Tis a pity we don't make things like this in the U.S. Neun = 9, Mal = times, Klug = smart. So Susi Neunmalklug translates into Susie Smartypants. Yeah. Ask a linguist or etymologist about the evolution of vernacular. So, imagine a religion teacher coming in to your class and explaining where we come from to kids who were raised to know better. Anyway, this video is wa-ay cute, and has English subtitles. Tip of the mustache to Pharyngula
This is not a question of whether science can or should prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of God or gods. Some of us believe that we are living in an era of rationalism, or enlightenment. Some, like Dawkins, even hope to see rational thinking purge religious clap trappings from society. The question is, can rational thinking ever purge society of silly ideas? I was reading the Dale McGowan post Best Practices 4: Teach engaged coexistence and he obliquely gives the answer. Consider:
In case you missed it, asteroid 2009 DD45 passed the Earth today at a distance of about 1/7th of the way to the moon. It was noticed about 3 days ago, and apparently has an orbit that will bring it close to home every so often. See here. It is relatively tiny, about 30 meters across. Therefore, when it hits it'll only make a hole a few miles across. Maybe the size of Manhattan or the Greater Chicago area. Yes, when. It'll probably hit in the ocean, in which case only seaside towns will be destroyed, like Miami, D.C, or Los Angeles. But this is only one of thousands that have been discovered so far. No need to worry. When the sky does fall, we'll find out eventually. With a bit of pork barrel spending, we might be able to predict and prevent such things. But it might cost as much as the current bailing out of mismanaged banks. But I've discussed the end of the world before.
I've mentioned the Louisiana Gov before, as he signed a Discovery Institute plan to allow creationism in biology classrooms into law. It shouldn't have surprised me that Bobby Jindal was the chosen figurehead to rebut the first public Obama address to Congress. After all, he is young and dark with at least one foreigner for a parent. It seems a natural, from a certain game-playing point of view. But the talking points have all been heard before. His speech may well have been finalized weeks ago. The allegations of "pork" about the massive stimulus bill are what irk me. The examples cited are so silly, I wonder how anyone believes them. The sum of all the line items to which so-called conservatives object add up to a fraction of the bill. One line item he cited was a small fraction of a billion to upgrade aging government vehicles to newer, more fuel efficient models: Pure pork to the failing American Auto makers? It's significantly less than what they are asking for as an encore direct handout. There were mentions of some classic pork projects, like energy research and environmental studies. No one really needs to know how to prevent the collapse of our lifestyle, civilization, or species. Do they? One allegation that puzzles me every time a conservative says it is that this stimulus bill builds a bigger government. How? One of the issues with it is that no bureaucracy was set up to monitor spending. No new agencies are being created, nor are existing ones being expanded. Exactly how is this spending measure making government bigger? The biggest buildup of Big Brother government agencies was enacted by the previous administration. Why didn't they object for the last 7 years? Homeland security is a bureaucracy established to coordinate the bureaucracies sitting on top of the agencies that actually do things having to do with internal and external security. His parable of volunteer Katrina rescue boats was well aimed. They had to violate insurance regulations as if the flooding of a city was a non-typical circumstance. But it is a poor illustration of Big Brother governance. That the Dubya appointed management of FEMA failed, and his backup, Dubya himself, failed and that the manpower established to deal with such events was engaged on a foreign mission for which the Army was inadequate is hardly proof that government itself is a bad organization to organize rescue efforts. But it does prove that we should be more careful in electing and appointing those in charge.
Iconic anti-evolutionist Ray Comfort has come forward again. He's written a book entitled, "You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think: Answers to Questions from Angry Skeptics". Plenty of scathing reviews are available. F'rinstance:
His style of writing can barely be called argumentative. He posits no compelling evidence for his beliefs, makes blind assertions, and clearly does not understand natural forces such as evolution by natural selection and by writing a book which mischaracterizes science, is undermining observation, experimentation, rational thought and critical thinking.
or a 5-star review, presuming Poe:Ray is the master of satire. While reading this fine book I could just picture him sitting around, getting wasted, and dreaming up all of these hilarious proofs. He is a genius!
The reviews discuss how every point made in the book had already been debunked thoroughly on or around Comfort's online publications (blogs, videos, etc). Why, they ask, does he keep shutting down blogs and popping up new ones? Who is this book going to reach that hasn't already made up their minds? Granted, one can also apply that last argument to pro-science books like The God Delusion or The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Meanwhile, Qualia Soup has produced a concise video clearly explaining what evolution is and isn't, in 10 minutes. It implicitly refutes every point we've seen Comfort make, without the discomfort of mentioning Comfort.