The Happiness Project says: live better by deceiving your kids.

I usually like the online magazine Slate. I listen to many of Slate's podcasts, read several of the site's posts a week, and peruse their author-run blogs on occasion, too. The site isn't perfect, but I usually carry some respect for the site's authors and its generally thoughtful, funny content. Exceptions being boneheaded pursuits like their recent attempt to track down the evolutionary origins of Facebook's 25 Things meme (Hint to Slate: that trend dates back to the years before Facebook, the golden days of Livejournal). But for all of Slate's occasionally out-of-touch, misguided posts, nothing beats The Happiness Project. Authored by ex-lawyer and non-Slate author Gretchen Rubin, it's a recent addition to Slate's blog roll, and not truly a "part" of Slate itself. I still hold Slate somewhat responsible for sharing the drivel that the blog spews. I'll give you a pretty representative taste: Five Ways to Outsmart Your 3-Year Old. Let's take Way #1. Gretchen writes:

Continue ReadingThe Happiness Project says: live better by deceiving your kids.

Non-news Travels Fast

I was reading about a couple of meteors (bolides) spotted in the last couple of days. One point made by BadAstronomy is that misinformation spread much faster than fact. We discuss this sort of issue regularly, using terms like "counterknowledge" and "agnotology". In this case, last week's news about two satellites colliding gently about halfway out to geostationary orbit got muddled in with these meteor reports. Note: Gently in astronomical terms means a collision as if only one ton of TNT had been detonated in them. There may be pieces large enough to see if they eventually drift low enough to burn up at night. But not like the fireballs seen in the last couple of days. The entire satellites were not fast or large enough to glow like the recent events. But Twitter was apparently abuzz with discussion of the (non-happened) satellite re-entry. BA clearly explains why this is silly. But the rumor is still propagating. Unfortunately, several news outlets initially reported it as fact. It's like the virus warnings (hoaxes) that well-meaning acquaintances send me about once a month. Most of their dire "this is real!" warnings were documented at Snopes between 3 and 10 years ago! I usually politely respond with the link to the particular case at Snopes, and suggest they add Snopes to their Bookmarks/Favorites.

Continue ReadingNon-news Travels Fast

Creationists blather their way through Darwin Day

If you visit Ken Ham's creationist site, you'll see an article titled, "Did humans really evolve from ape-like creatures?" Here's a key concern raised in this article:

Perhaps the most bitter pill to swallow for any Christian who attempts to “make peace” with Darwin is the presumed ape ancestry of man.

It's difficult to believe the ignorance displayed by this sentence. Why can't creationists understand that not only did humans evolve from other ape-like creatures (the scientific evidence is abundant and irrefutable), but that humans are apes. Check the features listed here:

The similarities can be seen throughout our bodies. For instance, humans and the African apes all lack external tails and have hands with a thumb that is sufficiently separate from the other fingers to allow them to be opposable for precision grips. Humans are also sexually dimorphic--males are 5-10% larger on average and have greater upper body muscular development. Like chimpanzees and bonobos, we are omnivorous. We kill other animals for food in addition to eating a wide variety of plants. Internally, our bodies are even more similar to the great apes. We have essentially the same arrangement of internal organs and bones. We share several important blood types. We also get many of the same diseases.

Continue ReadingCreationists blather their way through Darwin Day

What Darwin did not know, but you do.

I have Darwin on my mind these days, perhaps because tomorrow is Darwin Day. To celebrate Darwin Day, I sat down to read the February 2009 edition of National Geographic, which, according to the front cover, features an article entitled "What Darwin Didn't Know." Once you get inside the magazine, however, you'll see that the main article is actually entitled "Darwin's First Clues." It is an extraordinary article setting straight some of the misconceptions about the manner in which Darwin developed his theory of evolution by natural selection. You can read that article online here. you can also watch a short introductory video by writer David Quammen, who explains that Darwin "is a man who just will not go away," and whose ideas are not only still relevant, but "central" to the field of biology. If you read this article, you'll see that Darwin's first clue toward evolution occurred not in the Galapagos, but three years earlier on the northern coast of Argentina, where Darwin found fossils of giant sloths. You read about his numerous fossil finds of giant mammals, "extinct Pleistocene giants." Quammen's article points out that, for all of his gifts, Dawn was not a comparative anatomist. For this reason, he entrusted much of that work to others, including John Stevens Henslow, a botanist at Cambridge and Richard Owens, "an up-and-coming authority on extinct mammals." Darwin was certainly aware of the implications of the diversity and distributions of the flora and fauna he studied. The fact that fossils of giant extinct mammals could be found in the same places as still-living relatives suggested the idea of "relatedness and succession among closely allied species" rather than a God who had specially created species, placing them on the planet in arbitrary locations. Darwin's explanation was certainly "more economical, more inductive and more persuasive than the creationist scenario."

Continue ReadingWhat Darwin did not know, but you do.

Darwin Day: Threat or Promise?

February 12th, 2009 is the 200th birthday of Chas. Darwin. Yes, one of our famous politicians shares that exact birthday, but Abe the rail splitting lawyer is not the point of this post. So what does Darwin Day mean? To most of the world, he was a man who found the missing link between the observation of evolution (that was accepted as reality before he was born) and a workable theory explaining it. He changed the understanding of how it happens from "What the (expletive)?" to "Well, duh!". But this is America. We have to be different. We have to be independent. Less than half of Americans seem to share the world consensus on the value of Darwin's contribution. A survey conducted by Science Magazine (313:765-766) showed only Turkey having a lower public rate of understanding of the theory of evolution than the United States. Of course, the survey didn't have access to even more starkly theocratic nations. Here's the summary of what people think of the theory of common descent:

Continue ReadingDarwin Day: Threat or Promise?