The science commentary blog of Jordan Niednagel

Scientist owes us an apology
January 4, 2005

"This was an inhabitable environment on Mars. This was a shallow sea. These rocks ... it's a salt flat. These are the kinds of environments that are very suitable for life."

Doesn't this sound pretty definite? Wouldn't you assume, as I would, that the individual who made this statement was pretty confident in his assertion? Look at the quote again. There is no "probably." No "likely." Rather, "this was," and "these are."

The quote was made by NASA's Mars Exploration Rover team principal investigator Steve Squyres (long title) back in 2004 during a press conference. Now, new evidence suggests a massive volcanic eruption at Meridiani laid down the ash sediments that formed the bedrock on Mars, not water. A paper authored by Thomas McCollum and Bryan Hynek at the University of Colorado presents this alternative idea.

And there's yet another recent paper by Paul Knauth and colleagues from Arizona State University which proposes that a meteorite impact could have formed the rock structures.

Please hear me out. I don't mind theories being presented, but when they're stated as fact early on, I have a problem with that. People are mislead, and Steve Squyres owes everyone an apology. Notice this quote made by Knauth in a CNN article about the ordeal:

"This happened three-and-a-half billion years ago. We weren't there when it happened. So we can't know what happened then, I mean we can't know for sure, and so to speak with certainty would be foolish."

Wonderful insight, and either knowingly or unknowingly (likely the latter), he indirectly labeled Squyres a fool, didn't he?

Thanks for stopping by.

Jordan



--------------------------------------------------------
Professor was asking for it
December 9, 2005

Various news sources recently reported that Paul Mirecki, chairman of religious studies at the University of Kansas, stepped down from his position over controversy regarding is vehement anti-creationism. As CNN reports:

A recent e-mail from Mirecki to members of a student organization referred to religious conservatives as 'fundies' and said a course describing intelligent design as mythology would be a 'nice slap in their big fat face.' Mirecki apologized for those comments.

There's obviously nothing wrong with opposing the creation view, but Mirecki took it too far. The guy is as eccentric as they get, and he might not even have stepped down had it not been for the prodding of his colleagues.

Mirecki was also supposedly beat up last week by two individuals who referred to his creation class. If true, such violence is obviously wrong, but he was asking for it. Along with creation, he's been a frequent basher of Christianity and Catholicism.

Thanks for stopping by.

Jordan



Jordon ~ I agree with your comment that the Kansas professor
was "asking for it" if you meant he provoked those who
opposed his views. My only concern is that by saying he was
'asking for it', folks may construe this as a condoning of
the "violence". Anyway, I love your site. Keep it up!

Dan Callahan - Springfield, Virginia

------------------------------

"such violence is obviously wrong, but he was asking for
it"? talk about unequivocal ... BTW, whatever happened to
this site's message board?

Dan - UK

--------------------------------------------------------
USA Today and all that bias
December 2, 2005

I don't know who Greg Toppo is, but I'm sure those of you who take USA Today probably do (I take it, but don't read it as much as I should). On the 9th of last month, page 7D, he wrote an article entitled, Kansas schools can teach 'intelligent design.' The article basically condemned the Kansas Board of Education for approving new science standards that allow Darwin to be questioned. Oh the horror.

One particular paragraph was so typical of how most columnists portray evolution.

Scientists have long considered the theory (evolution) - which explains how species evolve through survival of the fittest, passing new and better traits to their offspring - as proven reality. But ID advocates say the world is so complex that new species can be explained only as the product of an intelligent designer.

First blunder ... don't put scientists as in being all inclusive, because not all scientists believe in evolution, especially Darwinism. Misleading to say the least. Toppo then gives the typical misleading description of evolution as survival of the fittest. The two are not one and the same, and certainly should not be used interchangeably. Creationists believe in survival of the fittest, whereby genes are passed on, etc. We're actually the ones who came up with it, or what is known as natural selection (Edward Blythe, 1835). Lastly, what's all this about new species? Creationists believe species can create new species. Dogs produce a variety of dogs, cats a variety of cats. Such isn't evidence for, however, frog to philosopher evolution (macro).

Try harder next time, Greg. You have my email.

Thanks for stopping by.

Jordan





Home