Update: LA Times Autism Story Comment Fracas Continues

A few interesting developments in the Basko-Ditz LA Times autism story comment fracas (for those unfamiliar with the episode, you may want to see this post for a primer).

In the comments section of Harpocrates Speaks, the blog which responded to the Liz-Basko affair with a post entitled How Not to Make a Fool of Yourself on the Internet: A PSA, a commenter posted the following (alleged Twitter direct message transcript):

Here's a transcript of my bizarro conversation with Ms. Basko on Twitter. Notice how she never answers my question. I'm not sure if she simply does not understand my repeated question or is just dodging it. And for the record, I do have a son with autism and he receives SSI. I work three jobs so my wife can stay at home. That's why I found her comments so offensive and insisted that she answer my question (even though she didn't).
==

SB (Sue Basko): I am being stalked/harassed by a nut named @LizDitz who actually wrote the words being tweeted. Have reported to FBI.

ME: Since you have an account at LA Times blogs, FBI or LA Times should be able to determine if or who posted alleged comments.

SB: In the meantime, Liz Ditz and her "gravy train" words roll on. I have not been interviewed by her, never even heard of her!

ME: Not defending anybody but I only know about this because of you, not LD. Had to use Google to figure out what you were talking abt

SB: LD wrote words and tweeted them as mine - I have not had any interaction with her ever. She is cyberbully.

SB: It is on Google, but because she wrote it and put it there.

ME: Are you referring to her blog post or the quotes she attributed to you from the LA Times comments section of the Autism article?

SB: I do NOT have a blog at LA Times. I have a blog about protest marches! Not on LA Times!

ME: I'm referring to the fact that you have a registered account to add comments.

ME: latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/10/… You're a "Top Commenter," though maybe you connected via Facebook...

ME: I'm selective about who I follow, that's why I'm asking.

ME: Liz has updated her blog and provides a screen shot of your comments to the LA Times blog article.

ME: My question still stands, did you write those words or not? (I'm referring to the comments attribute to you in the screenshot)

SB: Check sources before you repeat words of malicious stalker. Please.

ME: I haven't repeated them. I'm just asking you if you made the comments she said you did. Yes or no?

SB: I do not even know what you are talking about - I have never had any interaction whatsoever with this woman!

ME: No one said you did. I'm doing what you asked, checking sources. DID YOU WRITE THOSE COMMENTS OR NOT? YES OR NO?

SB: THIS IS MY BLOG: occupypeace.blogspot.com CHECK YOUR SOURCES.

ME: I'm not talking about YOUR blog. I'm talking about the comments you allegedly left on a LA Times piece on autism.

ME: Did you write this or not? lizditz.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451b…

SB: PLEASE STOP TWEETING AND CHECK SOURCES, TRY TO BE RESPONSIBLE.

ME: Did you make the comments or not? Yes or no? Why can't you answer the question?

ME: I am checking sources, I'm asking you.

SB: I publish a blog by autistic man: paulmodrowski.blogspot.com I do not write LD's blog!

ME: OK, I give up. I've been asking specifically about comments you alledgely made on the LA TIMES blog. Is my question not clear?

ME: So did you write the comments (now deleted) that were allegedly (notice I use this word) on the LA Times blog? Yes or no?

ME: Look up definitions of cyber bullying, cyber stalking, as I don't think you know what they mean. Look up Streisand Effect too.

ME: You may also want to read up on how social media works. Good luck...

I cannot confirm or deny that the above Twitter conversation actually occurred, but it doesn't seem to be terribly unbelievable, based on the way Ms. Basko has reacted to the critique of her original LA Times comments. Again, she appears to avoid making any concessions regarding the original post on the LA Times piece, instead pointing elsewhere, saying, 'Hey, look over there!' when asked very direct questions about the comments.

In addition, Ms. Basko left the following comment on the def shepherd Facebook page:

The link points to a blog post entitled Liz Ditz Came Out of Hiding on Doug Copp's Blog. The post is from October of 2010, and makes plenty of painfully vague accusations against Ditz unrelated to the whole LA Times autism fracas. The post at Doug Copp's Blog is devoid of any supporting materials, links, or references -- simply a lot of angry remarks with no substance. It references ARTI, an organization which calls itself 'The World's most experienced rescue team and disaster management-mitigation organization.'

A Google search turned up some posts on Liz Ditz's blog about Doug Copp's disaster rescue and mitigation business. Her posts are well-documented, pointing to a number of credible sources which outline the sketchiness of Copp's business. Plenty of other sources had also reported on the dubious nature of Copp's enterprise, including CBS News, Snopes, the Jamaica Observer, and the Albuquerque Journal. Clearly, this is not a case of Ms. Ditz fabricating accusations out of thin air.

It appears Ms. Basko may have simply scoured the internet looking for any negative comments to support her declarations that Ditz is a 'cyberstalker' who attacks others on the internet.

Shortly after Basko left her comment on the def shepherd Facebook page, she left similar comments on the Harpocrates Speaks blog post, in which she quotes much of the post from Doug Copp's Blog:

I'm sure we haven't heard the end of Ms. Basko. It's clear that she touched a nerve with the comments on the LA Times (which, it appears, she may be suggesting she never made). It's unclear if there actually is an investigation underway. Unless she knows something we don't know, there's very little likelihood that any law enforcement agency would get very far in an investigation before dismissing the whole incident as simply a case of someone with thin skin resorting to threats rather than answering her critics in the same venue that launched this whole incident to begin with.

Although I don't know much about Ms. Basko outside of her various internet posts related to this story, her Occupy blog, and the fact that she is an entertainment lawyer in LA, I do know that Liz Ditz is greatly admired for her autism work, and is the co-founder and editor of The Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, which has just been named 'Book of the Year' by Steve Silberman, senior writer for Wired and autism/neurodiversity blogger for the Public Library of Science.

Many would be quite surprised if Ditz were guilty of anything more than speaking up.

Anti-Science: In Which 'Age of Autism' Boos Me, And A Scientist Responds

This morning I criticized the website Age of Autism by way of a tweet highlighting their site as part of a list of the 10 worst anti-science websites. They subsequently blocked me, and tweeted 'Boo!' back to me.

As a big fan of free speech, peer review, and dissent, it peeved me that a benign public tweet mentioning AoA as part of a list, would result in being blocked. This is, after all, an organization who, in their own 'About Us' section, condemns those who "aren't interested" in other points of view, and who "don't listen."

Their choice of words, "Boo!", while annoying, perfectly distilled the essence of AoA's willful ignorance. It was the twitter equivalent of sticking fingers in ears and exclaiming, "Lalalalalalalalaaa!"

The science writer, biologist, and autism activist Emily Willingham was also peeved. (Full disclosure: I am one of Emily's followers on Twitter (and she is one of mine), and we have several mutual acquaintances. She has been featured in these pages, and I happen to think she kicks ass.)

Emily wrote a post on her blog, The Biology Files, where the AoA 'Boo!' episode served as a jumping-off point for a screed on the anti-science movement and the value of real science.

She writes:

This nadir of discourse is a perfect example of why the anti-science movement in this country is so damaging. The refusal to think critically, to alter conclusions as necessary based on new evidence, to budge from some pre-set notion regardless of information to the contrary--that "BOO!" sums it all up. It says, "We do not care that you think we're anti-science, and we have taken our ball and gone home." It says, "We are incapable of defending our position, as usual." It says, "We are childishly adherent to our cause, no matter its level of failure, no matter evidence to the contrary." That "BOO!" encapsulates well the attitude and argumentative capacity of those who promote anti-science values.

Yes, I said, "Values." Because the anti-science crowd operates together on a fundamental set of values, whether they're evangelizing against evolution, climate change, or vaccines. They place more emphasis on boastful "gotchas" than they do on getting it right. They use half-truths to get buyers for what they sell--and yes, they're usually selling something--and make people forget that the yin to a half-truth's yang is a half-lie. They value the power of emotion and testimony over method and evidence, and they use emotion and testimony cynically and unabashedly. But most of all, they value the opportunity to say "BOO!" to the folk who rely on the long-term, unemotional, data-gathering process we call "science" to form conclusions.

We see denialism everywhere these days. You can't turn on a news channel today without being bombarded with anti-science sentiment: climate change is a hoax, evolution is 'a theory that's out there,' a blastocyst is a person, Gardisil causes mental retardation. The list goes on and on.

Willingham on the damage caused by anti-science:

This clash of values between science and anti-science intersects every sphere of our lives. People turn to the anti-science practitioners and place their health and lives and their children's health and lives in jeopardy. People turn away from the conclusions of science based on available evidence and endanger everything from the food we eat and water we drink to the very balance of the biosphere. People turn away from educating our children in science, preferring the value of ignorance over the value of knowledge. People turn our nation away from being competitive by making a mockery of the value of knowledge and emphasizing instead the anti-science value of embracing half-truths and promoting scientific illiteracy. Were they able to spin in graves, our founding fathers, many of whom were extraordinary critical thinkers, would be spinning like tops to see the people of this nation they founded so proud in their emphatic and willful ignorance.

We live in a world in which, more than ever, critical thinking abilities and a broad and deep knowledge across the spheres of life and the rest of the physical world will be required tools for function and advancement. The anti-science emphasis on and exploitation of values of half-lies, ignorance, and illiteracy can only endanger us and the world around us, sometimes fatally. It's difficult for me to understand the mental processes of a person or a group of people who prefer ignorance and failure over method and evidence. But then again, my values don't involve resorting to playground childishness like "BOO!" as a retort to legitimate criticism.

Read Emily's entire post here. Share it. Tweet it to AoA, if you want. Warning: you will be blacklisted.

Why Not? Evolution, Videos & Rockstar Scientists

The below guest post was written by Matt Shipman, a science writer and father of three who lives in Raleigh. You can follow Matt on Twitter at @ShipLives or connect with him here on Google+. 

Evolution shouldn’t be controversial. But, in some circles, it is.

That point was driven home earlier this year via, of all things, the Miss USA competition. This year’s competitors were asked whether they thought evolution should be taught in schools. The majority of them either said no, or that creationism should receive equal time in the science curriculum.

Many girls look up to young women like the Miss USA contestants. So when these role models overwhelmingly speak out against evolution education, that’s a problem.

Normally, I would have shaken my head and moved on. But I made the mistake of posting a flippant remark on Twitter. Something to the effect of: “Someone should do something to respond.” I got called on it.

An acquaintance of mine named Dave Wescott agreed that someone should respond. Then he said that someone should be us. I saw my future free time evaporating.

Within hours we had found a small group of scientists and science communicators who were also interested in being involved. Ultimately, there were me and Dave (P.R. guys), Kevin Zelnio, Jamie Vernon and Andrea Kuszewski (scientist/science communicators). We came up with the idea of creating a video, featuring scientists, which would explain evolution and why it is important to teach evolution in schools. We wanted to avoid divisive behavior and name-calling. Instead, we thought we could convey the fact that evolution is an amazing, uplifting discovery that has served as the genesis of countless advances in many fields of science.

Then someone, I think it was Jamie, suggested that we focus exclusively on female scientists. This was a great idea. In addition to talking about evolution, we could highlight positive role models, showing that women can be scientists and researchers, as well as beauty queens.

We contacted tons of great researchers from around the U.S., Canada and the U.K. Most of them turned us down. They’d never heard of us and, after all, they were all successful scientists (which is why we contacted them). But some of them – amazingly – said they’d participate.

After months of collecting video and editing, here it is. It’s the product of a small group of people, working on their personal time, with a budget of zero dollars. It wouldn’t work at all without the videos submitted by brilliant, generous and well-spoken scientists in fields ranging from genetics to anthropology to marine biology.

It’s not perfect, but we did something good here. We did not just roll our eyes.

It’s a good reminder that creative responses to challenging problems don’t come from other people. They come from you, when you stop making excuses and decide to actually do something positive.

So check the video out. And pass it on.

Symphony of Science: Neil deGrasse Tyson Sings!

In the latest video from the Symphony of Science folks, we're treated to the lovely (auto-tuned) vocal stylings of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, physicist Brian Cox, and planetary scientist Carolyn Porco.

The video, "Onward to the Edge!" also features stunning visuals from My Favorite Universe, BBC's Wonders of the Solar System, and NatGeo's Traveler's Guide to the Planets.

The Symphony of Science folks describe it as: a musical investigation into the importance and inspirational qualities of space exploration (human and robotic), as well as a look at some of the amazing worlds in our solar system.

Enjoy.

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson Tweets Baseball

Since my beloved Red Sox missed the playoffs following their curse-esque September nosedive, I have avoided watching baseball altogether this postseason. It's too painful. I didn't even have the chance to root against the Yankees in the World Series.

I have, however, found some consolation in the post-season tweets of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Tyson has wowed us for years with his intermingling of science and pop culture, He's showed up on Jeopardy!, Who Wants To Be A Millionare?, and Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! He's appeared on The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, Conan O'Brien, and The Big Bang Theory. On his radio show, Star Talk, he has analyzed the physics behind the powers of superheroes.

Tyson's baseball tweets have run the gamut: the physics of baseball, breakdowns of player salaries, suggestions for new rules, and new criteria for awards.

I've collected some of his gems below (running in order, from the playoffs through the World Series):

• Yankees must win tonite. CC Sabbathia in relief on the mound. During the regular season, he earned $6,500 per pitch.

• Yankees must win tonite. A-Rod is 0 for 2. During the regular season, he earned $86,000 per at-bat.

• You can play baseball on the airless Moon, but only if you find a way not to suffocate & if you don't care about curve balls

• New baseball rules I'd like to see: if the pitch that hits you is ball four, you should get to advance to second base.

• Baseball should track extraordinary plays that fielders can bank, and then credit against errors they might later commit.

• If you walk on 4 pitches it should count against the pitcher. But if you walk on 8 pitches, it should count as a hit.

• On the Moon, with 1/6 of Earth's gravity, a 400 ft home run would travel nearly half a mile. Do the physics.

• The "ManagerOfTheYear" award should not be a vote, but should go to who gets the most wins per dollar of player salaries paid

• Just an FYI: It takes twice as much energy to throw a baseball 100mph than it does to throw one at 70mph. Do The Physics

Follow Neil on Twitter at @neiltyson

Bryan Fischer: 'Gays Aren't Born That Way -- Here's The Proof!'

"Part of maturity is recognizing that there are certain impulsing that we need to resist," says Bryan Fischer.

Bryan Fischer, douchebag

It sounds to me like Bry has some impulse issues of his own. He stated on his radio show today:

"I have made it my mission in life to never be alone in a room with a woman other than my wife. I've never ridden in a car with a woman. I've never had coffee at a restaurant with a woman. I've never had lunch -- not even a business lunch, not even a professional lunch with a colleague...have never done it, and never will do it."

Apparently, if you don't want gay things to happen, you should make sure you are always alone, or in a crowd.

Fischer is thrilled about a new study that suggests "religiously-mediated sexual orientation change" is possible. He writes

All it takes is one man to prove that homosexuals aren't inevitably trapped in that lifestyle, and that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race. As the saying goes, it's impossible to meet an ex-black, but it turns out that it is not impossible to meet an ex-gay.

In fact, there are a bunch of them out there.

And the research proving that change is possible has now been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, which takes that snide and snarky objection away from the deviancy cabal.

Stanton L. Jones and Mark A. Yarhouse have published a longitudinal study of "religiously-mediated sexual orientation change" in the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy. It's found in Volume 37, pages 404-427 for any doubters in the crowd.

How did the study work, exactly?

Jones and Yarhouse followed 61 individuals over a 6-7 year period who completed reparative therapy work with Exodus International. Of these 61 men and women, 53% had successful outcomes. Twenty-three percent reported a successful conversion to heterosexuality, both in orientation and functioning, while an additional 30% achieved behavioral chastity as well as substantive "dis-identification" with a homosexual orientation. (Twenty percent of the subjects abandoned the process and fully embraced a homosexual identity.)

The most amazing quote in Fischer's piece is this gem:

The left is profoundly anti-science and will be predictably anti-science in responding to these findings.

Wow. That's rich, coming from Fischer, who categorically denies evolution and climate change.

Exodus International, for the uninitiated, is a Christian ex-gay therapy organization which promotes "the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."

It's important to note that Michael Bussee, one of the founders of Exodus, and Gary Cooper, a leader within the ministry of Exodus, left the group to be with each other in 1979. Bussee has been a long-time critic of Exodus.

In 2007, Bussee, along with Jeremy Marks, the former president of Exodus International Europe, and Darlene Bogle, the founder of Paraklete Ministries, an Exodus referral agency. issued an apology to those who had been misled by Exodus. The three stated that although they acted sincerely at the time of their involvement, their message had caused isolation, shame and fear. The three had, in time, become disillusioned with promoting gay conversion.

"Some who heard our message were compelled to try to change an integral part of themselves, bringing harm to themselves and their families," stated the three in the apology.

Another Exodus Chairman, John Paulk was removed by the board of directors when he was identified drinking and flirting at Mr. P's, a Washington, D.C. gay bar, Paulk was introducing himself to patrons of the bar as "John Clint," a name he had used in his previous life as a hustler in Ohio. Paulk was the author of "Not Afraid to Change; The Remarkable Story of How One Man Overcame Homosexuality," and was on staff with Focus on the Family, where was manager of their Homosexuality and Gender Department.

According to the press release for the study Fischer cites, "the results do not prove that categorical change in sexual orientation is possible for everyone or anyone, but rather that meaningful shifts along a continuum that constitute real changes appear possible for some."

So, the study shows that some people can actually deny their impulses through religion, guilt, and shame -- we all know how well chastity has worked out for the Catholic Church.

Personally, I'm a little blown away that the Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy published such garbage. The study proves nothing, except that religion-based bigotry and coercion therapy can shame people into living dishonestly.

How many more participants will eventually reach a breaking point, like 20% of the study's participants, and like Bussee, Cooper, Marks, Bogle, and Paulk --- five higher-ups in the Exodus organization -- and eventually admit that they were simply buying into a lie?

Certainly, the likes of Bryan Fischer will simply shrug any such instances off as cases who were not strong enough in their resistance to deviant impulses. Perhaps they ended up having coffee with a member of the same sex and it all went to hell.

Science: What's It Up To?

The Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi brilliantly skewers the science denialism embraced by so much of the religious right. The clip addresses Herman Cain's climate science denial, Rick Santorum's denial of evolution, and Michele Bachmann's claim that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation.

Mandvi is joined by Republican strategist, Noelle Nikpour, who unwittingly provides most of the comedy in the clip.

Noelle Nikpour: It’s very confusing for a child to be only taught evolution to go home to a household where their parents say, “Well, wait a minute. . . God created the Earth!”

Aasif Mandvi: What is the point of teaching children facts if it’s just going to confuse them?

Nikpour: It confuses the children when they go home. We as Americans—we are paying tax dollars for our children to be educated. We need to offer them every theory that’s out there. It’s all about choice; it’s all about freedom.

Mandvi: It should be up to the American people to decide what’s true.

Nikpour: Absolutely! Doesn’t it make common sense?

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Perspective: The Lifetime Of The Universe Mapped Onto A Single Calendar Year

A reader commenting on yesterday's post depicting the history of the world cast into a 24-hour clock brought up another wonderful time-scale concept.

The Cosmic Calendar casts the 13.7 billion year lifetime of the universe into a single calendar year, and was popularized by Carl Sagan on his television series Cosmos, and in his book The Dragons of Eden.

A few mind-blowing bits of perspective:

• The Milky Way does not form until May.
• Our Solar System arrives in August.
• First life appears on Earth in September.
• Dinosaurs are extinct on December 30.
• Modern humans evolve on December 31 at approximately 11:54pm.
• Recorded history begins in the final 15 seconds of the year.
• Columbus arrives in America in the last second of the year.

(Image via Wikipedia)

20 Christian Academics Speaking About God

Via Open Cutlture:

This summer, Jonathan Pararajasingham created 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God and then Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God. If you’re counting, that makes 100. Right alongside these twin videos came 20 Christian Academics Speaking About God, a montage featuring some respected figures (save Dinesh D’Souza) trying to square religious beliefs with their scientific work.

Featured, in order of appearance:

1. Professor George Coyne, Astronomer, Vatican Observatory
2. Robin Collins, Professor of Philosophy
3. Dr Benjamin Carson, Paediatric Neurosurgeon
4. John Lennox, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
5. Francis Collins, National Human Genome Research Institute Director
6. John Polkinghorne, Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics
7. JP Moreland, Professor of Philosophy, Biola University
8. William Dembski, Research Professor of Philosophy
9. Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
10. Dinesh D’Souza, Hoover Research Fellow, Stanford
11. Dr Ravi Zacharias, Renowned Christian Apologist
12. Brian Leftow, Oxford Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion
13. Dr William Lane Craig, Renowned Apologist and Philosopher
14. Nicholas Saunders, Science and Religion Scholar, Cambridge
15. NT Wright, Leading New Testament Scholar
16. Alvin Plantinga, Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy
17. Alistair McGrath, Oxford Professor of Historical Theology
18. Freeman Dyson, Physicist, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
19. RJ Berry, Professor of Genetics, UCL
20. Denys Turner, Yale Professor of Historical Theology

Richard Dawkins: Who Was The First Human?

Whatever your opinion of Richard Dawkins, it's difficult to deny that he has a gift for explaining extremely complex and unimaginable scientific processes in such a way that a child could understand. Some of his thought experiments, such as his wonderful 'hairpin turn' thought experiment in 'The Greatest Show on Earth', are compelling for their ability to provoke an 'aha!' moment in young children, and adults who may not have had the good fortune to be taught evolution, or to be taught it well, in school.

In the below video, from his appearance at The New Yorker Festival, Dawkins walks us through one of the thought experiments in his book for all ages, 'The Magic of Reality.' Through such experiments, children can begin to grasp the immensity of time required for evolutionary change as well as the fact that no particular living thing is ever the first of its kind.

The Feynman Series: Curiosity

If you're unfamiliar with The Sagan Series, you should check it out. The series of videos pays tribute to the late great astrophysicist Carl Sagan. They're stirring, and really inspirational. Something we can all use during this time of economic uncertainty and political madness.

The folks who brought us those wonderful Sagan videos are now releasing a series of videos that pay tribute to everyone's favorite bongo-playing physicist, Richard Feynman.

The videos, like the Sagan Series, are essential viewing. First, they're beautiful to look at, using footage from various sources including many BBC nature programs, and the films Koyaanisqatsi and Microcosmos. And they are aurally pleasing as well. Feynman describes the workings of the universe with the fascination of a child, but with the mind of a wizard. It's contagious.

The below is the latest installment, 'Curiosity.' You can view the previous installments here and here. Perfect viewing for those moments when you need a bit of perspective.

Why A Heterosexual, Married, North Carolinian Father Of Three Cares About LGBT Equality

I am a heterosexual, married, father of three, who has lived in North Carolina for most of my life. There have been a few ugly North Carolina moments during the time I have lived here (mostly related to one particular senator who has been in our rear view mirror for quite some time). But the ugliness that took place in North Carolina General Assembly this week was a stark reminder that, while we have made great strides in this state, there are a lot of people who still wish to deny rights to other citizens based on religious beliefs and misconceptions about sexuality and gender.

Unless you were living under a rock the past few days, you know that the NC Senate voted 30-16 to approve a proposed constitutional amendment banning any legal relationship recognition for same-sex couples. The amendment will be on the ballot in May during the Republican presidential primary.

Same-sex marriage, it should be noted, is already illegal in North Carolina. The amendment is simply a push to put the nail in the coffin, making it extremely difficult for same-sex marriages to be legalized in the future.

The issue of same-sex marriage is complicated in North Carolina, as it is in any state. According to recent survey conducted by Public Policy Polling, while most North Carolinians strongly believe that same-sex marriage should be illegal, they also strongly believe that there should not be a constitutional amendment to write that into the constitution. As conflicted as that message may be, it is clear: people may disagree on an issue, but that doesn't mean we should play political football with our constitution.

I've had people ask why I am so vocal about the issue of LGBT equality. Why is a heterosexual, married father so concerned with what gay people can or can't do? I don't have a dog in this fight, do I?

I find those kinds of questions to be puzzling (and telling), as if we should value the rights of one group of humans over any other group, or only be concerned with the welfare of a group to which we belong. As Elie Wiesel said, "I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

So, anyway, this is why I care (and why you should too):

LGBT people are citizens. I have friends (some of whom were married in other states years ago) who love each other as dearly as I love my own wife (and who have been committed to each other for just as long). It pains me to know that there are people who reject the validity of these relationships, and who wish to deny these couples the same benefits that other married couples are afforded. These committed, same-sex couples are North Carolinians. They contribute to the economy, they pay taxes, and they certainly do not deserve to be treated as second-class citizens by anyone. Just as it is hard to believe that we once denied marriage rights to interracial couples, or voting rights to women and African-Americans, we will look back upon this time with the same disbelief and shame.

Homosexuality is not a choice. Although science has not zeroed in on any one single cause, the growing body of research suggests that sexual orientation is caused by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. The biological factors related to sexual orientation involve a constellation of genetic factors, as well as brain structure and early uterine environment. Homosexuality is so natural, in fact, that it occurs in nature. Still not sold? The following major medical and professional organizations have also concluded that sexual orientation (and gender identity) is not a choice: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and American Academy of Pediatrics. If you think that all these scientists, doctors, and experts are all part of a conspiracy to advance the homosexual agenda, ask yourself this: at what point in your life did you make the choice to be heterosexual?

Kids do just fine in families with same-sex parents. "All of the major professional organizations with expertise in child welfare have issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights" (Professor Judith Stacey, New York University). These organizations include the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and Canadian Psychological Association. A recent study indicates that kids with lesbian parents may actually do better than their peers. If you are convinced that kids absolutely need one mom and one dad, you're a) forgetting about the many single-parent families in existence, b) equating 'gut feelings' with facts, c) depriving a lot of children a wonderful life with a family, a stable, loving home, and the best opportunities possible.

Religious arguments against same-sex marriage do not pass the Lemon Test, a three-pronged legal requirement which stipulates that a) the government's action must have a secular legislative purpose, b) the government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and c) the government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. I am not sure I have heard anyone make a case against same-sex marriage that did not invoke religion. The second that your argument mentions God, or references a biblical passage, I cannot entertain your argument. As a Humanist, I reject supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition. Your religious arguments against same-sex marriage belong on that heap of nonsense. They have no basis in reality, are not supported by the science, and have no place in legislation. Unfortunately, anti-LGBT legislators cynically take great care to ensure that the language in their legislation is not based on a religious ground -- even though we all know it is rooted in religious dogma. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Happiness is contagious. Really. It's true. And guess what else? Acceptance of LGBT folks helps protect against depression, substance abuse, and suicide. Why in the world would anyone want to cause suffering in others? If the answer lies in your religion, then you need to re-evaluate your religion. Its ancient morality is flawed at best. Societies which embrace human reason, ethics, justice, and the search for human fulfillment are statistically happier societies. According to Gallup data, the happiest nations were Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands. These countries are among the least religious in the world. Coincidence? I'm not asking you to discard your religion. Just keep it to yourself, your family, and your congregation. We'll all be happier if you do.

Definitions change. Society evolves. I keep hearing over and over that "we can't redefine marriage." Well, why not? We have been redefining marriage throughout history. In fact, marriage pre-dates recorded history. The Bible (which is often used to defend the 'one man'/'one woman' definition) is full of polygamous marriages. There is also a long history of recognized same-sex marriages all over the world (including, but not limited to: Egypt, Greece, Rome, Japan, India, England, Italy, and North America). Over the course of history, marriage has meant different things: Love, the granting of property rights, or the protection of bloodlines. In some cultures two men and two women have been allowed to marry. People have historically married for many different reasons: legal, social, economic, spiritual, libidinal, and religious. So stop it with your 'sacred institution' argument and open up some history books. When you say that the Bible is clear about homosexuality, you must also admit that it was also very clear about how to treat your slaves, and the uncleanliness of women during their menstrual period. Listen. Society evolves. Sometimes we leave behind the Bronze Age mentality of the men who wrote the Bible. You want your marriage to be a religious, strictly bible-based marriage? That's fine. Nobody is stopping you from having one.

Don't we want less government intrusion in our lives? It's interesting that most of the people who support the ban on same-sex marriage also seem to be interested in less government intrusion. They want the government out of their health care. They want the TSA to keep their hands off their junk. They want less regulations on corporations. They worry the government is going to take away their rights: to bear arms, to speak freely, to practice their religion, to say 'Merry Christmas,' and to choose what kind of light bulb they use in their houses. They are furious when the government tries to tell them what they shouldn't eat, where they can or cannot smoke, or how much gas their car can guzzle. And these same people want the government to restrict the rights of someone else. They want the government to tell them what they can or can't do with another consenting adult. How do you reconcile your belief in a small, less intrusive government with your approval of legislation intended to restrict the rights of taxpaying citizens and to control who they should and shouldn't love? It's absurd. You want deregulation? Let's deregulate marriage.

I am a father of three beautiful boys. They are all young enough that they have not shown any definitive signs of sexual orientation one way or the other. Chances are, they will be heterosexual. Of course, there are studies indicating that the more older brothers a boy has, the greater the probability is that he will have a homosexual orientation. This is related to the in-utero maternal immune response, which increases with subsequent sons. Of course this is only one of many studies dealing with the hormonal factors associated with sexual orientation, but my point is, if any of my sons were gay, that's perfectly okay. We would accept him for who he is, and love him just the same. I don't worry about that. What I do worry about is this: if I did have a gay son, how could I explain to him that people don't want him to have the same rights as everyone else? How can I explain to him that if he wants to grow up, buy a home, and start a family, he might need to move to a state that doesn't reject him? How can I explain that people believe he is an abomination whose perverted lifestyle will lead him to an eternity in hell? How would I feel if my son killed himself because he was bullied, maligned, ridiculed, and made to feel as if he had no place in society? The only way to avoid any of our children going through this is to send a clear message that people are different and that's okay. Some families just have one mom, or one dad. Some have a mom and a dad. And some have two moms or two dads. And maybe if our state's leaders stop sending the message to our children that they are unwanted, maybe we can save the life of a child. Isn't that worth it?

At the end of the day, it just makes sense. Ask yourself what you are worried about if same-sex marriage is legalized. Whatever your answer is, ask yourself if you really believe what you just came up with. Homosexuality is not going to spread. It is not communicable. Society is not going to turn into a Lady Gaga video. Most gay couples I know are just as boring as you and I. They sit on the couch and watch television. They work at the post office, the hospital, the grocery store, and at real estate agencies, just like heterosexuals do. They eat out at restaurants and shop at Target. Many have pot bellies and don't have much fashion sense, just like me. They own pets, and go to church. They volunteer, sing Christmas carols, and buy Girl Scout cookies. What are you afraid of? What is going to change by allowing these people to commit to one another and enjoy the benefits that you and I enjoy: tax breaks, insurance breaks, bereavement leave, medical leave to care for a sick partner, domestic violence protection, visitation of partner in the hospital, burial determination, medical decisions on behalf of partner. Really sexy stuff. You and I take these things for granted. Nobody wants to go through life not knowing how they will deal with some of these difficult moments in life. Imagine if you were denied any of the above rights when the time came for you and your spouse to exercise that right? I'll tell you what it would feel like. It would feel like you were a second-class citizen.

So, if you're a North Carolina citizen, and you care about equality, please make yourself heard. Whether you're straight, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer, speak up. Educate yourself about the May amendment vote. Donate, volunteer, tweet, post Facebook statuses, blog, talk to your churches, your neighbors, your friends and relatives. Help them understand the science behind sexual orientation, and help them understand the importance of voting on May 8. 'Like' the organizations that are working to fight this amendment, and stay informed (EqualityNC, HRC). Repost articles and blog posts to keep friends aware.

There is a lot of work to be done. There are many things each of us can do. But we can't be indifferent.

"There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest." - Elie Wiesel

Michio Kaku: What Physics Can Do For You

"If [your great-grandparents of the year 1900] could see you now, with iPads and iPods and satellites and GPS and laser beams, how would they view you?," asks Michio Kaku. "They would view you as a wizard or a sorcerer. However, if we could now meet our grandkids of the year 2100, how would we view them? We would view them as gods."

Via The Big Think:

From the standpoint of our agrarian ancestors, the marvels of the post-Industrial world would appear to be sorcery. (What would a Renaissance man make of a vending machine, let alone an Ipad?) Kaku predicts that likewise, the people of 2100 will have harnessed "the power of the gods" by present day standards, defeating barriers like age and distance. "We will have that flying car that we’ve always wanted to have in our garage," he says.

But the most interesting places in the universe are beyond the reach of Einstein's equations, says Kaku. He's searching for "An equation like E=mc². That equation is half an inch long and unlocks the secret of the stars. Why do the stars shine? Why does the galaxy light up? Why do we have energy on the earth?" These are the questions we can still only dream of answering.

Michio Kaku is a smart guy. He's a theoretical physicist, a professor, an author, a speaker, and happens to be the co-founder of string field theory.

He's also very good at explaining science to people who aren't quite as smart, like myself.

In the latest online course offered by The Floating University (a new media venture with the aim of democratizing education), Kaku serves up a lecture called "The Universe in a Nutshell: The Physics of Everything."

The course description:

What if we could find one single equation that explains every force in the universe? Professor Michio Kaku explores how physics could potentially shrink the science of the big bang into an equation as small as e=mc2. Physics powers every electronic device in your living room, underwrites every technological breakthrough, and thanks to advances in string theory, could allow us to escape the heat death of the universe, explore the multiverse, and unlock the secrets of existence.

In a profoundly informative and deeply optimistic discussion, Professor Kaku delivers a glimpse of where science will take us in the next hundred years, as warp drives, teleportation, inter-dimensional wormholes, and even time travel converge with our scientific understanding of physical reality. While firing up our imaginations about the future, he also presents a succinct history of physics to the present.

How did Halley's Comet manage to start the British Empire in 1066 and lead to the most important publication in human history in 1682? What are the four ultra-powerful forces that dictate all observable phenomena in the universe and how did we find them? How is 96% of matter in the universe undetectable? And why is the emergent field of string theory turning everything we thought we knew about physics upside down? In under an hour, Professor Kaku makes a compelling case that physics is the key to pretty much everything.

See below for an excerpt of his lecture. Visit The Floating University to subscribe and view it in its entirety.

Are You A Young Earth Creationist? Take The Quiz!

Are you a Young Earth Creationist? In case you're unsure, you may want to answer the 9 questions below, which Creation Ministries International put together to help "ascertain whether your future pastor, youth group leader or Bible College principal takes a straightforward view of Genesis."

You wouldn't want your child to learn actual facts would you? Heavens, no.

From the introduction to the quiz:

CMI periodically receives requests for us to identify Bible colleges/seminaries that believe/teach a straightforward reading of Genesis. We also know of pastoral search committees lamenting that they would not have selected certain candidates if only they had known in advance of their compromise (long-age, or theistic evolutionary) stance on Genesis.

For a number of reasons, CMI does not provide a list of ‘young-earth’ theological colleges, nor do we get involved in church staffing matters. However, in response to such enquiries we have prepared the following questionnaire to meet an evident need.

Please feel free to reference CMI's explanatory notes for each question.

Good luck!

1. SIX DAYS 

Do you believe that God created the earth and universe in six ordinary-length (earth-rotation) days?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

2. AGE OF THE WORLD 

Do you believe that the earth and universe are only thousands (not millions or billions) of years old, as measured by Earth time?

☐  Yes

☐  No

___________________________________________________________________

3. THE FIRST HUMANS 

Do you believe that Adam and his wife Eve were the literal, historic ancestors of all (other) people who have ever lived?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

4. ADAM AND EVE’S ORIGINS 

Do you believe that Adam and Eve had no physical parents, but were created directly by God; Adam from the actual dust, and Eve from the actual flesh and bone of Adam’s side?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

5. HUMAN DEATH 

Do you believe that human physical death began only after Adam sinned?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

6. CARNIVORY 

Do you believe that all animals were originally created vegetarian?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

7. SUFFERING IN THE FOSSIL RECORD 

Do you believe that fossils showing evidence of bloodshed and suffering (e.g. half-eaten prey, dinosaur cancers,) could not have been formed before Adam’s Fall led to the Curse?

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

8. GLOBAL FLOOD

Do you believe that the Flood of Noah covered the whole globe? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

_____________________________________________________________________

9. THE SUPERNATURAL POWER OF JESUS

Do you believe that after Lazarus was physically dead for days, Jesus miraculously caused him to regain physical life? 

☐  Yes

☐  No

If you answered 'No' to any of the above questions, you have nothing to worry about. Wait -- I mean, you failed.

'The Magic Of Reality': Richard Dawkins' Science Book For All Ages

No matter what you think of Richard Dawkins, he has an extraordinary gift for explaining science's complexities in a way that anyone can easily understand. I credit him, along with Jerry Coyne, David Sloane Wilson, and others, with helping me (an English major who did never had much interest in science, and who can't recall hearing about evolution in school) to really grasp the complexity and beauty of evolution.

After several wonderful books written for adults, including The Selfish Gene, The Greatest Show on Earth, and The Ancestor's Tale, Dawkins has undertaken the task of writing a sprawling, 272-page, illustrated science book for all ages. The book is called The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True.

As the father of 3 very curious young boys, I'm excited to get a hold of this book. It seems perfect for reading and discussing with children, and for keeping readily available for those times when kids ask questions about how things work. I've been disappointed with much of the books presently out there for kids about science, specifically those that address evolution (with the exception of Daniel Loxton's wonderful illustrated book, Evolution: How We and All Living Things Came to Be). Dawkins' book will be a welcome addition to our shelves.

From the publisher:

Magic takes many forms. Supernatural magic is what our ancestors used in order to explain the world before they developed the scientific method. The ancient Egyptians explained the night by suggesting the goddess Nut swallowed the sun. The Vikings believed a rainbow was the gods' bridge to earth. The Japanese used to explain earthquakes by conjuring a gigantic catfish that carried the world on its back—earthquakes occurred each time it flipped its tail. These are magical, extraordinary tales. But there is another kind of magic, and it lies in the exhilaration of discovering the real answers to these questions. It is the magic of reality—science.

Packed with clever thought experiments, dazzling illustrations and jaw-dropping facts, The Magic of Reality explains a stunningly wide range of natural phenomena. What is stuff made of? How old is the universe? Why do the continents look like disconnected pieces of a puzzle? What causes tsunamis? Why are there so many kinds of plants and animals? Who was the first man, or woman? This is a page-turning, graphic detective story that not only mines all the sciences for its clues but primes the reader to think like a scientist as well.

Richard Dawkins, the world's most famous evolutionary biologist and one of science education's most passionate advocates, has spent his career elucidating the wonders of science for adult readers. But now, in a dramatic departure, he has teamed up with acclaimed artist Dave McKean and used his unrivaled explanatory powers to share the magic of science with readers of all ages. This is a treasure trove for anyone who has ever wondered how the world works. Dawkins and McKean have created an illustrated guide to the secrets of our world—and the universe beyond—that will entertain and inform for years to come.

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God

Speakers in order of appearance:

1. Lawrence Krauss, World-Renowned Physicist
2. Robert Coleman Richardson, Nobel Laureate in Physics
3. Richard Feynman, World-Renowned Physicist, Nobel Laureate in Physics
4. Simon Blackburn, Cambridge Professor of Philosophy
5. Colin Blakemore, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Neuroscience
6. Steven Pinker, World-Renowned Harvard Professor of Psychology
7. Alan Guth, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Physics
8. Noam Chomsky, World-Renowned MIT Professor of Linguistics
9. Nicolaas Bloembergen, Nobel Laureate in Physics
10. Peter Atkins, World-Renowned Oxford Professor of Chemistry
11. Oliver Sacks, World-Renowned Neurologist, Columbia University
12. Lord Martin Rees, Astronomer Royal
13. Sir John Gurdon, Pioneering Developmental Biologist, Cambridge
14. Sir Bertrand Russell, World-Renowned Philosopher, Nobel Laureate
15. Stephen Hawking, World-Renowned Cambridge Theoretical Physicist
16. Riccardo Giacconi, Nobel Laureate in Physics
17. Ned Block, NYU Professor of Philosophy
18. Gerard 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate in Physics
19. Marcus du Sautoy, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
20. James Watson, Co-discoverer of DNA, Nobel Laureate
21. Colin McGinn, Professor of Philosophy, Miami University
22. Sir Patrick Bateson, Cambridge Professor of Ethology
23. Sir David Attenborough, World-Renowned Broadcaster and Naturalist
24. Martinus Veltman, Nobel Laureate in Physics
25. Pascal Boyer, Professor of Anthropology
26. Partha Dasgupta, Cambridge Professor of Economics
27. AC Grayling, Birkbeck Professor of Philosophy
28. Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics
29. John Searle, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
30. Brian Cox, Particle Physicist (Large Hadron Collider, CERN)
31. Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Laureate in Physics
32. Rebecca Goldstein, Professor of Philosophy
33. Michael Tooley, Professor of Philosophy, Colorado
34. Sir Harold Kroto, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
35. Leonard Susskind, Stanford Professor of Theoretical Physics
36. Quentin Skinner, Professor of History (Cambridge)
37. Theodor W. Hänsch, Nobel Laureate in Physics
38. Mark Balaguer, CSU Professor of Philosophy
39. Richard Ernst, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
40. Alan Macfarlane, Cambridge Professor of Anthropology
41. Professor Neil deGrasse Tyson, Princeton Research Scientist
42. Douglas Osheroff, Nobel Laureate in Physics
43. Hubert Dreyfus, Berkeley Professor of Philosophy
44. Lord Colin Renfrew, World-Renowned Archaeologist, Cambridge
45. Carl Sagan, World-Renowned Astronomer
46. Peter Singer, World-Renowned Bioethicist, Princeton
47. Rudolph Marcus, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry
48. Robert Foley, Cambridge Professor of Human Evolution
49. Daniel Dennett, Tufts Professor of Philosophy
50. Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in Physics

Illusion Turns Pretty Women Into Freaky Monsters

It's called the flashed face distortion effect, and it's one of the freakiest illusions you've likely seen.

The illusion was discovered accidentally by Sean C Murphy, along with colleagues Jason M Tangen and Matthew B Thompson.

According to the abstract:

We describe a novel face distortion effect resulting from the fast-paced presentation of eye-aligned faces. When cycling through the faces on a computer screen, each face seems to become a caricature of itself and some faces appear highly deformed, even grotesque. The degree of distortion is greatest for faces that deviate from the others in the set on a particular dimension (eg if a person has a large forehead, it looks particularly large). This new method of image presentation, based on alignment and speed, could provide a useful tool for investigating contrastive distortion effects and face adaptation.

Follow the instructions accompanying the video and see for yourself.

Symphony of Science: "Children of Africa (The Story of Us)"

The tenth Symphony of Science offering, "Children of Africa (The Story of Us)" has been released and is well worth a few minutes of your time.

A musical celebration of humanity, its origins, and achievements, contrasted with a somber look at our environmentally destructive tendencies and deep similarities with other primates. Featuring Jacob Bronowski, Alice Roberts, Carolyn Porco, Jane Goodall, Robert Sapolsky, Neil deGrasse Tyson and David Attenborough.

If you're new to the project, take some time to enjoy the nine previous offerings.

Ali G's 'Science Rap'

From the mind that brought us the wonderful Symphony of Science mash-ups, featuring Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and many other great minds, comes Ali G's 'The Science Rap.' Not quite as wise as Hawking and Sagan, Ali G nonetheless shares their curiosity about the world around him.

Spirits and Souls

The latest Calamities of Nature comic dovetails nicely with Sean M. Carroll's recent comments on the soul and the afterlife.