Landlocked midwesterner desires intimate knowledge of passionate molluscs

All right, people, I give up. Everyone has been sending me links to this story about a recent publication — it made the CBC, ScienceDaily, CNN, the Telegraph, and who knows what else — but I haven’t been able to get my hands on the original science article: Huffard CL, Caldwell RL, Boneka F (2008) Mating behavior of Abdopus aculeatus (d’Orbigny 1834) (Cephalopoda: Octopodidae) in the wild. It’s published in Marine Biology, sensibly enough, but out here on the prairie we don’t get much call for tales of kinky tentacle sex in the sea … or, perhaps, it’s all sublimated or hidden away (one does wonder what The Dream of the Soybean Farmer’s Wife might be).

Anyway, I ask this tentatively because every time I’ve asked for papers here I get inundated, but could someone please send me a pdf? I’ll announce it here as soon as I get one.

Hooray! I’ve got a copy already! I think this is what we call instant gratification. Thanks all.

Christian Educators!

Did you know that it is assumed that if you are a Christian and a teacher, that you oppose the teaching of evolution and want to introduce creationism into the classroom?

Did you know that people purporting to represent you will be going before state legislatures and telling your representatives that creationism is the Christian perspective?

Did you know that people are collecting stories about getting slapped down for teaching nonsense in science class, and are telling politicians that it’s because they are Christian?

You know, I think Christianity is awfully foolish anyway, but I’m a goddamned atheist. You don’t care what I think. But I would think the concerted and largely successful effort in our culture to equate Christianity with the idiocy of belief in a 6000 year old world or a god who meddles in trivialities or denying the facts of a natural world would piss you off. Unless it’s true, that is, that you don’t mind having your religious beliefs associated with flaming anti-scientific lunacy.

Maybe you should try squawking a little louder. You could start by writing to David Bracklin and letting him know that stupidity isn’t supposed to be a Christian sacrament.

Unless it is, of course. I wouldn’t know. Atheist, remember? All I know is what I see, the stuff the loudest of you bray out in public, and boy, you Christians sure seem to hate good science.

Mike Behe, friend to evolution

Mike Dunford has a series of articles on a recent California court decision — in brief, Christian homeschoolers tried to sue California universities to force them to accept courses taught with Christianist literalist creationist textbooks as legitimate, college-level science credit, and they lost. They lost hard.

But the really funny part is that the creationists brought in Mike Behe as a friendly witness. Behe was asked to review the creationist textbooks that they used, bad books that anyone can see are misleading, unrepresentative, and ridiculous, and he approved them. The man has no standards and no credibility, and it’s appalling that he is such a man-whore for creationism that he’d approve even young earth creationist, fundamentalist books as reasonable texts for a science class.

But that’s not what the judge in this case ruled on; rather, Behe’s defense of these books was that it was “abusive” to ask students to subscribe to an idea like evolution with which they disagree. Setting aside the obvious point that the whole point of education is to introduce students to a multitude of ideas with which they may or may not agree, the judge pointed out that the books which Behe approved flatly state that Christians must accept creationist conclusions—unlike our biology books, which don’t demand any religious litmus test of their readers—and were therefore perfect examples of exactly the problem he was complaining about.

So, once again — Behe goes down in flames in a court of law, dragging the whole case to perdition with him. He’s like the fire ship of the creationist fleet, always being launched into a headwind. But, to be fair, you can’t just pick on Behe: the problem is that the entire creationist position is so bad, and so stupid, that whoever gets appointed to be the front man for it is going to look like an idiot. Poor sap.

Bad professor

To my students and advisees: I’ve emailed a few of you, but just in case, I’m also putting this here. You’ve been trying to get in touch with me, especially this week when registration is pending, but when I’m not in class I’m flitting off to somewhere else. I was away in Washington DC last Thursday afternoon through Sunday, and I’m about to do it again with trips to Mankato tomorrow, a long weekend at a conference in Oregon, and then zooming away again right after class on Monday to Fergus Falls. Trust me, though, you’re not the only one feeling a bit tired of it all.

Here’s the deal, though. I’m done with today’s teaching at 12:45. I’m going to be in my office from 1 to 5, with the door wide open. I’ve even shoveled the stacks of books off of two of my office chairs — it’s almost hospitable in here. So come on by, I’ll be there all afternoon, and the only business will be student business. If you’ve got registration stuff to take care of, we can do that; if you just want to say hello, that’s cool, too.

They call this “science”?

The Institute for Creation Research is a treasure trove of sloppy pseudoscience. I mentioned one “research” article that they put out that was nothing but a flurry of bible verses wrapped around an argument from incredulity; now a reader has pointed me to another article that tries very hard to ape the form of a real scientific paper, and fails horribly.

It’s titled “COMPLEX LIFE CYCLES IN HETEROPHYID TREMATODES: STRUCTURAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DESIGN IN THE ASCOCOTYLE COMPLEX OF SPECIES”, by Mark Armitage. Oooh. Sounds so sciencey. And then you read further, and you see that it almost follows the correct form.

[Read more…]