Re: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
Okay, this is a good start. What I would suggest is that the ESA field a letter responding to IJCR by stating in, layman's terms, the critical difference between science and religion and why its important not to get confused and why IJCR is a threat to science and possibly even the democratic process since it threatens our national perception of reality. I would be happy to produce a draft if a few ESA members would be interested in helping me with the draft. I or someone else with a PhD and some clout can basically re-iterate SJ Gould's arguments. Jim Sparks On 5/5/07, adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > not sure how far to take your metaphor about "trouble down lower". but my > point is that religion and science will always argue until there's > realization that they are each different states of consciousness. the > non-validative, salutary truths of religions need not argue with the > sensorimotor, empirical sensory truths of the sciencesbut they do in > the > United States, as J. Sparks said "are destined to be antagonistic because > other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using > mythology > to construct a national paradigm." both science & religion seem not to > recognize the futility of trying to meet nonmaterial needs (objective > constancy & spiritual/moral, respectively) by controling material > resources. to the degree that both institutionalized religion & > science employ a politco-navigational compass bent on a dominant > instrumental relationship with Nature, I wouldn't be suprised that they > don't find more to agree about as their hegemony is replaced by an > attitude > of respect and communication. > > Adam Herbert > > "recycling reward consumption" - William McDonough > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Richard Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: May 4, 2007 9:13 PM > Subject: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! > To: adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I see where you're trying to make trouble down lower? > > -- > *From:* Mammalian Biology [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf > Of > *Jim Sparks > *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2007 2:35 AM > *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] > *Subject:* Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! > > > > > It is not true that science and religion are destined to be > antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we > have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. We, as > educators, have been far too willing to cop out. Of Western nations, only > Turkey is more backwater than us. With comparable literacy rates, we > should > at least be not far behind the UK. We need to buck up, put up our dukes, > and be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality. > > Sincerely, > Jim Sparks > > Acceptance of Evolution as fact: > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html > > > > > On 5/3/07, adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > the ultra-reductionistic out is to accept that religion & science will > > ALWAYS argue because one is based on faith and one is based on > fact...why > > argue? you're using different eyes to see the same thing > > > > On 5/2/07, Jim Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for young earth > > > creationism! > > > Please tell me that someone out there is preparing some stiff > opposition > > > to > > > this. > > > > > > When this thing gets off the ground it will do a pretty good job of > > > undermining scientific method and credibility. This may be even worse > > > than > > > recent scandals involving pharmaceutical industry funding of > > > product research or petroleum industry scientists contradicting > > > climatologists on global warming. Journals on the whole are losing > > > their > > > credibility because of various financial entanglements in a few key > > > fields. This current attack is not going to help ecology and > > > evolutionary > > > biology one bit. > > > > > > As goes the reputation of journals, so goes the voices of reason. Can > > > anyone think of a way to defend Aristotelian logic or all we all going > > > to > > > just watch placidly as the age of reason slips into the shadowy > > > recesses of a new, albeit perhaps more subtle Dark Ages. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Jim Sparks > > > http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html > > > > > > *International Journal for Creation Research * > > > > > > The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to announce the > inaugural > > > Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research > > > (IJCR). > > > > > > IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary > > > scientific > > > research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical > > > framework. > > > > > > Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research > conducted > > > by > > > experts in geology, genetics, astron
Come on guys, put up a fight!
Dear ESA, The debate about appropriate referee measures is very interesting but whether IJCR is editor or peer reviewed it will still be spreading a complete fallacy in a scientific format that is confusing to the public. I still think this merits being addressed directly as a specific issue by the ESA and its membership. Is the ESA willing to put forth a small amount of effort to draft a letter and address this issue officially or should we just accept the abysmal failure of public education in this country as insurmountable? Come on guys, put up a fight! We are standing by idly while the American public is pummeled with well financed lies. Several people have suggested that doing nothing is advisable. Well, that's what we have been doing and the results are dismal. Can we please try a different tact now? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html Sincerely, Jim Sparks "Quis custodiet ipso custodes?" -Juvenal -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. Freelance Ecology 4530 E. Seminary Ave. Richmond, VA 23227 804.426.2479 (cell) "Quis custodiet ipso custodes?" -Juvenal
USGS Ecologist Position
GS 11/12 Ecologist (Wildlife) Position available at USGS National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, WI Salary: GS-11: $52,912 (Step 1)to $68,787 (Step 10) Work Schedule: Full - Time Open Date: April 19, 2007 Close Date: May 16, 2007 Contact: Melody Sutherland, [EMAIL PROTECTED], 703-648-7471 * Applicants must be U.S. Citizens. * Travel and relocation expenses are not authorized. * You must be able to travel 3-4 nights per month. -- Plan and conduct wildlife disease ecology investigations concerning biological, chemical, and physical process that affect wildlife resources and ecosystems. Deploy data collection systems and manipulate and analyze data from these systems. Analyze and resolve complex and conventional problems. Write comprehensive reports on findings and recommend management strategies. -- Develop and present training modules for investigation of wildlife diseases for state, Federal and tribal biologists. -- Identify new emerging wildlife disease problems and issues and develop proposals to address or resolve them; pursues support for collaboration and funding with the agency and with extramural cooperators. -- Analyze data, perform scientific tests, and conduct studies on the impact of diseases on wildlife populations and the effects of existing or proposed management practices on wildlife diseases. -- Modify and adapt standard field techniques, processes and procedures; assess, select and apply innovative approaches and precedents; and devise strategies and plans to overcome significant technical and resource problems related to ecological investigations of the population affects of wildlife disease. Qualifications and Evaluations: For information on qualification requirements please click on the following: http://www.usgs.gov/ohr/oars/quals/0408.html You must meet all qualification and eligibility requirements for the position by the closing date of the announcement.
total station info
A colleague and I use total stations frequently. We have another colleague in the USGS who is VERY knowledgeable in their application. He has worked in the Grand Canyon for many years. As for their portability, yeah it's not so good, but I've done huge hikes in and out of the canyon, in one day, and it can be done- in heavy brush, where I've also used them in British Columbia, they are more of a hassle. But, it really comes down to the application. We used them to model stage-discharge relations with vegetation succession in a reservoir, and they were the only way to accurately do the calculations and modeling. If you'd like more info, contact me off-list. Best- eric Eric North Department of Biological Sciences Northern Arizona University P.O. Box 5640 Flagstaff, AZ 86011 Office: 928.523.7247 Cell:928.607.3098 FAX: 928.523.7500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _ Watch free concerts with Pink, Rod Stewart, Oasis and more. Visit MSN In Concert today. http://music.msn.com/presents?icid=ncmsnpresentstagline
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
Hello all,
As cynical as this may sound, I tend to agree with the person who said
that people will believe whatever they want, regardless of the information
available. The problem here is perception, and perception is shaped first
by parents and family. In the case of religious folks (a christian majority
in this country), perception of, and attitudes towards, the origin of
species, earth and universe get reinforced by sermons, religion classes in
school (sometimes), and Bible studies during the earlier years of academic
formation - long before the first classes that discuss evolution (school and
college) come along.
I have been following the postings in the list with great interest,
particularly because of a recent conversation with two biology students at
my institution after class (yes, it is an anecdote). The graduate student
claimed that he did not believe in dinosaurs, that, largely, fossils were
the outcome of researchers assembling things the wrong way, and that
radioactive dating of strata or fossils was just the result of "fuzzy math."
He did acknowledge the possibility of large fossil mammals (I believe mainly
because it fits his religious perception of how old the Earth actually is -
which, of course, is also a mistake because giant ground sloths and
mastodons did not occur just 6,000 years ago). The undergraduate (a senior)
did believe fossils were real, but he also believed that Noah built an ark
and placed all modern species in it, in pairs, and that there is evidence of
the famous biblical flood. This reminds me of an old friend who got his
Ph.D. in geology around the same time I did. He used to say that he
believed species could change through time but not in speciation, and that
"there is no way humans could have evolved from monkeys."
The point is we are not dealing with the uneducated here or with people
who did not have access to the right information. As I pointed out, the
former were both biology majors who had already taken general biologies,
genetics, ecology, cell biology, zoology, botany and other classes. It
would be hard to argue that all their professors skipped evolutionary topics
in their classes or did collectively a really poor job of explaining the
evidence. One of these students took my marine botany class and always
answered my evolutionary questions correctly. I design my essay questions
so that they have to put things together from different lectures and fields,
rather than going to "page 20 of the notebook" and read a precooked answer.
It was disappointing to realize that he was simply using infomation which
was never believed. Upon that kind of inertia, there is amazingly little
any educator can do.
I am not arguing that we should throw our arms in the air and forget to
do our job as educators the best we can. On the contrary, I am claiming
that most of us do our jobs well, but we are dismally limited by societal
structuring around religion. When you are young and cannot explain most
phenomena around you, religion offers great comfort because there is no need
to fill in any gaps in knowledge ("because god made it that way" is a very
useful and cushy thought). This effectively kills critical thinking because
faith is vastly treated as all you need. I will be the first one to accept
that geography may modulate some of my perception. As a minority, I can
testify some places are more accepting and open minded than others. But as
a whole, I think it is easier for most people to believe that some god
created things, rather than attempt to understand the intricacies of a big
bang, mass extinctions, or the evolution of species. So given both, they
will chose the former. After all, natural selection (for example)is not as
easy to explain as creation in 7 days.
I am proposing a new course in evolutionary biology with a colleague in
my department and this will be the first time a class like that will be
taught at JSU. Just as in larval recruitment, we are simply hoping that out
of the hundreds, at least one or two will make it - students who have
learned something new, in this case. Maybe the IJCR will provide an
excellent research tool by producing articles that can be systematically
debunked in class by overwhelming data to the contrary.
Hasta luego,
Edwin
--
Dr. Edwin Cruz-Rivera
Assist. Prof./Director, Marine Sciences Program
Department of Biology
Jackson State University
JSU Box18540
Jackson, MS 39217
Tel: (601) 979-3461
Fax: (601) 979-5853
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"It is not the same to hear the devil as it is to see him coming your way"
(Puerto Rican proverb)
Fwd: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
not sure how far to take your metaphor about "trouble down lower". but my point is that religion and science will always argue until there's realization that they are each different states of consciousness. the non-validative, salutary truths of religions need not argue with the sensorimotor, empirical sensory truths of the sciencesbut they do in the United States, as J. Sparks said "are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm." both science & religion seem not to recognize the futility of trying to meet nonmaterial needs (objective constancy & spiritual/moral, respectively) by controling material resources. to the degree that both institutionalized religion & science employ a politco-navigational compass bent on a dominant instrumental relationship with Nature, I wouldn't be suprised that they don't find more to agree about as their hegemony is replaced by an attitude of respect and communication. Adam Herbert "recycling reward consumption" - William McDonough -- Forwarded message -- From: Richard Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: May 4, 2007 9:13 PM Subject: FW: Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! To: adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I see where you're trying to make trouble down lower? -- *From:* Mammalian Biology [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Jim Sparks *Sent:* Friday, May 04, 2007 2:35 AM *To:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Subject:* Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality! It is not true that science and religion are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. We, as educators, have been far too willing to cop out. Of Western nations, only Turkey is more backwater than us. With comparable literacy rates, we should at least be not far behind the UK. We need to buck up, put up our dukes, and be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality. Sincerely, Jim Sparks Acceptance of Evolution as fact: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html On 5/3/07, adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > the ultra-reductionistic out is to accept that religion & science will > ALWAYS argue because one is based on faith and one is based on fact...why > argue? you're using different eyes to see the same thing > > On 5/2/07, Jim Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for young earth > > creationism! > > Please tell me that someone out there is preparing some stiff opposition > > to > > this. > > > > When this thing gets off the ground it will do a pretty good job of > > undermining scientific method and credibility. This may be even worse > > than > > recent scandals involving pharmaceutical industry funding of > > product research or petroleum industry scientists contradicting > > climatologists on global warming. Journals on the whole are losing > > their > > credibility because of various financial entanglements in a few key > > fields. This current attack is not going to help ecology and > > evolutionary > > biology one bit. > > > > As goes the reputation of journals, so goes the voices of reason. Can > > anyone think of a way to defend Aristotelian logic or all we all going > > to > > just watch placidly as the age of reason slips into the shadowy > > recesses of a new, albeit perhaps more subtle Dark Ages. > > > > Sincerely, > > Jim Sparks > > http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html > > > > *International Journal for Creation Research * > > > > The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to announce the inaugural > > Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research > > (IJCR). > > > > IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary > > scientific > > research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical > > framework. > > > > Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted > > by > > experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of > > science, > > IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge > > research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the > > non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that > > correlate > > to the biblical accounts. > > > > It is our hope that you will be encouraged in your study of creation > > science > > issues that remain at the forefront of education and research. > > > > Andrew A. Snelling > > Editor-in-Chief > > > > -- > > James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. > > Freelance Ecology > > 4530 E. Seminary Ave. > > Richmond, VA 23227 > > 804.426.2479 (cell) > > > > -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. Freelance Ecology 4530 E. Seminary Ave. Richmond, VA 23227 804.426.2479 (cell) "Quis custodiet ipso custodes?" -Juvenal -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc.
News: Conservatives Split Over Darwin and Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/05/us/politics/05darwin.html?ref=science A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin By PATRICIA COHEN Published: May 5, 2007 Evolution has long generated bitter fights between the left and the right about whether God or science better explains the origins of life. But now a dispute has cropped up within conservative circles, not over science, but over political ideology: Does Darwinian theory undermine conservative notions of religion and morality or does it actually support conservative philosophy? On one level the debate can be seen as a polite discussion of political theory among the members of a small group of intellectuals. But the argument also exposes tensions within the Republicans' "big tent," as could be seen Thursday night when the party's 10 candidates for president were asked during their first debate whether they believed in evolution. Three - Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas; Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado - indicated they did not. For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it. Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design - not to mention creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible's Book of Genesis - that has led conservative opponents to speak out for fear their ideology will be branded as out of touch and anti-science. [...] Cheers, - Ashwani Vasishth[EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137 http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/ http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research
In response to Ernie and Bill, One thing we can do in response to the journal access problem is to actively promote open-access scientific journals such as PLoS Biology, which is published by the Public Library of Science (http:// www.plos.org/). How can we promote them? One easy way is to add prominent links to such journals on our academic web sites. Another is to reference them when we write letters to the editors of newspapers and magazines. The point is that high quality open-access scientific journals do exist, but the general public is unaware of them. I am sympathetic to the goal of educating the public on evolution. Perhaps it's time for an open-access journal that is dedicated to evolutionary topics and that uses "layman friendly" language (i.e. avoids technical jargon)? Or is that role already filled by magazines such as Scientific American, Popular Science, Science News, Discovery Magazine, New Scientist, etc.? Mike ___ Michael M Fuller, Ph.D. The Institute for Environmental Modeling University of Tennessee Knoxville, TN 37996 PH: (865) 974-4894 EMAIL: mmfuller at tiem d0t utk d0t edu WEB: www.tiem.utk.edu/~mmfuller > Free exchange of knowledge and ideas is a wonderful, powerful > thing. Who > knows, maybe from that viewpoint, the new journal is a good > thing. But, only > for a people that can think clearly and seek truth for > themselves-- we need > better access to the mainstream journals. > > Ernie Rogers > However I think that the people who publish the International > Journal of > Creation Research are mainly interested in getting the word out, > and they > are probably well funded, so I think it will not be difficult to > get access > to their journal -- online access, free library subscriptions, etc. > That > really gives them an advantage. Is there anything we can do about it? > > Bill Silvert
Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
I think that there are clear differences in the kinds of refereeing = standards that should be applied to different kinds of research, but at = present journals apply the same standards to all. Medical research is of = course an area where very careful testing, peer review, and replication = are essential. At the other extreme, there are important subjects where = what we really need are creative, novel and often speculative ideas - we = need to think about the design of protected areas, how fish stocks will = respond to climate change and so on, and I think that often it is better = to put ideas in a public forum for everyone to consider than to trust = the judgement and prejudices of one or two reviewers. About the abyssal vent communities, I was referring to the original = observations, pictures of the extraordinary tube worms and so on, and = not the conclusion that these were fuelled by chemosynthesis (why would = marine snow accumulate only around thermal vents? - but that is beside = the point). My recollection is that the evidence for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was = a very blurred photo and reports of the bird's call. If anyone gets a = really clear picture of an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, comparable to the = quality of the pictures of the vent communities, I hope that we don't = have to wait through several months of revieweing before we hear of it. = For that matter, if there is a less convincing but credible report of a = sighting in a forest currently being logged, I think that even the = tentative report should be released immediately. Bill Silvert - Original Message -=20 From: Liane Cochran-Stafira=20 To: William Silvert ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 11:41 PM Subject: Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation = Research (IJCR). Bill, Not sure I would agree, at least I can't think of any field of = biological research that can do without it. Editors just aren't versed = enough in all areas to be the sole word on what's good science and what = isn't. Yes, I can think of some really horrible papers that should have = been weeded out, but that's where the process of science does its job. = All that phoney cloning research was exposed for what it was. Some = physics papers have been retracted. Some animal behavior work was first = OK, then under serious doubt, then OK again. It's the constant review = even after papers get in that keeps us (mostly) honest. The chemosynthesis hypothesis had to be confirmed through experiments. = Those experiments and the data were peer reviewed, and published in the = microbial literature as, I think, in Science. The reason for the exp = was that there was some concern that the community might be detritus = based, feeding on "marine snow" as do some other bottom dwellers. Observational data are also scrutinized - recall the Ivory Billed = Woodpecker sighting of last year. Peer review brought doubt into what = seemed to be a sure thing. Liane Cochran-Stafira At 03:09 PM 5/3/2007, William Silvert wrote: I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug = themselves.=20 Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am always = puzzled by the=20 mystique that peer review seems to have acquired. Not all physics = papers are=20 peer reviewed, and I know at least one paper that wasn't which = earned its=20 author a Nobel prize. I have seen little evidence that peer review = is any=20 better than having a good editor. Some really awful papers show up = in peer=20 reviewed journals. The idea that because a paper has passed peer = review it=20 is good science just doesn't go down well with me. Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful = attention to=20 standard protocols. A reviewer of a paper in a field like = microbiology=20 should be able to certify that samples were properly sterilised, = that the=20 staining was done correctly, and so on. But consider the paper which = first=20 reported the existence of abyssal communities based on = chemosynthesis,=20 certainly one of the most important ecological discoveries of the = past=20 century -- what could a "peer" reviewer possibly have to say about = that? Bill Silvert - Original Message -=20 From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 7:37 PM Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal = of=20 Creation Research (IJCR). >I think there is a legitimate concern about a journal presenting = itself as > scientific and peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the typical = news=20 > junkie > will ever read it. Many people, our current President among them, = may hear > in the wind about a peer-reviewed article that "proves" a biblical = > statement > and believe it is real science because it is "peer-reviewed." = Think about > thi
