Space City Skeptics

The Official Blog of the Houston Skeptic Society

Author Archive

And you thought that intelligent design was bad for Texas education

with one comment

It appears that there are more efforts to undermine the quality of science education in Texas.  First we have the whole teaching of “strengths and weaknesses of evolution” debacle.  Now, some in the state government are trying to bypass higher education boards to allow unqualified and illegitimate institutions to grant higher degrees.

This news comes form the good people at the NCSE:

House Bill 2800 (PDF), introduced in the Texas House of Representatives on March 9, 2009, would, if enacted, in effect exempt institutions such as the Institute for Creation Research’s graduate school from Texas’s regulations governing degree-granting institutions.

The timeline is clear.  The Institution of Creation Research (ICR) moves to Texas in 2007.  The Texas Higher Education Coordination Board denied the ability of the ICR to grant masters degrees on April 24, 2008.  Now, less than a year later, Leo Berman introduces a bill (HB 2800) that would allow the ICR to again offer masters degrees in creation science (I am not sure about PhDs).

So what has changed with the introduction of this new bill?  If qualified, certain “institutions” would not require the board’s approval to grant degrees.  House Bill 2800 will provide exceptions for institutions that don’t accept state funding, don’t accept state-administered federal funding, are nonprofit, and have substantial coursework.  As the NCSE points out, the ICR would fulfill these requirements.

In my opinion, these are pretty loose guidelines.  Undoubtedly, the ICR will be the first to benefit from these changes, but who is next?

Written by bort901

March 13, 2009 at 8:38 am

Posted in Uncategorized

The Grey-faced Sengi and what it means for the existence of bigfoot

with 7 comments


Grey-faced Sengi

Recently, Galen Rathbun and Francesco Rovero discovered a new species of mammal in the mountains of Tanzania.  The new species is a member of the elephant shrew group and is called the grey-faced sengi (Rhynchocyon udzungwensis)  It is a relatively small animal (<1kg) that lives on the forest floor.  There are only two known small populations in the world.

The grey-faced sengi was initially discovered using camera traps in 2005.  Rathbun and Rovero subsequently traveled to some very remote mountain tops in Tanzania to study the animals.  During a two-week excursion, they were able to find, study, and capture several specimens.

Does this discovery lead to an increased possibility that there is a sasquatch lurking around the forest of North America?  Although the grey-faced sengi is a relatively large animal to have been just discovered, it is a great deal smaller than bigfoot.  Yet, this animal was easily observed in a camera trap.  It seems much more likely that a large animal such as bigfoot would be seen in these traps quite frequently, if it exists.  The ease at which the scientists were able to find the new animal also is a strike against the existence of bigfoot.  The expedition to the mountains of Tanzania only lasted two weeks.  Even in this short period of time, they were able to find and catch many examples of the sengi.  People have been looking for bigfoot for at least the last 50 years and they still haven’t found any solid evidence.

The comparison of the search for bigfoot with the search and subsequent finding of the grey-faced sengi helps to illustrate the improbability of the existence of bigfoot.  Together with the total lack of conclusive evidence (like droppings, fur, remains, heat signatures) despite their size and the necessary large breeding population brings the odds of their existence to nearly zero.  However, no one can conclusively say that something does not exist, but we don’t know if the invisible pink unicorn exists either.

For an audio interview with Galen Rathbun about the discovery, listen to the Are We Alone podcast (towards the end, but the whole episode is good)

Written by bort901

February 4, 2009 at 8:53 am

Posted in Cryptozoology

Tagged with ,

Astronomy vs. Evolution

leave a comment »

IYA2009yoe2009There is a battle brewing.  On one side is Astronomy; on the other is Evolution.  This is the 400th anniversary when Galileo first used his telescope to examine the night sky.  It is also the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the origin of species. All of these events have coincided in 2009 to make a battle between the Year of Astronomy and the Year of Evolution.  So who will win out in this battle of “year of”s?  Everyone, of course!

Year of Astronomy festivities:

International Year of Astronomy 2009

365 days of astronomy


Year of Evolution festivities:

Year of Evolution 2009

Darwin 2009 in Houston

Many more events are planned in both Astronomy and Evolution.  Enjoy!

Written by bort901

January 29, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Posted in Announcements

Two 150 ft crosses allows Grace Community to claim Houston as theirs.

with 21 comments

I am personally not a very religious person.  I am also not ant-religion. However, I do get offended and a little worried when a particular church proclaims that the city I live in is theirs.

Just north of Houston, Texas is the Grace Community Church.  It is your average megachurch, except for a peculiar billboard next to the freeway.  On this billboard is a picture of a large cross and the proclamation:

Marking our city

After staring at this billboard everyday while I am stuck in traffic, I decided to check out what exactly they mean by “marking our city.”  I had assumed that they were talking about their complex of church buildings. They aren’t.  The city in question is actually Houston itself.crossproject_markhouston

Their intentions can be found on the church’s website. They are planning on building two 150-foot tall crosses, one on each side of Houston on  I-45.  According to the website (emphasis mine):

These will stand as a proclamation of the Grace of God over Houston with a prayer tower inviting people to pray for God to move in our city

There is also a quote from Lou and Paula Gallardo (could this be the guy from Amerisciences?) that says:

A cross at each end of the city is a great dream and will draw people to God in an unprecedented way. I want Houston to be marked for God.

I know I am making a mountain out of a mole hill, but it still bothers me.  The assumption that everyone in the city believes the same as they do disturbs me.  Or worse, they know that others don’t think the same, but they don’t care or they want to convert the nonbelievers.

More information can be found here.

Written by bort901

January 24, 2009 at 10:07 am

Levels of pseudoskepticism

with 2 comments

Last week, I wrote how there were different levels of skepticism.  There a similar levels of pseudoskepticism.  Pseudoskepticism is the practice of promoting an unsubstantiated idea or theory using the language of skepticism.  Denial is a big part of the philosophy, but many logical fallacies are also to blame.  Frequently, the word skeptic is placed after theory.  For example, evolution skeptic and global warming skeptic are commonly seen.  Of course the word skeptic is not necessary and pseudoskepticism can take many forms.  The point here is that you can still have healthy skepticism towards any topic, but conclusions shouldn’t be be based on pseudoscience or plain old denial.

Below I have listed the different levels of pseudoskepticism as I see them.  Just like with my levels of skepticism, I don’t want this post to insult anyone, but to hopefully open people’s eyes to the shenanigans all around us.  I will be using examples from Intelligent Design proponents as I am most familiar with the movement’s methods and techniques.

Level 1 pseudoskeptic

The first level of a pseudoskeptic is someone who doubts a particular idea or theory.  There is a small difference here between the real skeptic and the pseudoskeptic.  The key difference here is that a skeptic will look at the evidence before coming to a conclusion.  In intelligent design, a skeptic would look at the two sides and conclude that there is a scientific consensus and actual evidence for evolution, while none exists for intelligent design.  The level 1 pseudoskeptic would look at the same evidence and conclude that since there is not perfect evidence for either, neither one is more likely to be true.     

Level 2 pseudoskeptic

The second level of pseudoskeptic is someone who has made up their mind for the pseudoscientific side of a debate in spite of the evidence to the other side.  This person outright denies that there is evidence contrary to their position.  They rely heavily on logical fallacies to prove their point.  They also claim that they are the real purveyors of science.  For example, evolution skeptics (or ID/creation proponents) outright deny that their are transitional fossils.  They also argue that evolution could not possibly happen because they couldn’t imagine how random mutation and natural selection could lead to the current state of life’s diversity (argument from personal incredulity).

Level 3 pseudoskeptic

A third level pseudoskeptic is someone who is spreading their false skepticism through a  website/podcast/ etc.  These people are actively trying to undermine real scientific observations and conclusions.  These people will often rely on non-experts or non-peer reviewed studies.  Anecdotal evidence or anomalies will also be presented.  In fact, anything but actual science will be presented.  One example from an evolution skeptic is Denyse O’Leary.  She has several blogs which attack evolution through the techniques mentioned above.  She has no real scientific training, but that doesn’t stop her from spreading her pseudoscientific wares.

Level 4

The highest level of a pseudoskeptic is someone who is well known throughout the pseudoskeptic circles.  These people have a large influence over the similar minded people.  One thing that makes people like this so dangerous is that they sound like the voice of reason to the unsuspecting.  It is not apparent without prior knowledge that they are not giving the accurate or complete story.  Often these people have no real training in the subject that they are focusing on.

One prime example of someone that has reached this stage is Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute.  Luskin exhibits all the characteristics.  He may not be as recognizable as Richard Dawkins or James Randi, but he certainly is well known in the “evolution skeptic” circles.  He repeatedly denies the existence of evidence for evolution, comments on scientific discoveries of which he is nowhere near qualified, and relies heavily on logical fallacies.

Written by bort901

January 23, 2009 at 2:00 pm

Posted in Uncategorized

Levels of skepticism

with 7 comments

I just finished listening to a recent episode of Skepticality where Reed Esau was discussing the “long tail” of skepticism.  They were saying how there appears to be few people in the skeptical movement who are active contributors, while most are simple observers.  This got me to wondering about the different levels of skeptic activism.  No, I am not talking about something akin to a World of Warcraft character levels.  Although a level 37 Skeptic does have a nice ring to it.  What I am really focusing on is the level of skeptical principles, commitment, and contribution.

I firmly believe that skepticism is the best way to look at the world.  Skepticism allows one to “shred off” preconceived notions, magical thinking, and human fallacies leading to a true view of reality.  Living strictly through faith or through willful suspension of disbelief does not lead to the betterment of anyone.  In fact, as the website, What’s The Harm?, nicely points out, being unskeptical can have dire consequences.

Below I have listed four levels of skepticism as I see them.  I don’t want this post to insult anyone, but to hopefully inspire people to try to get to that next level.  Society as a whole will benefit.

Level 1 skepticism

The first level of skeptic is someone who believes they are a skeptic, but may still have some unskeptical aspects of themselves that surface from time to time or that they have allowed a special sanctuary from critical evaluation.  Maybe they are still holding out on one particular pseudoscience or they believe that anecdotal evidence is equal to a well controlled scientific study. These people will benefit from an examination of logical fallacies and on the basic principles of reliable evidence, but everyone has to start somewhere, right?

Level 2 skepticism

The second level would be someone who is fully skeptical as far as it is humanly possible.  They rarely commit logical fallacies and they consistently strive to fact check everything they hear.  Maybe they even attend skeptical group meetings.  Hopefully they even spread critical thinking skills to their family and friends.

Level 3 skepticism

The third level of skepticism is someone who contributes some particular skill or knowledge base for the betterment of other skeptics and society.  Perhaps they run a blog or a podcast, or organize a local meeting of fellow skeptics.  Maybe they watch over online discussion forums and comment section in order to vanquish any sign of pseudoscience or unskeptical thought.

Level 4 skepticism

The fourth and final level of skepticism is something that very few skeptics will ever achieve.  People at this level are essentially the heroes of the skeptical movement.  These are the people that are heads of national skeptical organizations, appear on television shows, and are known outside the skeptical community.  These are people like Michael Shermer and James Randi.

Up next: levels of pseudoskepticism

Written by bort901

January 13, 2009 at 8:59 pm

Want magic water? Just stir…

with 7 comments

Recently, I came across what could be the silliest product that I have a seen all year.*  The product in question is called the stirwand from  The idea is that you take one of these wands, stir your water with it, and presto! magic water! This product promises to make “water taste better, smoother, and seems “wetter” with a slightly thicker consistency.”  It also can help you clean better, give your house an energized feel, is great for homeopathics, and is good for your plants and animals.  This product is another example of a product that promises to do just about everything under the sun. Always a good sign to be highly skeptical.

The website is replete with pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo that make it appear legitimate.  Terms like “quantum phenomenon,” “high-matrix latice,”  and “hydration potential” are found throughout the site.  It even contains links to “clinical trials” that show the effectiveness of the product.  Let’s take a look at some of their specific claims.

The first claim is that the water will be “wetter” after using the stirwand.  The problem here is on the definition of wetter.  There is a scientific idea of a wetting, which involves the properties of a liquid against a solid surface.  It is not clear if this is a good thing or a bad for your body, because pure water is less “wet” than water with chemicals or detergents dissolved in it.

Next, we find that using stirwands will make the water more resistant to bacteria and mold.  Forget that they don’t even have a possible mechanism for why this would be.  Forget that having bacteria and mold grow in our drinking water is not really an issue for anyone in a civilized nation.  Why don’t they have data to prove this benefit?

Another claim is that given a choice, animals will gravitate to the Stirwand water.  I guess they suppose that animals have some sort of sixth sense about water quality.  All I have to say to that is that a dog will gravitate to another dogs butt before it will go towards a bouquet of flowers.

Let’s forget that these claims are not particularly compelling and ask how do they propose that the stirwand does what it is claimed?  Apparently, the matrix inside the plastic stirwand causes the water to accept ”the imprint of the High Matrix minerals within the Stirwands” through the matrix’s “noninvasive resonance.”  This imprint then somehow changes the consciousness of the water which then manifests itself in a different form.  In other words… magic.

The claimed mechanisms seem ludicrous, but what about those clinical trials that they mentioned?  They are completely worthless (even worse than the one skepticpedi found).  Actually, the trials are worse than worthless, because they give the impression  of legitimacy to the stirwands.  Here is a short list of the obvious problems from their most recent “clinical trial.”

  • No control group – they did not even include a group of people that did not use stirwands.  Without this control group, it is impossible to tell what if any beneficts come from the tested product
  • Only 50 participants – The more participants, the better the study.  With such an easy and harmless product, obtaining more than 50 volunteers shouldn’t be a problem.
  • Nobody was blind –  The study didn’t even pretend to be scientific.  Every participant knew when they were consuming the treated water.  Every researcher also knew.

So how much will this stirwand cost you?  If you act now, you can get your own pretty plastic stirwand for the low low price of just $79.95!  But wait there is more! You can get an 8-piece set for only $549.95!  Act now!

*I know its only the second week of the year, but still.

Written by bort901

January 13, 2009 at 8:14 pm


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.