The news of Stooges guitarist Ron Asheton's death came a few days ago, and I'm still feeling down about it. Truth be told, this is largely because I've missed the chance to see them live, but the man was a pioneer and he deserves a tribute, however little mine may be worth.
I heard the news when my community radio station aired a tribute to Ron on Tuesday, the day he was found dead in his home. The tribute showed me something about Ron's genius, in a way -- I'd grown to like the first Stooges album and worship Fun House long ago, but I hadn't listened to them in a while, and Iggy had always grabbed my attention more than Ron. Of course, Iggy, as exciting as he was, would have been nothing without the band. The Stooges had a very unique sound -- as loud, abrasive, and simple as a punk band, but stranger and more psychedelic. Fun House impressed me at first not how by how good it sounded, but by the way it beat me into submission: as pathetic as it might sound, the Stooges were literally too intense for me the first few listens. I felt tired at the end of it. It's a strange phenomenon that such forbidding territory can come to feel like home, but I won't forget how the Stooges earned my respect.
There's no official word yet on whether the band, which reunited a few years ago, will try to continue without Ron, but the band's statement on his death calls him "irreplaceable," and any reasonable observer will concur. In "No Fun," as Ron and his wah-wah pedal launch into a classic, ear-piercing solo, Iggy calls for him to "tell 'em how I feel." There are many great guitarists in the world (this blog owes its name to one of them), but how many of them can do that?
With that in mind, I offer not a moment of silence, but raucous noise:
Friday, January 9, 2009
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Friday, December 19, 2008
A note on bird flu
Flu season isn't only for seasonal flu.
H5N1 has been in the news lately, with widespread poultry infections in China, India, and elsewhere. There haven't been unusually many confirmed human cases yet, though they're keeping an eye on people with upper respiratory tract infections in Assam; nonetheless, the danger remains, along with the economic impact of poultry culling. Human infections, in fact, are pretty routine, as are suspicious denials and possible false negatives. Clusters, too, sometimes involving possible or confirmed human-to-human transmission, are not uncommon.
There are still too many unknowns to make predictions about H5N1's future evolution, but we have more than enough reason to watch it closely. I don't intend to become a full-time H5N1 blogger, but there are some excellent blogs that cover the news on the subject; it's worth being acquainted with them. From one of these bloggers, Scott McPherson, we have a post on H5N1's recent activity. I'm less inclined than Scott to read anything into simultaneous happenings in different countries, much less continents; so far it just looks like coincidence and the beginning of flu season. That doesn't make the news itself of less concern, however. One interesting detail is that poultry vaccines have been ineffective in Egypt and Hong Kong -- interesting, but not necessarily unexpected, given how rapidly viruses evolve (though see this post from Avian Flu Diary). Yet another reminder not to get our hopes up about human vaccines.
While we're speculating about what is probably the world's greatest known health threat, let's note the process that is the subject of our speculations: evolution. With our dim understanding of this virus and its evolution, further research is of the utmost importance. It won't do to misunderstand evolution, as many creationists do at the most basic levels, and it won't do to deny some of our most important evidence about its workings -- the history of our ancestors' adaptations to disease that is written in our genome, for example. Our ability to understand our world is not only wonderful for its own sake: it's relevant to every human endeavor, and we need it to survive.
H5N1 has been in the news lately, with widespread poultry infections in China, India, and elsewhere. There haven't been unusually many confirmed human cases yet, though they're keeping an eye on people with upper respiratory tract infections in Assam; nonetheless, the danger remains, along with the economic impact of poultry culling. Human infections, in fact, are pretty routine, as are suspicious denials and possible false negatives. Clusters, too, sometimes involving possible or confirmed human-to-human transmission, are not uncommon.
There are still too many unknowns to make predictions about H5N1's future evolution, but we have more than enough reason to watch it closely. I don't intend to become a full-time H5N1 blogger, but there are some excellent blogs that cover the news on the subject; it's worth being acquainted with them. From one of these bloggers, Scott McPherson, we have a post on H5N1's recent activity. I'm less inclined than Scott to read anything into simultaneous happenings in different countries, much less continents; so far it just looks like coincidence and the beginning of flu season. That doesn't make the news itself of less concern, however. One interesting detail is that poultry vaccines have been ineffective in Egypt and Hong Kong -- interesting, but not necessarily unexpected, given how rapidly viruses evolve (though see this post from Avian Flu Diary). Yet another reminder not to get our hopes up about human vaccines.
While we're speculating about what is probably the world's greatest known health threat, let's note the process that is the subject of our speculations: evolution. With our dim understanding of this virus and its evolution, further research is of the utmost importance. It won't do to misunderstand evolution, as many creationists do at the most basic levels, and it won't do to deny some of our most important evidence about its workings -- the history of our ancestors' adaptations to disease that is written in our genome, for example. Our ability to understand our world is not only wonderful for its own sake: it's relevant to every human endeavor, and we need it to survive.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Religious freedom, part 1
I have long felt that "tolerance," in the context of religion, is one of those irritating little buzzwords that serve mainly to mask complexities and eliminate the need for critical thought. Let that be our starting point: religious freedom is one of our most important rights, and I want to clear away some of the baggage that surrounds it before defending a proper conception of religious tolerance.
To begin, it's worth remembering how far our culture has come in this respect. We have not always been willing to sing the praises of tolerance. Yahweh, for instance, makes his position abundantly clear in the Old Testament.
Exodus 20:3-5:
Several centuries later, a man called Jesus came along. Jesus, as we often hear from self-righteous liberals in their rebukes to evangelicals, brought a message of love and turning the other cheek. Well, that was part of it, anyway.
Matthew 7:13-14:
This sort of mentality, needless to say, does not go well with the sort of religious tolerance that we often expect today. The really offensive thing about Jesus's claims, however, is not that he's willing to proclaim himself to be right and everyone else to be wrong; what's shocking is how vehemently he does it. I think religious people are wrong, and I wouldn't want to hang out with Fred Phelps or an aspiring terrorist; but I don't have standards as strict as those of the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 6:14-17):
It's important to note that I don't bring this up as a reason to reject orthodox Christianity or Judaism out of hand. This extreme opposition to religious dissent makes good sense given the doctrines of such religions; I simply object to it because I believe we have good reasons to reject those doctrines. I would not try to argue with an evangelical by appealing to tolerance; rather, I prefer to attack their truth claims. Those forms of moderate and liberal Christianity which are most comfortable with modern ideas of religious tolerance could not have come about without the weakening of the authority given to the words of Jesus, Paul, and other early Christian figures as they are recorded in the New Testament -- through a willingness to offend on the part of religious dissenters, most notably those Enlightenment thinkers who were willing to question and criticize Christianity and theism itself. That's enough for now, but I hope this first installment has shown a little of where I'm coming from and why I dislike the common oversimplifications. Later, I will try to apply some of this historical background to modern issues in and threats to religious freedom.
To begin, it's worth remembering how far our culture has come in this respect. We have not always been willing to sing the praises of tolerance. Yahweh, for instance, makes his position abundantly clear in the Old Testament.
Exodus 20:3-5:
You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me....Exodus 23:23-33:
For My angel will go before you and bring you in to the land of the Amorites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Canaanites, the Hivites and the Jebusites; and I will completely destroy them. You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces.... They shall not live in your land, because they will make you sin against Me; for if you serve their gods, it will surely be a snare to you.Deuteronomy 13:6-16:
If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known, of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you.Deuteronomy 17:2-7:
If you hear in one of your cities, which the LORD your God is giving you to live in, anyone saying that some worthless men have gone out from among you and have seduced the inhabitants of their city, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom you have not known), then you shall investigate and search out and inquire thoroughly. If it is true and the matter established that this abomination has been done among you, you shall surely strike the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, utterly destroying it and all that is in it and its cattle with the edge of the sword. Then you shall gather all its booty into the middle of its open square and burn the city and all its booty with fire as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God; and it shall be a ruin forever. It shall never be rebuilt.
If there is found in your midst, in any of your towns, which the LORD your God is giving you, a man or a woman who does what is evil in the sight of the LORD your God, by transgressing His covenant, and has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, or the sun or the moon or any of the heavenly host, which I have not commanded, and if it is told you and you have heard of it, then you shall inquire thoroughly. Behold, if it is true and the thing certain that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates, that is, the man or the woman, and you shall stone them to death. On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness. The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people, So you shall purge the evil from your midst.So much for religious tolerance in Judaism.
Several centuries later, a man called Jesus came along. Jesus, as we often hear from self-righteous liberals in their rebukes to evangelicals, brought a message of love and turning the other cheek. Well, that was part of it, anyway.
Matthew 7:13-14:
Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.Matthew 10:34-36:
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household.Matthew 12:30:
He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.The other side of the ubiquitous John 3:16, twenty verses later:
He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.Of course, the book of John contains other favorites such as "no one comes to the Father but through me" (14:6), but that's enough Biblical quotations for now. The only noticeable progress is that Jesus (sword metaphors aside) did not issue any new commandments to harm infidels in this life; he would have approved of the Deuteronomy passages quoted above, but in any case, our admiration is forestalled when we consider what he promised to do afterward.
This sort of mentality, needless to say, does not go well with the sort of religious tolerance that we often expect today. The really offensive thing about Jesus's claims, however, is not that he's willing to proclaim himself to be right and everyone else to be wrong; what's shocking is how vehemently he does it. I think religious people are wrong, and I wouldn't want to hang out with Fred Phelps or an aspiring terrorist; but I don't have standards as strict as those of the Apostle Paul (2 Corinthians 6:14-17):
Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate," says the Lord, "and do not touch what is unclean; and I will welcome you."Needless to say, I am glad that the religious people I know don't take that attitude; but it certainly has not died out either.
It's important to note that I don't bring this up as a reason to reject orthodox Christianity or Judaism out of hand. This extreme opposition to religious dissent makes good sense given the doctrines of such religions; I simply object to it because I believe we have good reasons to reject those doctrines. I would not try to argue with an evangelical by appealing to tolerance; rather, I prefer to attack their truth claims. Those forms of moderate and liberal Christianity which are most comfortable with modern ideas of religious tolerance could not have come about without the weakening of the authority given to the words of Jesus, Paul, and other early Christian figures as they are recorded in the New Testament -- through a willingness to offend on the part of religious dissenters, most notably those Enlightenment thinkers who were willing to question and criticize Christianity and theism itself. That's enough for now, but I hope this first installment has shown a little of where I'm coming from and why I dislike the common oversimplifications. Later, I will try to apply some of this historical background to modern issues in and threats to religious freedom.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
What does a crank do when treated as a crank?
Cry censorship, of course.
Another question: what do the missions of a respectable zoo -- an institution dedicated to education, to showing the public the wonders that science has revealed about our universe -- and the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society have in common? Sorry, I don't know the answer to this one.
In summary, the unholy alliance was thwarted, the crackpot protested his treatment as a crackpot, and threatened that we had simply raised publicity for his house of lies, all the while calling us intolerant because we don't think that educational institutions should promote creationist bullshit. (Also, did you see how I called his bullshit bullshit just now? You see how vicious these atheist bloggers can be?)
I humbly submit that whether or not this publicity helps the Creation Museum in the long run (and there's really no way to tell now), ending this partnership was the right thing to do. Ham protests that this was essentially a business venture, but whatever the zoo officials who authorized (or, heaven forfend, dreamed up) this deal were thinking, it's all too easy to interpret this as an endorsement. This is twisted into a case of censorship, of course; never mind that no one's trying to shut down the museum. The Expelled references are all too appropriate, and sum up just how well Ham understands his opposition. If you can't get the scientific community to take you seriously, just claim you're being persecuted for your religion. And then you go right back to the Hitler smears.
Kudos to PZ and those others who protested. Also, regarding Expelled, Roger Ebert's months-late review now seems surprisingly timely.
Another question: what do the missions of a respectable zoo -- an institution dedicated to education, to showing the public the wonders that science has revealed about our universe -- and the modern equivalent of the Flat Earth Society have in common? Sorry, I don't know the answer to this one.
In summary, the unholy alliance was thwarted, the crackpot protested his treatment as a crackpot, and threatened that we had simply raised publicity for his house of lies, all the while calling us intolerant because we don't think that educational institutions should promote creationist bullshit. (Also, did you see how I called his bullshit bullshit just now? You see how vicious these atheist bloggers can be?)
I humbly submit that whether or not this publicity helps the Creation Museum in the long run (and there's really no way to tell now), ending this partnership was the right thing to do. Ham protests that this was essentially a business venture, but whatever the zoo officials who authorized (or, heaven forfend, dreamed up) this deal were thinking, it's all too easy to interpret this as an endorsement. This is twisted into a case of censorship, of course; never mind that no one's trying to shut down the museum. The Expelled references are all too appropriate, and sum up just how well Ham understands his opposition. If you can't get the scientific community to take you seriously, just claim you're being persecuted for your religion. And then you go right back to the Hitler smears.
Kudos to PZ and those others who protested. Also, regarding Expelled, Roger Ebert's months-late review now seems surprisingly timely.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Odontochelys semitestacea, the earliest fossil turtle
It's a real cutie too!
The discovery of the turtle was reported in Nature. Following Chinlechelys, this is the second month in a row in which a new Triassic fossil turtle has been announced.
"Odontochelys," according to the authors, comes from the Greek for tooth (odonto) and tortoise (chelys). The teeth are one of this turtle's most primitive features; Proganochelys, until recently the oldest fossil turtle known, is toothless. (I'm not sure about Chinlechelys, since I don't have access to the paper describing it, but if I'm not mistaken the skull was not recovered.)
"Semitestacea," again according to the authors, comes from the Latin testaceus, "of animals, covered with shell"; and semi-, meaning half. In modern turtles the dorsal side of the shell is called the carapace, and the ventral (under) side is called the plastron. Odontochelys has a fully developed plastron, but is missing the carapace almost entirely. If this is a primitive feature, it's consistent with the embryological data -- the plastron develops before the carapace in modern turtles as well. Robert Reisz and Jason Head, in their commentary on the find, argue for an alternate interpretation -- "that a carapace was present, but some of its dermal components were not ossified."
Odontochelys appears to have been primarily aquatic, as evidenced by the sediments in which it is preserved. In addition, its forelimb proportions resemble those of aquatic modern turtles. This is one of the most surprising aspects of the discovery; turtles have been thought to have had a terrestrial origin, as no aquatic turtles had been found before the Middle Jurassic. Indeed, a turtle dating even that far back was news a week before Odontochelys was announced.
Finally, one interesting omission is that neither Li et al. nor Reisz and Head mention Chinlechelys. This is to be expected in the case of the original paper, which was accepted for publication four days before the Chinlechelys paper was published and submitted some months before.The interesting thing is that Chinlechelys was cited as evidence for a particular theory of shell evolution, and Odontochelys is being cited as evidence for the opposite theory (National Geographic's article on this story, which doesn't mention Chinlechelys either, explains the debate nicely). With any luck, some of the ambiguities will be clarified. And I think we can expect the fossils to keep coming in.
Hat tip to PZ. The Nature Podcast has an interview with Reisz, for those who are interested. If you got bored reading this, Not Exactly Rocket Science has a better piece on this find. Finally, Nature News has a story on the fossil as well.
The discovery of the turtle was reported in Nature. Following Chinlechelys, this is the second month in a row in which a new Triassic fossil turtle has been announced.
"Odontochelys," according to the authors, comes from the Greek for tooth (odonto) and tortoise (chelys). The teeth are one of this turtle's most primitive features; Proganochelys, until recently the oldest fossil turtle known, is toothless. (I'm not sure about Chinlechelys, since I don't have access to the paper describing it, but if I'm not mistaken the skull was not recovered.)
"Semitestacea," again according to the authors, comes from the Latin testaceus, "of animals, covered with shell"; and semi-, meaning half. In modern turtles the dorsal side of the shell is called the carapace, and the ventral (under) side is called the plastron. Odontochelys has a fully developed plastron, but is missing the carapace almost entirely. If this is a primitive feature, it's consistent with the embryological data -- the plastron develops before the carapace in modern turtles as well. Robert Reisz and Jason Head, in their commentary on the find, argue for an alternate interpretation -- "that a carapace was present, but some of its dermal components were not ossified."
Odontochelys appears to have been primarily aquatic, as evidenced by the sediments in which it is preserved. In addition, its forelimb proportions resemble those of aquatic modern turtles. This is one of the most surprising aspects of the discovery; turtles have been thought to have had a terrestrial origin, as no aquatic turtles had been found before the Middle Jurassic. Indeed, a turtle dating even that far back was news a week before Odontochelys was announced.
Finally, one interesting omission is that neither Li et al. nor Reisz and Head mention Chinlechelys. This is to be expected in the case of the original paper, which was accepted for publication four days before the Chinlechelys paper was published and submitted some months before.The interesting thing is that Chinlechelys was cited as evidence for a particular theory of shell evolution, and Odontochelys is being cited as evidence for the opposite theory (National Geographic's article on this story, which doesn't mention Chinlechelys either, explains the debate nicely). With any luck, some of the ambiguities will be clarified. And I think we can expect the fossils to keep coming in.
Hat tip to PZ. The Nature Podcast has an interview with Reisz, for those who are interested. If you got bored reading this, Not Exactly Rocket Science has a better piece on this find. Finally, Nature News has a story on the fossil as well.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Anti-religious blogging: a few clarifications
Much of my project here is to attack religious and other supernatural beliefs. In the interest of doing so without being a jerk, and to head off some of the usual "[militant/fundamentalist/religious/whatever] atheist" criticism, here are some notes on where I stand in the atheist-antitheist spectrum.
1. I don't "respect your beliefs," but I may respect you anyway. I also realize that it's not my business to judge your reasons for being religious, especially if I don't know them.
2. I endorse mockery if (but not only if) it makes a valid point.
3. On a related note, when I call beliefs "silly," "preposterous," or something similar, it's not a gratuitous insult; I'm using it in a well-defined sense. Most people today see the Greek or Egyptian or Norse gods as the silly, anthropomorphic creations they were. Modern-day atheists can cite Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as even more ridiculous examples. I think these examples illustrate that we don't need to have direct evidence against, say, the Judeo-Christian God's existence to consider it unlikely; but because many of us grew up in a largely Christian society, and because we haven't learned to reject our bias towards anthropocentrism and magical thinking, we often don't see it that way.
4. I'm mainly opposed to conservative religious traditions. I can live with liberal theists (I'll take those in between on a case-by-case basis). Nonetheless, I think liberal theists are wrong too, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good enough reason to criticize them.
5. I will try not to lump liberal theists in with conservative theists. I've been less than perfect about this in the past, though not so much on this blog.
6. I will not confuse Morton's demon with stupidity. The former is, in my opinion, a far more disturbing psychological phenomenon and should be taken seriously. This does not apply only to young-earth creationists.
1. I don't "respect your beliefs," but I may respect you anyway. I also realize that it's not my business to judge your reasons for being religious, especially if I don't know them.
2. I endorse mockery if (but not only if) it makes a valid point.
3. On a related note, when I call beliefs "silly," "preposterous," or something similar, it's not a gratuitous insult; I'm using it in a well-defined sense. Most people today see the Greek or Egyptian or Norse gods as the silly, anthropomorphic creations they were. Modern-day atheists can cite Russell's teapot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster as even more ridiculous examples. I think these examples illustrate that we don't need to have direct evidence against, say, the Judeo-Christian God's existence to consider it unlikely; but because many of us grew up in a largely Christian society, and because we haven't learned to reject our bias towards anthropocentrism and magical thinking, we often don't see it that way.
4. I'm mainly opposed to conservative religious traditions. I can live with liberal theists (I'll take those in between on a case-by-case basis). Nonetheless, I think liberal theists are wrong too, and as far as I'm concerned that's a good enough reason to criticize them.
5. I will try not to lump liberal theists in with conservative theists. I've been less than perfect about this in the past, though not so much on this blog.
6. I will not confuse Morton's demon with stupidity. The former is, in my opinion, a far more disturbing psychological phenomenon and should be taken seriously. This does not apply only to young-earth creationists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
