Morning Selections

Okay, not all the Brits have lost it. A review committee is objecting to the ban of toy pigs as overly politically correct. I suspect this translates to "there was a huge uproar over it, so we figured we better step in before it gets out of hand."

Apparently all conservatives are neurotic. I haven't read through the original studies (yes, as in more than one study reached this conclusion), but I will when I have time. (Note: Is neurotic a well-define term? My impression has been that ANYone going to a psychiatrist will be diagnosed with various neuroses, so EVeryone is neurotic. *shrugs*)

At the opposite end of the spectrum, someone in Romania is suing God.

And at Evolution Blog, an article from Esquire (of all places) taking a hard look at Creationism. I take issue with one statement: "It is the province of people who can't be troubled to educate themselves about anything, and who have no higher ambition in life than to be led by a charismatic preacher." For some people, this is probably true. However, there is an unmentioned problem: people who already tend towards one side of the fence will only read material from that side of the fence. Why? Because it validates what they already believe. It takes more effort to read something from an opposite point of view (I know; I've waded through some Creationist web-sites). So people keep on reading the same ol' stuff that supports their views, and take the author's word for it that evolution has no empirical evidence and is questioned by lots of mainstream scientists. Superficially, Creationist arguments sound somewhat plausible at first. It takes only a moment's web-search to find them refuted, but that's a moment that someone who wants to believe Creationism anyway will not utilize. Moral? Tell someone what she wants to hear and she'll believe that all the arguments are plausible. (Before someone jumps up and says that scientists ignore Creationist evidence as well, go over to Talk-Origins. Scientists have heard it all before.)

ADDENDUM: I ran across this link at Pharyngula, about the nature of physical evidence.