Expelled for Real

Christine Comer was the Director of Science for the Texas Education Agency for nine years, until she was forced to resign for failing to remain neutral on creationism.
Watch the video.

A random (the first three, at the time I happen to be looking) sampling of responses on youTube is fascinating:

• if there is no such thing as intelligent design then explain a redwood tree or how a whale starts out as a simple protein molecule. evolution sucks and so do evolutionists. [So all of biology (along with chemistry, physics, geology, astonomy) can be replaced with "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it."]
  
• Thanks state coerced schooling. Thanks to your one size fits all we got yet another power struggle on our hands! [Not sure if this comment is supportive or critical; but my understanding is that in the U.S. curricula are determined by thousands of individual school boards; very decentralized, compared with other countries?]
  
• intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism - you don't have to be religious to consider ID. [Of course it's not! Creationism requires your god; ID is satisfied by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.] Richard Dawkins belives in intelligent design [I strongly expect this will come as quite a surprise to Mr. Dawkins!]
  

PZ Meyers expelled from Expelled!

PZ Meyers, author the popular Pharyngula blog on ScienceBlogs, relates how he was expelled from a screening of the creationist propaganda movie Expelled back in March. It's an amusing story!

A recent post on Pharyngula discusses how David Bolinsky, creator of the Inner Life of the Cell video, accuses Expelled of theft.

In another of the ScienceBlogs, Afarensis, the post Expelled Bungles it Again discusses how, in "masterpiece of framing strategy" the film, in its effort to link Darwinism to Nazis and the Holocaust, includes an interview with an anti-Semite. "Unfortunately, the guy [Maciej Giertych] is a creationist and signer of the [Discovery Institute's] 'Dissent from Darwin' list." For more on this, check out another of the ScienceBlogs, Stranger Fruit, by John M. Lynch, and his post Expelled: Now with added anti-Semitism.

For a comprehensive listing of links to reviews and news coverage, see the Resources link on

Men Who Explain Things

Just this Tomgram post from Rebecca Solnit, titled The Archipelago of Arrogance.

The Butterfly Effect (Edward N. Lorenz)

Edward Lorenz, best known for the notion of the "butterfly effect," died last Wednesday. From the New York Times obituary:

In discovering “deterministic chaos,” Dr. Lorenz established a principle that “profoundly influenced a wide range of basic sciences and brought about one of the most dramatic changes in mankind’s view of nature since Sir Isaac Newton,” said a committee that awarded him the 1991 Kyoto Prize for basic sciences.
...
As recounted in the book “Chaos” by James Gleick, Dr. Lorenz’s accidental discovery of chaos came in the winter of 1961. Dr. Lorenz was running simulations of weather using a simple computer model. One day, he wanted to repeat one of the simulations for a longer time, but instead of repeating the whole simulation, he started the second run in the middle, typing in numbers from the first run for the initial conditions.

The computer program was the same, so the weather patterns of the second run should have exactly followed those of the first. Instead, the two weather trajectories quickly diverged on completely separate paths.

At first, he thought the computer was malfunctioning. Then he realized that he had not entered the initial conditions exactly. The computer stored numbers to an accuracy of six decimal places, like 0.506127, while, to save space, the printout of results shortened the numbers to three decimal places, 0.506. When typing in the new conditions, Dr. Lorenz had entered the rounded-off numbers, and even this small discrepancy, of less than 0.1 percent, completely changed the end result.

Even though his model was vastly simplified, Dr. Lorenz realized that this meant perfect weather prediction was a fantasy.

A perfect forecast would require not only a perfect model, but also perfect knowledge of wind, temperature, humidity and other conditions everywhere around the world at one moment of time. Even a small discrepancy could lead to completely different weather.

Dr. Lorenz published his findings in 1963. “The paper he wrote in 1963 is a masterpiece of clarity of exposition about why weather is unpredictable,” said J. Doyne Farmer, a professor at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico.

The following year, Dr. Lorenz published another paper that described how a small twiddling of parameters in a model could produce vastly different behavior, transforming regular, periodic events into a seemingly random chaotic pattern.

At a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1972, he gave a talk with a title that captured the essence of his ideas: “Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly’s Wings in Brazil Set Off a Tornado in Texas?”

The last Titan (John A. Wheeler)

John Archibald Wheeler, the physicist who gave black holes their name, died last Sunday.
From Dennis Overbye's New York Times obituary:

Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said of Dr. Wheeler, “For me, he was the last Titan, the only physics superhero still standing.”
...
Among Dr. Wheeler’s students was Richard Feynman of the California Institute of Technology, who parlayed a crazy-sounding suggestion by Dr. Wheeler into work that led to a Nobel Prize. Another was Hugh Everett, whose Ph.D. thesis under Dr. Wheeler on quantum mechanics envisioned parallel alternate universes endlessly branching and splitting apart — a notion that Bryce DeWitt, of the University of Texas in Austin, called “Many Worlds” and which has become a favorite of many cosmologists as well as science fiction writers.
...
At a conference in New York in 1967, Dr. Wheeler, seizing on a suggestion shouted from the audience, hit on the name “black hole” to dramatize this dire possibility for a star and for physics.

The black hole “teaches us that space can be crumpled like a piece of paper into an infinitesimal dot, that time can be extinguished like a blown-out flame, and that the laws of physics that we regard as ‘sacred,’ as immutable, are anything but,” he wrote in his 1999 autobiography, “Geons, Black Holes & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics.” (Its co-author is Kenneth Ford, a former student and a retired director of the American Institute of Physics.)

One for the ages (Arthur C. Clarke)

In his short story “The Nine Billion Names of God,” published in 1953, Clarke wrote of a pair of computer programmers sent to a remote monastery in Tibet to help the monks there use a computer to compile a list of all the names of God. Once the list was complete, the monks believed, human and cosmic destiny would be fulfilled and the world would end.

The programmers are fleeing the mountain, hoping to escape the monks’ wrath when the program finishes and the world is still there, when one of them looks up.

“Overhead, without any fuss, the stars were going out.”

[From Dennis Overbye's essay, A Boys Life, Guided by the Voice of Cosmic Wonder]

Arthur C. Clarke died last month. Based on Clarke's short story The Sentinel, he and Stanley Kubrick wrote the screenplay for 2001: A Space Odyssey, one of Roger Ebert's Great Movies

To describe that first screening as a disaster would be wrong, for many of those who remained until the end knew they had seen one of the greatest films ever made. But not everyone remained. Rock Hudson stalked down the aisle, complaining, “Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?'' There were many other walkouts, and some restlessness at the film's slow pace (Kubrick immediately cut about 17 minutes, including a pod sequence that essentially repeated another one).

The film did not provide the clear narrative and easy entertainment cues the audience expected. The closing sequences, with the astronaut inexplicably finding himself in a bedroom somewhere beyond Jupiter, were baffling. The overnight Hollywood judgment was that Kubrick had become derailed, that in his obsession with effects and set pieces, he had failed to make a movie.

What he had actually done was make a philosophical statement about man's place in the universe, using images as those before him had used words, music or prayer. And he had made it in a way that invited us to contemplate it -- not to experience it vicariously as entertainment, as we might in a good conventional science-fiction film, but to stand outside it as a philosopher might, and think about it.
...
Only a few films are transcendent, and work upon our minds and imaginations like music or prayer or a vast belittling landscape. Most movies are about characters with a goal in mind, who obtain it after difficulties either comic or dramatic. “2001: A Space Odyssey'' is not about a goal but about a quest, a need. It does not hook its effects on specific plot points, nor does it ask us to identify with Dave Bowman or any other character. It says to us: We became men when we learned to think. Our minds have given us the tools to understand where we live and who we are. Now it is time to move on to the next step, to know that we live not on a planet but among the stars, and that we are not flesh but intelligence.

[Update 2008.05.15 I discovered that Roger Ebert has posted a journal entry, Arthur C. Clarke: Star hero.]

In a post (Arthur C. Clarke: A Techno-Optimist With Climate Concerns) on his Dot Earth blog, Andrew Revkin takes the occasion of Clarke's death for "pausing for a moment to take note of the power of imagination, and fiction, in helping humans step back from the daily rush and examine our predicament and possibilities from a distance."

SPACE.com carried this tribute, and The Planetary Society has an article, including a 1983 essay by Carl Sagan, In Praise of Arthur C. Clarke which he closes by writing

I may have been of some little help to Arthur over the years, for example, with the end of the movie “2001”; and the ideas in such stories as “A Meeting with Medusa.” But what Arthur has done for me is vastly greater. Through his non-fiction books and his science fiction stories and novels, his invention of the communications satellite, his defense of reason against the clamors of superstition, his work in more finely honing the British Interplanetary Society, and through his classic motion picture, Arthur has done an enormous global service in preparing the climate for a serious presence beyond the Earth. I hope that the governments of our epoch will have the sense to continue making Arthur’s dream—shared by so many of us—a reality.

Dave Itzkoff's essay, The Fuzzier Crystal Ball, discusses the future of science-fiction after Arthur C. Clarke.

And Dennis Overbye's essay carries this postscript:

*By the normal conventions of this paper, by the way, I should be calling him Mr. Clarke or Sir Arthur, on second reference. But there has always been an exception for people who “belong to the ages,” and Arthur C. Clarke has always belonged to the ages.

"Nobody who writes faster can write better, and nobody better is faster"

A. O. Scott writes something of an homage to Roger Ebert in today's New York Times. In an April 1 letter to readers of the Chicago Sun-Times Ebert announced his return to (written) criticism, following the 10th Annual Roger Ebert Film Festival. (Although cancer free, Ebert's latest surgery -- his third -- failed to restore his ability to speak.)

Not that any of us could hope to match his productivity. Nor could we entertain the comforting fantasy that the daunting quantity of the man’s work — four decades of something like six reviews a week, as well as festival reports, learned essays on classic films and the occasional profile — must entail a compromise in quality. As A. J. Liebling said of himself, nobody who writes faster can write better, and nobody better is faster. The evidence is easy enough to find: in the Web archive, in his indispensable annual movie guides and in a dozen other books.

It is this print corpus that will sustain Mr. Ebert’s reputation as one of the few authentic giants in a field in which self-importance frequently overshadows accomplishment. His writing may lack the polemical dazzle and theoretical muscle of Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris, whose names must dutifully be invoked in any consideration of American film criticism. In their heyday those two were warriors, system-builders and intellectual adventurers on a grand scale. But the plain-spoken Midwestern clarity of Mr. Ebert’s prose and his genial, conversational presence on the page may, in the end, make him a more useful and reliable companion for the dedicated moviegoer.

His criticism shows a nearly unequaled grasp of film history and technique, and formidable intellectual range, but he rarely seems to be showing off. He’s just trying to tell you what he thinks, and to provoke some thought on your part about how movies work and what they can do.

I'm back

After a brief hiatus (for work on the Osprey nest cam, kitchen remodeling, and taxes, among other things) I'm back in the saddle again; I'll be posting several items that have come up in the last few weeks.

Gmail Custom Time

Today Google announced Gmail Custom Time. This seems like an extremely powerful (and useful) tool, especially to chonologically challenged people like me ;-).