economic advances during the 20th century, Māori tend to appear in the lower percentiles in most health and education statistics and in labour-force participation, and feature disproportionately highly in criminal and imprisonment statistics."
A few things of note here - one, if you treat a sub-set of the population like they are different from everyone else and as if they always need government social help, they are going to continue to act like they do. You can't expect welfare to correct a poverty problem. At best, it's a stop-gap to make sure people don't starve.
There has also been a recent controversy over Auckland city council seats where Maori would automatically get seats on the Auckland super city council when all the "cities" of Auckland merge into one. This is the perfect example of treating the Maori like they need handouts from the government. If I were Maori, I would be dead set against it - it's a handout and an obvious one. It's an insult to Maori and tells them they don't have a clue about getting elected to seats in the first place. I find it amazing that Maori leaders are so up an arms and demanding that the seats be given freely. It is a victim's attitude.
The more that we treat Maori differently, the more we have Maori parties (we don't have an "Asian Party" for example, despite them being a significant minority), the more we make an issue of the differences between Maori and others in New Zealand, the longer the trends in health, education and employment will continue.
"Despite significant social and economic advances during the 20th century, Māori tend to appear in the lower percentiles in most health and education statistics and in labour-force participation, and feature disproportionately highly in criminal and imprisonment statistics."
A few things of note here - one, if you treat a sub-set of the population like they are different from everyone else and as if they always need government social help, they are going to continue to act like they do. You can't expect welfare to correct a poverty problem. At best, it's a stop-gap to make sure people don't starve.
There has also been a recent controversy over Auckland city council seats where Maori would automatically get seats on the Auckland super city council when all the "cities" of Auckland merge into one. This is the perfect example of treating the Maori like they need handouts from the government. If I were Maori, I would be dead set against it - it's a handout and an obvious one. It's an insult to Maori and tells them they don't have a clue about getting elected to seats in the first place. I find it amazing that Maori leaders are so up an arms and demanding that the seats be given freely. It is a victim's attitude.
The more that we treat Maori differently, the more we have Maori parties (we don't have an "Asian Party" for example, despite them being a significant minority), the more we make an issue of the differences between Maori and others in New Zealand, the longer the trends in health, education and employment will continue.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Anti-smacking referendum results
New Zealand recently had a referendum on hitting children, the notorious "Smacking" referendum, which, unfortunately cost nearly $9 M and did absolutely nothing.
The question on the referendum was "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
- yes
-no
Well - how can you vote against good parenting? You can't. A normal person would say "No" to this, which was by far the vast result as seen in this "Stuff" article. Nearly 90% said "no" in fact.
That doesn't mean that people are pro-smacking, not at all. It means that the question was loaded and there was no way to answer it sensibly.
Say I answered "yes" - that means that I just said that an aspect of good parenting was illegal.
Who the hell worded this question? What kind of morons are they hiring for the phrasing? I can't believe it got by an editor.
This isn't the only issue with the smacking law, it's meaningless anyway. Child abuse has always been illegal - it hasn't stopped abusive parents in the past!
I'm disappointed that the law was made and that a referendum that cost so much went through (seriously - they could have given the money to me - I would have done something with it - promise), and not only that, it isn't going to change the law anyway, since the referendum doesn't have that power. The prime minister said no to a law change.
The question on the referendum was "Should a smack, as part of good parental correction, be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"
- yes
-no
Well - how can you vote against good parenting? You can't. A normal person would say "No" to this, which was by far the vast result as seen in this "Stuff" article. Nearly 90% said "no" in fact.
That doesn't mean that people are pro-smacking, not at all. It means that the question was loaded and there was no way to answer it sensibly.
Say I answered "yes" - that means that I just said that an aspect of good parenting was illegal.
Who the hell worded this question? What kind of morons are they hiring for the phrasing? I can't believe it got by an editor.
This isn't the only issue with the smacking law, it's meaningless anyway. Child abuse has always been illegal - it hasn't stopped abusive parents in the past!
I'm disappointed that the law was made and that a referendum that cost so much went through (seriously - they could have given the money to me - I would have done something with it - promise), and not only that, it isn't going to change the law anyway, since the referendum doesn't have that power. The prime minister said no to a law change.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Kiwiwriter's collection has arrived in the post
I've been involved with Kiwiwriters since its founding. My participation lately has waned, but every once in a while, I throw out an idea, usually just for the name of a challenge (the zing thing, the collection challenge).
The Collection Challenge finished months ago, but there was lots of work after that to organize a printed book (fantastic work from Cassie and Kerryn by the way) and getting the PDF file together, the introduction and the cover designed etc... It eventually went on sale at lulu, a self publishing site.
Cassie Hart, Kerryn Angell and guest judge Philippa Ballantine went to work and the end result was "The Challenge Collection", which I ordered as soon as possible and got in the mail recently (while I was on holiday actually, so I had to wait another week!).
While you can buy it, you can also download the collection for free. Check it out here.
I bought two copies - one for myself and another for putting into the Wellington City Library.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
There is no logic
Of course logic exists, but no one uses it.
As an experiment, I have tested various sayings and words. For example, UK and NZ people say they take a "maths" course, whereas people from North America say they take a "math" course.
Which one is better? Quick answer - neither. Words are arbitrary by nature and it doesn't matter if I call something a "blork" or a "bleen" as long as we all know what we mean.
However, note that all NA people take the "math" side and try to justify their use, and all the NZ/UK people take the "maths" side and try to justify their use.
The same is true for every other arbitrary spelling or wording there is - so, "boot" versus "trunk", "colour" versus "color" etc.. etc....
Even though we know these are arbitrary examples and don't really matter, emotion come out and I am amazed at how certain everyone thinks they are (Read "On Being Certain: Believing You are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert Burton for a very cool discussion of this phenomenon).
Imagine what happens with more complex issues, like capital punishment, legalized abortion, legalized marijuana, not to mention deciding if a religion is "right" or not. Can anyone actually KNOW they are right on any of these subjects? I contend that they can't really.
As an experiment, I have tested various sayings and words. For example, UK and NZ people say they take a "maths" course, whereas people from North America say they take a "math" course.
Which one is better? Quick answer - neither. Words are arbitrary by nature and it doesn't matter if I call something a "blork" or a "bleen" as long as we all know what we mean.
However, note that all NA people take the "math" side and try to justify their use, and all the NZ/UK people take the "maths" side and try to justify their use.
The same is true for every other arbitrary spelling or wording there is - so, "boot" versus "trunk", "colour" versus "color" etc.. etc....
Even though we know these are arbitrary examples and don't really matter, emotion come out and I am amazed at how certain everyone thinks they are (Read "On Being Certain: Believing You are Right Even When You're Not" by Robert Burton for a very cool discussion of this phenomenon).
Imagine what happens with more complex issues, like capital punishment, legalized abortion, legalized marijuana, not to mention deciding if a religion is "right" or not. Can anyone actually KNOW they are right on any of these subjects? I contend that they can't really.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
The Chapter One Rewrite Club
Kiwiwriters has a new challenge posted that I thought was too fun to ignore. The challenge is called "The Chapter One Rewrite Club" and the challenge is this: Read and re-write the first chapter of Lord of the Rings and post your re-write on-line. Here I am, posting the first bit.
It runs from July 1st (now finished! I didn't write a thing!) to July 11th.
So, the beginning of Lord of the Rings starts with a Poem:
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Which I have re-written:
The One Ring - a beat poem
A ring, just imagine, the thing that brings, doom
Like a groom leaving his chick behind in a room at noon
On his wedding day
Rings, three more, says the lore, for Elf lords
Rings, seven more, says the lore, for the Dwarf lords
Rings, nine more, says the lore, for the Mortal lords
Then the one, just the one, no more, says the lore, sits in Mordor
With the dark lord, on his throne, in that dark zone
Like a crone droning on whispering a Zen koan
Pour over the lore and if you can avoid a snore, it will say that the one is more
More than just a ring, but a thing that will bring, the doom to Middle Earth
Like the birth of the dearth, like the door's boom in a tomb
Shutting behind you
It runs from July 1st (now finished! I didn't write a thing!) to July 11th.
So, the beginning of Lord of the Rings starts with a Poem:
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Which I have re-written:
The One Ring - a beat poem
A ring, just imagine, the thing that brings, doom
Like a groom leaving his chick behind in a room at noon
On his wedding day
Rings, three more, says the lore, for Elf lords
Rings, seven more, says the lore, for the Dwarf lords
Rings, nine more, says the lore, for the Mortal lords
Then the one, just the one, no more, says the lore, sits in Mordor
With the dark lord, on his throne, in that dark zone
Like a crone droning on whispering a Zen koan
Pour over the lore and if you can avoid a snore, it will say that the one is more
More than just a ring, but a thing that will bring, the doom to Middle Earth
Like the birth of the dearth, like the door's boom in a tomb
Shutting behind you
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
