Blogs / Bad Astronomy

One thing most creationist promoters really abhor is publicity. Not all of them hate it, of course; the Discovery Institute craves it like an addict, but the irony is that when they get it, their lies, machinations, and political sleaziness get exposed.

Other creationist organizations want to avoid publicity for that very reason. So the Texans involved with forcing Chris Comer out of her job are probably taking blood pressure medicine at this point. Not only has their utter contempt for reality and decency been exposed, but the exposure is gaining momentum.

The group Texas Citizens for Science (go team!) has posted a very public evisceration of the Texas Education Agency. This essay really pounds home just how evil these people are:

The real reason she was forced to resign is because the top TEA administrators and some SBOE members wanted her out of the picture before the state science standards–the science TEKS–were reviewed, revised, and rewritten next year. Plans are underway by some SBOE members and TEA administrators to diminish the requirement to teach about evolutionary biology in the Biology TEKS and to require instead that biology instructors “Teach the Controversy” about the “weaknesses” of evolution, that is, teach the Creationist-inspired and -created bogus controversy about evolution that doesn’t exist within legitimate science. There are no scientific weaknesses with biological evolution as the natural process is understood by scientists. At the level at which it is taught in high school, evolutionary biology has no weaknesses, gaps, or problems. Therefore, it is duplicitous to pretend such “weaknesses” and “controversy” exist.

This is not an opinion being expressed here. It’s a fact. The Texas State Board of Education is trying to change the way they review and edit the science standards in the state; the basic ideas students get taught in class. Get this: they want to have a single person (called without any conscious irony on their part a facilitator) who will have the final say on how the standards get written. Sure, there will be a panel of experts and all that, but if the panel says evolution needs to be a standard, and the facilitator disagrees, then evolution won’t be a standard. It’s that simple.

And what are the odds the facilitator will be someone who can be trusted on these point? I’d say a big fat zero.

This violates the very nature of education on nearly all levels. Without any expert input whatsoever, a single person (chosen by a Board of Education with decidedly creationist leanings) gets to decide not only what is science and what isn’t, but also decide this for all the public school students in the state.

How doomed can one state be? The answer is none. None more doomed. Unless people rise up and do something about this. If you are an educator, scientist, parent, or student in the state of Texas, and you’re as angry as I am, contact the Texas Citizens for Science and do something. Make your voice heard!

Tip o’ the ten gallon hat to PZ.

Heh. I found this post buried in my list of drafts. For some reason I didn’t post it when I wrote it months ago. It seems appropriate now given what happened in Texas, so enjoy.

A woman in Ohio has stopped drinking Starbucks (registration for that link may be required) because her takeout cup had a quotation on it that expressed a vague notion of possible agnosticism:

Printed on the cup was: “Why in moments of crisis do we ask God for strength and help? As cognitive beings, why would we ask something that may well be a figment of our imaginations for guidance? Why not search inside ourselves for the power to overcome? After all, we are strong enough to cause most of the catastrophes we need to endure.”

It is attributed to Bill Schell, a Starbucks customer from London, Ontario, and was included on the cup as part of an effort by the company to collect different viewpoints and spur discussion.

“As someone who loves God, I was so offended by that. I don’t think there needs to be religious dialogue on it. I just want coffee,” said Incanno, a married mother of three who is Catholic.

That’s her right, of course, but I wonder out loud that her faith is so shaky that it is disturbed by a paper coffee cup. Be that as it may, where was she when Starbucks had this on a coffee cup?

Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record, and the record is not pretty.” From Dr. Jonathan Wells, biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

Yup, that Wells, a shill for The Discovery Institute who never gets within a glancing blow of reality. Starbucks says they put these quotations on cups just to air out various points of view. That’s fine, I suppose, up to the point where they spread sheer nonsense like that garbage from Wells (you need not imagine what PZ had to say when that cup came out). Even then, of course, that’s their right, but in today’s climate of public ignorance about science, publicizing quotations from the DI — which is populated with people who will lie outrageously and without hesitation to promote their religion — I wish they had a little more info on the cup.

And again, that woman from Ohio is free to buy or not buy whatever product she wants for whatever reason, just as Starbucks is free to print whatever it wants to on its cups. If Catholics boycott because of an atheist quotation, or atheists boycott because of a religious one, that’s the power of the pocketbook, and it’s a good one.

But everyone should be aware that Starbucks is, indeed, printing opposing views, so in that sense what they are doing is legit. I’ll note that not too long ago, a Starbucks cup featuring a quotation by Armistead Maupin about homophobia caused an uproar in Texas (well, Baylor University), too. I’ve seen both progressive and conservative quotations on Starbucks cups, though I’ll wait with bated breath for them to post an opinion from, say, David Duke or Charles Manson.

I’m sure glad I have my own pulpit here to talk about it. I’m not a huge fan of Starbucks — I drink it when I’m out of beans or in too big a hurry to make a cuppa joe myself — but something like this is hardly enough to make me avoid the place, or let it get me upset. Some folks really just need to switch to decaf.

After writing this, I found a long thread about it on Fark.com. In general, many Farkers are rude and immature — it’s a selling point! — but the respondents in this case have some interesting good things to say. And need I add? NSFW.

The emails will start soon, I’m sure.

"Dear Phil– I am new to astronomy, and my son/daughter/cousin/niece is interested. I want to buy them a telescope. Which one should I get?"

First off, let me say that I get so many of these emails that I created a web page with telescope-buying advice. It’s almost ten years old now (yeesh, when did this site get so ancient?) so it needs updating, but the general advice there (and the links) should still be true.

Basically, buying a telescope is like buying a car. What you should get depends on what you need. If you only need a car to drive to the store for groceries, don’t get a Hummer. If you live in the mountains and it snows ten meters a year, don’t get a VW Bug.

‘Scopes are the same. If you want to do general observing, looking at big things like the Moon, open clusters of stars, and bright nebulae, then a small telescope will be fine. If you want to see planets in details, or take deep astrophotographs, or go galaxy hunting, your needs will change.

My usual advice is threefold:

1) Buy a pair of good binoculars first. They are extremely useful, show you wonderful things, and can test your appetite for observing. They are an excellent tool for getting used to the sky, and can be used during the day for bird spotting and other things, too. If the interest keeps up, then move on to a telescope.

2) I cannot stress this enough: find a local astronomy club and go to the meetings! At least attend star parties when they throw them. The best way to shop for a telescope is to let others show you theirs. At a good star party there might be two dozen or more telescopes of all different flavors, and you can see how easy or hard they are to set up, to use, and what they can show you. Amateur astronomers are only too happy as a whole to talk about equipment. This is absolutely the best way to gauge your level of potential involvement in astronomy.

3) And if you decide to take that fateful step and buy a telescope, avoid department store ’scopes AT ALL COSTS. The overwhelming majority of these ’scopes are cheap garbage with poor optics, bad eyepieces, and wobbly mounts. Instead of instilling a deep love for astronomy, these lemons will instead make it a frustrating and aggravating experience. You may be tempted by the beautiful picture son the box and the claims of 200X magnification, but what you’re buying is a sure-fire way to grind someone’s enthusiasm into the ground.

Having said that, there are good entry-level ’scopes out there. I won’t go into details, because I don’t need to; Astronomy Buff already has several good blog entries about it: Good Telescopes for Christmas, How To Buy a Telescope for Christmas, and Characteristics of a Good Beginner’s Telescope.

If you want to buy a ’scope for someone this holiday, remember that you may be leading someone down the path of a lifelong pursuit. That first step is a doozy, so treat it with respect!

Update: Welcome, readers of Crooks and Liars! You may want to read the next blog post in this series when you finish the one below. This story gets better and better.

What the heck is wrong with Texas?

First, they get a creationist governor. Then their creationist governor appoints a creationist to head the State Board of Education.

And now, when Chris Comer, the Texas Education Agency’s director of science curriculum, sends out an email announcing a talk by anti_creationism advocate Barbara Forrest, the TEA forces her to resign.

Why? Hold on to your seats here, folks, because you won’t believe this:

[Texas Education] Agency officials cited the e-mail in a memo recommending her termination. They said forwarding the e-mail not only violated a directive for her not to communicate in writing or otherwise with anyone outside the agency regarding an upcoming science curriculum review, “it directly conflicts with her responsibilities as the Director of Science.”

The memo adds, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”

That’s right, the Texas Education Agency must remain neutral when it comes to science versus antiscience!

If a speaker came advocating astronomy over astrology, would that cause problems for TEA? How about an HIV denier? Could they speak out against such a person?

Funny. I would think that it would one of TEA’s biggest goals to promote science over antiscience, and to actually teach people the difference between reality and fantasy.

So Ms. Comer has been forced to resign, and she claims that it is political in nature, and that she is being railroaded. I am of the very strong opinion that she is absolutely correct. It’s very clear that at most she might have deserved to be reprimanded for sending out the email, even if the TEA policy about neutrality is really stupid. But if you read the whole article you’ll see that petty politics and pro-creationist administrators are behind this.

As noted anti-creationist Genie Scott commented in the article,

“This just underscores the politicization of science education in Texas,” Scott said. “In most states, the department of education takes a leadership role in fostering sound science education. Apparently TEA employees are supposed to be kept in the closet and only let out to do the bidding of the board.”

As you might expect, PZ has some things to say about this as well. So does Josh. In fact, expect to see this news hitting the science blogosphere like a bomb.

The fight against antiscience, the fight against theocracy, the fight against nonsense will never stop, because their minions are always lurking somewhere. Keep fighting, people. We must never tire. Because if we do:

Texas:

I will never, ever get tired of Hubble stunners.

That’s M74, a relatively nearby spiral galaxy in Pisces. Even at the terrifying distance of 100 30 million light years, this object can be seen with binoculars. It’s about 100,000 light years across, the same size as the Milky Way, and spirals that massive are rare in the Universe.

It’s face on to us; with almost no tilt at all. If you could transport yourself to M74 and look back toward home, we’d be tilted about 45 degrees with respect to your view.

This image is lush with treasure (click it to get the bigger versions; this compressed view I have here really drains the quality away). Where you see blue are regions where there are bright stars (which tend to be blue). The red areas are gas clouds of hydrogen (which glow at a characteristic red wavelength). Stars are being born there as you look. The yellowish center is where stars have not been born for billions of years; the majority of stars there are older, less massive, cooler, redder. The dark regions are dusty, filled with complex organic compounds which are very efficient at absorbing visible light. Like a city shrouded by fog, the galaxy’s starlight is hidden where dust lingers.

In M74 in 2002, a massive star, 20 times our Sun’s mass at least, detonated in a titanic explosion. It was an epic blast, and astronomers wondered if it might be a hypernova, a particularly energetic supernova. It had many of the same characteristics of a hypernova, though not all of them. Still, how big is such an explosion? Think on this: in the event, the thermonuclear heat and pressure were so high that alchemy took place. Lighter elements fused into heavier ones. The amount of nickel alone created was about 0.07 times the mass of the Sun. That is more than 20,000 times the mass of the Earth. It’s far more massive than all the planets, moons, and asteroids in our solar system combined. That nickel was ejected from the explosion at many kilometers per second, and will be scattered into the gas and dust in M74, where it will get mixed in and become part of a new generation of solar systems.

That image above is, at first glance, one of serene beauty and eminent permanence. But there are layers to it, veiled dangers beneath the luminescence, struggles between forces beyond our experience. Sometimes these struggles result in birth: stars, planets, even more basic building blocks. Sometimes they result in the destruction of these same things. But seen from the vast remoteness of a hundred million light years, they simply combine to form the magnificence of a grand design spiral galaxy.