CFI Press Release: Religious Right Organization Tries to Intimidate Professor
Religious Right Organization Tries to Intimidate Professor; Shamelessly Misleads Its Own Supporters
(Amherst, New York) --The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) has recently boasted of a "victory" in protecting a college student's rights to religious freedom. In postings on its website and in a radio broadcast on June 4, 2008, the ACLJ has trumpeted the claim that a demand letter one of its staff attorneys sent to Suffolk County Community College prevented a Christian student from receiving a failing grade from a professor who wanted to penalize her because of her religious beliefs.
Nothing could be further from the truth. "The ACLJ's spurious claim of a legal 'victory' is just slightly less outrageous than its brazen attempt to intimidate a philosophy professor from doing his job—which is to get students to think critically," commented Ronald A. Lindsay, Executive Director of the Council of Secular Humanism, who has talked to the allegedly biased professor. "As far as I can tell," observed Lindsay, "the ACLJ's letter accomplished nothing other than providing an excuse for soliciting donations".
The scholar that the ACLJ falsely accused of bias is a longtime philosophy professor, Dr. Philip Pecorino, who has taught more than 13,000 students over a period of thirty-six years. He has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, and has served as President of the American Association of Philosophy Teachers and as an officer in many other organizations. Although the ACLJ's radio broadcast alleged that Professor Pecorino "hates" the very idea of Christians, Professor Pecorino has taught students of many different faiths, and no faith, over the years, all without incident until the ACLJ's campaign of vilification. Indeed, after the ACLJ made its baseless accusations, students in Pecorino's class, including religious students, defended him, stating that he does not pass judgment on students because of their beliefs, but simply challenges them to examine all beliefs critically, including their own. His students have stated that they cannot identify Pecorino's own views based either on the course materials or the textbook authored for the class by Pecorino, and he does not pressure them to adopt any particular position.
"I would not be doing my job as a philosophy professor," explained Pecorino, "if I did not require students to think about their beliefs and provide reasons in support of their beliefs— not my beliefs or anyone else's beliefs. Critical examination of beliefs, including one's own beliefs, and training in reasoning are among the primary objectives of a philosophy course, and of a liberal education in general. Only professors who are negligent or indifferent allow students to earn good grades simply by providing as a reason for an assertion 'well, this is what I believe'.
Dr. Pecorino will not discuss in detail his interaction with Gina, the student who complained to the ACLJ about him, because he does not believe it is appropriate to share the details of a student's coursework with the outside world. However, he does have a right to defend himself against false accusations. The core of the ACLJ's claim is that Gina was in danger of failing the class because of Pecorino's religious bias before the ACLJ intervened. "That claim is preposterous," according to Pecorino. "At no time did I tell her she was in danger of failing. When I had to project a grade for her earlier in the semester, I projected a 'C' and that was when she was most resistant to providing any reasoning to support her assertions. She was not open to examining her own beliefs or to entering into the dialectical process of inquiry in community because, according to her, she already had all the answers." And what of the ACLJ's claim that Gina had a failing grade average of 54 prior to the ACLJ's intervention? "That is a misleading use of information. I use a cumulative point system in grading," explained Pecorino. "In other words, as students progress during the semester, they earn points for each assignment, with a possible total of 100 points by the end of the semester. Gina at one point probably did have 54 points, but that in no way indicates she was in danger of failing. She had 54 points, not a failing grade average of 54. All students start the semester with 0 points, so by the ACLJ's logic, all students are in danger of failing.
And did the ACLJ's letter influence Pecorino, either directly or indirectly through pressure from college administrators? "Absolutely not," Pecorino states. "I received no pressure form my college administrators, only support, and although I was a bit bothered by all the hate emails and other communications that resulted from the ACLJ's campaign against me, I did not let that affect my grading of Gina. I take my responsibilities as an educator too seriously for that to happen. Gina received a 'B' because she earned a 'B,' no more and no less".
The ACLJ's campaign against Pecorino cannot be dismissed as insignificant. As Dr. Pecorino observes, "Essentially, the ACLJ is claiming a religious exemption from the obligation of students in public colleges to engage in critical thinking, and this claim strikes at the core of higher education. If permitted to go unchallenged, this claim will weaken our democratic and pluralistic society." Lindsay agrees, adding, "For a democracy to succeed, we need citizens who can provide reasons to support their beliefs. We cannot reason together if all we have are groups of individuals who adamantly insist they have all the answers because of some supernatural revelation and who are unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints. The ACLJ is a very slick, very well-funded organization, and its animosity toward critical thinking is even more troubling than its willingness to distort the facts".
The Center for Inquiry is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational organization, comprising the Council for Secular Humanism, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), and the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion (CSER). Headquartered in Amherst, New York, the Center for Inquiry strives to promote rational thinking in all aspects of life.
The organization’s Web site can be found at www. centerforinquiry. net
Religious Right Organization Tries to Intimidate Professor
Humans nearly wiped out 70,000 years ago, study says
From: edition.cnn.com
Was there a "mitochondrial Eve" who lived in Africa 200,000 years ago?
Human beings may have had a brush with extinction 70,000 years ago, an extensive genetic study suggests.
The human population at that time was reduced to small isolated groups in Africa, apparently because of drought, according to an analysis released Thursday.
The report notes that a separate study by researchers at Stanford University estimated that the number of early humans may have shrunk as low as 2,000 before numbers began to expand again in the early Stone Age.
"This study illustrates the extraordinary power of genetics to reveal insights into some of the key events in our species' history," said Spencer Wells, National Geographic Society explorer in residence.
"Tiny bands of early humans, forced apart by harsh environmental conditions, coming back from the brink to reunite and populate the world. Truly an epic drama, written in our DNA."
Wells is director of the Genographic Project, launched in 2005 to study anthropology using genetics. The report was published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.
Studies using mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down through mothers, have traced modern humans to a single "mitochondrial Eve," who lived in Africa about 200,000 years ago.
The migrations of humans out of Africa to populate the rest of the world appear to have begun about 60,000 years ago, but little has been known about humans between Eve and that dispersal.
The new study looks at the mitochondrial DNA of the Khoi and San people in South Africa, who appear to have diverged from other people between 90,000 and 150,000 years ago.
The researchers led by Doron Behar of Rambam Medical Center in Haifa, Israel, and Saharon Rosset of IBM T.J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, and Tel Aviv University concluded that humans separated into small populations before the Stone Age, when they came back together and began to increase in numbers and spread to other areas.
Eastern Africa experienced a series of severe droughts between 135,000 and 90,000 years ago, and researchers said this climatological shift may have contributed to the population changes, dividing into small, isolated groups that developed independently.
Paleontologist Meave Leakey, a Genographic adviser, asked, "Who would have thought that as recently as 70,000 years ago, extremes of climate had reduced our population to such small numbers that we were on the very edge of extinction?"
Today, more than 6.6 billion people inhabit the globe, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.
The research was funded by the National Geographic Society, IBM, the Waitt Family Foundation, the Seaver Family Foundation, Family Tree DNA and Arizona Research Labs.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
New Ion Engine Sets Thrust Record
An ion engine has smashed the record for total thrust in a NASA test. The successful test means the engine could be used in future NASA missions.Ion engines work by accelerating electrically charged atoms, or ions, through an electric field, thereby pushing the spacecraft in the opposite direction.
The thrust they provide at any given moment is very small, roughly equal to the force needed to hold up a sheet of paper against Earth’s gravity. But they can operate continuously in space for years using very little fuel, ultimately providing a much bigger boost than a chemical rocket.
The Dawn mission, which launched on Thursday, is equipped with NASA’s first generation of ion engines, called NSTAR. Dawn’s three NSTAR engines will allow it to reach the asteroid belt and park in orbit around two different asteroids.
The agency has also been testing a more advanced ion engine, called NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster (NEXT), which generates 2.5 times as much thrust as an NSTAR engine.
Now, NEXT has broken a record, providing more “total impulse” than any previous ion engine. Total impulse is a measure of the overall acceleration that an engine would provide to a spacecraft. It is the result of multiplying the engine’s thrust by how long it fires.
Record fuel
The NEXT engine has now been fired for over 12,000 hours (500 days), providing more than 10 million Newton-seconds of impulse, more than any ion engine has ever achieved.
During this time, it has processed more than 245 kilograms of fuel in the form of xenon gas, a record amount for an ion engine. The amount of fuel an ion engine can handle before wearing down is critical, since ion engines on spacecraft need to fire for years at a time.
Previous estimates have suggested NEXT engines could safely handle 450 kilograms of fuel in their lifetime. NSTAR is rated for only 150 kilograms of fuel throughput, although one NSTAR engine has processed 235 kilograms of fuel in a previous test.
“This test validates NEXT technology for a wide range of NASA solar system exploration missions, as well as the potential for Earth-space commercial ventures,” says NEXT principal investigator Mike Patterson of NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, US.
NEXT could power a mission to Saturn’s moon, Titan. It would require about 20 kilowatts of engine power to get there if the mission included both an orbiter and a lander. “We could do that with an array of three thrusters, plus a spare,” NEXT project manager Scott Benson of Glenn told New Scientist.
Star Wars
Although NSTAR and NEXT both use xenon gas as a propellant, NEXT accelerates the xenon ions more efficiently, providing up to 236 milliNewtons of thrust compared to NSTAR’s maximum of 92 mN. The ion engines used on Japan’s Hayabusa spacecraft to the asteroid Itokawa use 22 mN, while those used on the European Space Agency’s SMART-1 Moon probe operated at 70 mN.
NEXT can also vary its thrust by a factor of 11, as compared with NSTAR’s factor of five. This means it can throttle down to lower levels as it travels farther from the Sun and receives less sunlight, allowing it to operate at greater distances than NSTAR.
Although ion engines are just beginning to see regular use on scientific probes, they have been a common sight in science fiction for many years. Dawn spacecraft engineer Marc Rayman of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, US, reminded journalists at a recent press conference of the ion engines used in the Star Wars movies.
“If you remember the TIE fighters that Darth Vader and the Evil Empire used to fight the rebel alliance, TIE stood for ‘twin ion engines’,” he said. “Well, Dawn does the Star Wars TIE fighters one better because we use three ion engines.”
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Finally Louisiana Science teachers have freedom to teach BS
http://www. discovery. org/a/5711
Louisiana House Passes Academic Freedom Bill on Evolution and Other Science Issues
By: Discovery Staff
Discovery Institute
June 11, 2008
Baton Rouge — By a vote of 94-3, Louisiana’s House of Representatives today passed an academic freedom bill that would protect teachers and school districts who wish to promote critical thinking and objective discussion about evolution and other scientific topics.
There was no vocal opposition, and the floor speech by Rep. Frank Hoffman made clear that the bill was about science, not religion.
“This bill promotes good science education by protecting the academic freedom of science teachers,” said Dr. John West, Vice President for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute. “Critics who claim the bill promotes religion instead of science either haven’t read the bill or are putting up a smokescreen to divert attention from the censorship that has been going on.”
Known as the Louisiana Science Education Act, the bill now goes to the Louisiana Senate for final concurrence. The Senate previously passed the bill by a vote of 35-0, but a minor amendment adopted by the House means that the Senate must pass the bill again.
According to the bill, upon the request of a local school district, the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education must “allow and assist teachers, principals, and other school administrators to create and foster an environment… that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.”
The bill also allows school districts to permit teachers to “use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner,” although the state board of education could veto those materials.
The bill expressly states that it “shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine.”
The Science Education Act is similar to an academic freedom policy adopted in 2006 by the Ouachita Parish School District.
This year, six states have considered academic freedom legislation designed to protect teachers who teach both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory.
Many of the bills have been adapted from sample legislation developed by Discovery Institute, including a model statute posted online at www. academicfreedompetition. com.
Posts
