Iz Dummin Yur Kidz

Some of you may have heard that creationist Ken Ham (originator of the Answers in Genesis website, which I will not honor with a link) has opened a Creation “Science” Museum in Kentucky to disinform the masses. Far more knowledgeable people than I have already picked it apart, but I can make this silly contribution.



You can make your own silly images with the LolCats creator.

Get Motivated

You know, you can do terrible things with an online motivational poster maker.

The A-Team Takes On Sauron

Once again, Aaron Williams shares a video that is both entertaining and disturbing at the same time.



Ow! My childhood! It hurts!

Consensus

Global Warming is one of those topics that requires a discussion of “consensus”. This is what “most” scientists agree is correct regarding a particular topic. You may have heard that the consensus of the scientific community is that global warming (a rise in average temperature) is occurring and that human activity has some role in it. This does not mean that all scientists agree on this conclusion, as a blog post by a friend of mine shows.

“I have seen scientists who are otherwise reasonable people, drift right over the edge, and now I am completely fed up. Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax.”

Hawk is a legitimate scientist with a degree in nuclear engineering. He models space environments and radiation effects for NASA. To put it bluntly, he is a rocket scientist. To my knowledge, he has no conflict of interest or ulterior motive for disputing the scientific consensus that human activity is creating conditions that increase temperatures at the Earth’s surface. He cites computer models that indicate the amount of ice in Antarctica is actually increasing, not decreasing. There is every reason to think he honestly believes the scientific consensus on climate change to be wrong.

At the same time, NASA is releasing data from satellite observations that show a large mass of Antarctic ice recently melted away.

Scientific consensus is a changing beast. Scientists are constantly collecting and analyzing new information in an effort to build a more accurate description of the universe. Different scientists look at different data sources, and they don’t all necessarily have the same picture based on their information sources. The opinion of any one scientist on a particular matter can easily be wrong; that’s why scientists are so keen to see original data and methods included in published scientific papers. One of the basic principals of the scientific method is to repeat experiments to verify the results, checking each others' work.

Hawk is an extremely intelligent man, and far more knowledgeable than me in many fields. That said, his is not a climatologist, so he is not as prepared to validate a given climate model as someone specialized in that field. Furthermore, he is in the minority in the scientific community. One man’s dissent in a community of thousands is not grounds to ignore a potentially serious problem.

Hawk himself does not dispute the prediction that the Arctic Ocean may be completely ice-free in the summer within ten years, and his update to the article shows that the ice-growth model he cites has a limited scope. It shouldn’t surprise us to find ice accumulating in some areas, but that does not necessarily mean that the overall quantity of glacial ice in the world is increasing.

If most scientists agree that global warming is a matter of concern, it behooves us as a society to accept at least the possibility that our activities are changing the planet and consider what we can do to mitigate such changes. Future studies may show that the current concern is unwarranted, but a little caution now may save a lot of pain in the future, as well.

Would It Be So Hard?

The Welsh government seems determined to kill an infected bull that is sacred to a Hindu temple there. The bull tested positive for tuberculosis, and the standard procedure there is to slaughter TB-infected animals to “protect both human and animal health”.

“An animal kept by the Community of the Many Names of God has tested positive,
and the case is being dealt with in the usual way. Every effort will be made to
deal with this case as sensitively as possible.”

I happen to know that TB can be cured with antibiotics, and I also know that I would be pretty pissed off if the government told me they were going to kill one of my dogs or horses because it had contracted a treatable disease.

Would it kill the Welsh government to let the Hindu temple pay for this animal’s treatment by a veterinarian? They seem determined to create animosity in the local community for no good reason. I know you don’t want to overuse antibiotics because of the risk of antibiotic-resistant strains evolving, but treating an isolated sick animal hardly seems to be a huge resistance-development risk.

Swetnam’s Advice: A Case Study

As I’ve noted before, Joseph Swetnam strongly advises his readers to avoid killing someone if possible, even in a duel which would widely be considered honorable. As an example of the consequences of being involved in a duel to the death in Elizabethan England, I offer the case of William Bradley, who was killed on September 28, 1589.

Between two and three o’clock on that day, Bradley became involved in a duel with Christopher Marlowe (yes, the playwright). How the fight started isn’t known, but a gentleman by the name of Thomas Watson drew his own sword and tried to break it up.

Marlowe apparently withdrew from the fight, but Bradley turned upon Watson, possibly because of a standing argument that already existed between them. Watson retreated from Bradley, taking some serious injuries in the process, until he was essentially cornered against a ditch. Unable to retreat any further, Watson struck back and stabbed Bradley through the heart.

Watson and Marlowe were both arrested for murder and incarcerated in Newgate prison. Marlowe paid a fine and was released on October 1, 1589. A jury determined that Watson acted in self-defense, but he remained in prison until February 12, 1590, when he received a pardon from the Queen.

Bibliography
J. Christoph Amberger, The Secret History of the Sword, Multi-Media Books: 1999, p. 203-204.

Returned from Crown List

If you’re an SCA person living in Meridies, you’d have to be living as a hermit under a rock not to know by now that Maximillian and Lethrenn are the new heirs to the throne. With the succession assured, the Crown can move on to other business.

Included in the business at Crown List was choosing the Kingdom's Poet Laureate, Kingdom Bard, and Dance Champion for the remainder of the reign of Boru and Deidre. I had not originally realized that Her Majesty was selecting her Dance Champion at this event. I entered the "performing arts" competition because fencers who did would receive an extra life in the finals of the Queen's Rapier Champion tournament, and I went to the event primarily to enter that tournament. I wasn’t even sure with whom I would dance before I arrived, but Duchess Katrina agreed to dance with me for the competition (my Laurel is very good to me). We danced Rostiboli Gioioso, a 15th-century Italian dance with which we are both quite familiar. We had strong competition from Lady Alasais, Lady Andreva, and Lord Lorenzo this year. The outcome of the competition would remain a secret until court, which would not take place until after the Queen’s Rapier Championship tournament

Speaking of which, I made it to the finals. As did three other fencers from the Shire of Glaedenfeld. We rock! Naturally, we somehow ended up fighting each other in the first couple of rounds of the final list: It was a conspiracy, I say! Ysabel and I double-killed each other in the first of the final rounds (immediately using up both of our extra lives), and Corbin killed me in the next round. *Sigh* Lord Jean-Michel won the tournament in the end.

But, in court, I did learn that Katrina and I won the Dance Championship, so life is good.

My Evilness

Pharyngula started passing this little contest around, and it's just the sort of rating chart that I'd want to know about, so...


How evil are you?

Great. He gets to be "Pure Evil" and I'm stuck with just "Twisted". Whatever. When my legions of terror strike, won't he be surprised.

Anatomy of a Dance Reconstruction, Part 7

Eureka!

(Believe it or not, I actually wrote Part 6 weeks ago, and only got around to posting it today.)
Sometimes you have an issue with a dance that requires just a bit of tweaking. Allow me to recall such an issue from the last installment of this series.

48	6 Seguiti gravi, exchanging hands around the set, starting with your partner

This series of exchanges will be tricky. Much as they did in the previous movement, the lords and ladies will work their way around the circle in opposite directions. They will use a slow single for each exchange. Since there are forty-eight beats in the “A” section of the music, each seguito grave will take eight beats. What the dancers will hear, however, is eight measures of six beats. I expect that this clash between the rhythm of the dance and the rhythm of the music will this section the hardest part of the dance to perform correctly.

Forty-eight beats to complete six seguiti gravi, meaning each seguito grave will take eight beats. Rather difficult to keep straight in your head, since you’ll be listening to eight measures of six beats each. So, what if you could eliminate twelve beats somehow, allowing you to do the six seguiti in six measures of six counts each? It might not be absolutely authentic, but it would be far easier to perform and spread to the masses.

The solution? Reverence. Two riverenza minima would consume twelve counts (two measures), leaving thirty-six (six measures) for the seguiti gravi. An elegant solution to the problem. Where should I put the reverences, though? After some thought, the a brief riverenza before the first pass and a second when you meet your partner on the opposite side of the set (before continuing) seems to work best with the music.

6	Riverenza minima
18	3 Seguiti gravi, exchanging hands around the set, starting with your partner
6	Riverenza minima
18	3 Seguiti gravi, exchanging hands around the set, starting with your partner

Start at Part 1.

Anatomy of a Dance Reconstruction, Part 6

At this point, we have all of the steps of the dance matched to the music. Now we have to interpret the movements.

We start out with men and women alternating “in the wheel”. The simplest interpretation is that the dancers will stand in a circle. We then go through the first movement of the dance, done to the “A part” of the music.

Beats	Steps
12	Riverenza grave
12	2 Seguito Ordinario (doubles)
6	2 Passi Grave (slow singles)
6	1 Seguito Semidoppio (two quick singles and a spezzato)
6	2 Passi Grave (slow singles)
6	3 Trabuchetti (one hop to each foot per trabuchetto)
24	Repeat from seguiti Ordinarii through Seguito Semidoppio

A riverenza is normally performed to your partner, but since everyone is supposed turn left to start the seguiti ordinarii, we can conclude that they all start facing the center. Given the circular arrangement and this initial facing, it makes more sense to reverence to the entire set.

Everyone then turns to the left, so the sequence of two seguiti ordinarii (doubles), two passi gravi (slow singles), and a seguito semidoppio (two quick singles and a step-ball-change) moves clockwise.

Everyone then turns back to the center, takes two slow singles toward the middle, then completes the three trabuchetti (small hops from left to right).

Everyone the faces to the left again for another sequence of two doubles, two singles, and a seguito semidoppio moving clockwise. At the end of this sequence, the lords will have to turn around to face their ladies.

The “B part” of the music now begins, and the lords and ladies start traveling in opposite directions around the set.

12	2 Passi gravi, and 1 Seguito ordinario (hands)
12	2 Passi gravi, and 1 Seguito semidoppio (hands)
24	4 Seguiti ordinarii, 2 flanked back, and 2 forward
12	2 Passi gravi, and 1 Seguito ordinario (arms)
12	2 Passi gravi, and 1 Seguito semidoppio (arms)
24	4 Seguiti ordinarii, 2 flanked back, and 2 forward
12	2 Passi gravi, and 1 Seguito ordinario (both hands)
12	2 Passi gravi, and 1 Seguito semidoppio (both hands)
24	4 Seguiti ordinarii, 2 flanked back, and 2 forward

Each lord takes his lady’s hand, and they change places with two singles and a double. They do not turn back to face each other, though. Instead each dancer gives his or her left hand to the next person, and trades places again with two singles and a seguito semidoppio. This means that ladies are traveling around the set clockwise while lords are traveling counter-clockwise.

Assuming we number the couples clockwise around the set, the first set of exchanges leaves lord 1 paired with lady 2, lord 2 with lady 3, and lord 3 with lady 1.

Everyone now completes a series of doubles, two flanking backwards and two more forwards. Assuming that the dancers don’t change facing, everyone will need to flank back to their own left: otherwise dancers will collide with each other as they’re backing up.

48	6 Seguiti gravi, exchanging hands around the set, starting with your partner

This series of exchanges will be tricky. Much as they did in the previous movement, the lords and ladies will work their way around the circle in opposite directions. They will use a slow single for each exchange. Since there are forty-eight beats in the “A” section of the music, each seguito grave will take eight beats. What the dancers will hear, however, is eight measures of six beats. I expect that this clash between the rhythm of the dance and the rhythm of the music will this section the hardest part of the dance to perform correctly.

24	Riverenza grave, and 2 Continenze
24	4 Seguiti ordinarii, 2 flanked back, and 2 forward
12	2 Passi gravi, and 1 Doppio presto forward
12	2 Passi grave, and 2 Riprese to the right
24	4 Seguiti ordinarii, 2 flanked back, and 2 forward
12	Riverenza gravi to partner
12	Riverenza gravi to contrary
24	4 Seguiti ordinarii, 2 flanked back, and 2 forward
*	Riverenza grave

And a final sequence to wrap up the dance.

On to Part 7.

Poor Squirrels

There are many levels on which this is very, very wrong.



But it's still funny.

A Little Hypocrisy in India

This isn't exactly earth-shaking news, but I do find it somewhat amusing. According to Indian Judge Dinesh Gupta...

[Richard] Gere and [Shilpa] Shetty "transgressed all limits of vulgarity and have the tendency to corrupt the society."

...when he dipped and kissed her (not on the mouth, btw) at an HIV/AIDS awareness event in Delhi. Consequently, he issued an arrest warrant for both of them.

I don't really care that Indian prudes were offended by Gere's behavior, and I don't expect the arrest warrant to amount to anything, but I find it amusing that...

Photographs of the clinch were then splashed across front pages in India — where public displays of affection are largely taboo.

... but the Judge doesn't seem to be issuing arrest warrants to papers for publishing all these "vulgar" photographs. Doesn't spreading these images all over the country "tend to corrupt the society". Better get some ointment for you signature hand, Dinesh, you've got a lot more warrants to sign.

Skeptics' Circle 59

The 59th Skeptics' Circle is up. You've read one of the articles, now read the rest.

What They Say… What They Mean

This list could turn into something long and on-going, depending on how my readers respond (keeping in mind that I've turned on comment moderation to cut down on spam). Most of this is advertising related, although some of it is political. All of it puts a skeptic spin on a common claim.

What they say…
“Free high-speed internet!”
What they mean…
“All customers pay for high-speed internet, whether they use it or not.”

What they say…
“The media is biased.”
What they mean…
“Other media outlets don’t share our bias.”

What they say…
“Not available in stores.”
What they mean…
“Getting a refund for this product is too difficult to be worth pursuing.”

What they say…
“A $60 value for just $19.99.”
What they mean…
“We wish we could get away with selling this $20 item for $60.”

What they say…
“Money-back guarantee.”
What they mean…
“We’re legally obliged to abide by the ‘implied warrantee of fitness’.”

What they say…
“Three easy payments of just $19.99.”
What they mean…
“We want to confuse you into thinking of this as a $20 purchase, not a $60 purchase.”

What they say…
“Buy one, get one free.”
What they mean…
“The price is twice what it needs to be.”

Advice from Joseph Swetnam

Joseph Swetnam gives a bit of advice you might not expect from one of the Renaissance fencing masters.

“... when two good men meet, the conquest will be hardly and dangerously ended on the one side, except Discretion be a mediator to take up the matter before it come to the worst, if by friends it be not ended before hand; but if thou canst, hurt thy enemy, yes, although it be but a little, or unarm him of his weapon, which thou mayst very easily do if thou do fight with good discretion. And either of these are accounted for a victory....”

I’m not sure if he is unique in this attitude, but I’m fairly sure that many fencing masters (among them Salvatore Fabris, I’m told) advise their students that a duel is a death match. Don’t play nice; don’t hold back; the surest way to survive is to kill your opponent.

Swetnam actually advises his students to avoid killing an opponent, if possible, because the consequences of killing a man are dire even if your action is legally defensible. This basic attitude lies behind much of his actual technique; his favorite targets are the opponent’s sword arm and shoulder.

Renaissance dueling customs actually allow this kind of attitude. Typically, a duel would not be fought to the death. The purpose of a duel was to demonstrate courage and conviction, to show that you meant what you said and weren't afraid to stand up for it, not necessarily to kill someone. A duel would usually end when one of the combatants could no longer continue; the duelists would bring seconds and physicians to the duel to make that determination.

Swetnam thinks that most duels were the result of ill-advised challenges made by drunken hot-heads, and he was probably right. Most offended parties probably thought the offender would retract his words or otherwise repent when challenged to a potentially deadly struggle, only to find that the offender was just as drunk, hot-headed, or foolish as the challenger.

That being the case, it was probably best for all concerned if a duel ended with the loser disarmed or just slightly injured. There would be no murder charges, and the family of the loser would have little reason to seek vengeance.

Returning to Practice

I made it back to fencing practice last night. I've been out of the loop for too long, so hopefully this will become routine again. I'm slowly learning that Swetnam's advice regarding distance really does make sense, at least if you're planning to use his techniques. I do much better if I keep to the very long range that he recommends; allowing my opponents to get too close leads to some rather desperate efforts at defense if not immediate defeat. Consequently, I'm learning to keep myself back to proper distance unless I'm actually launching an attack.

Jaime was at practice last night, and she has improved quite a bit since the last time we sparred. I have to go at full speed to successfully attack her now, and she's become quite the little demon in a dagger fight. We'll have to make sure to get her authorized soon.

What Transpired at Fools' War

I managed to arrive at Fools’ War early enough on Saturday morning to enter the rapier tournament. The list ended up with eleven entries, a small enough group to run a round-robin style tournament. Most of the competitors were people I do not face very often, and this turned out to be a good contest. I managed win seven of my ten bouts, tying for first place with Jean-Michel and Kurt the Hager (whose name may be hideously misspelled). Although I’d defeated both of them in the first round, Kurt defeated both me and Jean-Michel in succession, securing victory for himself in the final round. Nonetheless, I was quite pleased with my performance in the fencing tournament. I spent most of the remainder of the day learning drills from Jean-Michel and sparring with the other fencers present.

Saturday evening, Fjorleif and I enjoyed the hospitality of House Bohun for a potluck feast, and I don’t think we’ve ever had more enjoyable company for dinner. Fools’ War is frequently a “party war”, with several camps hosting parties with a variety of games. In addition, there is usually a European Revel with dancing. This year, however, there was freezing cold, so Fjorleif and I bundled ourselves under a huge heap of blankets after dinner instead of wandering about in the cold, dark night.

A Creationist's Argument

“Zor” at the Stardestroyer.net BBS recently shared an email message from a Young Earth Creationist he met at his university. Apparently this message follows a conversation that the two of them had when she noticed him reading Richard Dawkins’ book, The God Delusion. It contains examples of pretty standard creationist thinking, so I thought I’d look into it a bit. I’m using Nicole as an example because she seems to be pretty sincere but misinformed, instead of being one of those creationists who routinely lie.

Hey [Zor],

Here is some food for thought concerning our discussion the other day!

I'm not exactly sure how to begin, but i think the origins of everything would be a good place to start. The heavens and the earth were created by God, in the beginning. God was, is and is to come...this would explain the origins of everything. We exist because we were created by God to exist, to serve Him, for His glory. Evolution cannot expain the origins of everything because there is no way that everything that exists today and the order in which it exists came from nothing and then evolved into what it is today by random chance and selection. (even if evolution were true, it still does not explain how everything got there in the first place).

A standard problem with creationist thinking is the assumption that the Theory of Evolution is supposed to explain everything in the universe. That’s expecting far too much from the theory. The Theory of Evolution only explains how all of the varied species of life on Earth are related, having diversified from a single common ancestor after life on Earth actually began. The Theory of Evolution does not even attempt to explain “how everything got there in the first place”, yet creationists seem to think it should. Please, folks, if you’re going to try to disprove a theory, at least try to understand what the theory actually claims to explain before you dispute those claims.

It takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does creation because creation has a Creator, a Maker of the earth, the heavens, life itself. Evolution says that everything came from nothing. Doesn't it make a ton more sense to believe that we were created by an almighty God than from nothing 'a bazillion' years ago?

This is a good example of a creationist using a “strawman argument” against the Theory of Evolution. The term comes from old military training exercises, in which trainers would set up a straw dummy that soldiers – swordsmen, archers, horsemen, etc. – could attack to develop their skills. The “strawman”, of course, doesn’t dodge or fight back, because it’s not a real opponent. Similarly, a “strawman argument” is a harmless imitation of the real argument that is easy to strike down.

In this particular example, Nicole’s claim that “Evolution says that everything came from nothing” is a strawman. As noted above, the Theory of Evolution does not say that. It’s easy to make a misrepresentation of the theory seem like nonsense – much easier than arguing against the real Theory of Evolution.

Take for example, an airplane. There is careful design and thought put into an airplane. It must be DESIGNED and then built, it wasn't as if there was an enormous storm and then POOF! one day there is a brand spanking new airplane sitting on the runway, ready for use. (the 'airplane' i am referring to is the earth and how everything in it works, for example-the water cycle, the human body, etc).

Here, Nicole makes another strawman argument, this time trying to compare the origins of the universe (which, as we’ve already noted, is outside the scope of the Theory of Evolution) to the construction of an airplane. The Theory of Evolution doesn’t involve a “Poof!” in which numerous animal species appear from nowhere. In fact, her analogy has far more in common with Creationism than the Theory of Evolution.

You had mentioned in class that there was plenty of evidence for evolution. I'm wondering what the specific examples are and the proofs behind them.

The sad part is that she probably really doesn’t know. Here are a few quickies:

Progressionism: Everywhere in the world, if you dig for fossils, you will find that as you get deeper, the fossils become simpler. This trend is known as progressionism and it indicates that highly evolved animals occupy only a small, recent portion of the fossil record, so they couldn't have been there from the beginning.

Structural similarity: There are fundamental similarities between divergent species within their families. For example, the forearm skeletal structures of hundreds of vertebrate species (including man and ape) are remarkably similar.

Biochemical similarity: The chemical makeup of numerous related species is profoundly similar. For example, human DNA is 98% identical to that of other apes. At a more fundamental level, the protein enzyme known as cytochrome is part of the respiration process and is found in everything from plants to bacteria, fungi, and mammals.

Embryological similarity: The embryos of different species are often indistinguishable from one another, even when the end product is radically different, eg- lizards, birds, and mammals. This early similarity indicates common origins.

Transformed organs: Many related species have similar organs in similar places, but altered to perform different functions. This is consistent with evolution from one species to another, but a staggering coincidence if one believes in individual species design.

Poor design: Many biological structures are obviously haphazard and less than optimal. For example, all vertebrates swallow and breathe through the same tube, which creates a choking hazard that can easily be fatal. Evolution accepts that these will occur when parts are pressed into new functions, but a Creator or Designer would be expected to correct these flaws.

Vestigial features: The human appendix, the fingerbones of whales, the hollow bones of flightless birds… there are many examples of features that serve no useful purpose for modern species. These features make sense only if the modern species descended from ancestors that actually used those features.

Geographical distribution: Thousands of separate species which are similar in every respect are coincidentally located in such a manner that they appear to have spread outward from a single place of origin.

Paleontology: The fossil record demonstrates that the structure of animals has historically been consistent with their environmental conditions. Some animal lineages – horses being a good example – have a well-defined “family tree” of ancestral species going back through time.

Observed adaptation: We have observed changes in populations of existing species in response to new environmental pressures. Examples include bacterial resistance to antibiotics and insects growing resistant to pesticides.

This list is a tiny sampling of the wealth of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. If you truly don’t know about any of this, you need to start studying the subject before you criticize the theory.

Also, you had mentioned that everything that exists today is derived from one cell. How is that possible, what with the diversity of living things on earth? If everything that exists is derived from one cell, why would there not continue to be more and more life forms evolving, coming into existence (like bacteria reproducing-wouldn't more and more life forms continue to be reproduced?) Its not as if the entire evolutionary process would be stopped!

This statement shows that the Nicole simply doesn’t understand reality, let alone the Theory of Evolution. The whole point of the Theory is to explain how today’s diversity of living things evolved from a single common ancestor over the course of time. The most bizarre question she asks is “why would there not continue to be more and more life forms evolving, coming into existence?” New species are evolving. The evolutionary process has not stopped.

I'm also just curious about what your basis for being an athiest is-do you just not believe that God exists at all, or is it that you don't want to acknowledge His existence?

Nicole doesn’t realize it, but she’s an atheist, too. Does she believe in Vishnu? Odin? Zeus? Quetzalcoatl? Zoroaster? Baal? The religious difference between her and Zor is that he believes in one less god than she does.

There is so much more that I could and would like to write (as proof for creation), but I'll just leave it at that for now. I look forward to your response!

cheers,
nicole

In Nicole’s case, I’d settle for just one piece of testable, verified evidence supporting Creation. Nitpicking the Theory of Evolution – especially such bad misrepresentations of it as she has presented – simply doesn’t cut it. To make the case for Creationism, you’ve got to show that Creationism does a better job of explaining the physical evidence than the Theory of Evolution.

Acknowledgment: I borrowed the “quickie evidence” from Creationtheory.org.

Going to Fools' War

Fjorleif and I will be travelling down to Macon, GA, this weekend for Fools' War. As the name suggests, this is one of the sillier SCA events you can attend, including activities like the Anti-A&S competition. I'm considering entering that competition, but my ideal partner in crime for it won't be present; I would have to recruit someone on site, and I'm not sure who would be well-suited for what I have in mind. Further, Lady Julianna might take offense if I were to attempt this competition without her. Oh well, we'll see what happens.

Science-Bible Shippers

You may not be familiar with the term “shipping” as used in this context. In internet fandom, shipping refers to a serious interest in the development of a romantic relationship between two fictional characters. In the case of J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potter novels, for instance, there have been two major shipper groups: the Harry-Hermione shippers and the Ron-Hermione shippers. At this point, I’ll note that a spoiler for the novels is coming up, so if you haven’t already read Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, you may want to stop reading now.

Moving on, shipper “cults” can become pretty invested in seeing a particular relationship develop. Some become so invested that they can become hostile to an author if the particular relationship they’ve been hoping to see never materializes. J. K. Rowling was reportedly surprised by the reaction of some Harry-Hermione shippers when she revealed in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince that the Harry-Hermione romance was never going to happen. Some of her fans became angry and claimed they were going to return their copies of the book, get rid of all their other related books, and stop following the series altogether.

So what does this have to do with science and the Bible? Well, I suspect that a certain faction of the religious have always expected that scientific discoveries would vindicate their Biblical beliefs. As an example, the so-called “Theory” of Intelligent Design was the latest effort to create a solid relationship between God and science. ID would show that while the scientific evidence of an ancient Earth and the slow development of various species from a common ancestor was accurate, the whole process would never have worked without the hand of God intervening and managing the process all the time.

Unfortunately, ID failed to do anything of the sort. It turned out to be nothing more than another collection of dubious criticisms of the Theory of Evolution, some poorly conceived mathematical arguments, and a big Argument from Ignorance. The failure of ID to produce any convincing evidence is part of a long record of unsuccessful efforts to find scientific support for Biblical claims.

And so it seems that as another Science-Bible shipper cult dies a gruesome death in cases like the Kitzmiller vs Dover suit, devoted followers of the cult are turning against the side they believe failed in the relationship. Naturally, most see science as the side that let them down. Right now, virtually any scientific claim – be it climate change, pollution, shrinking oil supplies, etc. – is subject to dismissal by religious fundamentalists who believe that science has rejected them.

If the religious would just stop looking for scientific validation of their beliefs, they'd probably be a lot happier.