Origins conference

If any of you are going to be in the neighborhood of CalTech around the 4th of October, you might want to sign up for the big Origins conference — it definitely has some great speakers. Sean Carroll, Leonard Susskind, Paul Davies, (wait…what’s with all the physicists?), Donald Prothero and Christof Koch (OK, that’s better) will be presenting there. The late afternoon will feature the comedy stylings of Hugh Ross, crazy creationist, getting spanked by Victor Stenger. The evening will be topped off by a visit from Mr. Deity — how can you miss that?

One disappointment in the schedule to me is the afternoon panel discussing “Does science make belief in god obsolete?” While the four speakers lined up are interesting people, they aren’t the kind of people who will get it into a good brawl over the issue — I predict that the answer they’ll deliver is a waffly “no”, emphasis on the waffle. Maybe some of you readers can show up in the audience and add a little godless fire to the proceedings.

Proud Ecuador

When we were in Ecuador, much of the local political discussion was around their efforts to write a new constitution for the country. I’d heard that there were some significantly progressive elements to the work, but this is the first I’ve seen some of the articles being considered: as is perhaps unsurprising for a nation well-endowed with natural resources and reliant on maintaining those resources to support the economy, they’ve done something terrific: they’ve not only written rights for nature (personified as “Pachamama”), but they’ve acknowledged the importance of evolution.

Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is
reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and
regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in
evolution.

Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to
demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public
organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will
follow the related principles established in the Constitution.

Art. 2. Nature has the right to an integral
restoration. This integral restoration is independent of the obligation
on natural and juridical persons or the State to indemnify the people
and the collectives that depend on the natural systems.

In the cases of severe or permanent environmental impact, including
the ones caused by the exploitation on non renewable natural resources,
the State will establish the most efficient mechanisms for the
restoration, and will adopt the adequate measures to eliminate or
mitigate the harmful environmental consequences.

Art. 3. The State will motivate natural and
juridical persons as well as collectives to protect nature; it will
promote respect towards all the elements that form an ecosystem.

Art. 4. The State will apply precaution and
restriction measures in all the activities that can lead to the
extinction of species, the destruction of the ecosystems or the
permanent alteration of the natural cycles.

The introduction of organisms and organic and inorganic material
that can alter in a definitive way the national genetic patrimony is
prohibited.

Art. 5. The persons, people, communities and
nationalities will have the right to benefit from the environment and
form natural wealth that will allow wellbeing.

The environmental services are cannot be appropriated; its
production, provision, use and exploitation, will be regulated by the
State.

It’s awfully fuzzy on exactly how they’re going to protect the rights of Nature (will she have lawyers working on her behalf?), but the sentiment is excellent.

My interweb poll-fu is defeated!

It’s true, I cannot overcome this poll on WorldNutDaily. They are ‘reporting’ on the Large Hadron Collider and the weird fact that people are fretting over whether the Swiss will annihilate the word, so they ask their readers about why they’re worried.

The first way they stumped me was by not giving any good answers (the seventh and eighth are probably closest to what I think). Then they threw in so many possible answers, which contain a lot of insane answers, which I thought at first were intended to be jokes…until I looked and saw that several of the crazy answers were leading in votes.

So here’s the lunacy, with the current leading answers flagged. I don’t think we can crash this poll — it’s too bizarre to be addressed.

I DON’T WANT TO SET THE WORLD ON FIRE. Are you concerned about scientists turning on a machine some say could destroy the planet?

  • No, I trust the scientists to know what they’re doing
  • No, doomsayers said the world would end two weeks ago when the supercollider was being tested
  • No, somebody has been watching too many science fiction TV shows
  • No, it’s simply not plausible that a machine underground could destroy the entire earth
  • #2: No, this kind of catastrophe doesn’t fit into Bible prophecy
  • No, if Al Gore isn’t worried, I’m not worried
  • No, the risks have been wildly exaggerated
  • No, the benefits of the research are worth the risk
  • #1: No, the only black hole I’m concerned about is the one that sucked billions of dollars from taxpayers to fund this boondoggle
  • What’s the difference? Global warming is going to kill us eventually
  • I don’t know, but if the worst happens, you can be sure some lawyer will find a way to make money off of it
  • Yes, it could ruin my whole day
  • Yes, this may be the time scientists finally go too far
  • Yes, these are forces of nature man was not meant to monkey with
  • Yes, the courts should halt the startup until more studies are done
  • Yes, these scientists are nothing more than al-Qaida in lab coats
  • Of course, creating black holes is dangerous
  • #3: Yes, this arrogant search for a “God particle” is no different than building the Tower of Babel — God is not mocked
  • Yes, I’m convinced this is putting us all at risk
  • Other

I surrender. The drunken monkey style of WND is victorious.

Darwin movie in the works?

There’s a new movie being developed on the life of Charles Darwin that actually has the potential to be good. It’s based on Randal Keyne’s book, Annie’s Box(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), which is an excellent source that humanizes the man well. It also has a good cast so far, although, seriously, Jennifer Connelly is way too hot to play Emma Darwin — they’re going to have to dress her down quite a bit.

Husband and wife Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly have been cast as a married couple in an upcoming film titled Creation (previously known as Origin). The film tells the life story of Charles Darwin, the English naturalist who essentially came up with the idea of evolution. This biopic is being directed by Jon Amiel, of Entrapment and The Core, and has script penned by John Collee, of Master and Commander and Happy Feet. Bettany will play Darwin, while Connelly will play his wife Emma, which is a good fit considering they’re married in real life, too. Also part of the cast are Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch, however the role of of daughter Annie has yet to be announced.

Oscar winning producer Jeremy Thomas, who is developing the film, explains that “John Collee’s compelling script tells the remarkable story behind Darwin’s revolutionary theory and the foundation of a book that changed the world.” He adds, “we think of Darwin as an old man with a gray beard. The reality of our story is very different.” Creation will portray Darwin as a man torn between his love for his deeply religious wife and his own growing belief in a world where God has no place. The scientist finds himself caught in a struggle between faith and reason, love and truth. Collee’s script is based on the book “Annie’s Box” written by Randal Keynes. Shooting starts at the end of September in England.

I shall await its completion with anticipation. It better not be a wall stain.