This week’s Pic was taken back in November when I spent a couple of weeks at a marine laboratory on the west coast of Sweden. On a walk along the beach I spotted this:

A seashell from a gastropod, lodged into a crack in the bark of a pine and cracked open. The shell was situated about a meter above ground, if I recall correctly, and there were more cracked shells and shell fragments on the ground beneath it.

I know woodpeckers and other birds lodge nuts and other food into the bark of trees to crack them open, and some shore-living birds bring shelled molluscs to certain rocks away from the shoreline where they crack and eat them. But I have never heard of a woodpecker gathering molluscs, taking them into the trees away from the shore, and lodging them into the bark just above ground! Of course, a human may have done this - possibly with the intent to confuse biologists - but that seems a bit unlikely.

Does anyone have an idea who might have done this?

seashell, mollusc

Pharyngula regulars will already have seen this but it’s too good not to repost:

Put like this, who can argue?

Also, a warning: Posting might be a little sporadic over the next week (as it has been since the weekend) due to me being very busy right now.

science, religion, bible

As I was tidying my harddrive the other day (something which I must admit happens rather more often than tidying my home…) I stumbled across some rather nice photos from last summer. Definitely nice enough to share. And Fridays seem like the day to be sharing photos in the blog world. So here’s the first of what will hopefully be a recurring theme, Friday Pictures. (Because I’ve been known to occasionally dabble in artsy endeavours, I won’t limit myself to Photos.)

Anyone who knows me even a bit will know that my fascination for eusocial insects doesn’t just extend to honeybees, but all eusocial Hymenopterans. Although I know far less about the workings of an ant colony than I do about bees, I probably know more than the average person. However, what’s happening in the above image, I think most people with an interest in nature in general has heard of: Ants harvesting honeydew from aphids. Notice the shiny drop of liquid between the ant’s mandibles!

Aphids are passive feeders, the pressure in the phloem of the host plant often causing more sap to enter the aphid than it can digest. The excess sap is secreted as honedew. I don’t know the species of ant or aphid on the picture, so I don’t know whether they are in a pure mutualistic relationship where the ants protect and move the aphids, the latter only giving up their sweet harvest in response to the gentle ministrations of ants, or whether this is an example of the more casual kind of ant-aphid relationship, where the aphids release the honedew anyway.

On one occasion I have seen a couple of ants mobbing a ladybug threatening some aphids. Unfortunately I did not have my camera on me.

ants, aphids, mutualism

The Astrological Magazine sez:

We regret to announce that due to unforeseen circumstances beyond our control, the publication of The Astrological Magazine will cease with the December 2007 issue.

Any commentary is really superfluous.

(hat tip to Jesper Jerkert at the Swedish Skeptic Society)

astrology

Nima Daryamadj is a columnist for one of Sweden’s major tabloids and has written a few very good ones on the subject of religion and spirituality. Here is a post from his blog that I have translated and am reposting with his permission. I don’t really think it requires more by way of introduction…

ETA: Apparently I had a brainfart and forgot to translate a word when I first posted this. Apologies.

---

Last year in december I got in touch with Pernilla Ouis, ((lektor)) lecturer at Malmö Högskola. I was told that Save the Children had censored her research paper on sexual violence against girls in the Middle East.

Save the Children (SC) have offices in different parts of the world. The office that handles the Middle East and North African region is called SCS-MENA (Save the Children Sweden - Middle East and North Africa). In 2006, Ouis was a consult for SC and was commissioned by SCS-MENA to lead a research project to do a situation analysis in the countries of Yemen, Lebanon and Palestine. The analyses concerned honour violence, early marriage and sexual abuse of girls.

When the report was almost done, SC required certain parts of it to be removed, supposedly because they were not in accordance with SC:s core values.

On May 7, Moa Roshanfar from the regional office in Lebanon wrote the following:

/…/ The problem for us at Save the Children is that the text about violence creates a polarisation between different groups, between west and east, between western and muslim societies. We want to be a radical voice and challenge men’s violence against women and children, but not in a way that separates cultures from each other and may lead to us and them-thinking. Below follows a few concrete examples in the text that either need to be clarified or changed, that can be understood as offending, generalising and may be viewed as polarising. Often in the text the words “culture”, “traditions”, “communities”, “societies” etc. are used, it’s important to be clear on what is meant. /…/

Then she gives examples of polarising paragraphs:

“Since sexual relationships outside wedlock are associated with strong religious taboos in this Muslim setting, sexual abuse in the MENA region is a special problematic topic for children.”

If the research shows that muslim sexual morals makes it difficult for children to tell others about sexual abuse, why are you not allowed to say this?

“It was suggested to have separate FGD with male teenagers as well. The male opinions, perspectives and experiences are important since we are dealing with gender-based violence in patriarchal communities.”

Here it was problematic to say “gender-based violence in patriarchial communities”. As Ouis herself answers: To exclude that the Middle East is generally patriarchal would be a faulty analysis that I as a scientist would feel ashamed of. Of course it’s a patriarchal society!

Let’s take a break: Maybe Pernilla Ouis isn’t a scientist but a “scientist”? Maybe she’s a rabid closet racist who hates people from the Middle East and Islam? Maybe the report is part of a hidden agenda to defame these?

Ouis is an arabic name. Pernilla has been married to an arab, whose name she chose to keep even after the divorce. Additionally, she converted to Islam in 1986 and has been a muslim for over 20 years. Not exactly a description of a hater of Islam and the Middle East.

Those suspicions dealt with, where were we? More polarising sentences:

“Playing games and bicycling for example are not accepted for girls in many honour societies because of…”

Ouis: That girls in many honour cultures are not allowed to play like boys or ride a bike (for fear of losing their virginity/hymen) is an acknowledged fact. It’s an important piece of information. Why should it be left out? Girls have told us about this. Should their evidence be silenced?

The blame of sexual assault and rape is on the victim, not the offender; in honour cultures…”

Ouis: The guilt is on the victim in honour cultures (in our western society too, if a comparison has to be made!). All the people we’ve interviewed say this and their answers also show how they’ve internalised this thinking. Should I lie about this and keep it in the dark? Motivate this, please. Is lying in accordance with SC:s core values?

After this, it becomes even more absurd:

“The acts that can do so are various, but it seems that in Yemen only wearing a decorated, but still Islamic, dress or laugh in the street is…”

“…children suggested that the Islamic dress…”

Apparently it is problematic to call the clothes of yemenitic girls “islamic”, despite the fact that 1) it IS islamic clothing and 2) the girls themselves used that term!

The children in Yemen called their clothes “Islamic dress” and said that if it had even the smallest decoration it could be viewed as immoral. They were only allowed to wear black, from head to toe. Islamic clothing has different names in different cultures; sometimes it’s called abaya, jilbab or hijab (which means different things, but still), but the term “Islamic dress” is to me a neutral term. How could it be offending? It’s what the children said!

“…and not to be debated openly in public, since it damages the self-image of many Muslims…”

Ouis: Of course the self-image of Muslims is damaged by discussing sexual violence against children. Sexuality is important for the self-image of a society and it’s problematic to discuss openly. This is the case in the west as well. Why do you think certain countries in the Muslim world don’t report any cases of HIV? Well, because it damages their self-image, as the disease is viewed as shameful and connected to sexual immorality.

In her letter Ouis points out that she’s been a Muslim for more than half her life, that she has a unique inside and outside perspective, has travelled a lot, written and read a lot about Islam, is an active participant in the debate about Islam in Sweden and often gets invited to tv, radio and government institutions.

---

The news were published yesterday in the newspaper Nima writes for. Today, Sanna Johnson from Save the Children responds in a different newspaper, claiming that Ouis’ report states that patriarchism and honour thinking is a problem exclusively in muslim societies.

Nima, who has read the report, states that this is not the case, which means that Johnson is either lying or incompetent. Given that Save the Children has expressly asked Ouis to lie by omission in her report, it seems the former isn’t so improbable.

Save the Children wants to find a way to criticise the individual instances of sexual abuse and honour violence without judging a whole culture. Essentially, they put political correctness and rampant “tolerance” before the advance of modern, secular thinking - equality. Given that their mission is to “creating real and lasting change for children in need”, it seems they’re really shooting themselves in the foot.

islam, save the children, sexual abuse, pernilla ouis, middle east

I’ve been interested in anthroposophy since I was a kid, probably because my parents took me along to the Rudolf Steiner Seminar in Järna quite a few times. Not that they were anthroposophists - we went to look at the gardens and browse their shop of various curious paraphernalia. While anthroposophy as a religion is, to be frank, batshit crazy, there is something to be said for the aesthetics. At one point in elementary school I wrote an essay on anthroposophy, for which I interviewed a woman working in one of their shops. I remember frantically taking notes, all the while thinking, “Oh my god. This woman actually BELIEVES what she’s saying?”

If you don’t understand why a 13-year-old would feel that way, you need to read up on anthroposophy.

Anyway, like most other people I have grown up thinking of anthroposophy as a sort of harmless hippie religion. More specifically, I never particularly minded waldorf schools, imagining that kids probably didn’t learn much but at least had a good time. It wasn’t that I took part of much waldorf propaganda, I simply never considered anthroposophy very threatening. However, lately I have begun reading a few blogs that tell a completely different story. One of them is zooey, who went to waldorf kindergarten and elementary school, and whose very personal account of these years I am reposting here. Photos by the author, edited by me.

(more…)

The parade of amusing google hits continues, but sometimes I really wish I could anticipate questions and answer them before they’re asked. You see, today someone found my blog by googling the phrase “honey contains all you need to survive”.

NO! No it doesn’t! You have to eat other kinds of food! You can’t live on sugar!

Unless, of course, you’re a bee, in which case I apologise and withdraw the above statement, although if you want to survive the winter I’d suggest eating some pollen as well. Hummingbirds may also wish to ignore my advice on this matter (just avoid the idiots feeding you nutrisweet).

honey

The president of the Swedish Humanist Association is one Christer Sturmark, a 40-something man whom the media like to point out wears a pony-tail and a gold ring in his ear, and who is often referred to (by the same media) as an old IT guru. Be that as it may, he has brought the SHA to the forefront of public debate, leading to an amazing increase in membership and resources with which to battle religious fundamentalism, pseudoscientific woo and other things humanism opposes, as well as improving our own various ceremonial services and other activities. That the SHA has Sturmark to thank for most of this, I doubt anyone would contradict.

He is not entirely uncontroversial, however, and lately there have been a few elements within the SHA spreading what can only be seen as disinformation intended to hurt his reputation, regarding his personal life. I will not dwell on the exact nature of this discussion because it’s actually rather stupid. What is interesting though is what these people, when they have met with resistance from within the association, have done. A specific question has been raised: Are we allowed to criticise The Leader? Is the SHA in actuality a sect-like organisation?

This is obviously beyond ridiculous, and here’s why:

Christer Sturmark is not Our Leader. Nor is Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Cristopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, or any other prominent atheist or humanist you can think of. There are prominent thinkers within this loosely-held-together movement. There are prominent debaters, there are presidents of organisations, there are board members and there are people who are famous for other reasons who ally themselves with us (Björn Ulvaeus of ABBA fame being the obvious example in Sweden).

Many of us feel grateful to these people, for standing up for our worldview and beliefs, for taking the slings and arrows of the religious counter-attacks, and for developing and refining our worldview and the arguments for it.

But, and this is the important bit, they don’t tell us what to think or do. They don’t tell us what we believe. None of us went to a tent revival where Pastor Dawkins made us see the light and repent. There is no God and Sturmark is most definitely not his Prophet. Most atheists who were ever anything but atheists are self-converts - they thought about their worldview and realised it was wrong. Books and speeches by prominent atheists and humanists may have helped, but in the end, this is a thoroughly individualistic movement, which requires all members to make up their own minds. (In fact, the SHA has an age limit of 12, as we think it’s unethical to ally your children with a worldview organisation before they have had the chance to make up their own mind.)

Sturmark is an individual who happens to be the president of the SHA. I’m an individual who happens to be a member of the SHA. I do not think that just because he’s the president, his beliefs are more humanistic than mine, and that I ought to defer to him in everything related to our worldview. I do recognise authority where it is due, but this is not one of those cases. So yes, it is perfectly okay to criticise people like Sturmark, or for that matter the “Four Horsemen”. The fact that such criticism is often ignored, or sometimes vehemently disagreed with, does not reflect any sect-like tendencies, but rather suggests two things:

The first is that most atheists/humanists either agree with what these public faces of atheism/humanism think, or feel such a debt of gratitude that they feel obliged to defend them.

The second is that because of the very fact that these people aren’t Leaders, in the way that the Pope is the Leader of the Catholic church, there is no obligation on us (the members) to defend or denounce them.

The point here is that while for instance Ted Haggard’s behaviour was extremely important to the members of his church, because he purported to speak for a Higher Authority, such is not the case when it comes to Sturmark or other official leaders of the humanist/atheist movement. It may damage our reputation with other people outside the movement when our elected leaders make mistakes, but among us, we know that all humans are just that - human. Everyone makes mistakes, and if we made a mistake in electing a particular leader, so be it. Because we never claimed that these people are perfect representations of all it means to be a humanist, there is no need to act as though it’s the end of the world when they do something we don’t agree with - at least so long as they don’t claim to do it in the name of the movement.

My conclusion is that those within the movement who accuse us of cult-like tendencies are actually displaying the very same tendencies themselves, as they seem to suffer under the delusion that a person has to be without fault to be eligible to lead the movement!

humanism, atheism, sturmark, cults

A vaguely amusing news-item on BBC Health states that:

A range of complementary therapies such as homeopathy and aromatherapy are to be regulated by a new body. /…/ The [Natural HealthCare Council] will set standards and have the power to strike off those deemed incompetent, although membership of the body will be voluntary.

Wow, really? That sounds promising. Except… not so much. I wonder what their definition of “incompetence” is. Will the fact that for instance homeopathy has been shown to be completely ineffectual count towards the incompetence score of homeopaths? I somehow doubt it. What exactly will they be regulating? How nice you are to your customers as you sell them woo? Whether you charge too much (or too little)?

The Natural HealthCare Council will only register practitioners who have a recognised professional qualification, are insured and have signed up to the code of conduct.

Sigh. Actual effectiveness of the “complementary therapy” obviously doesn’t count…

pseudoscience, woo, homeopathy

PZ Myers recently posted some creationist drivel over at Pharyngula, which - unusually - focussed on physics rather than biology. This particular quote has been the subject of much scorn:

Unveils the fundamental truth, based on the scientific record of creation, that the earth accreted from a watery nebula; the great surging mass of water and chemicals had no particular shape and covered thousands of square miles of interstellar space.

Why is this so funny (apart from the idea that volume can be measured in square miles)? Well, personally I’m reminded by someone who, apparently at a loss for what else to say when Hemant at Friendly Atheist asked what we admire about christians, claimed that they “think big”. God is supposedly big. But apparently, the universe isn’t.

The author of the quote - one Parsons - is out by orders of magnitude when it comes to how much water you’d need to form the Earth. One commenter at Pharyngula claims that the earth has “approximately 196 MILLION square miles of surface area. It has, approximately, 26 BILLION cubic miles of material.” (I haven’t bothered to verify these claims, but I do know that they are closer to the truth than Parsons with his thousands of square miles.)

This isn’t the first time a creationist fails to comprehend large things. Recall for instance the Christian grad students who were supposed to teach middle schoolers that 10²⁶² is such a large number that if you attempted to write it down, you would “fill up the entire known universe with paper before you could write that number”. Now, this could mean that whomever wrote that lives in a very very small universe … or they simply had no idea what they were talking about.

Is this symptomatic of something? Does the muddled thinking of creationists ultimately come from an inability to understand, or come to terms with, just how big the world is? Perhaps if these people actually comprehended the true scale of the universe, they would realise the hubris of believing that it was created for the sole purpose of housing bipedal, hairless primates.

science, physics, creationism