Moth Eyes

Navigating a demon-haunted world


I haven’t quite gotten around to publishing any papers just yet, but I’m glad to have learnt the 123 easy steps to public a scientific comment. I’m sure that’ll come in handy. Dr. Free-Ride has also posted some commentary on the topic.
Hat-tip: Cat Dynamics

Astronomy Cast is always brilliant and educational, but I particularly enjoyed the most recent episodes:

If you’re crazy enough to not already be listening to Astronomy Cast, go listen to them now!

And you’ll want to listen to Ben Goldacre in this segment of The Now Show, discussing the flaws in science reporting and how this has damaged public perceptions of science:


August 19, 2009 at 10:07 pm Comments (0)

Fixed feeds

I just discovered that the feeds haven’t been updating properly. It seems to be fixed now.

August 9, 2009 at 9:28 pm Comments (0)

Designed for hillarity

Baron Scarpia has found William Dembski’s teaching website, and it certainly provides some enthralling reading.

There are, for example, the course requirements for studying intelligent design, which include a 3000-word essay on “the theological significance of intelligent design” and at least 10 posts on “hostile” websites defending ID. The doctorate-level course doesn’t require defending ID on hostile websites, instead, students are to develop a Sunday school lesson plan. And in the exam, in a single essay, students should show that evolution is not as well supported as Richard Dawkins claims, and that (Christian) religious belief is much better supported.

See, intelligent design is completely secular and this is why it’s taken seriously by completely secular researchers!

“Christian Apologetics” asks students to imagine that a relative is studying theology at a liberal seminary, and to write a letter to them warning against “professors intent on eroding any real faith” and on how to “protect their faith from eroding”.

And from the “Critical Thinking” unit’s exam:

13. You are the head of a large public relations firm in New York. A consortium of Christian businessmen and foundations is fed up with the godlessness of our society and approaches you to run a “rhetorical campaign” to make Christianity and its moral values credible again to the wider culture. You have $100,000,000 a year for five years to make the campaign work (i.e., half a billion dollars total over five years). What programs are you going to institute and how are you going to allocate that money to restore Christianity as a credible world view? What objectives could you realistically hope to accomplish? [Example of a zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

Well, granted, I can see how giving the money to the ACLU or UN would fail to achieve those objectives, but that’s really the least of the problems in that question.

This is only a sample, you can read the rest.


August 9, 2009 at 2:50 pm Comments (0)