CERN

Well, I am here now at CERN, the gigantic European particle accelerator which will be searching for the all-powerful Higgs Boson. Well, it would be all-powerful if it exists.

So, until then, let me assure you this is NOT happening:



. . . or is it?

Leavin', on a Jet Plane

Well, I'm off to cross the pond again in order to see someone very special to me. At the moment, the bus is taking me to the airport, and in about 18 hours I will (hopefully) be on the ground in Germany.

I just hope I can sleep well on the flight. With my luck, there will be a six-month old right behind me. Oh well.

Ich liebe dich

Gutten Tag, Sarah.

Ich wollte schreiben dir und informierte dich, wie viel ich sorge mich für dich.

Ich liebe dich, mein schöne Schatz, dieses viel.



Please correct my German.

[UPDATE]
Corrections with the help of my wonderful.

Guten Tag

Ich wollte dir schreiben und dir sagen, wie sehr ich dich mag.

Ich liebe dich so sehr, mein schöner Schatz.

What Happened to the History Channel?

I am back home from college, finally completing my degrees at MSU, and so I am watching TV again (I didn't have one in my room on purpose). Often the stuff on television I find dreadful, especially the omnipresent commercials for things I could care less about. But, I figure there are channels that are worth while when it comes to things that are entertaining and educating, at least if I am interested in nonfiction. I really enjoy Mythbusters, and the science channels can have something enjoyable to me that is informative to an astronomer (with a BS). One of my favorite channels was the History Channel, which for a long time could have simply been called the World War II channel because most every show was either about the war or tried in incorporate stock footage of the war. I am sure that you could see the explosions of ships at Pearl Harbor at least once a day on that station. The channel had a lot of interesting series, such as Great Blunders in History, or more recently The Universe.

Unfortunately, the channel has been broadcasting nonsense as well. There have been numerous shows, old and new, about the prophecies of Nostradamus, who is referred to by Penn & Teller on Bullshit as a "French Fuck". Indeed, his "prophecies" were vague and were probably not created for readers in the 21st century but to make himself useful/popular in his own time. I think Michael Shermer has said that he may have used these quatrains for political purposes, containing hidden messages no different than John Swift with Guliver's Travels. Anyhow, the History Channel has brought this figure up too often, speaking as if there was something real in them, that Nostradamus produced genuine and accurate prophecies of the future. Sure, there is the token skeptic at the end, but there is still an hour of your brain on vacation. Things become all the worse with shows about the Bible Code, UFOs and abductions, and more pseudoscience nonsense.

But I became particularly outraged by a recent episode of Ancient Discoveries. The original three episodes talked about the ancient Mediterranean world, with inventors like Heron, or the great doctor Galen, and the amazing Antikythera mechanism--this was a planetary calculator before the Common Era. I was blown away by this data of the ancient world and loved the production. Recently, these series has expanded. What I saw at 10:00 PM on Cinco de Mayo what about Chinese shipbuilding, all from the Common Era I think. They talked about some rather interesting boats, including the Junk-style boat which is still used today. I found this all interesting and I probably would have been just as floored by this show in the first half hour if I was more awake at the time.

The second half of the show decided to take a different turn, buying a ticket to crazy town. Perhaps some have heard of the book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World. Produced by Gavin Menzies, a former submarine sailor (not a historian), this book proposes that China has reached the Americas in the 15th century with boats on a voyage of discovery before the time of Columbus. Menzies "evidence" consists of some maps he found in shops which he claims go back to 15th century China. Experts know better. Along with some bogus claims about DNA evidence backing up the claim for recent infusion of Chinese DNA, that is pretty much the evidence. This "theory" is dismissed by experts on China. After all, we have very good records from China because of the advanced and sophisticated bureaucracy of the government which make no mention of such a discovery of the Americas. One would think that would make the papers, especially in well-educated China (compared to Europe at the same time). There are also no ship finds on the Americas of 15th century Chinese ships, such as Junks, at all. The proposed ships for the travel are not even considered seaworthy for the Pacific Ocean.

And yet, this History Channel episode spent about half the time talking about this "theory", including an interview with Menzies and other supporters of this work. Spending this much time of this hypothesis of Menzies with little skepticism casts the light that this "theory" is on par with the consensus of scholars and historians that such a notion is bogus. Never mind that there is plenty online and in journals to debunk this book, making the presentation on TV without greater criticism intellectually dishonest, but how there is an attempt to prove the theory is even more disgusting.

In Oregon, some amateurs attempt to look for one of these Junk ships on the shore, going by Menzies work. Now, to find such a ship on the Western shores of the Americas is quite the trick; the coastline is so long how can you make a choice of where to look? Well, apparently they know how to find the ship and know its approximate size before digging it up. How?

Dowsing rods.

I kid you not. Taking a couples of metal sticks, which people have claimed for generations can find water, now can find 15th century Chinese treasure ships.

Maybe this isn't hitting you hard enough. These folks, with apparently no archaeological training, are trying to prove a pseudo-historical claim by using pseudoscience? Apparently astrology is part of the equation as well since apparently the Sun affects how the rods work.

There are even more problems with this "dig" as well. After figuring out where the "stern" of this "boat" is in the ground, they drill down into the sand of the beach using a plastic pipe and forcing a running hose into it to push sand away and get down deeper until they reach wood. Then they take a drill and bring up some wood for sampling and C14 dating. Um, how do they know that wood is from a Chinese ship and not, say, a canoe? Worse is that this method of getting the wood of the "ship" does not allow for any stratigraphy, the archaeological method of examining layers in the ground to get relative dating. If you cannot do this, you are wasting everyone's time when the matter is finding the correct date of the burial of this object. After all, even if this was a Chinese Junk ship, it could be from the 19th century instead of the 15th. Also, if you want to do C14 dating, you have to get samples from multiple parts of the "ship" to get reliable dates and recognize outliers in any statistics produced. One core sample is not enough, especially with such a crude method of extraction and preservation of the materials in question.

The entire second half of this episode was junk after talking about Junk ships. How could this have passed by any thinking executive at the History Channel. And this was no accident. Going to see the author of this book, to spend days with the diggers of this "ship" in Oregon, and to have the most minimal level of skepticism displayed by the expert on Chinese history, can only be deliberate. Either the creators of this episode were ignorant of the quality of Menzies' thesis, or were actively trying to save it from criticism. If they were ignorant about the history, they how can they have any right to do anything for the History Channel?

I am simply appalled that such utter crap scholarship has reached a mass audience, and now through the vehicle of Fox News. I already have a negative view on the contents of American television; do these networks have to go out of their way to make it worse? Sure I can make fun of this station talking about the modern marvel that is corn, but at least that has good history behind it. I don't want any woo with my shows, thank you very much. Not only do they waste my time, they harm the intellectual level of the people of the US. It is a well-informed public that allows for a democracy to work. Filling the heads of voters with utter garbage and no way to differentiate between crap and history/science/reality is a great way for things to go awry.

So please History Channel: Call back Roger Mudd and do more Hitler shows. How about a Modern Marvels episode about Hitler and Stalin's mustaches? It's at least more intellectual and honest that this Kuhscheiße I saw this evening.

Wow, It Really DID Suck!

Well, it looks like my critics of the film Expelled need not be looked at because the critics have weighed in.

Epsilon Cue has a post showing the rating of Expelled compared to many other movies that are considered by most thinking people to be absolutely terrible. The ratings come from Rotten Tomatoes, which gauges a movie's quality by the percentage of good and bad reviews from many critics. If a movie is 60% or better approved by critics, it is considered "fresh", and less it is rotten. Sometimes you get something pretty messed-up, such as the movie Plan 9 from Outer Space (1956) which is elevated more due to cult status than anything else. But here is some perspective given by Epsilon Cue:

Robot Monster (1953): 27%--this movie is simply terrible. I saw it through Mystery Science Theater 3000 which made it tolerable, but the level of thinking that went into the movie itself (especially the repetitive ending) must have been nonexistent. I can understand a low budget, but that is no excuse for a low movie-making I.Q.
Dude, Where's My Car (2000): 18%--again, I have unfortunately seen much of this movie since my brother was somehow amused by it. Crap all the way through and it makes it difficult for me to give any credence to Ashton Kutcher's acting abilities.
Crossroads (2002): 15%--before Britney was completely crazy, but when her acting skilled still sucked. I am glad I put a lot of distance between myself and this film.
Left Behind -- The Movie (2001): 12%--it does well in church basements but it lacks much redeeming quality. However, I suspect it is still better than the video game based on the book series which every video game critic I have heard agrees it was terrible through and through.
Catwoman (2004): 10%--argh, stay away. (I can't believe it's already four years old.)

I skipped a few of the movies on the list to avoid boredom, especially since some I am less familiar with. But how about a few more?
Spice World (1997): 29%--wait, someone thought this movie was worth seeing? A movie about the pop group Spice Girls? And before Victoria was a Beckham?
Manos: Hands of Fate (1966): 6%--this movie SUCKED! It is the worst movie I have yet come across. Acting, lighting, film angles, editing, music quality, plot, meaning; any criteria you can name, this movie failed. The only thing that made it possible to see is (again) Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even the people there agree it was the world movie they ever had to deal with. (RT gives the MST3K episode of Manos a 82%, very respectable and deserved.)
Gigli (2003): 6%--everyone agrees this movie was a mistake. Ben is not the greatest actor and an excuse to see his chest is not worth a movie ticket, especially if you don't have any attraction to him.
Battlefield Earth (2000): 3%--when Hollywood does a movie from the founder of Scientology, what should you expect? An A-List actor being brain-washed into selling out his career. John, Grease was great and all, and who can forget Pulp Fiction, but I can't give any respect for this film.

And what about Ben Stein's film:
Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008): 9% (at the time of this blog entry).

Hence, based on the current number of reviews (23) and the percentages, this movie is on par with Manos, Battlefield Earth, and Catwoman.

It perhaps should be no surprise that on the of the only two positive reviews of the movie come from a writer at Christianity Today, Mark Moring. He seems to be aware of the fiasco that went into the screening of the movie and the like, but still tries to squeeze out some redeeming value. A very odd this is mentioned by Moring: "And filmmakers can't be accused of denying Darwin proponents equal opportunity." Um, no. Their opinions were gathered, and under false pretenses to get the canned answers they wanted (Michael Shermer makes that point about his interview by Stein), and none of the people that promote and use evolution in their disciplines that are religious are avoided, such as Ken Miller. How can equal time be said to be given if only a few are shown and not about the evidence for or against evolution? This statement by Moring sounds like a ID talking point to me.

All in all, the movie is agreed to be crap, not even counting the reviews by Richard Dawkins, Scientific American, or New Scientist just to name a few. And I suspect as more reviews come in, such as by Ebert and other film critics, the percentage will likely go down. I will update as I see fit.

The F Word

Well, the movie Expelled comes out today in about 1000 theaters, and I haven't the foggiest idea how well it will do at the box office. They are doing some posturing, setting up a David vs. Goliath metaphor and saying they may do better than expected. But even if they do well, they have a significant legal battle with XVIVO and now Yoko Ono because of the unlicensed use of John Lennon's song Imagine. I wonder if Expelled Exposed will put up something on that subject in the near future; the blog Panda's Thumb has had numerous posts on the subject.

Speaking of that site, Dave Thomas recently put up a post with a scan from the of the "Leader's DVD" (whatever that means), and it has this to say:

"Whoa" indeed. The purpose of the movie is made clear by that key word: Faith.

Then again, which faith? Not Ken Miller's, or Francis Collins', and many others' faith in their respective religion. No, this is a very narrow take on what is "real" Christianity and "real" Christian faith. Obviously the issue of what is the "correct" way of reading Genesis is not black and white, and the people that have produced Expelled purposefully avoided interviewing scientists that had no problem reconciling Genesis and evolution. Claiming that such people would have "confused the film unnecessarily" as producer Mark Mathis stated himself only shows that these people are not really about debate and open discussion but in trying to sell their particular brand of their particular religion.

Now, I am a critic of religion in general, but I also know that there is a massive continuum of positions in any religion. Buddhists can be pacifists, activists, or Kamikazes; Muslims can be advocates for freedom of speech and humans rights or terrorists; Christians can be generous or tyrannical. There is no one-size-fits-all to these sorts of things. Religion does not necessarily mean you have exactly the same view as your priest, pastor, rabbi, imam, guru, etc.

So, what we really have here is just on take on one major religion and pretending that there can be no debate on what is a "real" Christian. It seems ironic to me that many people criticize the "new" atheists like Dawkins and Harris for not seeing these nuances and not realizing there are many different ways to be Christian, Muslim, etc., but then some Christians shout that they are the true believers and all others are wrong. Hmm, imagine that. Someone thinks that their dogma is unassailable.

This movie is a disservice to any sort of dialog on what it means to have any faith, even if I think all religious faiths are extraneous. There are no fine lines, no simply black-and-white stances, and I think enough people realize that. Heck, even the "fundamentalist" atheists realize this from what I can tell. (Their point is that unreason and dogma can and will cause more harm than good and this must be dealt with head-on with philosophy, science, and debate--note that no guns or swords are supposed to be used to convert, which is what fundies may do if they could like they did in the Dark Ages.)

If you are religious and wonder about the intersection of science and religion, you won't be getting any straight or good or useful answers or discussions in this movie. There are much smarter people that Ben Stein that have been and are arguing on these subjects, such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.

More on Expelled Exposed

The movie will be coming out soon, and may be infringing on the copyright of a cell biology video used before by William Dembski without permission.

But more importantly, the Website Expelled Exposed needs as many links to it as possible.
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled
Expelled


I know this is a link bomb, but I have two good reasons for doing it.
1. The movie is terrible in its scholarship and needs to be dealt with unless it should have its misinformation be unchallenged and do major damage to science and culture in this country.
2. I had emailed the people of that website to make use of my previous blog entry on the connection between Darwinism and Nazism. I was emailed back and told that it could be of use. So, all the more reason to link: I am linking to myself, sort of.

And from the reviews I have seen, they agree that the movie has a terrible premise and is poorly executed.

Note: At the time of this blog post, Expelled Exposed comes up on the sixth page when searching for the word "expelled". However, I have also noticed that Expelled Exposed is the only thing found in the Sponsored Link section on Google, just to the right of the searched links. So, Expelled Exposed could use a boost up, but it will be on every page Google turns up on Expelled now.