Any Ann Arborites want to meet up?

I’ve got a better idea of what my schedule is like, and even have a recommendation for a hangout tonight — would anyone care to join me at the Arbor Brewing Company tonight (Thursday) around 7 or 8pm? I’m going whether anyone shows up or not, and if nobody joins me, I’ll be drinking alone…and how pathetic would that be?

Look for the bearded fellow with a copy of that book with a bright yellow cover titled “God is Not Great” — I’ll be working on my Hitchens impersonation.

Fatal fruit of an evil tree

This is a fascinating diagram from a zoology text of the 1930s—it’s an illustration of the effects of reproduction rate on the frequency of subsets of the population, and the author was using it to justify eugenics. Up into the 1960s, he was advocating sterilization of the feeble-minded to improve the human race.

i-a208c63830e0c8a7971f51fe57661b28-tinkle.gif

Why, this guy must have been one of those evil Darwinists of the kind Michael Egnor, D. James Kennedy and the Discovery Institute deplore, and whose amoral ruthlessness those worthies have blamed on the teachings of evolution! Surprise: these sentiments were expressed by William Tinkle, a creationist, and one of the founding fathers of the organization that preceded the Institute for Creation Research, along with such well-known creationists as Henry Morris and Duane Gish. He completely rejected evolution, natural selection, and the idea that human beings were animals, and published his endorsement of sterilization of “defectives” while Secretary of the Institute for Creation Research. Read more about it at the Panda’s Thumb.

Where is that magic memory hole button again?

Oh, no — DaveScot can’t find Gonzalez’s article that he published in 2001 on the Scientific American website! It’s a CONSPIRACY! The Darwinist Establishment is suppressing his publications and rewriting history!

Uh, wait … no, it was a “technical glitch” that also made a couple of other articles inaccessible, and the editors aren’t at all interested in losing the Gonzalez, Brownlee, and Ward article.

It’s particularly ironic that the gang at Uncommon Descent, which has a reputation for hiding their
gaffes in the amazing UD memory hole after they’ve been exposed, should accuse Scientific American of the kind of perfidious rewriting of their files that they do quite routinely.

Religion, philosophy, homeopathy, acupuncture…which one doesn’t belong?

Lewis Wolpert has a pleasant interview in Salon today — I find most of what he says copacetic. I very much like his developmental biology textbook, but I’m afraid I found his recent popular book, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), far too scattered and unfocused to be memorable. It’s a pleasant enough read — get it and you won’t regret it — but it was more like an agreeable conversation with an intelligent and eccentric fellow than a work that will either shake you up or strengthen your views…and that also comes through in the interview. He’s pretty much a sensible skeptic who doesn’t put up with much woo-woo nonsense.

There is one part that I didn’t much care for, that would probably prompt me to start an argument if this were a conversation:

You call David Hume your “hero philosopher.” Why do you like him so much?

First of all, I don’t like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He’s very good on religion, for example. I like him for that.

That’s just me, though. If I had my druthers, I’d have a philosophy of science requirement in place for our biology majors, as an essential piece of background in a good liberal arts education—biology has gotten so huge, though, that something had to go, and that’s one we aren’t even going to try to push into the curriculum, and I’m probably the only person in my discipline who’d consider it useful.