text:
Francis Collins on Compatibility
Many of us struggle with the controversy between science and religion. As one who argues that science and religion are not compatible (with minor exceptions), I try hard to understand the views of my opponents. One of the greatest challenges is to understand why Francis Collins sees his position as an argument in favor of compatibility.
Here's a video of a talk he gave last October at The Veritas Forum in California. All of it is really interesting but the punchline comes at 50 minutes when he gives a short summary of his beliefs.
[First Slide] Almighty God, who is not limited in space and time, created a universe 13.7 billion years ago with its parameters precisely tuned to allow the development of complexity over long periods of time.
[Second Slide] God's plan included the mechanism of evolution to create the marvelous diversity of living things on our planet. Most especially, that plan included human beings.
[Third Slide] After evolution, in the fullness of time, had prepared a sufficiently advanced neurological "house" (the brain), God gifted humanity with free will and with a soul. Thus humans received a special status, "made in God's image."
[Fourth Slide] We humans used our free will to disobey God, leading to our realization of being in violation of the Moral Law. Thus we were estranged from God. For Christians, Jesus is the solution to that estrangement.
That's it. A very simple but, I think, entirely compatible view that does no violence either to faith or to science. And puts them in a harmonious position ...
Collins goes on to describe this view as "Theistic Evolution." It could also be called the "New Creationism."
I can think of six, perfectly scientific, questions that could be asked.
Is there any evidence of purposeful "fine tuning"?
Is there any evidence that humans were inevitable?
Is there any evidence of a Moral Law?
Is there any evidence of a soul?
Is there any evidence that humans have something called "free will" that other species lack?
Is there any evidence that such a personal God exists?
I think the answer to all six question is "no," therefore, believing those things conflicts with science. They are supposed to part of the natural, observable, universe and they should all be detectable, if they exist.
The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief from The Veritas Forum on Vimeo.
Posted by Larry Moran at Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Labels: Atheism , Rationalism v Superstition , Science
Georgi Marinov Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:39:00 AM
What I have never been able to understand about Francis Collins is how you can spend and hour talking about fine tuning, God being "outside and independent of the universe", working through evolution, etc., then say with straight face "Therefore the Judeo-Christian God is the one we should be worshiping, and that's why I'm an evangelical Christian". It simply does not follow, and it actually makes very little sense
Not only hasn't he given any remotely serious evidence for the existence of a God, (all he has done is hide it safely where science can't directly disprove it, and he hasn't done that very successfully either) but even if we were to take his arguments seriously, they actually argue against the Judeo-Christian story.
I absolutely can't wrap my mind around how it is possible not to see how absurd this position is. Young-Earth creationists make a lot more sense to me, at least they are intellectually honest
John Burger Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:37:00 PM
If you dont have freewill then your opinion means nothing. How many other self refuting beliefs do yo hold? Maybe the world just magically designed itself. You believe in the eternal block universe as most atheists use? Then fine tuning means nothing-- as the nothing caused anything. Your opinion is an eternal accident frozen in reality and your consciousness just magically move along the fake timeline.
Have you guys ever considered the price you have to pay to spew out this nonsense week after week. Oh yeah..there are no weeks. Its almost like you think you can talk the truth out of existence.
Do you really believe all your incoherent ramblings are actually gonna carry any weight on the day(there are no days BTW) when you meet up with your worst fear? This ends very badly for you and all of you sense that. There is simply no other reason to pretend you actually have free opinions, actually believe you can change fixed frozen minds.
I say make a list of all the things you Must believe to uphold your beliefs and see if they are not just a boatload of crazy. Just picture the eternal block universe with your 4 dimensionally extended person-hood, with all its fixed thoughts imprinted on reality with no cause, no reason for it to be there---just you following some magical script written for you by nothingness and somewhere on that squiggly line you making grandiose proclamations about how absurd everyone else is but you and your atheist friends who believe your not even real.
After you have done that, after you have seen the price you must pay to accept such an incoherent mess, may be you can join the rest of humanity who are looking at you guys through the monkey bars, for the spectacle you are, as you throw poop at us
DiscoveredJoys Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:19:00 PM
I like your 6 questions, but any halfway capable apologist will argue that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now you and I might think that they misunderstand how science treats absence of evidence, but perhaps we could rephrase the questions:-
What objective tests could show that purposeful "fine tuning" exists?
What objective tests could show that humans were inevitable?
What objective tests could show that a Moral Law exists?
What objective tests could show the existence of a soul?
What objective tests could show that humans have something called "free will" that other species lack?
What objective tests could show that a personal God exists?
Phrasing the questions this way (or some better way) puts the onus on the godstruck to explain how their (no doubt honestly held) subjective assertion can become an objective fact. Otherwise we'll go around the loop forever where all sorts of tortured logic and subjective feelings are offered as 'evidence'.
SLC Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:28:00 PM
It's rather interesting that Dr. Collins is still claiming that the evolution of humans was inevitable. His theistic colleague, Ken Miller has apparently backed off from this claim and now says that the evolution of intelligent animals, not necessarily humans was inevitable (e.g. paleontologist Dale Russells' speculation that Troodons, had they survived the KT extinction, might have evolved into intelligent birds).
Dr. Collins is just another example of very intelligent individuals believing dumb things (Brian Josephson anyone).
dpoyesac Wednesday, April 21, 2010 1:49:00 PM
"I think the answer to all six question is "no," therefore, believing those things conflicts with science."
If it's a question of evidence -- as you seem to imply, what with you using the terms 'evidence' in each of your 6 questions -- then it is reasonable to ask what evidence you have for thinking the answers are 'no' in each case.
Is there any evidence for thinking that there is a universal moral law? No, not direct evidence. But it does have some explanatory power. However, much of what it used to explain can now be explained through biological, cultural and social forces. But neither are these new explanations 'evidence' that there is NO universal moral law. 'Inference to the best explanation' is a logical and inductive (inductive: meaning probabilistic and not absolutely certain) judgement, not empirical observation.
This is the thing that drives me CRAZY about your blog: basing biological claims on only 'explanatory power' leads to the nutty 'just-so stories' of the sociobiologists and adadptationists. But your claims that you have 'evidence' that there is no universal moral law is similarly based wholly on the pure 'explanatory power' of those alternate explanations. You don't have evidence that contradicts their claims. What you have is simply the fact that any judicious and objective application of Occam's Razor will leave science and cut away the 'godspeak.'
Shorter version: you claim deductive certainty when you really only have inductive probability. Even though it pains my atheistic heart, I cannot countenance crimes against logic even in the pursuit of worthy scientific/humanistic goals.
Georgi Marinov Wednesday, April 21, 2010 2:26:00 PM
What if those intelligent animals were insect-like and had 6 or more appendages? What about the symbolic significance of the cross in this case? It would have been harder to crucify someone in this case I would guess...
Ford Prefect Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:46:00 PM
I still don't see why Collins is excluded from the Intelligent Design community.
Re: Troodon, I just want to say this because its funny, not only did Russell think that they might have become intelligent (a reasonable claim I think), but he made the egregious but error of thinking they would look like humanoids too
Anonymous Wednesday, April 21, 2010 4:49:00 PM
"you claim deductive certainty when you really only have inductive probability. "
Those who claim to believe in an objective moral law would go a long way toward establishing their belief if they would define non-problematically what they mean by such a thing. If they can't define it or define it well, then it does follow with deductive certainty that "this non-defined thing exists" or "this poorly-defined thing exists" are meaningless statements.
Pausanias Wednesday, April 21, 2010 7:03:00 PM
@ dpoyesac: Null hypothesis.
Larry Moran Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:16:00 PM
dpoyesac says,
This is the thing that drives me CRAZY about your blog: basing biological claims on only 'explanatory power' leads to the nutty 'just-so stories' of the sociobiologists and adadptationists. But your claims that you have 'evidence' that there is no universal moral law is similarly based wholly on the pure 'explanatory power' of those alternate explanations. You don't have evidence that contradicts their claims
I don't claim that I can prove the negative. I do not claim that I have "evidence" to prove there's no Moral Law or that God doesn't exist.
What I do claim is that believing in things without any supporting evidence whatsoever—and much contrary evidence—is not compatible with science. When Francis Collins chooses to believe in those things he is abandoning science in favor of some other way of knowing. This would be acceptable (barely) if he believed in things that have no impact on the real world (i.e., deism) but that's not the case with his beliefs.
He's wrong to say that his religion is compatible with science. It's not.
qetzal Wednesday, April 21, 2010 9:20:00 PM
@dpoyesac:
Larry's questions are all of the form "Is there evidence that...?" In each case, his answer is "No, there is no [or insufficient] evidence." And I agree with him.
Note that he does not say there is evidence for (e.g.) NO moral law. He might well make that argument (as would I), but he didn't do so here.
The point is that in science, one does not believe in things that are not adequately supported by evidence. Thus, it's contrary to science to believe in absolute moral law, or souls, or whatever, because they aren't adequately supported by evidence. If Collins wishes to believe in them despite the lack of evidence, that's certainly his right. But those beliefs are inconsistent with science. (Whether they do "violence" to science is open to interpretation, I suppose.)
Whether they do "violence" to science is open to interpretation, I suppose.
They do a lot more damage than it would seem from just watching Collins gives his lecture. Did anyone notice what kind of questions he was asked at a place like Caltech? I regret not being able to be there when he came, and this is one of the reasons. More than half of the Q&A sessions consisted of utter apologetic nonsense, and among the rest there wasn't much challenge. Is this a healthy intellectual climate? It doesn't look so to me.
The fact is that we have created a culture that is pretty much completely detached from the real physical world in which we actually live in and has instead chosen to live in a fantasy world where we are chosen by God and have some divine right to always get around the laws of nature. Which will eventually catch up with us and we aren't going to like but one can't argue with nature. If the only people who are supposed to have gotten the kind of training and to have developed the kind of mental habits that would allow them to understand reality better than that, and as a result lift the rest of humanity from its collective ignorance and delusion about how the world works, aren't able to see what a load of crap the "arguments" that Francis Collins presents for the existence of God are and how inconsistent his logic is, either because they haven't developed the above mentioned mental habits or because they are simply to awestruck by the big name standing in front of them, or if even worse, they believe the same nonsense themselves, then things are completely broken and there is little hope. The situation will not be helped by famous figures in science actively sabotaging even whatever completely insufficient promotion of scientific thinking to the broad society is happening.
SLC Wednesday, April 21, 2010 10:41:00 PM
Re Ford Perfect
1. An evolved Troodon might or might not bear some resemblance to humanoids but, having only three fingers and three toes per appendage, they would, at least in that regard look different. I would think that they might have to bear at least some resemblance in order to support a human sized brain.
2. Dr. Collins seems to differ from the IDiots in that he apparently supports front loading, at least according to the slides shown by Prof. Moran.
Re Georgi Marinov
I think that an even more perplexing question to have asked Dr. Collins is as follows: "Dr. Collins, since a necessary condition for the rise of mammals (and thus the appearance of human beings) is the extinction of the dinosaurs, do you believe that god sent the asteroid that caused that extinction?"
Anonymous Wednesday, April 21, 2010 11:20:00 PM
This is relatively straightforward. Take the fundamental physical constants and model (computationally) what happens to universe evolution when those are changed. Do you still get an imbalance between matter and anti-matter? Do stars still form? Can elements heavier than hydrogen still be produced? If the allowable parameter-space consistent with the universe as we know it is small then you have to explain why we should be in such a privileged universe. The possibilities would include things like "really big coincidence", "finally got lucky after multiple tries", and "deliberately designed that way". It's a starting point anyway.
Unknown Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:53:00 AM
A long time ago . . . In a firmament far, far away . . .
G-d: "Dum-de-dum . . . There, that's the universe finished. Now to create a liitle bubble within it, finely tuned for life.'
Backroom staff: "Umm . . . wait a minute. You refuse to provide evidence that you exist, right?"
G-d: "Right. proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
Backroom staff: "But, having life exist in a universe completely hostile to life is a dead giveaway isn't it?
G-d: "But I can do anything."
Backroom staff: "Yeah, but having life in a universe completely hostile to life would be evidence that you exists."
G-d: "Hmmm . . . in that case I'll just tweek here, . . . and here . . . There. A universe fine tuned for life!"
Backroom staff: "Umm . . . wait a minute."
[whispers] "Good grief this is like a scene right out of Mr Deity!"
G-d: "Mr who?"
I don't buy the Francis Collins version of things, but I also don't think that not being able to prove what he says is a valid argument against faith. The reason it's called 'faith' is that it requires faith, rather than proof. If we could prove all these things were true, there wouldn't be a need for religion.
Georgi Marinov Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:10:00 AM
I don't buy the Francis Collins version of things, but I also don't think that not being able to prove what he says is a valid argument against faith.
There are plenty of other arguments against faith
The reason it's called 'faith' is that it requires faith, rather than proof.
This is the problem - if you think it is somehow beneficial to believe in grandiose claims that aren't true, then I can't really help you, but the fact is that what is actually true does matter
If we could prove all these things were true, there wouldn't be a need for religion.
Which exactly things that religion claims do we need to "prove". By saying this, you are basically assuming that what religion claims is true, but it hasn't been shown to be true, when it is in fact simply false.
reason Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:14:00 AM
a couple of problems with your "objective" test, come to mind.
1. How do you know what probability distribution the parameters are being drawn from?
2. These "fundamental constants" are only "fundamental" in our current cosmological model and may not be "fundamental" or "constant" in reality.
So what I am basically saying, is that your test depends critically on assumptions that may be false, and have never been tested.
Anonymous Thursday, April 22, 2010 9:53:00 AM
Just do the best with what we already know. That's how science works. :) These types of modeling experiments are pretty standard fare in modern cosmology.
Sam C Thursday, April 22, 2010 10:06:00 AM
Gosh, what piffle from Collins!
I'm in favor of a sort of faux-compatibility between science and religion in saying that it is possible to be (say) a happy praying church-goer on Sunday while working in a lab Monday to Friday. (And I think we should all try to live together happily on this crowded world, so bickering about everything is not A Good Idea.)
But that compatibility depends on compartmentalising, where the proponent separates the rational and irrational. In effect, the believer is saying "No, I'm not having the argument, I don't care". Is it honest? Depends on your interpretation of honest, but at least it's straight and simple.
When Collins tries to apply rational analysis to the nonsensical, he is a traitor to both his faith and his reason.
It is dishonest on so many levels.
Unknown Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:17:00 AM
Georgi, I suspect the lacklustre questions posed to Collins is really a result of his stature. It takes balls to put the screws to someone whose scientific legacy is, in my opinion, untarnished by his unfortunate beliefs. Yes, Collins has some awful, inconsistent, braindead ideas. He has also probably saved millions of lives (some in the future) and has certainly contributed more to the advancement of knowledge than most scientists ever will. Anyone would be intimidated by that, students in particular.
Georgi Marinov Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:23:00 AM
Yes, but the questions weren't coming from students only, there were some quite adult sounding voices there. Anyway, I agree with you that his was a major factor, but the point remains - this should not be the case. His stature should not inhibit students, postdocs and professors of lesser fame to see the wholes in his reasoning and point them out; as I said, this is not a healthy intellectual climate
Wavefunction Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:25:00 AM
Also, even assuming that there was some kind of "estrangement", why is Jesus and nobody else the solution to that estrangement? Why the Judeo-Christian God?
By the way, I don't think it's inconceivable that science may provide explanations for a moral law. Check out Sam Harris's TED talk and his upcoming book.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww
Jean-Denis Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:30:00 AM
The answers to the 6 questions are no. Fine. I don't see though the reasons for your "therefore".
The claim is not that those four slides *prove* God or anything. Only that believing that will *not* prevent you from doing sound science.
That is the meaning of "compatible". One meaning at least. You might argue that's a weak version of "compatible". And I agree. But I don't see a stronger claim here.
If, on the other hand, you want to insist that for something to be "compatible" with science, there has to be evidence for it, then nobody will argue that God is compatible with science, *in that sense*.
But then you don't argue about the same thing.
I don't think it's inconceivable that science may provide explanations for a moral law
It already does, i.e. it explains it away as their is little reason to think there is such a thing to begin with.
I know in a way I am getting into the dangerous waters of evolutionary psychology here, but really, people behave "morally" when they are in a social group in which the perceived cost of not behaving "morally" outweighs the perceived direct fitness benefits. Which is why small-scale violence has been steadily decreasing with the increase in societal complexity and the advancement of civilization. But once you remove that cost from the equation, you get things like Nazi and Japanese camps and everything that happened in them.
Of course, it's not always that simple and it's hard to test and falsify such hypothesis, but the explanation that this is what animals with developed intelligence do is infinitely more likely and plausible than the explanation that the bearded man in the sky set it up for some known only to him reason. And it certainly fits the data much better
I don't agree. The goal of science is to understand the world around us. There is no grander claim about the world around us than the claim that it was intentionally created by a God with us in mind and he somehow cares about us. So if you enter science with that preconceived idea, you have already taken yourself out of the game of trying to understand the world, and if you try to persuade others into believing the same things, you have entered the game of preventing others from understanding the world. You can still contribute to the advancement of knowledge, by collecting data and figuring out small things here and there, and you can even become a big name based on that and due to the fragmented nature of modern science, but you are still actively working against the big goal.
God as a concept is compatible with the facts that science has uncovered about the Universe. And he's compatible only because he can always be hidden away from new facts that don't support the older version of God. It doesn't mean that the facts are compatible with any particular religion (they usually aren't). But most importantly, religion as a "way of knowing" is absolutely and 100% incompatible with science, and this is the most important incompatibility. There is no common ground between "I am sure X is true because I have faith in it" and "I think that the evidence in support of X being true is quite compelling so I will consider X true until shown otherwise"
North of 49 Thursday, April 22, 2010 11:51:00 AM
This bit from SLC is interesting:
It's rather interesting that Dr. Collins is still claiming that the evolution of humans was inevitable. His theistic colleague, Ken Miller has apparently backed off from this claim and now says that the evolution of intelligent animals, not necessarily humans was inevitable.
There's an odd disconnect here. If you look at someone like Deepak Chopra, who in spite of being a New Age guru appears to be quite thoroughly into the idea of an entity that resembles an omnipotent God in all but name, you find an underlying belief that complexity and consciousness -- in other words, the "inevitability" of intelligent beings evolving in this universe -- is anything but.
There seems to be a conviction that complexity and consciousness were not inevitable, but had to be propelled forward by some mysterious force, which for the religious is God, and for the New Agers is some kind of cosmic consciousness.
And that belief seems to rest on the assumption that complexity beyond a certain point can't just happen, as if there is some sort of barrier that only a higher power can push past. (How the higher power itself managed to push past the barrier is left as an exercise for the student.)
The result, it seems to me, is that believers have two places to put their god: first, to fine-tune our universe to make us possible, and second, to nurse things along to make sure we -- or something a lot like us -- appears. The first is a deist concept, the second an interventionist.
Something for everybody!
Alex Thursday, April 22, 2010 12:36:00 PM
If anyone's interested, it looks like Nature is weighing in, albeit in a subsidiary journal: http://www.nature.com/ni/journal/v11/n5/full/ni0510-357.html
ERV Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:15:00 PM
He has also probably saved millions of lives...and has certainly contributed more to the advancement of knowledge than most scientists ever will...
LOL, wut? Name one life Collins has 'saved'. Theres no cure for CF. Theres no cure for Huntingtons. And what precisely, did he personally contribute to 'the advancement of knowledge'? The human genome? Which Venter also did (cheaper and faster)?
I can name hundreds of scientists I respect for their scientific accomplishments more than Collins.
Anyone would be intimidated by that, students in particular.
'Intimidation' is not a word I would use for my approach to Collins. 'Annoyed'. 'Irritated'. '*eyeroll* inducing'. 'Unimpressed'. Not 'intimidated'.
However I was specifically instructed not to start shit with Collins (seeing/meeting him in June).
caynazzo Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:22:00 PM
Georgi Marinov: "There is no common ground between "I am sure X is true because I have faith in it" and "I think that the evidence in support of X being true is quite compelling so I will consider X true until shown otherwise"
That's only half of it. Religion, any religion, doesn't limit itself only to faith as a way of knowing.
Miracles are a class of phenomena supported not on faith but evidence. Faith is required for things unseen and unknown, miracles are neither. They actually happen(ed), or so it is said.
ERV: "However I was specifically instructed not to start shit with Collins (seeing/meeting him in June)."
I've met him in person once. He's a charismatic, quirky man and was an excellent scientist.
I'm embarrassed to say his charm took the fight out of me. Stay strong!
Georgi Marinov Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:30:00 PM
Miracles are a class of phenomena supported not on faith but evidence.
Miracles are supported by evidence????
Where is that evidence?
If someone wrote 2000 years ago (actually later than that) that a miracle happened and nobody has ever seen one since then, then how is this evidence for miracles?
llewelly Thursday, April 22, 2010 1:36:00 PM
There is also no reason to think an evolved Troodon would have an upright humanoid stance. The traditional raptor stance does just as well at freeing the hands for tool-work, it is more efficient for both walking and running (but especially running), and it is more stable (for running, walking, and standing). It worked very well for a huge variety of dinosaurs, (including modern birds), living in all sorts of different environments. (My apologies for this off-topic bit, but an "evolved Troodon" or other dinosaur is often depicted or assumed to have a humanoid stance, when in fact that is neither likely nor advantageous.)
Since there are hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy, and at least one science-doing species evolved, I can see why people think the evolution of a science-doing species is likely (but strictly speaking, humans have the ability to test that notion only in the weakest ways), but the "more-or-less like humans" depictions of science-doing species are a big leap from there. They remain widely used in part due to anthropocentrism, but also due to desperation; we have no other examples. (But other earth creatures, such as cephalopods, appear to provide some basis for extrapolating nonhuman intellects, though it seems unlikely that they represent genuine aliens any better than humans do.)
SLC Thursday, April 22, 2010 2:48:00 PM
Re Lewelly
The theropod dinosaurs were only able to walk in their bent over position because of their large tails which provided balance. If, for some reason, the tails grew smaller as the brains became larger, continuing in the bent over position becomes untenable.
Georgi Marinov: "If someone wrote 2000 years ago (actually later than that) that a miracle happened and nobody has ever seen one since then, then how is this evidence for miracles?"
Faith in the religious sense, as I understand it, is applied to untestable claims, not testable ones, such as miracles. For believers, miracles are real-world occurrences and as such can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, whereas a deistic god probably cannot.
The distinction I'm trying to make is that when apologists and accommodationists insist that religion and science are different ways of knowing, they do so by intentionally ignoring a large part of religious belief.
Just as these same people would attempt to restrict science to lab coats and pipettes, there is more to religion than faith assertions. Miracles are a vital and inseparable part.
theNaturalist Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:28:00 PM
Compatibility is a weak test and perhaps Collin's beliefs pass this test. My question is to think of the space off all possible belief systems that are just as compatible, then ask "why is your story the true one, and not any of the others?" The bottom line is that there is no way of knowing. So there is clearly a lot more than compatibility going on here.
Memes are the key to understanding why some "compatible belief systems are preferred over others, IMHO.
Ford Prefect Thursday, April 22, 2010 5:32:00 PM
Thats just the thing though, if their heads/brains grew larger, as a functional constraint their tails would probably be selected for greater length anyway. I think this is a much more likely scenario than convergence to humanoid-form.
Look at crows too. They can use proto-tools (e.g. twigs) and are very intelligent. Not quite apelike in IQ, but it should be noted that they display no trending toward primate-like morphology.
I'm sure Larry is loving all this adaptive story-telling.
For believers, miracles are real-world occurrences and as such can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, whereas a deistic god probably cannot.
They have been and they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. So how so "miracles" support religion then?
And a vital and inseparable part of why we think religion is nonsense
Anonymous Thursday, April 22, 2010 6:43:00 PM
holy crap, that's it!
since people like Collins and Miller label their atheist detractors "New Atheists", isn't it time we start calling them...
"New Creationists"
Georgi Marinov: "They have been and they don't hold up to scientific scrutiny. So how so "miracles" support religion then?"
I said they are an integral part of religion. Don't confuse an ought with an is.
Lippard Friday, April 23, 2010 10:30:00 AM
I'd like to second Jean-Denis's point.
"I think the answer to all six question is 'no,' therefore, believing those things conflicts with science."
The inference here is a non sequitur without additional premises; lack of evidence doesn't by itself entail a "conflict" or contradiction. The further statement that "They are supposed to part of the natural, observable, universe and they should all be detectable, if they exist" is also not sufficient to produce a contradiction, nor is it clearly axiomatic. We shouldn't expect that we have the ability to know all truths or even all truths that are provable--though we do know that the latter set doesn't include all of the former set.
This doesn't detract from your six questions--I think they are all important questions to ask, and "no" answers do give us reason to question why one should believe those things. But such answers don't demonstrate "incompatibility" of those propositions with the propositions of well-established science, as opposed to an incompatibility with an epistemic norm that says you should only believe propositions that are well-established by science. Such a norm faces the problem of its own justification, among others.
Larry: In the comments above, you wrote: "What I do claim is that believing in things without any supporting evidence whatsoever—and much contrary evidence—is not compatible with science." But your original post left out the "and much contrary evidence" part.
Pausanias Friday, April 23, 2010 11:26:00 AM
@ Lippard: does no one understand the null hypothesis? If your hypothesis is that "god did it", then your null hypothesis is that god didn't do it. And the burden of proof is to show god. Atheists don't have to prove god doesn't exist, they just have to keep deists honest. (And as an addendum, showing god did it doesn't entail Jesus did--just statistically speaking, the odds that one specific religion's dogmas are all true is... beyond remote.)
Georgi Marinov Friday, April 23, 2010 11:38:00 AM
@ Pausanias
Very good point, however, what the other side is going to tell you is that you are thinking like a scientists there, that it is faith that you need to have, and that siency stuff like null hypotheses does not apply to faith.
Which is an explicitly anti-science position when you think about it, yet if you dress it up with sufficient amount of fancy language, it somehow passes as credible.
caynazzo Friday, April 23, 2010 11:55:00 AM
Jim Lippard: "lack of evidence doesn't by itself entail a "conflict" or contradiction."
You are taking what was said out of context to make a general and trivial point. There is conflict when billions of people insist that despite lack of scientific evidence for divine fine tuning, in addition to evidence to the contrary, fine tuning nonetheless remains central to their beliefs.
The fact that all knowledge in science is tenuous and core religious beliefs are written in stone as it were is plenty of conflict right there.
Jim Lippard: "We shouldn't expect that we have the ability to know all truths or even all truths that are provable--though we do know that the latter set doesn't include all of the former set."
There are truths we may never hit upon because the universe may be infinite, and that's reasonable, but you don't go from that to saying therefore anything goes...from saying therefore this particular religious assertion is probable. It is not probable that humans were inevitable because God loves us.
Georgi Marinov Friday, April 23, 2010 12:00:00 PM
There is conflict when billions of people insist that despite lack of scientific evidence for divine fine tuning, in addition to evidence to the contrary, fine tuning nonetheless remains central to their beliefs.
The vast majority of those billions of people have never even heard of "fine tuning". They simply believe what their holy book tells them, that is, if they happen to both A) know how to read, B) have bothered to open it if they know how to read
Larry Moran Friday, April 23, 2010 12:03:00 PM
Jim Lippard says,
But such answers don't demonstrate "incompatibility" of those propositions with the propositions of well-established science, as opposed to an incompatibility with an epistemic norm that says you should only believe propositions that are well-established by science.
Science, as a way of knowing, is characterized by basing your knowledge on evidence, rationality, and skepticism. The skepticism part is as essential to science as the others.
You don't start believing in something without evidence and you especially don't start basing your interpretation of the natural world on such acts of faith. That's not how science works. If you behave like then you are behaving in a manner that is incompatible with how science searches for knowledge.
Nobody is saying that you should only accept propositions that are "well-established" by science. There's plenty of opportunity within science to develop hypotheses and to speculate.
And nobody is saying that you are obliged to behave in a manner that's compatible with science. People can do whatever they want. They can believe in the tooth fairly, for all I care. What they can't do is claim that what they're doing is compatible with science. They should be honest enough to admit that.
Lippard Friday, April 23, 2010 6:33:00 PM
Pausanius: The proposition that "God does not exist" (positive atheism) has a burden of proof just as theism does. Nonbelief (negative atheism) doesn't have a burden of proof. I agree with you that even if one could prove the existence of God, that wouldn't prove Christianity, though none of what you say seems to me to have anything to do with what I said.
caynazzo: "The fact that all knowledge in science is tenuous and core religious beliefs are written in stone as it were is plenty of conflict right there." That doesn't demonstrate any conflict between science and religious belief. I can accurately say that there are logical and mathematical truths that are deductively proven but science doesn't deal in that kind of certainty; that doesn't establish a conflict between logic/math and science.
You also write: "There are truths we may never hit upon because the universe may be infinite, and that's reasonable, but you don't go from that to saying therefore anything goes" -- I agree, good thing I didn't make that argument. By the way, the specific point I was making is that we *know* that there are truths that we cannot prove, not just because we haven't hit upon them. (Cf. Goedel's incompleteness theorems.)
Larry: All scientists start by believing things without evidence, that's part of the human experience of initial learning.
I'm not sure I understand your notion of "compatibility"--you seem to be saying that no one can believe anything except on the basis of science and thereby be "compatible" with science, even if nothing that they believe on a basis other than science contradicts anything that science has established. Am I misreading you?
Pausanias Monday, April 26, 2010 4:51:00 PM
@ Lippard: Your response to my last comment, and your comment to Larry, gave me a good chuckle.
"The proposition that "God does not exist" (positive atheism) has a burden of proof just as theism does. [...] All scientists start by believing things without evidence, that's part of the human experience of initial learning."
If i believe that the pythagorean theorem is true, i don't go around telling everyone "oh well, you know, believing the theorem isn't true has a burden of proof just as my belief does." Scientist do NOT, EVER, use the fact that they believe something as part of the evidence in support of that something. You're very confused to equate intuition with knowledge.
Look, i'm sorry that my previous comment went over your head. The proposition that god doesn't exist is _your_ starting point to a scientific proof that god does exist. You must show that there are effects that "God exists" explains compared to god not existing. Of course your theory will yield testable predictions.
Realize that what you're asking for is that after examining lightening, the charge difference, the work it can do, its magnetism, how it can be stored, and so forth, you think people should still be chanting "Thor! Thor!" until we've disproven Thor exists.
Robert Morane Wednesday, May 12, 2010 7:24:00 PM
What if a biologist believes that
everything was created by God and that everything has a purpose. Might he not be wary of such concepts as junk DNA to the point of rejecting them--after all, if God created our genome, why would it contained useless DNA?
Let's not forget Einstein's big blunder, which was due to his philosophical belief that the universe must be eternal, and so it could not be expanding or contracting.
Personally, I doubt very much that god belief has no impact on one's ability to do good science.
Laurence A. Moran
Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.
The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.
Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.
Principles of Biochemistry 5th edition
A Sense of Smell
ABO Blood Types
Better Biochemistry
Blood Clotting
Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA)
Genomes & Junk DNA
Protein Structure
Pyruvate Dehydrogenase
The Three Domain Hypothesis
Subscribe to Sandwalk
The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)
Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.
Charles Darwin (1859)
Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...
What's in Your Genome
Evolution Is a Fact
Just-So Stories
What Is a Gene?
The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology
Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground
Why I'm not a Darwinist
Evolution by Accident
Evolution and Abiogenesis
Random Genetic Drift
Michael Denton and Molecular Clocks
The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution
Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory
Have Humans Stopped Evolving?
Mammalian Gene Families: Humans and Chimps Differ by 6%
Michael Behe's Criticism of Biochemistry Textbooks
O157:H7 Outbreak in Taco Bell Restaurants
Calico Cats
The HSP70 Sequence Database
Sandwalk Archive
March ( 123 )
January ( 104 )
November ( 108 )
October ( 106 )
September ( 130 )
February ( 132 )
December ( 104 )
Alternative Splicing ( 7 )
Astronomy ( 18 )
Atheism ( 281 )
Biochemistry ( 1009 )
Biology ( 122 )
Blogs ( 272 )
Canada ( 279 )
Carnival ( 111 )
Centre for Inquiry ( 5 )
Centromere ( 1 )
COVIC-19 ( 1 )
Culture ( 25 )
Ethics ( 25 )
Evolutionary Biology ( 1174 )
Evolutionary Theory ( 78 )
Games ( 7 )
Gene Expression ( 66 )
Genealogy ( 45 )
Genes ( 335 )
Genome ( 410 )
Genomics ( 2 )
Health ( 16 )
History ( 59 )
Humor ( 104 )
Intelligent Design Creationism ( 48 )
Junk DNA ( 69 )
Junk RNA ( 29 )
My World ( 420 )
Nobel Prize ( 142 )
Origin of Life ( 8 )
Philosophy of Science ( 90 )
Politics ( 227 )
Pseudoscience/Quackery ( 52 )
Rationalism v Superstition ( 1443 )
Research ( 21 )
Science ( 249 )
Science and Religion ( 4 )
Science Education ( 454 )
Science Journalism ( 203 )
Science Policy ( 54 )
Society ( 168 )
Technology ( 7 )
Themes ( 6 )
University ( 192 )
Urban Legend ( 40 )
War ( 55 )
The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake. Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory. Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change. Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance. Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change. Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat. Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84
My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.
Jerry Coyne
I once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations
Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.
Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.
Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.
Richard Lewontin
Principles of Biochemistry
Principles of Biochemistry: International Edition
Principles of Biocemistry: International Edition
Biochemistry 2nd ed. (1994)
Moran, L.A.,
Scrimgeour, K.G. et al.


Prague. Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis announced that his country will establish an orphanage compound in Syria over an area of 1,000 square meters. The facility will at first have a capacity of 50 children but will later be expanded.
Syrian companies will build that compound based on the design of a Syrian architect and the Czech Republic will cover the costs for the first year of the compound's activity , Babis said in an interview with Czech TV last night after receiving Head of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent Khalid Hoboubati.
He added that cooperation in this domain will be done on the level of the Czech Red Cross and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent SARC Organization.
Babis discussed with Hoboubati means to cooperate for enhancing the services provided by the organization to alleviate the suffering of the Syrian citizens.
The project of establishing an orphanage in Damascus financed and supported by Czech businessmen was also on the table.
Last November, Babis announced his country's willingness to establish an orphanage in Syria in coordination with the Syrian Government that would embrace a kindergarten, a school, a lodging and a stadium, and it will accommodate 150 children.


text:
My Super Me: Finding the Courage For Tough Stuff
"Don't read this book right before bedtime. Kids have a tendency to want to conquer the world after...and most parents do too!"
Todd HermanAuthor, Entrepreneur and Coach
From Award-Winning Peak Performance Coach Todd Herman
Order Your Copy...
Choose your favorite format below on Amazon:
…and Claim Your Free Bonuses
Buy the book and forward your receipt to kidsbook@toddherman.me. We'll then email you these bonuses:
Bonus Video: "The Four Power Questions To Ask Kids Before Bedtime"
Every parent or caregiver wants to build a strong, resilient, grateful and excited child. So how do we do it?
Well, there are four simple questions you can ask at bedtime (most ideal), dinner-time or anytime to help develop these qualities.
In a short video, I explain the questions, why they're effective, the science behind them, and the amazing conversations they spawn.
Access To Our Free Community Of Superheros Like You
Join a community of like-minded superheroes where you can continue to develop your strengths, learn more about using an Alter Ego to have more fun with life and surprise yourself with what you can achieve.
I wanted to give young kids and parents the opportunity to read a book that would allow them to see the hero inside themselves.
Quite simply: I wanted to take the big idea in 'The Alter Ego Effect™' book and be able to share it with my three munchkins, Molly, Sophie and Charlie.
Little kids are constantly told that the world around them isn't built for them, and in the work I do, you see youngsters suffering from a lack of confidence.
So if a little girl or little guy somewhere gets the courage to do tough stuff because of the message in the book, that'll be a win!
Plus, this was a way to take the proven science and methods successful athletes, leaders and entertainers already use and bring it down to 'kid level'.
P.S. Don't read it right before bedtime, kids have a tendency to get fired up and want to conquer the world after!
Todd Herman has owned a mental game and peak performance training company for over 22 years.
He's had the opportunity to work with over 90 Olympians, hundreds of professional athletes and thousands of leaders around the world.
Over 250,000 entrepreneurs, athletes and leaders a year attend Todd's programs for top achievers.
His programs have twice been awarded with the 'Global Leadership & Skill Development Program of the Year', and his book 'The Alter Ego Effect™', has become a Wall Street Journal and Publisher's Weekly Bestseller.
© 2021 The Alter Ego Effect™. Privacy
What Is The Alter Ego Effect™?
Bonus Companion Guide

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The very first thing to do before starting a limited liability company is to thoroughly research the name you wish to use in order to be sure it is available. Some businesses have been forced to stop using their name after spending thousands of dollars promoting it.
Fictitious business names are names registered by businesses that are not the name of the company itself. If someone else has a fictitious name that is the same as the business name you want to use, you might want to consider another name.
If a person who names his or her company something like John Smith, LLC, he or she might want to use the fictitious name, Smith Family Realty.
If the company has a common name like Jones Flooring, LLC, it might want to add a location and use a fictitious name such as Jones Flooring of Miami, Jones Flooring of Key West, etc.
If someone has a state-issued trademark on a name, you will not be able to use it. Therefore, you need to check the state's trademark records as well.
While there may be a lot of businesses around the country using names similar to what you want to use that will not cause you problems, if they have registered a federal trademark of the name, they can force you to stop using it and you could be liable for damages. So it is best to check the trademarks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Trademark search. You can conduct your own search online at the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov). This type of search will pull up both active and pending federal trademarks that are similar to your mark. Because you are not just looking for a "direct hit" or exact match, but are also looking for marks that are similar, you might consider getting advice from an expert to guide you.
Even if a business does not register its name, it still has legal rights to it. Therefore, you should check to see if any other businesses have the name you intend to use. If a business in your area has a similar name, you should not use it. If the business is farther away, you can use it if you do not expect to do business in that area; but still, a completely different name is better.
Sometimes it seems like every good name is taken. But a name can often be modified slightly or used on a different type of goods or services. If your favorite name is taken, try different variations. However, keep in mind that if you eventually expand your business to an area where the name is used, you can be barred from using a name if someone else has already established it there. In such a case, you would have been better off starting a business with a completely different name.
The name cannot include any words implying that it is part of the state or federal government, or that it is a part of any business in which it is not authorized to be.
Generally, a professional LLC must use certain words, such as professional limited liability company or the abbreviation P.L.L.C. as part of its company name.


text:
Notes on the Great Indian Exodus
Home Immigration Blog Notes on the Great Indian Exodus
By USINPAC Immigration Blog February 21, 2011
The Indian-American Diaspora in the United States has historically evoked mixed feelings in India, running the gamut from envy, to resentment to admiration. Now, apparently, it is the Diaspora that feels a mixture of envy resentment and admiration every time they come home to a rapidly changing India. Even as one ponders over this improbable turn of the dice, news items such as this about the rising tide of illegal migration from India into the United States make one wonder whether moffusil India is yet to get the memo…that the green pastures of the West are gradually turning brown. Or, are people willing to sell all their worldly belongings and put life and limb at risk in their efforts to get out because the green pastures back home are still so illusory, and seemingly ephemeral?
Reading these news reports, it's almost as if people from different states have devised different routes to migration. The above report mentions that most of the migrants are Sikhs, who, once caught, ask for political asylum citing religious persecution back in India. Of course, the very nature of illegal immigration is such that there is no way to verify these claims and they might well be from any country in the South Asian region. This would also explain why India was cited as one of eight countries that had refused to take back illegal immigrants in a Congressional Bill that sought to sanction such countries. Statistics from the DoJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review show that, from 2006 to 2009,on an average, a thousand Indians have applied for asylum every year. Whilst 450 were granted asylum in 2006,the authorities seemed to have wised up since then, with the number of approvals seeing a precipitous decline.
The other case that hit the headlines was that of the Tri-valley University scam. From all accounts, there were students who enrolled in good faith as well as those who were willingly party to the scam. With 20,000 H1-B visas reserved for those who have a masters or a higher degree from American institutions, one may well see an increase in scams such as this.
For the Indian government, handling student issues is a headache, especially since the missions are under staffed and barely able to cope with normal consular duties. This is even as the media turns the continuing saga into a pot boiler. There is the cruel step-mother in the form of the U.S. government, the over-protective father personified in the Indian government, and then there are the hapless students and their guardians, shouting from the rooftops about their mistreatment by the stepmother and abandonment by the father despite protestations to the contrary. Even though the media frenzy has resulted in some positive developments, this promises to be a long drawn out affair as the various cases wind their way through the judicial process. One wonders if there is any coordination between the nodal Ministries of External Affairs, Overseas Indian Affairs, and Human Resource Development. In the case of the students returning from Australia after the student related troubles there last year, the Human Resource Development Ministry has now been tasked with recovering the balance of the fees due to the students who have cut short their education in Australia after the change in the Australian government policies.
It goes without saying that the great Indian exodus continues largely because of the abysmal failure of successive governments to provide adequate education and generate employment opportunities to the youth. Since that state of affairs is unlikely to change any time soon, the only advice one can give the government is to create posts in its missions abroad specifically to deal with Indian student affairs!
Endpiece: All this is even as there is by all accounts, a reverse migration of professionals taking place from the United States to India, with some predicting as many as 100,000 returning over the next ten years. Whilst this can't be confirmed independently,t he U.S. Census Bureau does show a decline in both permanent residency and citizenship figures from India.
H1-B visaillegal immigrationindian-americansMinistry of Overseas Indian AffairsU.S.-India relationsvisa
Make a New Year's Resolution
On Wednesday December 29, 2010, I heard Rick Santelli proclaim on CNBC that "This is the best country in the world and…
US-India Strategic Partnership will Counter-balance China's Growing Assertiveness in Asia
India-China strategic relationship is stable at the strategic level, but it is marked
Senate Hearing Sends Signals for Immigration Reform
Similar to a House hearing held earlier this year, a July 26, 2011 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security…
The beginning of Brain Drain 2.0?
There has been a lot of sound and fury over the introduction, or rather the re-introduction of the proposed Startup Visa by…
Are Indians Using All the H-1B Visas?
If one follows the press, one would assume Indian companies or Indian nationals use all the H-1B visas. Yet the issue is…
Indians and Illegal Immigration
The vast majority of Indians come to the United States legally and stay here as legal visa holders. Many become permanent residents…
Nuclear Dividends?
Was the U.S.-India agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation worth all the trouble? Six years on, observers in both countries are accusing the…
Will Improved Tech Job Market Help Change Immigration Policy?
Even when making policy that might last years, elected officials tend to look to the moment. That's particularly true in the case…
Secretary Clinton's Diaspora Engagement Alliance: Opportunities for the Indian Diaspora
Guest post by Madhavi Bhasin,In the same week that President Obama delivered his
Children of Indian and Chinese Parents Among Nation's Top Science Students
A new study shows that most of America's top high school science students
U.S. and India need a grand Thorium Partnership
This memo is proposed for urgent consideration by President Barrack Obama on the course ahead in U.S.-India relations. Today, when machineries of…
Obama's Visit and the Nuclear Conundrum
By Rajiv Nayan Indian Review of Global Affairs The 2010 American presidential visit to India was arguably an economy-dominant event. Admittedly, Pakistan…
Startup America
President Obama has announced the launch of the 'Startup America' initiative to boost high-growth entrepreneurship throughout the country. This initative aims to…
Bruce Riedel's underwhelming new book
It doesn't tell us any more than we already know It is hard to see what Bruce Riedel's new book "Deadly Embrace:…
What's Happening with H-1B Visas?
Press outlets are abuzz with stories signaling that H-1B visa numbers are down and, therefore, no longer held in favor by employers….


text:
Good Times2
ខេមរភាសា
中文新闻
Khmer Times TV
Youth Today
Cambodia News Home
Home - 'Long live' The King
'Long live' The King
No Comments Share:
Pattinson's quirky performance as the Dauphin of France goes to show he's more than just Edward Cullen. Netflix
Netflix's latest period drama, The King may not have the best plot, but it certainly puts up quite the show
Backed by a stronghold cast delivering stellar performances in every scene, 'The King' successfully establishes itself as one of the best period dramas of 2019. A retelling of Shakespeare's classic plays, Henry IV Part 1, Henry IV Part 2 and Henry V. Timothee Chalamet takes on the role of rowdy prince who soon and unexpectedly takes on the throne.
Henry, who appears as a peace-loving new King, is soon thrown into a conflict with France, whose (King's) throne is questioned by the Church. While Henry is initially reluctant to stir any form of conflict, he finds himself questioning his judgment when the gift from France lacks in grandeur in comparison to other royal gifts.
Timothee is joined by a strong cast of Ben Mendelsohn, Joel Edgerton, Robert Pattinson and Lily-Rose Depp. While Chalamet had made a name for himself through his performances in 'Call Me By Your Name', 'Beautiful Boy' and 'Lady Bird', Pattinson's eccentric accent and Depp's stellar 10-minute scene somewhat outshines him in the latter half of the movie.
While Lily-Rose Depp only appears in the last 25 minutes of the movie, her performance as Catherine questioning the reasoning behind Henry's move against France turned tables in the direction of the movie.
Her performance despite a short one showcased her talent as a budding star in the film and also probably the only one with the most convincing French accent in the cast.
The King's plot moves at a slow pace, with certain parts of the movie just involves Henry going back and forth, deciding whether to go to war or not to go, so the pace of the movie does falter at times. Regardless, with a strong material and performances to back up the material, The King manages to deliver poignant lines that seem to suit the cast members very well.
Catherine's line seemed to have the most impact throughout the movie in which she says, "It would seem that you have no explanation for what you have done," she says. "You have shed the blood of so many Christian souls, and, yet, before me now, all I see is a young and vain and foolish man so easily riled. So easily beguiled."
This line changes the trajectory of the movie with Henry eventually figuring the real antagonist that had caused the havoc that took place throughout the movie.
Audiences are also bound to find Robert Pattinson as the Dauphin of France put up quite an amusing showcase of performance balancing the somewhat solemn tone of the movie.
Netflix's period drama, The King is currently up for streaming. Even if you are not a fan of period dramas, this cast is bound to prove it otherwise.
Share and Like this post
Special tickets can be bought to help co-adopt elephants. Airavata Foundation
Fundraising cocktail to protect elephants
Father and son slug it out in a showdown. Netflix
Wu Assassins: Modest potential assassinated by stale scripts
pxhere/CC0
THIS WEEK IN PHNOM PENH
Audi TT Roadster 45 still packs a punch
THE ENCHANTING MEKONG CRUISE
Popular in Good Times2
Khmer Times App
Khmer Times is now available on iPhone and Android.
Download the app and keep up with real time news from Cambodia and the world.
Sign up for the Khmer Times Daily News Digest email, exclusive offers and more!
NagaWorld adds an array of festivities this Spring Festival
Year of the Golden Rat celebrated with a myriad of auspicious festive promotions.
Kingdom caught up in mastery of the Mekong
Geopolitics dominate the struggle for mastery of the Mekong
How can the US sell more goods to China?
Unlike the Chinese public, who pay more attention to Chapter 4 "Financial Services" of the agreement, foreign elites are more concerned about Chapter 6 – "Expanding Trade".
Feeling at home during China study trip
Cambodia has an old saying that an acquaintance is greeted at the gate while a close friend is welcome into the house.
Site Design by Samaki Media
Copyright © 2020 Virtus Media Pte., Ltd. (Khmer Times)


The 30th annual Harold & Margaret Moser Golf Outing for the benefit of Saints Peter & Paul School is scheduled for Thursday, September 13, at Cress Creek Country Club in Naperville. All proceeds from this event are used by our pastor, Fr. Brad, to provide financial aid for needy families and general operational needs.


text:
Trump nominates personal physician to rank of rear admiral
Posted on: March 23rd, 2018	by ABC News	No Comments
Alex Wong/Getty Images(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump has nominated his personal physician, Navy Rear Admiral (lower half) Ronny Jackson, to receive a second star, promoting him to the rank of rear admiral, according to a press release from Defense Secretary James Mattis.
Jackson, who serves as attending physician and deputy assistant to the president, is best known for appearing in the White House briefing room in January to give a somewhat glowing review of Trump's health.
"I told the president if he'd had a better diet over the last 20 years he could have lived to 200 years old," Jackson told reporters in response to a question about how to reconcile the president's appetite for McDonald's and Diet Cokes with what Jackson called his "excellent" health.
"The answer is he has incredibly good genes, it's just the way God made him," he said.
Jackson began his active duty naval service in 1995 at the Portsmouth Naval Medical Center in Virginia – the same year he graduated medical school at the University of Texas.
In 2005, he deployed to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom as the emergency medicine physician in charge of resuscitative medicine for a forward-deployed Surgical Shock Trauma Platoon.
One year later, he became a White House physician, serving in three different administrations. Jackson was the appointed physician to President Barack Obama before becoming the appointed physician to President Trump.


What is Your BMI Index? Are You an Apple or Pear Shape?
There are several methods used to determine whether a person is overweight or obese. The most commonly used method is the body mass index (BMI) which compares your height and weight to a standard. To calculate your BMI, take your weight and divide by your height.
BMI between 18.9 and 24.9 is considered normal, BMi between 25 and 29.9 is classified as overweight and BMI greater than 30 indicates obesity. Have a look at the chart below and calculate your BMI index.
Don't worry if your BMI is not in a healthy range, this number will greatly improve as you adopt the heart healthly diet plan. heart healthy diet plan . As we discussed, we need to know where we are in order to get to where we want to be!
The BMI is calculated with the formula body weight divided by height to square. To make it easy for visitor of your web page to calculate the Body Mass Index, use the BMI Gadget/BMI-Club . Allow me to call your attention to Body Mass Index.
Studies have shown that the greater the BMI number, the greater the risk for developing health problems such as heart disease and diabetes. However, it is also very important to look at where your fat is distributed.
Pear vs Apple: Wheres your fat?
An "apple shaped" body (potbelly or excess belly fat) is associated with more health risks in comparison to a "pear" shaped body (larger hips and thighs). These risks include: type 2 diabetes, high cholesterol and blood pressure, coronary heart disease, stroke and early death.
Measuring your waist is the quickest and easiest way to determine if your shape is putting you at risk. In order to measure accurately, men need to measure their waist at their navel and women midway between the bottom of the ribs and the top of the hip bones.
Men with a waist circumference greater than 40" (102 cm)and women greater than 35" (89 cm) have an excess of belly fat and have a substantially increased risk of developing these diseases. Your BMI index score is also likely to be high.
The two prime causes of belly fat seem to be stress which causes the body to release the fat storage hormone CORTISOL and eating too many refined foods high on the glycemic index which causes the body to release too much of the fat storage hormone INSULIN.
if your body is releasing excess cortisol, it is important to take a B complex vitamin and reduce the amount of stress in your life.
Rememember that stress is created 'when things don't go the way you want them too'- often changing your response to stress,such as, lowering your expectations and being more flexible to situations can have a beneficial impact on your health.
There are many books and resources that can help you cope with stress in a healthier way.
Personally, I take a stress supplement and review the situation and tell my self 'this too will pass'. A wise soul once told me..' depression is living in the past, anxiety is living in the future and contentment is living in the present'.
Constant stress in your life will not only make you gain belly fat but can cause high blood pressure, rapid aging, depression and numerous other health complaints. If you find that you have an inability to relax- you may have a calcium or magnesium deficiency symptoms. Adding these minerals to your diet, along with a B complex and actively finding ways to reduce the stress in your life- will help you decrease your cortisol output and help you lose weight.
The fat storage hormone insulin is excreted from your pancreas when you eat food. Insulins main function is to carry the glucose from your food to your cells for energy.
However, when you eat refined carbohydrates , such, as bagels, muffins, cakes, donuts,chips, candy, french fries white bread, potatoes or rice, your body excretes excess insulin.
Excess insulin excretion happens because there is little protein, fiber or healthy fat to slow down the conversion of these refined carbohydrates or 'simple carbs' into glucose. Low carb diets are successful because they eliminate these simple carbs that play havoc with your health.
Eliminate the refined carbohydrates and other 'crappola' from your daily diet and watch your belly fat disappear. Check out healthy food substitutions for ideas on getting better foods into your diet and lowering your BMI index score.
The Diet Solution Program is excellent and one of the few programs I recommend for weight loss.
This is one of the best programs on the net, full of really good nutrition information to get you healthy FAST.
Looking for a healthy lunch idea?
ProGrade offers High Quality Supplements That Work!


The Longboard line is designed with a full on surf performance in mind. We have an all new 11'6"x31". All three sizes feature a very subtle step deck and a nicely pulled in tail. The narrow tail, in combination with increased V, makes them very loose and responsive. A flat deck curve gives the rider confidence when paddling and the stability needed to cross the breaking waves.


Our aim is to foster the Confederation's openness to all parts of the world. That is why we will make sure to request the collaboration from colleagues from the Middle East, North and Latin America, Asia, Africa as well as Oceania in order to involve them in the program.
As you know, it was a long journey to build the Confederation of European ORL-HNS which is based on three main pillars: the European scientific societies, the European national societies and the UEMS ORL Section & Board.
This close collaboration will manifest itsef in the setup of the International Scientific Committee, headed by Elizabeth Sjögren. It is this committee which will propose, select and organize panels, key-note lectures and free papers sessions, thus ensuring a strong scientific program. In addition, the European Board exam in ORL-HNS will be held on Saturday, June 29, 2019.
We are of course grateful to the organizers of the four previous congresses, organized alternatively by EUFOS and European Academy of ORL-HNS. They were very successful despite sometimes challenging circumstances and serve as great examples to us.
In conclusion of this welcome message, the both of us would like to say that, above all, we wish to have a productive congress in a friendly atmosphere.


It's been seen for years together human rights have been recklessly violated time and time again. Our endeavour is to become the mouthpiece of those who have been victimised and direly repressed, resulting in violation of the law and civil and human rights. Any kind of human rights' abuse is absolutely intolerable. Our aim is to work in consonance with the law enforcing authorities, bringing illegitimate and illegal activities, including human rights violation instances to light, and help the authorities. Building pressure and functioning in the legal framework, making dire oppressors and exploiters accountable for their misdemeanours, is our core objective. All India Anti Crime Bureau, as an institution, would like to collate all like minded forces viz. institutions and organisations that intend to serve the people fighting for justice, and co-operate with law enforcing authorities in dispensing justice and expose anti-social and miscreant elements unto their deserving consequences, with an earnest endeavour to have a harmonious and peaceful atmosphere in the society at large.
All India Anti Crime Bureau is registered under Trust Act, Regd. No.9690 on the 9th day of November, 2011.
Arvind Kejriwal has claimed that corruption has come down by 20-30 % in the capital because of the scare created by the drive to conduct sting operations.
The India-US trade reached an all-time high of over $63.7 billion in 2013, with a nearly $20 billion balance in favour of India.