Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for December 21, 2005

Intelligent What? Not Science.

By

This is the best news that I have heard in ages, from the Boston Globe Online:

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Pennsylvania yesterday ruled that intelligent design is “nothing less than the progeny of creationism” and should not be taught in public schools.

The ruling, handed down by a judge appointed by President Bush, is a major legal setback for proponents of intelligent design, which holds that living organisms are so complex they cannot be explained by evolution and must be the work of a higher power. Christian right leaders have argued that it should be taught in school systems across the country.

The ruling, the first legal test of intelligent design, comes after a six-week trial in which expert witnesses and parents on both sides of the dispute took the stand to argue their positions on a Dover, Pa., school board policy requiring science teachers to inform students of “gaps” in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and to share competing views, including intelligent design.

Intelligent design proponents, mindful of legal barriers against teaching creationism in public schools, have long argued that their theory passes constitutional muster because it is not based in religion. They use the term “intelligent designer,” rather than God, to describe an omniscient force behind life on Earth, and they draw on a pool of scientists to raise questions they say Darwin’s theory fails to answer.

But in a sweeping 139-page opinion that went far beyond the legality of the Dover policy, Judge John E. Jones III concluded that intelligent design is religious and that its inclusion in public school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.

The ruling rebuked prominent intelligent design theorists, saying their assertion that evolution cannot coexist with religious beliefs is ”utterly false.” Jones also harshly condemned the Dover school board members who backed it.

Those school officials, Jones charged, “time and again lie[d] to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose” behind promoting the theory of intelligent design, which he said was to promote religion.

Jones is a lifelong Republican who ran for Congress and narrowly lost more than a decade ago. He has described his mentor as Tom Ridge, the former Pennsylvania governor who served as homeland security secretary. Bush appointed Jones to the bench in 2002.

Click here to read more…

Update 30th December

The actual judgement can be read by clicking here.

Pilot Whales, Really Just Sheep?

By

It is great news that the 100 pilot whales stranded on a beach at the top of New Zealand’s South Island have been refloated and are on their way back out to sea.

But you have to wonder who gave these dolphins, that seem unable to orientate for themselves, the name ‘pilot whale’?

The New Zealand stranding apparently occurred because the entire pod followed a leader who couldn’t navigate.

Almost as many pilot whales beached themselves at Cape Cod in 2002. Then it was thought that the leader of the pod was:
1. Chasing a school of squid, or
2. Just got lost in the maze of channels that wind between sandbars of Chapin’s extensive flats, or
3. Was sick and sought the refuge of shallow water, where he wouldn’t sink.

The rest of the pod just followed.

Why? Are pilot whales really just sheep – colloquially speaking?

Anyway there are a few ideas at this website titled ‘Irish dolphins’, click here.

Who Writes What for Whom?

By

John Quiggin comments at his blog today that a senior fellow at the CATO Institute in the US has resigned because he received cash for specific promotional articles.

It reminded me of a newspaper article I was sent last week outlining the extent to which articles in medical journals are increasingly written by ‘ghost writers’ with professors putting their names to the articles after they’ve done a bit of a review, click here for piece in the Pittsburg Post Gazette. It adds a whole new dimension to the concept of peer review.

Then there are people like me who have the privilege of receiving a salary to monitor, research and write on issues of my own choosing, in my own way, always seeking to take an evidence-based approach. And I am accused of being “a paid PR consultant with a role to attack opponents of GM”, see comment here from non-GM farmer.

It is interesting to ponder that over my 20 year career, first as a government-employeed research entomologist (1984-1996), then as environment manager for the Queensland cane growers (1997-2003), and now as director of the environment unit at the IPA, that I have never had such freedom to research and write on the issues that I consider to be of importance, as I have now.