The Point on Atheism

I was asked to prime a panel discussion on The Point, so I sent them a 2’30” video on whether we should be criticizing Romney for his religion, and then they just cut loose for 15 minutes. James Randi and AJ Johnson and also contributed questions; Michael Shermer, Sean Carroll, and Edward Falzon chewed ’em over, with Cara Santa Maria leading the conversation.

I’ve decided that Sean Carroll is right about everything.

Anti-Caturday post

Hey, little Golden Tortoise Beetle, you’re looking adorable!

That’s a nice shiny Golden Tortoise Beetle, I love that little transparent shell over your shiny goldenness.

Golden Tortoise Beetle, you’re so shy and cute. Peep out from under your shiny carapace. Yes, you peep out, you little buggy-wuggy.

Watcha doin’, Golden Tortoise Beetle?

Golden Tortoise Beetle, you’re looking adorable!

I like Golden Tortoise Beetles!

A freethought conference in Dallas

On 15 September, you could attend the Feminine Faces of Freethought Conference in Dallas for only $20. Check it out!

Women of Reason–Dallas presents Feminine Faces of Freethought, a conference featuring women speaking about topics that affect the freethought community as a whole.

Join us for a day of talks by

Panels include

  • Secular Parenting,
  • Diversity in the Freethought Movement,
  • and What Atheist Women Really Want.

We welcome people of all genders.

Childcare will be provided. Please reserve childcare while purchasing your tickets.

Finally, someone has some sense

There have been various accusations in recent months that blogs are all about generating controversy to bring in more hits. These accusations have come, largely, from people who don’t have a clue about how to grow a blog, and have been total nonsense.

Now Shane Brady actually looks at the evidence. He looked at the Alexa (not a particularly good service, but it’s what he’s got) traffic data at Skepchick and FtB during the recent rounds of battling with the anti-feminists. The conclusion: yes, some spikes are seen in Skepchick’s traffic, not really seen at FtB (we’ve got enough diversity here that we’re pretty well buffered against transients), and none of it translates into sustained increases in traffic.

This post cannot possibly answer all the questions on this subject, but I do think it offers some perspective on the effects of controversies on website traffic. Controversy does not appear to be a valid strategy for increasing long term web traffic on skeptical websites. Furthermore, people (including myself) should put to bed the criticism that web traffic is a motive for generating controversy. Intentions are hard to know, but the results tell me that it’s not worth discussing any more. Of course, I could be way off base, and all criticism is welcome.

I could have told him that. I’ve been at it for about ten years, with my share of controversy, and none of it really contributes to long-term growth: not Expelled, not the cracker, not every little sudden surge from Reddit and Fark and Digg. Those give little bursts of attention from people who weren’t interested in your blog in the first place; they visit to see the source of all the commotion, and then they leave.

What makes a blog grow is 1) regular updates, 2) consistent themes, 3) maintaining the attention of other blogs out there, 4) cultivation of an interactive readership that adds value to your blog, and 5) time (slow steady growth is best, and it can’t by definition happen overnight). Probably also good writing, but I wouldn’t know much about that, and I’ve also seen some gloriously well-written blogs that idle along with light traffic because they ignore my top 5 suggestions.

Now can the dweebs who dismiss blogs as noise generators for traffic please shut up?

Missouri screws up

I don’t know whether it’s by design or fortuitous incompetence, but creationists are masters of the fuzzy statement that opens the doors to all kinds of new opportunities for ignorance. Missouri, for instance, just passed a law giving themselves the freedom to pray (a freedom they already had, which is not in peril) and at the same time, just had to toss in this lovely and dangerous clause: no student shall be compelled to perform or participate in academic assignments or educational presentations that violate his or her religious beliefs.

Raise your hand if you think you can spot the potential problem there.

Missouri has just passed a law declaring that students can opt out of any part of the curriculum that they find objectionable to their faith, and we all know what that means: evolution and climate change are all now optional. And you know that that’s what this clause will be used for, to shut down big chunks of science that contradict religious idiocy.

And look at this. This is why I can’t tell sometimes if creationists are just incredibly stupid or incredibly cunning.

Mike Hoey, a supporter of the amendment and executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference, thinks that Rosenau is “overanalyzing” the language in the amendment. “I don’t think this will affect science in the classroom in any significant way,” he says. “I think the vast majority of students will want to participate in all units of their science classes.” The amendment makes no mention of providing an alternative curriculum, Hoey adds. So any student who opts out of a biology lesson, he says, “will need to face the consequences” of missing those lessons.

Right. So putting that ‘objectionable’ material on the exams and making grades dependent on learning it will not be considered a way to compel students to perform or participate in work that goes against their religious beliefs? Nonsense. Hoey is being disingenuous here. Of course it will affect how science is taught. There are students who will, even in the absence of deep religious belief, use this clause to exempt themselves from difficult bits of their classwork.

Not only will it affect science teaching, its proponents intend for it to cripple instruction in evolution and any other science that crosses their benighted worldview. Hoey is either a liar or so brainless his eyes probably roll back into his cranium every time he looks up.

A joyous announcement!

Ginger, 42, and a resident of Northwest Louisiana has just delivered a healthy baby girl. I’m impressed with Ginger, who has done all the hard work of pregnancy multiple times and still seems to strongly bond with her babies.

It was the fifth baby for Ginger, who lives in the same social group as Tracy and Valentina Rose, two chimpanzee youngsters at Chimp Haven who were born unexpectedly.

But — forgive me for this, I’m a guy — I’m even more impressed with the father, Conan.

DNA testing pointed to Conan as their father; he was immediately re-vasectomized.

Conan, who seems to be getting the reputation of being somewhat of a player, has now been vasectomized three times and all the females at Chimp Haven have been placed on birth control pills.

Conan is one potent fellow.