Paid 5 Month Internships with CBG
Chicago Botanic Gardens Conservation and Land Management Internship Program in collaboration with the Bureau of Land Management National Park Service and US Forest Service Would you like to gain hands-on experience through a paid internship in conservation biology and natural resource management? ·80 five-month paid internships for outstanding college graduates ·Working with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS) and US Forest Service (USFS) in the western states ·Intern duties may include: o Plant and animal monitoring and mapping o Endangered species reintroduction o Invasive species management o Geographic data acquisition and analysis o Biological assessments, sensitive species lists and conservation plans o Fire ecology o Land use planning o Archaeology-related activities o Recreation areas management o Rangeland assessments o Seed collection ·$750 / pay period (every 2 weeks) ·How to apply: o Send a letter of interest and resume to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please ask two referees to send a letter or recommendation to the same email. Send an official school transcript to the address below. Open until all positions are filled. o Internships begin in June. o A personal vehicle is necessary for this internship o International applicants must have a visa authorized for employment in the USA. o Candidates must hold a BS or BA in ecology, plant biology, wildlife biology or related field ·Pending funding, an optional extension may be offered to selected interns for an additional 5-month internship with the Department of Conservation and Environment (DEC) in Western Australia. - Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell? Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
Bill, Not sure I would agree, at least I can't think of any field of biological research that can do without it. Editors just aren't versed enough in all areas to be the sole word on what's good science and what isn't. Yes, I can think of some really horrible papers that should have been weeded out, but that's where the process of science does its job. All that phoney cloning research was exposed for what it was. Some physics papers have been retracted. Some animal behavior work was first OK, then under serious doubt, then OK again. It's the constant review even after papers get in that keeps us (mostly) honest. The chemosynthesis hypothesis had to be confirmed through experiments. Those experiments and the data were peer reviewed, and published in the microbial literature as, I think, in Science. The reason for the exp was that there was some concern that the community might be detritus based, feeding on "marine snow" as do some other bottom dwellers. Observational data are also scrutinized - recall the Ivory Billed Woodpecker sighting of last year. Peer review brought doubt into what seemed to be a sure thing. Liane Cochran-Stafira At 03:09 PM 5/3/2007, William Silvert wrote: >I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug themselves. >Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am always puzzled by the >mystique that peer review seems to have acquired. Not all physics papers are >peer reviewed, and I know at least one paper that wasn't which earned its >author a Nobel prize. I have seen little evidence that peer review is any >better than having a good editor. Some really awful papers show up in peer >reviewed journals. The idea that because a paper has passed peer review it >is good science just doesn't go down well with me. > >Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful attention to >standard protocols. A reviewer of a paper in a field like microbiology >should be able to certify that samples were properly sterilised, that the >staining was done correctly, and so on. But consider the paper which first >reported the existence of abyssal communities based on chemosynthesis, >certainly one of the most important ecological discoveries of the past >century -- what could a "peer" reviewer possibly have to say about that? > >Bill Silvert > >- Original Message - >From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: >Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 7:37 PM >Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of >Creation Research (IJCR). > > > >I think there is a legitimate concern about a journal presenting itself as > > scientific and peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the typical news > > junkie > > will ever read it. Many people, our current President among them, may hear > > in the wind about a peer-reviewed article that "proves" a biblical > > statement > > and believe it is real science because it is "peer-reviewed." Think about > > things we say about outrageous claims...not peer-reviewed, junk science, > > etc. The publishers are attempting to take that away from us. So now we > > will > > have distinguish between credible peer-reviewed and everything else. That > > level of nuance will be lost on, or ignored by, many people. *** Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biology Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax:773-298-3536 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
I think that the differences between PA and VA, outlined by David and Frank, bring up a good point. Different states have different licensing requirements and different school districts, even within the same state, have different curricula. How can these be standardized in a way in which the science community condones? Quoting "Frank T. Kuserk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > David Lawrence's post is a cheap shot at most teachers and serves to > once again perpetuate the "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" > mythology. Here in Pennsylvania (I can't speak for Virginia) > teachers are required to complete a content major in addition to > education courses (fewer in number) to become certified. All of the > teachers that we graduate at my institution have full (9 biology > courses + 4 chemistry courses + 2 math courses) majors in biology are > are required to have a minimum 3.0 GPA in both their major and overall. > > And...as a member of several committees that have developed and > review science curricula it is a vast overstatement that "Primary and > secondary school curricula are often designed and approved by > political committees--many of whose members have little expertise (or > interest) in either education or the topic areas covered." I have > yet to serve on a curriculum committee in which this was the case. > Perhaps this is the way they operate in Virginia. > > Perhaps the "solution" is for more practicing scientists to become > involved in working with teachers and curriculum committees to "cure" > this perceived problem. And...perhaps if the scientific and academic > communities (along with more parents) started to feel that teaching > was as noble and valuable a profession as, say medicine, we would > begin to see more of our better students attracted to that endeavor. > > > > Frank T. Kuserk, Ph.D. > Professor of Biological Sciences and > Director, Environmental Studies Program > Moravian College > 1200 Main St. > Bethlehem, PA 18018-6650 > 610-861-1429 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > On May 4, 2007, at 1:49 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: > > > There is considerable agreement among scientists about evolution. > > It's > > there if you want to see it. If you don't want to see it, you > > won't. Are > > you recommending that we all filter our work through some kind of > > thought > > police to ensure we present the "correct" message? > > > > The scientific community does not do the bulk of the teaching in this > > country, so don't lay the blame at its feet. The bulk of the > > education is > > done by so-called "educators" -- many of whom take a lot of courses in > > education, but relatively little in the topic areas in which they > > teach. > > (Don't get me wrong, I don't blame most teachers -- they didn't > > design the > > educational programs they had to follow in order to get properly > > "trained" > > and certified.) Primary and secondary school curricula are often > > designed > > and approved by political committees -- many of whose members have > > little > > expertise (or interest) in either education or the topic areas > > covered. > > > > What people need is better education in the process and mechanics of > > science, not in evolution per se. They need this education in > > primary and > > secondary schools, where there are few scientists actually doing any > > teaching. In this day of trivia games marketed as standardized > > tests, I'm > > not optimistic that most will get that education. > > > > Dave > > > > -- > > David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 > > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > > -- > > > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > > > "No trespassing > > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Showalter > > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:15 PM > > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International > > Journal of > > Creation Research (IJCR). > > > > In response to David's comments, I think the assumption that most > > individuals enter > > our education system with their minds already made up about > > evolution (or > > any idea for that matter) is false. It may be true for some but > > believing > > that it is true for the majority undermines the entire point > > of improving science education and public relations with the > > scientific community. Why try to educate > > people if their minds are already made up? The scientific community > > has done > > an abysmal job of demonstrating the validity and utility of > >
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research
Ernie, What a thoughtful response. I certainly don't want to restrict info, what I do want is to leave no pseudoscientific claim left unrefuted. You may be right about openness and GW, but as Naomi Oreskes says about global warming: The scientific community needs to approach the issue with the realization that the problem is not a benign lack of information, rather that the problem is a directed misinformation campaign. -K At 09:26 AM 5/4/2007, you wrote: >I believe that the strength of science lies in its openness. We accept >anyone's considered viewpoint, and then encourage others to verify the >truthfulness of it by experiment or otherwise. Do we wish to >restrict access to >information? May I suggest that we only demand that the new journal be of a >professional level? I see that the IJCR will be peer-reviewed. Maybe >some here, >of open minds and good credentials, would offer to serve as reviewers? > >I thought I heard a disparaging remark about the bible. I wonder at times >if we are any more objective in our views than the creationists that we >criticize. How can we teach that most important skill, critical >thinking, when we >have so much trouble with it ourselves? > >It is very distressing to me to see how interests with money have so much >power to influence in our society. You can disseminate any sort >of propaganda, >all you need is a PR firm and a good checkbook. We have to face the reality >that access to unbiased information is a serious problem--because, >after all, >who will pay for it? My guess: the new journal will allow free access to >its contents. > >There is the problem-- the GOOD information is published in the leading >journals. But, the only people that can read these publications are >the ones >that have subscriptions or have ready access to a research library. > >How can we break this information imbalance? I think the acceptance of >global warming as a real problem could have come years sooner if one or >two good >journals could have been accessible on the internet. > >Free exchange of knowledge and ideas is a wonderful, powerful thing. Who >knows, maybe from that viewpoint, the new journal is a good thing. But, >only >for a people that can think clearly and seek truth for themselves-- we need >better access to the mainstream journals. > >Ernie Rogers > > > > >** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Job opportunity: Central Florida Invasive Plant Coordinator
This is a new position that's just opened to coordinate a growing invasive plant control program working on private and public lands. Please see contact information below if you have questions or would like to apply. Cheryl Millett POSITION DESCRIPTION POSITION TITLE:Central Florida Invasive Plant Coordinator JOB FAMILY: Conservation JOB NUMBER: 450004 JOB GRADE: 5 FLSA STATUS: Exempt SUPERVISOR: Invasive Species Coordinator LOCATION: Babson Park, FL DATE PREPARED: April 12, 2007 ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS The Central Florida Invasive Plant Coordinator will develop, manage, and advance conservation programs, plans, and methods for small-scale and large-scale ecoregions. Provides technical leadership and support to the Florida Chapter and public and private land managers in central Florida, with regards to invasive non-native plants. This may include the following functions: · Addresses critical threats to natural systems and individual species · Fosters cross-site learning among conservation community · Develops and implements conservation strategies · Employs a full range of protection tools to acquire varying degrees of legal interest in land and implements a variety of strategies to secure public and private support for TNC conservation priorities. · Coordinates community support POSITION REQUIREMENTS This position has currently identified financial support for two years from date of hire, and no guarantees can be made that the position will extend beyond that date. However, The Nature Conservancy is an employer at will and the employment relationship may end at any time. This position will take the lead role in The Nature Conservancys continued implementation of the Central Florida Lygodium Strategy (CFLS), a cooperative, comprehensive approach to stop the spread of Old World climbing fern (Lygodium microphyllum) and Japanese climbing fern (Lygodium japonicum) in central Florida. · Coordinate the Florida Chapters Central Florida Lygodium Strategy (CFLS), including the following duties: - Write and support funding proposals to support the continued implementation of CFLS - Work with partner agency and organizations to identify priority areas for control of Old World climbing fern in its northern Florida range. Identify ownership of lands infested with climbing fern - Maintain a database of private land control projects and coordinate information with other databases such as the Florida Natural Areas Inventory and the Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem Working Group - Coordinate meetings with private landowners, requesting their participation and obtaining legal authorization, conducting site assessments of their properties, collecting GPS data, entering project data and coordinating control work with contractors - Conduct pre-treatment site assessments with the contractors and the landowner in order to assure that all parties are aware of the area to be treated, landowner granting permission, Conservancy representative, and contractor representative · Ensure the coordination of invasive plant control work on private lands and other managed lands with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) Bureau of Invasive Plant Management, Upland Invasive Plant Regional Working groups and other regional invasive plant working groups, including, but not limited to: - FDEP East Central Working Group, Mosquito Coast Working Group, West Central Working Group, Suncoast Working Group, Withlacoochee Working Group - Lake Wales Ridge Ecosystem Working Group · Manage contract(s) for invasive plant control services professional, licensed and insured contractor with proper licensing (e.g., FDACS Natural Areas Pesticide Applicator, Federal Technical Service Provider). · Working knowledge of invasive species prevention, early detection, containment, and control techniques and an in-depth understanding of the ecological impacts of invasives. · Conduct site inspections to identify invasive plant infestations, assess extent of problem and work with private landowner and appropriate agency/organization to devise solution. · Directly apply for (or work with government agencies to apply) regional grants for invasive plant control · Assist private landowners to apply for site-based grants for invasive plant control. · Work with agencies and university or agency cooperators to facilitate the distribution of approved biological control agents onto private lands. ·
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
Bottom line: if we don't educate the public, somebody else will. Who do you think that somebody is?
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
David Lawrence's post is a cheap shot at most teachers and serves to once again perpetuate the "Those who can, do, those who can't, teach" mythology. Here in Pennsylvania (I can't speak for Virginia) teachers are required to complete a content major in addition to education courses (fewer in number) to become certified. All of the teachers that we graduate at my institution have full (9 biology courses + 4 chemistry courses + 2 math courses) majors in biology are are required to have a minimum 3.0 GPA in both their major and overall. And...as a member of several committees that have developed and review science curricula it is a vast overstatement that "Primary and secondary school curricula are often designed and approved by political committees--many of whose members have little expertise (or interest) in either education or the topic areas covered." I have yet to serve on a curriculum committee in which this was the case. Perhaps this is the way they operate in Virginia. Perhaps the "solution" is for more practicing scientists to become involved in working with teachers and curriculum committees to "cure" this perceived problem. And...perhaps if the scientific and academic communities (along with more parents) started to feel that teaching was as noble and valuable a profession as, say medicine, we would begin to see more of our better students attracted to that endeavor. Frank T. Kuserk, Ph.D. Professor of Biological Sciences and Director, Environmental Studies Program Moravian College 1200 Main St. Bethlehem, PA 18018-6650 610-861-1429 [EMAIL PROTECTED] On May 4, 2007, at 1:49 PM, David M. Lawrence wrote: > There is considerable agreement among scientists about evolution. > It's > there if you want to see it. If you don't want to see it, you > won't. Are > you recommending that we all filter our work through some kind of > thought > police to ensure we present the "correct" message? > > The scientific community does not do the bulk of the teaching in this > country, so don't lay the blame at its feet. The bulk of the > education is > done by so-called "educators" -- many of whom take a lot of courses in > education, but relatively little in the topic areas in which they > teach. > (Don't get me wrong, I don't blame most teachers -- they didn't > design the > educational programs they had to follow in order to get properly > "trained" > and certified.) Primary and secondary school curricula are often > designed > and approved by political committees -- many of whose members have > little > expertise (or interest) in either education or the topic areas > covered. > > What people need is better education in the process and mechanics of > science, not in evolution per se. They need this education in > primary and > secondary schools, where there are few scientists actually doing any > teaching. In this day of trivia games marketed as standardized > tests, I'm > not optimistic that most will get that education. > > Dave > > -- > David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > -- > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Showalter > Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:15 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International > Journal of > Creation Research (IJCR). > > In response to David's comments, I think the assumption that most > individuals enter > our education system with their minds already made up about > evolution (or > any idea for that matter) is false. It may be true for some but > believing > that it is true for the majority undermines the entire point > of improving science education and public relations with the > scientific community. Why try to educate > people if their minds are already made up? The scientific community > has done > an abysmal job of demonstrating the validity and utility of > evolution to the > public. The appearance of disagreement within the scientific > community only > confuses the public and turns many off to really understanding the > underlying concepts of evolution. The public needs straightforward > dialogue and agreement between > scientists. While even this will not convince some, it will surely > educate the individuals confused by current discussions of evolution. > > > Ann
tree shift height
I am planning on doing some vegetation measurements in relationship to land crabs in Mexico. In one of the papers I am using as a model, within the context of their vegetation measurements is something called "average shift height". I have been unable to find out what this means or how it can be measured, since unfortunately, the paper does not provide much in the way of explanation for how their measurements were done. =20 thanks =20 Kim Withers, Ph.D. Associate Research Scientist Center for Coastal Studies, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi 6300 Ocean Dr., Unit 5866 Corpus Christi, Texas 78412 Office: 361-825-5907 FAX: 361-825-2770 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =20 "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." George Orwell =20 =20
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
If you go to the IJCR website you will see that the institute is an accredited graduate school for science educators. I won't bother posting the full accreditation page here, but the following should be enough to scare most of you: "The ICR Graduate School was approved by the State of California Department of Education for the Master of Science Degree programs in Astro/Geophysics, Biology, Geology, and Science Education. This approval was granted on the recommendation of an Evaluation Committee from the Office of Private Post-secondary Education (OPPE), and became effective July 1, 1981. Approval was renewed on various occasions since then and was extended to 1992 by the Council for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education. In 1995 the Council confirmed that ICR/GS met the terms of California Education Code 94303(B)(2) for exemption from state approval. This exemption was retroactive back to 1992 and extended to the end of calendar year 1996. Since that time, a new education law was enacted in 1997. The exemption continues under the new organization, Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education under the Department of Consumer Affairs through 2007." Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 6:49 PM Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). > The scientific community does not do the bulk of the teaching in this > country, so don't lay the blame at its feet. The bulk of the education is > done by so-called "educators" -- many of whom take a lot of courses in > education, but relatively little in the topic areas in which they teach.
root image processing
The USDA Forest Service is seeking contractors interested in performing root image processing work for an ongoing research project. The work will be preformed on the contractor's computer equipment at their own location and is expected to average 20 hours of work per week to meet contract obligations. Data and image transfers will occur via the Internet. Desired qualifications include a degree in ecology, plant biology or related field, experience with root image processing or digitizing images, and intermediate computer proficiency. Software will be provided for which minimum computer specs are required. The following synopsis provides more details and information on how to receive a solicitation. Please share this with anyone you think might be interested. Mark Coleman ___ The USDA Forest Service is soliciting offers for root imaging processing. It requires the use of specialized RooTracker Software to measure changes in root birth and death based on image sequences. Information about Rootracker can be found at (http://www.biology.duke.edu/rootracker/index.html) Equipment needed to perform this service is: * Processor: Pentium II or better * Operating system: MS Windows 98. 2000, XP, or higher * Memory: 5 MB RAM available for program * Disk Space: 3 MB for program and associated files * Monitor: High resolution (1024x768 minimum) 17 inch or greater * A high-speed Internet connection is recommended Desired qualifications: * Individual(s) performing on this contract should hold a minimum of a four-year degree in ecology, agriculture, forestry, or equivalent plant sciences; and should have three months verifiable technical experience in computer digitizing. (Twelve months of verifiable technical experience in digitizing and/or root image processing may be substituted for the education requirement.) * Individual(s) performing on this contract s should be able to demonstrate a proficiency in operating, program loading, internet browsers, email communications and file management using the MS Windows based computers. * Individual(s) performing on this contract should be able to demonstrate the ability to distinguish tree roots growing in soil background. * Individual(s) performing on this contract should be able to demonstrate a knowledge of mycorrhizal associations and root branch order. An indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract will be a commercial performance based service contract with a base period and two option years with a minimum guaranteed amount of $3,000 over the life of the contract. The maximum award amount over the lifetime of the contract will be $25,000.00. Multiple contract awards are possible. . The small business size standard is $23 million for NAICS code 541519 (Other computer related services) If interested please contact Margie Yeaton [EMAIL PROTECTED] at (803) 725-0239 no later than 18 May 2007 Please provide name, address, telephone number and email address if you wish to be sent a copy of the solicitation. Fax number is 803-725-1807.
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
To lighten up this discussion a bit, and slightly off-topic, the chorus I sing in will soon be doing a concert of Ralph Vaughan Williams pieces, and our conductor did some research for the program notes and learned: "His mother was an heiress to the Wedgewood manufacturing fortune; his great uncle, and a favorite baby sitter, was Charles Darwin... Ralph once asked his mother, who was a reliably stern Christian, about "The Origin of Species" and what it meant. She answered: 'The Bible says that God made the world in six days, Great Uncle Charles thinks it took longer; but we need not worry about it, for it is equally wonderful either way.'" 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000's: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. \ \ \ \ \ - - _ - \ \ \ \ \ - _ -\ - -( O \ _ - -_ __ / - -/ -/// _ __ ___/ /// / Judith S. Weis, Professor Department of Biological Sciences Rutgers University, Newark NJ 07102 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 973 353-5387 FAX 973 353-5518 http://newarkbiosci.rutgers.edu/faculty/weis.html
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
There is considerable agreement among scientists about evolution. It's there if you want to see it. If you don't want to see it, you won't. Are you recommending that we all filter our work through some kind of thought police to ensure we present the "correct" message? The scientific community does not do the bulk of the teaching in this country, so don't lay the blame at its feet. The bulk of the education is done by so-called "educators" -- many of whom take a lot of courses in education, but relatively little in the topic areas in which they teach. (Don't get me wrong, I don't blame most teachers -- they didn't design the educational programs they had to follow in order to get properly "trained" and certified.) Primary and secondary school curricula are often designed and approved by political committees -- many of whose members have little expertise (or interest) in either education or the topic areas covered. What people need is better education in the process and mechanics of science, not in evolution per se. They need this education in primary and secondary schools, where there are few scientists actually doing any teaching. In this day of trivia games marketed as standardized tests, I'm not optimistic that most will get that education. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ann Showalter Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:15 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). In response to David's comments, I think the assumption that most individuals enter our education system with their minds already made up about evolution (or any idea for that matter) is false. It may be true for some but believing that it is true for the majority undermines the entire point of improving science education and public relations with the scientific community. Why try to educate people if their minds are already made up? The scientific community has done an abysmal job of demonstrating the validity and utility of evolution to the public. The appearance of disagreement within the scientific community only confuses the public and turns many off to really understanding the underlying concepts of evolution. The public needs straightforward dialogue and agreement between scientists. While even this will not convince some, it will surely educate the individuals confused by current discussions of evolution. Ann
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research
Ernie Rogers makes an amusing and ironic point about this controversial new journal. If they make it available free online, then anybody can read it, and many people will. If on the other hand you want to read an article in a "respectable" journal then you may have a lot of trouble getting access to it. Most journals are published by companies whose priority is to make money, not to make information available. I am sure that most publishers, given a choice between selling 100 subscriptions at $10,000 each or 10,000 subscriptions at $60 each would keep the price high. However I think that the people who publish the International Journal of Creation Research are mainly interested in getting the word out, and they are probably well funded, so I think it will not be difficult to get access to their journal -- online access, free library subscriptions, etc. That really gives them an advantage. Is there anything we can do about it? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 5:26 PM Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research > There is the problem-- the GOOD information is published in the leading > journals. But, the only people that can read these publications are the > ones > that have subscriptions or have ready access to a research library. > > How can we break this information imbalance? I think the acceptance of > global warming as a real problem could have come years sooner if one or > two good > journals could have been accessible on the internet. > > Free exchange of knowledge and ideas is a wonderful, powerful thing. Who > knows, maybe from that viewpoint, the new journal is a good thing. But, > only > for a people that can think clearly and seek truth for themselves-- we > need > better access to the mainstream journals. > > Ernie Rogers
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
In response to David's comments, I think the assumption that most individuals enter our education system with their minds already made up about evolution (or any idea for that matter) is false. It may be true for some but believing that it is true for the majority undermines the entire point of improving science education and public relations with the scientific community. Why try to educate people if their minds are already made up? The scientific community has done an abysmal job of demonstrating the validity and utility of evolution to the public. The appearance of disagreement within the scientific community only confuses the public and turns many off to really understanding the underlying concepts of evolution. The public needs straightforward dialogue and agreement between scientists. While even this will not convince some, it will surely educate the individuals confused by current discussions of evolution. Ann On 5/4/07, David M. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'm not sure it's the scientists' fault. Many minds are made up before we > get a chance to actually "teach" the public. > > We have a major public relations problem. Science offers everlasting > doubt. > Religion offers everlasting life. Some can handle the former, others > deeply > desire the latter. Most believe what they want despite the educational > opportunities presented to them. > > To make matters worse, most people are fed an unending diet of Bible > stories > from birth. By the time they are first exposed to science, they are > already > filled to the brim with simplistic notions of the inerrancy of "Word of > God." Their minds are set long before they are exposed to scientists such > as Francis Collins who can talk eloquently and at length about the > possibility of reconciling religious belief and the pursuit of scientific > knowledge. > > For most, science education starts out with emphasis on memorization of > trivia to help students get good scores on standardized tests -- the idea > of > science as a process of gaining knowledge is weakly presented, if it is > presented at all. Then students arrive in college, and we are handed > people > lacking in fundamentals who approach learning as a collector approaches > baseball cards -- a checklist that if you acquire enough items on it, you > earn an "A." When we ask students to think for themselves, they are > terrified. They've never been trained -- even worse, they've never been > encouraged -- to do so before. > > Let's be honest, the people making educational (and other) policy in this > nation really don't want the public to think. If more of the public did, > those policymakers would be unemployed. > > The people making economic policy in this nation likewise don't want the > public to think. If more of the public did, fewer would blow their life's > income purchasing products they don't need. Coal is good. Women will > find > me devastatingly attractive if I use the right deodorant. I really, > really > need that PlayStation 3, so I'll camp out at the store for a week to get > one. > > In the checkout line at the the grocery store, we can choose between a > Time > magazine with a cover story about the extinction crisis, or choose > Celebrity > Tripe Weekly with a cover story about some actress discussing her latest > boob (with pictures!). Which one do you think would sell the most? > > Frankly, I think most members of the scientific community are doing their > best. But we have only sandbags to pile up in advance of an oncoming > glacier. > > For me, I keep piling the sandbags. With any luck, I'll convince more to > stand by me and help pile more. But for most of us, progress in this > effort > resembles gradualism -- tiny changes over vast amounts of time -- more > than > catastrophism -- vast changes over tiny amounts of time. No matter what > we > do, we will not have the immediate effect of the catastrophic forces in > society. > > Dave > > > -- > David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 > 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 > Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > USA | http: http://fuzzo.com > -- > > "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo > > "No trespassing > 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan >
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research
I believe that the strength of science lies in its openness. We accept anyone's considered viewpoint, and then encourage others to verify the truthfulness of it by experiment or otherwise. Do we wish to restrict access to information? May I suggest that we only demand that the new journal be of a professional level? I see that the IJCR will be peer-reviewed. Maybe some here, of open minds and good credentials, would offer to serve as reviewers? I thought I heard a disparaging remark about the bible. I wonder at times if we are any more objective in our views than the creationists that we criticize. How can we teach that most important skill, critical thinking, when we have so much trouble with it ourselves? It is very distressing to me to see how interests with money have so much power to influence in our society. You can disseminate any sort of propaganda, all you need is a PR firm and a good checkbook. We have to face the reality that access to unbiased information is a serious problem--because, after all, who will pay for it? My guess: the new journal will allow free access to its contents. There is the problem-- the GOOD information is published in the leading journals. But, the only people that can read these publications are the ones that have subscriptions or have ready access to a research library. How can we break this information imbalance? I think the acceptance of global warming as a real problem could have come years sooner if one or two good journals could have been accessible on the internet. Free exchange of knowledge and ideas is a wonderful, powerful thing. Who knows, maybe from that viewpoint, the new journal is a good thing. But, only for a people that can think clearly and seek truth for themselves-- we need better access to the mainstream journals. Ernie Rogers ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR)
Scientists argue Evolutionary theory all the time in scientific journals. Gould's theory vs Knoll's theory vs. People find holes in some of the evidence (for the mechanisms of evolution, not for evolution, itself) and discuss them in a scientific context. It already happens. So play devil's advocate all you want. And you already have seen what I think about the attitude that it won't affect much. At 07:08 AM 5/4/2007, you wrote: >Playing devil's advocate here... > >I suppose these creationist folks would argue that >their "legitimate" scientific studies wouldn't stand a >chance of being published in a mainstream biology >journal because of the pro-evolution bias of the >biology establishment. So I ask you - might'nt they >be correct? How likely is it that a scientific study >that seems to refute evolutionary theory would truly >get a fair appraisal by reviewers and editors? > >Nonetheless, I agree with Dave Lawrence that this >won't really affect much. It will be seen for what it >is and is unlikely to change many people's opinions. > >Joe > > > Date:Wed, 2 May 2007 22:47:53 -0400 > > From:Jim Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Inaugural Call for Papers for the > > International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). > > > > Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for > > young earth creationism! > > Please tell me that someone out there is preparing > > some stiff opposition to > > this. > > > > When this thing gets off the ground it will do a > > pretty good job of > > undermining scientific method and credibility. This > > may be even worse than > > recent scandals involving pharmaceutical industry > > funding of > > product research or petroleum industry scientists > > contradicting > > climatologists on global warming. Journals on the > > whole are losing their > > credibility because of various financial > > entanglements in a few key > > fields. This current attack is not going to help > > ecology and evolutionary > > biology one bit. > > > > As goes the reputation of journals, so goes the > > voices of reason. Can > > anyone think of a way to defend Aristotelian logic > > or all we all going to > > just watch placidly as the age of reason slips into > > the shadowy > > recesses of a new, albeit perhaps more subtle Dark > > Ages. > > > > Sincerely, > > Jim Sparks > > http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html > > > > *International Journal for Creation Research * > > > > The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to > > announce the inaugural > > Call for Papers for the International Journal of > > Creation Research (IJCR). > > > > IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of > > interdisciplinary scientific > > research that presents evidence for recent creation > > within a biblical > > framework. > > > > Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of > > research conducted by > > experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other > > disciplines of science, > > IJCR provides scientists and students hard data > > based on cutting-edge > > research that demonstrates the young earth model, > > the global Flood, the > > non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other > > evidences that correlate > > to the biblical accounts. > > > > It is our hope that you will be encouraged in your > > study of creation science > > issues that remain at the forefront of education and > > research. > > > > Andrew A. Snelling > > Editor-in-Chief > > > > -- > > James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. > > Freelance Ecology > > 4530 E. Seminary Ave. > > Richmond, VA 23227 > > 804.426.2479 (cell) > > > > -- > > > > Date:Wed, 2 May 2007 23:19:10 -0400 > > From:"David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the > > International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). > > > > I doubt it will have much effect at all. ICR > > published a similar journal in > > the past. Now they'll have a new name and new > > volume numbers, but nothing > > new to say. > > > > Dave > > >__ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
While I agree that this could degenerate into a "discussion of anecdotes" there is more to it than that. The last paragraph of my posting stated that "Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful attention to standard protocols." and I think that we could legitimately ask whether all submissions need the same kind of peer review. In physics, for example, some of the top journals will accept experimental papers on high-energy physics without review, presumably because an experiment carried out by 30 or 40 scientists at a cost of millions of dollars should be exposed to public view without needing the approval of two or three referees. I suggested that the same reasoning might apply to some deep-sea observations. I am also unhappy at the custom of taking a very large-scale experiment which is published in sections (one on phytopankton, one on zooplankton, one on demersal fish, etc.) and reviewing the parts independently so that some pieces of the work may not be available. As for asking the editors to lead the discussion, I am suspicious of their objectivity -- many feel threatened by the increased options for self-publication and are responding in ways that I feel do not benefit the science community. For example, if there are 100 publishable papers at a conference but a journal has agreed to publish only 50, the editors seem perfectly complacent about discarding the other 50. I consider this outrageous, and feel that the science should take precedence over the economics of publishing. There are ways in which this can now be done. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 12:54 PM Subject: Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). >I will not get involved in a resumption of the peer review wars, but I will > make one point. Those of us involved in the peer review process all have > horror stories (I am in the middle of one right now). But if you are > suggesting we get rid of peer review and rely on editors I would like the > editors to participate in, perhaps lead, that decision. > > There is much more I could say but I really, really do not want to > participate in a discussion of anecdotes. > > Regards, > Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. > University of South Carolina > Department of Biological Sciences > 209A Sumwalt(office) > 701 Sumter St, Room 401(mail) > Columbia, SC 29208 > Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 > e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford > > -Original Message- > From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:10 PM > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Subject: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research > (IJCR). > > I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug > themselves. > > Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am always puzzled by > the > > mystique that peer review seems to have acquired. Not all physics papers > are > > peer reviewed, and I know at least one paper that wasn't which earned its > author a Nobel prize. I have seen little evidence that peer review is any > better than having a good editor. Some really awful papers show up in peer > reviewed journals. The idea that because a paper has passed peer review it > is good science just doesn't go down well with me. > > Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful attention to > standard protocols. A reviewer of a paper in a field like microbiology > should be able to certify that samples were properly sterilised, that the > staining was done correctly, and so on. But consider the paper which first > reported the existence of abyssal communities based on chemosynthesis, > certainly one of the most important ecological discoveries of the past > century -- what could a "peer" reviewer possibly have to say about that? > > Bill Silvert > > - Original Message - > From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 7:37 PM > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of > Creation Research (IJCR). > > >>I think there is a legitimate concern about a journal presenting itself as >> scientific and peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the typical news >> junkie >> will ever read it. Many people, our current President among them, may >> hear >> in the wind about a peer-reviewed article that "proves" a biblical >> statement >> and believe it is real science because it is "peer-reviewed." Think about >> things we say about outrageous claims...not peer-reviewed, junk science, >> etc. The publishers are attempting to take that away from us. So now we >> will >> have distinguish between credible peer-reviewed and everything else. That >> level of nuance will be lost on, or ignored by, many people. > >
Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR)
Playing devil's advocate here... I suppose these creationist folks would argue that their "legitimate" scientific studies wouldn't stand a chance of being published in a mainstream biology journal because of the pro-evolution bias of the biology establishment. So I ask you - might'nt they be correct? How likely is it that a scientific study that seems to refute evolutionary theory would truly get a fair appraisal by reviewers and editors? Nonetheless, I agree with Dave Lawrence that this won't really affect much. It will be seen for what it is and is unlikely to change many people's opinions. Joe > Date:Wed, 2 May 2007 22:47:53 -0400 > From:Jim Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Inaugural Call for Papers for the > International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). > > Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for > young earth creationism! > Please tell me that someone out there is preparing > some stiff opposition to > this. > > When this thing gets off the ground it will do a > pretty good job of > undermining scientific method and credibility. This > may be even worse than > recent scandals involving pharmaceutical industry > funding of > product research or petroleum industry scientists > contradicting > climatologists on global warming. Journals on the > whole are losing their > credibility because of various financial > entanglements in a few key > fields. This current attack is not going to help > ecology and evolutionary > biology one bit. > > As goes the reputation of journals, so goes the > voices of reason. Can > anyone think of a way to defend Aristotelian logic > or all we all going to > just watch placidly as the age of reason slips into > the shadowy > recesses of a new, albeit perhaps more subtle Dark > Ages. > > Sincerely, > Jim Sparks > http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html > > *International Journal for Creation Research * > > The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to > announce the inaugural > Call for Papers for the International Journal of > Creation Research (IJCR). > > IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of > interdisciplinary scientific > research that presents evidence for recent creation > within a biblical > framework. > > Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of > research conducted by > experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other > disciplines of science, > IJCR provides scientists and students hard data > based on cutting-edge > research that demonstrates the young earth model, > the global Flood, the > non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other > evidences that correlate > to the biblical accounts. > > It is our hope that you will be encouraged in your > study of creation science > issues that remain at the forefront of education and > research. > > Andrew A. Snelling > Editor-in-Chief > > -- > James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. > Freelance Ecology > 4530 E. Seminary Ave. > Richmond, VA 23227 > 804.426.2479 (cell) > > -- > > Date:Wed, 2 May 2007 23:19:10 -0400 > From:"David M. Lawrence" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the > International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). > > I doubt it will have much effect at all. ICR > published a similar journal in > the past. Now they'll have a new name and new > volume numbers, but nothing > new to say. > > Dave __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
Bill is right in that peer-reviewed does not always equal a paper with good science. I would hope that none of us would be so naive as to assume that peer-review is perfect, just as I would hope that we understand that not all editors can walk on water and raise the dead. The hope, at least in my understanding, is that the more scientists that read a paper, the greater the chance that errors in method or logic will be caught before publication. Given our busy lives, no doubt many of us that have served as reviewers have put less than our best efforts into some reviews. And, no doubt our individual biases, ignorance and/or wrong-headedness have kept us from spotting an error here and there. But, I would argue that peer-review is still the best shot we have on average to increase the "good science" content of our journals. Tom Martin William Silvert wrote: > I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug > themselves. Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am > always puzzled by the mystique that peer review seems to have > acquired. Not all physics papers are peer reviewed, and I know at > least one paper that wasn't which earned its author a Nobel prize. I > have seen little evidence that peer review is any better than having a > good editor. Some really awful papers show up in peer reviewed > journals. The idea that because a paper has passed peer review it is > good science just doesn't go down well with me. > > Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful > attention to standard protocols. A reviewer of a paper in a field like > microbiology should be able to certify that samples were properly > sterilised, that the staining was done correctly, and so on. But > consider the paper which first reported the existence of abyssal > communities based on chemosynthesis, certainly one of the most > important ecological discoveries of the past century -- what could a > "peer" reviewer possibly have to say about that? > > Bill Silvert > > - Original Message - From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 7:37 PM > Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal > of Creation Research (IJCR). > > >> I think there is a legitimate concern about a journal presenting >> itself as >> scientific and peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the typical news >> junkie >> will ever read it. Many people, our current President among them, may >> hear >> in the wind about a peer-reviewed article that "proves" a biblical >> statement >> and believe it is real science because it is "peer-reviewed." Think >> about >> things we say about outrageous claims...not peer-reviewed, junk science, >> etc. The publishers are attempting to take that away from us. So now >> we will >> have distinguish between credible peer-reviewed and everything else. >> That >> level of nuance will be lost on, or ignored by, many people. >
Re: recommendations on total station survey equipment?
Peter Gould is right on the money concerning the total station. Few people need 1 second of arc accuracy. But if you do need it, that's the only game in town. We just received an instrument that maybe of interest to folks who need modest accuracy and convenience in comparison to a total station or other optical survey instruments. It is a laser range finder (Contour XL Ric) with a built-in compass. It is Bluetooth compliant so data that it acquires can be squirted to a laptop of data logger. We will be using it with our Trimble Pro-XR GPS system, which will automagically derive a coordinate for the remote position determined by the laser. We've used the Pro-XR for nearly a decade and have confidence in it. So far we've used the Contour XL Ric in a parking lot and a brief field exercise, leading to our decision to purchase it. We will be using the complete system in the field later this month for the first time so until then I cannot speak to how well it performs it's advertised functions. This is most definitely NOT an endorsement of products from particular companies and I am certain that there are other set-ups that will do at least as well as what we have. ---chris Christopher J Wells, Geographer National Wetlands Research Center, USGS 700 Cajundome Blvd Lafayette, LA 70506 Office: 337 266 8651 Cell: 337 288 0737 [EMAIL PROTECTED] =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peter_Gould?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent by: "Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news" 05/03/2007 06:47 PM Please respond to =?iso-8859-1?Q?Peter_Gould?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU cc Subject recommendations on total station survey equipment? Kerry, My experience with the total station is not great, but a colleague bought one and regretted the purchase. It was difficult to setup and haul through rugged terrain. It was designed as a precision survey instrument, but that level of precision wasn't needed for the type of work he has doing. I used a Criterion laser range finder to do similar work (apparently it's no longer manufactured. It was easy to use and could shoot through foliage (a major consideration) to hit a reflector with the right filter. it seems that if you could see any part of the reflector you could get a shot. Stem maps could be created from distance and azimuth measurements. Similar products are now on the market and they're probably cheaper than the Criterion was. -Peter
Re: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
I will not get involved in a resumption of the peer review wars, but I will make one point. Those of us involved in the peer review process all have horror stories (I am in the middle of one right now). But if you are suggesting we get rid of peer review and rely on editors I would like the editors to participate in, perhaps lead, that decision. There is much more I could say but I really, really do not want to participate in a discussion of anecdotes. Regards, Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. University of South Carolina Department of Biological Sciences 209A Sumwalt(office) 701 Sumter St, Room 401(mail) Columbia, SC 29208 Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford -Original Message- From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Silvert Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:10 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Peer Review: was International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). I think this is a case of scientists falling into a pit they dug themselves. Since I was a physicist before turning to ecology I am always puzzled by the mystique that peer review seems to have acquired. Not all physics papers are peer reviewed, and I know at least one paper that wasn't which earned its author a Nobel prize. I have seen little evidence that peer review is any better than having a good editor. Some really awful papers show up in peer reviewed journals. The idea that because a paper has passed peer review it is good science just doesn't go down well with me. Peer review is most useful for research that requires careful attention to standard protocols. A reviewer of a paper in a field like microbiology should be able to certify that samples were properly sterilised, that the staining was done correctly, and so on. But consider the paper which first reported the existence of abyssal communities based on chemosynthesis, certainly one of the most important ecological discoveries of the past century -- what could a "peer" reviewer possibly have to say about that? Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: "Dan Tufford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 7:37 PM Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). >I think there is a legitimate concern about a journal presenting itself as > scientific and peer-reviewed, regardless of whether the typical news > junkie > will ever read it. Many people, our current President among them, may hear > in the wind about a peer-reviewed article that "proves" a biblical > statement > and believe it is real science because it is "peer-reviewed." Think about > things we say about outrageous claims...not peer-reviewed, junk science, > etc. The publishers are attempting to take that away from us. So now we > will > have distinguish between credible peer-reviewed and everything else. That > level of nuance will be lost on, or ignored by, many people.
Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR).
I'm not sure it's the scientists' fault. Many minds are made up before we get a chance to actually "teach" the public. We have a major public relations problem. Science offers everlasting doubt. Religion offers everlasting life. Some can handle the former, others deeply desire the latter. Most believe what they want despite the educational opportunities presented to them. To make matters worse, most people are fed an unending diet of Bible stories from birth. By the time they are first exposed to science, they are already filled to the brim with simplistic notions of the inerrancy of "Word of God." Their minds are set long before they are exposed to scientists such as Francis Collins who can talk eloquently and at length about the possibility of reconciling religious belief and the pursuit of scientific knowledge. For most, science education starts out with emphasis on memorization of trivia to help students get good scores on standardized tests -- the idea of science as a process of gaining knowledge is weakly presented, if it is presented at all. Then students arrive in college, and we are handed people lacking in fundamentals who approach learning as a collector approaches baseball cards -- a checklist that if you acquire enough items on it, you earn an "A." When we ask students to think for themselves, they are terrified. They've never been trained -- even worse, they've never been encouraged -- to do so before. Let's be honest, the people making educational (and other) policy in this nation really don't want the public to think. If more of the public did, those policymakers would be unemployed. The people making economic policy in this nation likewise don't want the public to think. If more of the public did, fewer would blow their life's income purchasing products they don't need. Coal is good. Women will find me devastatingly attractive if I use the right deodorant. I really, really need that PlayStation 3, so I'll camp out at the store for a week to get one. In the checkout line at the the grocery store, we can choose between a Time magazine with a cover story about the extinction crisis, or choose Celebrity Tripe Weekly with a cover story about some actress discussing her latest boob (with pictures!). Which one do you think would sell the most? Frankly, I think most members of the scientific community are doing their best. But we have only sandbags to pile up in advance of an oncoming glacier. For me, I keep piling the sandbags. With any luck, I'll convince more to stand by me and help pile more. But for most of us, progress in this effort resembles gradualism -- tiny changes over vast amounts of time -- more than catastrophism -- vast changes over tiny amounts of time. No matter what we do, we will not have the immediate effect of the catastrophic forces in society. Dave -- David M. Lawrence| Home: (804) 559-9786 7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787 Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] USA | http: http://fuzzo.com -- "We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo "No trespassing 4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan -Original Message- From: Kelly Decker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 9:04 PM To: David M. Lawrence; ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: Inaugural Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research (IJCR). Thank you for your good work, David. I certainly agree that these journals have been around a long time. But your contention that their impact is "nil" only pertains to the scientific field. I have heard parroted findings from the institute in Ohio, Arcata, and Napa. They are issuing talking points, and they are having an effect. Would you now care to address the underlying concern wit hthe original post? That we are not doing a good job of educating the public? A March 2007 Newsweek poll state that only 48% of americans believe that Evolution is supported by scientific evidence and accepted by the scientific community; 39% disagree; and 13% said they didn't know. That's kind of dismal, don't you think? Those people who do the damage get their ammunition and talking points from places like ICR. This is a real problem. It's an active disinformation campaign. I am not suggesting hysteria, just that people in science stop letting misinformation pass by without being answered. (Not you personally, all scientists) If more of us do that, there's less work. I write back and forth with both Global Warming deniers and Evolution deniers in my local paper. It's exhausting. K
40 min. Sea Turtle DVD
Thought some doing Sea Turtle work would be interested. Mike Nolan We have a 40 min. DVD produced by Sea Turtles Forever highlighting the = Punta Pargos Sea Turtle Protection Project on the N.W. Coast of Costa = Rica.=20 Video includes: poached sea turtle nests, nesting sea turtles, babies = hatching, nest and habitat protection and reclamation and school = presentations and more. If you are interested we offer the DVD for a donation which helps cover = production and shipping costs. We use it for school presentations of all ages and everyone really likes = it. It is not a professional film! Let us know if you are interested. www.seaturtlesforever.com -- If we are on another line or away from the phone, please leave your = number, best time to return your call and/or your e-mail address. =20 After hours and weekend phone appointments are available upon request. Sincerely, J. Michael Nolan, Director =20 Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit *= ** "Outstanding-Affordable Field Courses in Rainforest & Marine Ecology" "Spanish/Cultural Immersion: Spain, Mexico, Central and South America" Rainforest and Reef 501 (c)(3) non-profit P.O. Box 141543 Grand Rapids, Michigan 49514-1543 USA Local/International Phone: 001.616.604.0546 Toll Free U.S. and Canada: 1.877.255.3721 Skype/MS IM: travelwithrandr AOL IM: buddythemacaw E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] *Note: Please send inquiries to both e-mail addresses Web: http://rainforestandreef.org Costa Rica: Juan Pablo Bello San Jose, Costa Rica E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 011.506.290.8883/011.506.822.8222=20 Europe: Marion Stephan Frankfurt, Germany E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 011.49.172.305.4738 *= **
Be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality!
It is not true that science and religion are destined to be antagonistic because other Western societies do not share the problem we have of using mythology to construct a national paradigm. We, as educators, have been far too willing to cop out. Of Western nations, only Turkey is more backwater than us. With comparable literacy rates, we should at least be not far behind the UK. We need to buck up, put up our dukes, and be more willing to get a bloody nose in defense of reality. Sincerely, Jim Sparks Acceptance of Evolution as fact: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html On 5/3/07, adam herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the ultra-reductionistic out is to accept that religion & science will > ALWAYS argue because one is based on faith and one is based on fact...why > argue? you're using different eyes to see the same thing > > On 5/2/07, Jim Sparks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Have you seen this? A peer reviewed journal for young earth > > creationism! > > Please tell me that someone out there is preparing some stiff opposition > > to > > this. > > > > When this thing gets off the ground it will do a pretty good job of > > undermining scientific method and credibility. This may be even worse > > than > > recent scandals involving pharmaceutical industry funding of > > product research or petroleum industry scientists contradicting > > climatologists on global warming. Journals on the whole are losing > > their > > credibility because of various financial entanglements in a few key > > fields. This current attack is not going to help ecology and > > evolutionary > > biology one bit. > > > > As goes the reputation of journals, so goes the voices of reason. Can > > anyone think of a way to defend Aristotelian logic or all we all going > > to > > just watch placidly as the age of reason slips into the shadowy > > recesses of a new, albeit perhaps more subtle Dark Ages. > > > > Sincerely, > > Jim Sparks > > http://www.icr.edu/ijcr/index.html > > > > *International Journal for Creation Research * > > > > The Institute for Creation Research is pleased to announce the inaugural > > Call for Papers for the International Journal of Creation Research > > (IJCR). > > > > IJCR is a professional peer-reviewed journal of interdisciplinary > > scientific > > research that presents evidence for recent creation within a biblical > > framework. > > > > Addressing the need to disseminate the vast field of research conducted > > by > > experts in geology, genetics, astronomy, and other disciplines of > > science, > > IJCR provides scientists and students hard data based on cutting-edge > > research that demonstrates the young earth model, the global Flood, the > > non-evolutionary origin of the species, and other evidences that > > correlate > > to the biblical accounts. > > > > It is our hope that you will be encouraged in your study of creation > > science > > issues that remain at the forefront of education and research. > > > > Andrew A. Snelling > > Editor-in-Chief > > > > -- > > James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. > > Freelance Ecology > > 4530 E. Seminary Ave. > > Richmond, VA 23227 > > 804.426.2479 (cell) > > > > -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. Freelance Ecology 4530 E. Seminary Ave. Richmond, VA 23227 804.426.2479 (cell) "Quis custodiet ipso custodes?" -Juvenal -- James L. Sparks Jr. M.Sc. Freelance Ecology 4530 E. Seminary Ave. Richmond, VA 23227 804.426.2479 (cell) "Quis custodiet ipso custodes?" -Juvenal
