Politics and Current Affairs - Better Right Than Happy

What Causes Mass Shootings? The Discovery Institute Thinks It Knows

To find the answer, read my latest article at Panda’s Thumb. (Spoiler alert: It’s Darwin.)

How bad are some of the arguments for the Wuhan lab leak? This bad.

For some reason I forgot to include this in my last post, but I think it is sufficiently entertaining and revealing to warrant a post all to itself. Birger Sorensen (above left) is chairman of Bionor, a company trying to develop a vaccine for HIV. He has been involved in the development of several patented vaccines. Angus Dalgleish (above right) is an oncologist at Cancer Center London. His main research interests are the role of viruses in causing cancer and the development of vaccines against cancer. These two men do not believe SARS-CoV-2, the virus responsible for COVID-19, arose naturally. Instead, they believe it was deliberately created by labs in China.

Why the Wuhan lab leak conspiracy theory is wrong, and why it matters

*Wuhan Institute of Virology (Global Times)*

It is not surprising that, when a cataclysmic event like the current SARS-C0V-2 (COVID-19) pandemic occurs, crackpot ideas and conspiracy theories soon follow. Not long after the pandemic was declared claims began circulating that it was caused by 5G wireless signals or that it was a plot to install microchips into the global population. Ideas of such absurdity, persistent though they may be, can be summarily dismissed as the nonsense they are.

One particular claim, however, has not been so easily dismissed. While experts consider it most likely that the virus arose naturally in bats and was then passed on to humans thru another, as yet unidentified, animal host, there is an alternative scenario that continues to draw attention and support: That the virus escaped from a research lab in Wuhan province where the pandemic first started. In some versions of the theory, the virus was the result of “gain of function” experiments that increased the lethality of the virus before its escape into the population. An early backer of this theory was Donald Trump, which was only to be expected given his penchant for unhinged conspiracy theories as well as his antipathy towards China. But the lab leak theory has continued to gain traction even among respectable and well-regarded media outlets and authorities. A number of scientists wrote a letter to Science demanding that this possibility be more strongly considered, and the Biden administration has ordered its intelligence agencies to investigate the possibility that the pandemic could have originated from a lab accident.

Ken Miller, Genie Scott & Barbara Forrest: 15 Years After Dover

*Courtroom Sketch of Ken Miller testifying at the Dover trial*

I have been discussing the the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which ended exactly 15 years ago last Sunday . Three of the key figures who supported the plaintiffs recently sat down for interviews with S. Joshua Swamidass and (on two of the interviews) Nathan Lents for the Peaceful Science blog. Videos of the interviews can be found at the bottom of the page.

Michael Behe: 15 Years After Dover

This month marks fifteen years since the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial which ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) is a form of creationism and, therefore, could not be taught as a scientific theory in American public schools. Recently, several of the people involved in the trial have given interviews about it, among them biochemist Michael Behe, the most prominent proponent of ID to testify at the trial.

Kitzmiller v. Dover 15 Years Later

This month marks the fifteenth anniversary of the conclusion of the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, a significant event in the history of the conflict between creationism and science. In 2004, Young Earth Creationist members of Pennsylvania’s Dover Area School District were engaged in efforts to alter the school curriculum to suggest that there were serious weaknesses to the theory of evolution and that creationism was a legitimate alternative. Their efforts eventually culminated in the board passing a resolution that required biology teachers to read a statement to their class that said, in part:

J.P. Moreland tries to defend substance dualism – and anti-gay bigotry.

In the above video from Peaceful Science, philosopher JP Moreland argues for the existence of immaterial souls and minds, and is challenged by the scientists S. Joshua Swamidass, a Christian, and Nathan Lents, an atheist. Despite the fact that all three participants hold quite different views on the subject, the discussion is respectful and collegial. And I’m not entirely sure it should have been.

If I Could Choose Anyone as Prime Minister

Here in Canada, we are nearing the end of a federal election campaign. It has been a rather dispiriting affair for the most part. The incumbent, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, was elected largely on his image as a progressive reformer, but has often proven a disappointment in this regard. His re-election prospects were further hobbled by accusations from one of his own ministers of attempting to improperly influence a criminal prosecution, all this before embarrassing photos emerged from his past in which he wore brown face. His chief rival, Andrew Scheer of the Conservative party, has had to battle accusations that he has a secret social conservative agenda (which generally doesn’t fly very well with the average Canadian voter) and has not shown himself to possess sufficient charisma and vision to expand his support much beyond his party’s base. Then it was revealed that he is a closet American. The two left-of-centre leaders, Jagmeet Singh of the NDP and Elizabeth May of the Green Party have run strong campaigns, but have no realistic chance of forming a government. Possibly the strongest performance has come from Yves-François Blanchet of the sovereigntist Bloc Quebecois, which appeared moribund at the outset of the campaign but now seems poised to make considerable gains and, while confined to a single province, may end up playing spoiler to the two leading parties’ chances and holding the balance of power in the next Parliament. And, because it’s 2019, we have to deal with the existence of a far-right White Supremacist party.