1. Due to my recent & extensive trouble with my health & the lack of time I have remaining as an independent candidate I have decided to not run in this election in 2008. Hopefully I’ll have everything up & running smoothly to make the bid in 2010 as a much stronger candidate.

2. Due to my inexperience in blogging & security concerns I have managed to get myself drastically over-extended in blogs. I have decided to consolidate all of my blogs (Glorified Ape, Defending Science, & Brock4KS) into one blog at brockrhodes.wordpress.com.

Sorry for the delay, thank you for the support, & I promise that in the future a good time will be had by all.

I love honeybees. I have for years. I’ve studied a lot about bee biology and bee society. I’ve had my hand in a few hives. Whenever I can, I advocate bee tolerance and appreciation, because, as pollinators, they’re better friends to us than dogs have ever been.

Naturally, I was excited when Jerry Seinfeld’s punnily* titled Bee Movie came out. The movie is beautifully colored, and several giants of the entertainment industry were involved. But sadly, major deviations this film makes from reality cause the pun of its title work on a different level. Namely, the one about quality.

First of all, and the most obvious, the bees in the movie only have four legs. I suppose the midlegs of real bees are hidden under the movie bee’s sweater. There are many problems with the anatomy of bees in the movie from real bees, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to get the number of legs right. Also, never would you find a real beehive with so many males.

It’s unfortunate that such all this effort was made to make this film as attractive as it is, and that this film is a commercial success. Overall, the film’s story would not have been sacrificed if it mirrored reality a little more closely, and instead we have a generation of children who think that bees only have four legs. That may not seem like a big deal, but these things mount.

I don’t understand why reality loses out so often with projects like these. If it didn’t then maybe we all wouldn’t be brainwashed by the bullshit that assaults us from all angles.

Boo!

* Neologism. Mix between pun and funny.

This story in The New York Times was brought to my attention by a friend who posted it at the KCFS discussion board. Apparently anti-science Kansas Board of Education member Kenneth Willard is lined up to be the next president of the National Association of State Boards of Education, which is explained by The New York Times here:

The group, based in Washington, is a nonprofit organization of state school boards whose Web site (www.nasbe.org) says it “works to strengthen state leadership in educational policymaking.”

This is the first I’ve heard of this board. I have no idea what kind of power it has or its structure (how much power the president has over the board). I’ve searched their site for all references of evolution and a got 14 hits, many on their blog where they simply report policy changes and election results in very objective language. I’ve found nothing that says science education is listed as an agenda on the board’s website, I also have no reference of their recent history so I don’t really know how big of a problem this is. But Dr. Kenneth R. Miller, professor at Brown University and author of Finding Darwin’s God, is quoted in the article:

“We are in a nationwide struggle for the integrity of science education,” Professor Miller said, “and any situation that provides an opportunity for the opponents of science education to advance their agenda is a matter of concern.”

I respect and trust Dr. Miller, so if he’s concerned, I’m concerned. Apparently, in order to qualify for the position that Willard is now running unopposed for you have to have held a seat in a school board at the state level. Elections are in July.

As pointed out to me by the world famous Liz Craig, the time for nominations has passed and the organization does not allow for write-ins. Prepare yourself for another national circus.

I’ll post more information as I get more clarity on this situation.

The screening of Flock of Dodos on the Wichita State campus qualified as much more than an everyday event in Wichita. The capacity of the CAC theater is 450 persons, and the crowd was around 350-400. You could say it was the free admission, a free film with the filmmaker, Dr. Randy Olson, actually in attendance, but getting anyone in Wichita to leave their homes for an evening is about as easy as sorting atoms with eyeballs and fingers. These people were definitely interested.

I spied several WSU faculty scientists in the crowd, several friends from KCFS, and a few friendly fellow students, but I had trouble gaging the overall attitude of the crowd until something silly happened. Before the film was introduced a series of editorial cartoons making fun of the whole mess was shown as a slide show with an acoustic song about this debacle in Kansas playing over it. At the end, this Family Guy clip showed:

It was well received. The crowd applauded and laughed. The cycle restarted and when the same clip showed the same thing happened again. It was a friendly crowd.

The film showed. It was a little too cutesy for my preferences (though I admit that I am a sick man who enjoys reading text books), but it was also well received by the crowd. And while I say it was too cutesy for my preferences, I liked the film overall. Olson took a very gentle approach towards portraying the anti-science characters, such as activists Michael Behe, John Calvert, Bill Harris, and notorious Kansas School Board members such as a winking (and described as “sexy”) Connie Morris and Kathy Martin among others. Olson did a good job with them, trying his best to show them as good people who mean well but are supporting something that, as he put it, hasn’t gotten past the “intuition stage.” He showed that they’re all heart, good but misdirected hearts, and no head.

The film works. Why do I think so? Because as little as I’ve thought of John Calvert, who to me is the poster-child of charlatans who wreck my culture and damage education in my beloved country, I left the film liking him a bit more, seeing him more, and certainly so, as a troubled person than a real life horror film monster.

Flock of Dodos seems to take a lot of shots at scientists, though it features a poker game of 9 evolutionary biologists that is revisited throughout the film. This will serve as a fantastic introduction of scientists as being real people to a majority of the film’s target audience, and charming people at that. Two of the most enduring quotes during these sequences was “I swear on the bones of Charles Darwin,” and “When ODB died, and Wu Tang broke up, that was a sad day for me.”

At the end there was a panel discussion of 4, dominated by the filmmaker, Dr. Randy Olson, and Dr. Niall Shanks – a WSU faculty member, author of God, the Devil, and Darwin, and a noted philosopher of science. The crowd discussion was interesting and productive, with Shanks playing the comic relief by making statements, in his Brittish accent, like, “If God sent AIDS to punish homosexuals, he must love lesbians because HIV is so hard to transmit between women.” Most of the questions were supportive of both the film and the filmmaker, focusing on what we can do to fix this problem. Runners were provided to deliver questions, so I chose that method as to how to deliver mine.

“We’ve already established that scientists do not have P.R. firms, and scientists are so busy that they seem as real as unicorns to most of the public. Richard Dawkins seems more interested in promoting atheism than seeking a public acceptance of science. Bill Nye is today’s Carl Sagan. What is your reaction?”

I don’t think that my implication that Bill Nye is not Carl Sagan was lost on Olson. I have no problems with Bill Nye, he’s just not in the same league as Carl Sagan, not in terms of being a scientist or in mega-coolness/mass public appeal and admiration. I liked most of Olson’s answer. He said that he wishes that there would be a loose collection of high powered scientists that the public knew they could, and so would, listen to. I too wish for that, and wonder why one does not exist today when so many analogous things exist for so many much more meaningless parts of human life.

During the panel discussion Olson said that he fears a world where public relations firms are hired to spin against any scientific information that a particular party considers harmful to its economic outlook, causing mass confusion and an even deeper politicization of science in the public sphere. A body of trusted super-scientists would help clarify in these times of trouble, but a part of Olson’s overall message is that the probability of such a group forming is between unlikely and impossible.

Olson, who became a filmmaker because he thought science films were boring, said many times, both during the film and in the discussion afterwards, that scientists are poor communicators, because they’re too technical and suck at non-technical language, who tell boring stories because they are restricted to the truth, which you need to deviate from at times to tell a good story. It seems he implies many times that scientists are unlikeable to your average Joe as well.

I feel that while I can see where such statements come from, that they are fundamentally untrue. I spend a lot of time trying to drag scientists into public settings. This practice is much more difficult than separating atoms with eyeballs and fingers because scientists generally fear what comes across as a hostile public, are too busy working a ton of hours and usually have families, or see it as a lost cause. When I’m successful though, the scientists I drag to these events generally come across very well with the public, and are met with a long line of people to talk with afterwards, some to argue and some to just chat and say hello, all with a new respect and understanding, and are generally trusted once they demonstrate that they value the truth.

Generally, scientists are not boring, bad communicators, or unlikeable. They are, however, noticeably absent in the public and in public media. Changing that would be a major step towards a remedy of this entire problem. And while I don’t agree with the entire message of the film, or it’s overwhelming cutesy-ness, I think the film will have a noticeable impact in putting science in the public via the media in a friendly and charming manner. That’s why I’m proud to call Dr. Olson my new best friend, even though I’m just stalking him.

Flock of Dodos makes its television premier tomorrow night on Showtime. Dr. Olson sent me this to help remind you.

It’s the perfect date movie, you can stay at home, and it’s free. There are simply no excuses to not watch it.

Filmmaker Dr. Randy Olson and Muffy. Courtesy of the official site’s press kit.

An interesting film on not only the history but a little background on the entire controversy will premiere on Showtime on Thursday at 7:30 PM local (8:30 PM Eastern). While I don’t agree entirely with all of the statements that the filmmaker, Evolutionary biology Harvard PhD. Randy Olson, makes (more on that in the future recap of the Flock of Dodos screening at WSU), I think he’s made what may amount to an important film that will function as a catalyst not only for public understanding of science and scientists, but also humanizing pseudo-scientists and anti-science activists. Not only do I highly recommend this film, but I beg you to recommend it to others as well.

Here is a schedule of showings on Showtime and here is the official site for Flock of Dodos.

After a couple of very scary weeks, I have regained control of the “Defending Science” blog. A spammer hijacked this site and deleted my username and password. WordPress helped me regain control of this blog promptly after the incident, but I failed to check the blog to see if anything had changed. It had. The links section on the homepage was filled with SPAM links, and WordPress had no choice but to suspend this account. After a few emails and a lot of help from Mark in support I now have control again.

Thanks again, Mark.

I’ll continue to update this very specific blog, but I have also started a new one, Glorified Ape, so look for me there as well.

“Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus” will play twice in Wichita in May. Here is a portion of an email that I received from Glenn Branch at the National Center of Science Education with the details. The showing at Wichita State is on May 7th at 7pm in the CAC theater. It’s free.

Dear Kansas friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that the hilarious documentary Flock
of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus is returning to Kansas
in early May.

First, on May 4, it will be showing at Exploration Place, 300 N. McLean
Blvd. in Wichita, at 6:30 p.m. The screening will be followed by a panel
discussion; tickets are $5, $3 for Exploration Place members. For further
information, visit:
http://www.exploration.org/events/index.cfm

Then, on May 7, it will be showing in Wichita State University’s CAC
Theater, at 7:00 p.m. The screening will be followed by a
question-and-answer panel discussion featuring director Randy Olson; the
event is free and open to the public. For further details, visit:
http://www.wichita.edu/thisis/news/news.asp?__A=article&__NID=2629

For further details about the film, visit:
http://www.flockofdodos.com/

Sincerely,

Glenn Branch

I’m about to launch back into this effort at full steam and I just realized something. From a technical standpoint, this blog is horrible. There are major spacing issues that cut off graphics and images, etc. etc.

I apologize for my vast ignorance of all things computer related. There just isn’t enough time in a day for me to learn everything I need to. I’ll try to get this blog fixed, and I may move it.

Thanks for your patience and support.

Brock Rhodes

Update: I am going to keep this blog here. During the hiatus I checked other blogs I could use and I like WordPress the best. I’ve also learned how to use it a little better.

Please note that all of my comments will now be by brockwichita instead of silkworm due to technical issues.

This meeting was a joke. Only 10 people showed, including myself and a WSU faculty scientist that I recognized. Fitting for March, at the end there were only 4 including J. David Lehman, who is apparently taking a vacation from rescuing Mormons from their own religion.

The meeting consisted of the viewing of a 2 1/2 hour long John Calvert vehicle, “Teaching Origins Objectively.” The putrid propaganda piece focused on the mock trial the Kansas Board of Education held in 2005 as 23 “expert witnesses” tore apart a virtually undefended, though by no means abandoned, effigy of mainstream science. Notoriously, mainstream science had no witnesses because scientists who support evolutionary theory, which is pretty much all of them, boycotted. Attorney Pedro Irogonegary, who supported the boycott, was the only person at the trial that defended mainstream science. This subject was harped on during this 150-minute long brainwashing, which showed the testimony of the anti-science, Minority Report supporters. The Minority Report was the one adopted by the Kansas State School Board in 2005 that was supposed to allow for unqualified, stand-up comedy style, criticism of evolution in the classroom without the requirement that the criticisms have any backing of empirical evidence or strive for an explanation that is possible in the natural universe. As long as long it’s considered as “more adequate.”

The boycott makes sense to me. A scientific debate can only be achieved when only science is involved. Science demands that scientific methodology be used. Scientific methodology is designed to eliminate as much bias as possible, including any a priori convictions by the observers, the scientists. It was already apparent that the board had a majority that supported the Minority Report, a document that when read demonstrated that a clear a priori conviction by those in charge of the kangaroo court. Thus, scientific methodology would not be respected, in fact openly argued against in the hearings, so a scientific debate could not be achieved. The only valid choice for a scientist to make is to not attempt to hold a scientific debate in that venue. This also explains why I was the only pro-science person left at the end of the meeting, but I don’t go to these things under the delusion that a scientific debate is possible. I stomach these things to try to do what I can to help those of the innocent public to wander in. It’s hard sometimes. The WSU faculty scientist left in obvious, though kind and quiet, disgust.

I said at the beginning of this recap that this meeting was a joke. All of these meetings are jokes that I never find to be the least bit humorous. I thought that this might because I’m having trouble identifying the punchline, so at the conclusion of the video and a short prayer led by Dr. Paul Ackerman, who said beforehand, “I feel that any discussion that will happen will be informal so let’s put the meeting to a close,” I asked for it.

“What’s the goal?”

Ackerman looked puzzled at the question, and stretched for, freely associated, “It constitutes research on origins. Gives information that is not available here at the university. I think the views and statements of Calvert are sound.” And then he said something about the “fallacy of the suppression of evidence” that I couldn’t understand in the context that he provided. Then he said, “Why are you asking? You asking it is intimidating.”

I said, “Perhaps you feel intimidated because you feel guilty for showing it.”

He asked me what I meant and I said, “CORR is a Christian organization. Many good things are done by Christian organizations, such as helping the poor and otherwise unfortunate. You seem to be Hell bent on using this group to promote scientific illiteracy.”

He said, “All of the CORR meetings since… … …”

I helped him, “Since Dave left and you started presenting?”

He continued, “Right. They haven’t been about this.”

I asked, “Then why did you show the video?”

He said, “Because it’s now available.”

I began to walk out and Ackerman mentioned to something to me about the boycott. I said, “They boycotted because the court was shown to be biased. ” I pointed out the fact that the board members presiding over the meeting were the three biggest anti-science boobs available on the board.

He said that it was only that way because scientists boycotted the meeting. I said a simple reading a the Minority Report shows bias, and the fact that the hearings were even held showed that. I finished with, “Stop playing dumb. You’re better than that.”

On my way out Lehman was following close behind me. I held the door open for him. He asked me, “Are you still beholden to evolution?”

I said the only thing I felt he could understand and would feed his lack of maturity in understanding that science and religion are different things, “I pray to it every night.”

I couldn’t do much at this meeting. No new faces were there for very long. I have noticed I’m losing my diplomacy, and I can’t find a way to feel the least bit bad about that.