Over the past few years, under the watch of commissioner Adam Silver, the NBA has encouraged its players, coaches, and executives to speak up on political and societal issues. In turn, the league has positioned itself as a self-appointed bastion of progressivism.But I bet the league wishes that Rockets general manager Daryl Morey had “stuck to sports” when he logged onto Twitter on Friday.Morey’s now-deleted tweet in support of pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong has created a legitimate …
Additional comments from the Editor:Dr. Bergman has two books in print on the persecution of creationists and Darwin skeptics, and a third is coming soon. In the Introduction to the second volume, Silencing the Darwin Skeptics: The War Against Theists (Leafcutter Press, 2016), Kevin Wirth points out the arrogance of many Darwin defenders (pp xv-xvii). After quoting Richard Dawkins, who had blasted the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson for being insufficiently intolerant of religious people, Wirth comments:Dawkins parrots a familiar refrain: no one who comes from a different field of science is qualified to offer an opinion worth contemplating. Militant Darwinists have no patience with those who disagree with them. It aggravates them to no end to have to listen to what they consider to be foolish prattle. They want dissidents to be silenced and removed from the conversation – and they want it to happen yesterday. And they are often not content to just distance themselves from dissidents, but instead often go after them with the intent to do harm. Dr. Bergman’s work makes this painfully obvious.We encourage our readers to see the evidence for themselves in Dr Bergman’s alarming books: Slaughter of the Dissidents (Vol. I, 2008), Silencing the Darwin Skeptics (Vol II, 2016), and Censorship of Darwin Skeptics (Vol III, due out this year, which will contain my JPL experience). We see the same insufferable arrogance and intolerance in Laura Geggel’s article (see David Klinghoffer’s response in Evolution News & Science Today). During the Inquisition, authorities dressed heretics in dunce caps before burning them at the stake. The comparison is apt. —David Coppedge(Visited 843 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 by Dr Jerry BergmanIn a recent article at Live Science, Laura Geggel asks, “Why Are Atheists Generally Smarter Than Religious People?” She claims that “For more than a millennium, scholars have noticed a curious correlation: Atheists tend to be more intelligent than religious people.”[i] How they could know this, since IQ tests and other means of measuring intelligence were only developed at the start of the last century, was not answered. Another problem is many kinds of intelligence exist, such as doing well on paper and pencil tests, or on performance tests, for example. Also, there exist intelligence in other areas, such as music IQ, math IQ, abstract conceptualization IQ, verbal IQ, personality IQ, even emotional IQ,[ii] and, according to some authors, 120 different kinds of IQs.Geggel continues, “researchers of a new study have an idea: Religion is an instinct and those who can rise above instincts are more intelligent than those who rely on them.” This conclusion vastly oversimplifies reality. As a professor, I have worked with, and have known, a large number of very intelligent people. In my experience, when it comes to the origins issue, creation vs. evolution, this generalization is certainly not true. Emotions and irrationality commonly surface fairly soon in these conversations, making rational discourse difficult, if not impossible.The article points to a meta-analysis of 63 studies that supposedly found religious people tend to be less intelligent than nonreligious people.[iii] According to this study, “the association was stronger among college students and the general public than for those younger than college age”.This association likely has a lot to do with education indoctrination. More intelligent people are more likely to go to college and, as a result, they are frequently exposed to anti-Christian, or at least anti-theism ideas as well as pro-Darwinism beliefs. The reason has been documented by Stanford Educated Attorney Greg Lukianoff, who is President of an organization fighting censorship in colleges called FIRE. In short, he found that campus intolerance of free speech and censorship is primarily directed at Christians. He adds that a chilling discovery was that Christian groups are disproportionately more likely to be threatened on campus, adding: “If you told me twelve years ago that I, a liberal atheist, would devote a sizeable portion of my career to defending Christian groups, I might have been surprised. But almost from my first day at FIRE, I was shocked to realize how badly Christian groups are often treated.”[iv] He then reviewed some of his experiences, noting in the last few yearsdozens of colleges across the country threatened or derecognized Christian groups because of their refusal to say that they would not “discriminate” on the basis of belief. These colleges included, to name a few, Arizona State University, Brown University, California State University, Cornell University, Harvard University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Purdue University, Rutgers University, Texas A&M University, Tufts University, the University of Arizona, the University of Florida, the University of Georgia, the University of Mary Washington, the University of New Mexico, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Washington University.[v]One major contributing factor to this intolerance—as reported by a 2007 study from the Institute for Jewish and Community Research—is that, of all groups, “faculty hold the most unfavorable feelings toward evangelicals.” The study added that only one group elicited high negative feelings among faculty, namely evangelical Christians:faculty hold the most unfavorable feelings toward evangelicalsOnly 30% ranked their feelings toward evangelical Christians as warm/favorable, with only 11% feeling very warm/favorable, the lowest ranking among every other religious group, and 53% said that they have cool/unfavorable feelings toward evangelical Christians. Faculty feelings about evangelicals are significantly cooler than any other religious group, leading Mormons as the least liked religious group by 20%. These negative feelings are noted across academic disciplines and demographic factors.[vi] Another study found that an amazing 71 percent of all faculty believe that Americawould be better off if Christian Fundamentalists kept their religious beliefs out of politics … [only] Twenty-four percent disagreed and 5% were not sure. The public agreed, but at far lower percentages than faculty—54% agreed, 39% disagreed, and 7% were unsure. … About 92% of liberals agreed that fundamentalist Christians should keep their religious beliefs out of politics, as did 66% of moderates, and 23% of conservatives.[vii]One reason for the censorship is many people feel, as Professor Karl Giberson wrote, that “Young Earth creationism is a threat to American survival.”[viii] This and similar articles amount to hate literature and have produced the perception that the censorship is fully justified. Ironically, Giberson teaches at Stonehill College, a private, non-profit, co-educational, Roman Catholic Liberal Arts college located in Easton, Massachusetts founded in 1948. Lukianoff found from his work defending free speech that on college and university “campuses today, students are punished for everything from mild satire, to writing politically incorrect short stories, to having the “wrong” opinion on virtually every hot button issue, and, increasingly, simply for criticizing the college administration.” Here are some examples. One student waspunished for publicly reading a book; a professor labeled a deadly threat to campus for posting a pop-culture quote on his door; students required to lobby the government for political causes they disagreed with in order to graduate; a student government that passed a “Sedition Act” empowering them to bring legal action against students who criticized them; and students across the country being forced to limit their “free speech activities” to tiny, isolated corners of campus creepily dubbed “free speech zones.”[ix]We should be asking whether America would be better off if atheists kept their own anti-religious beliefs out of politics. The study also found that, whereas amajority of faculty believe ethnic or religious minority students at their institution are reluctant to express their views, seven percent of faculty very often “perceive that ethnic or religious minority students at [their] institution are reluctant to express their views because they might be contrary to those held by faculty,” another 14% said fairly often, and 38% said occasionally—a total of 59%. Only 30% said never or almost never, and 12% did not know.[x]The researchers in the study quoted above assumed that nonreligious people were more rational and thus better able to reason that there was no God, but instead “found evidence that intelligence is positively associated with certain kinds of bias.” This bias blind spot occurs when people cannot detect bias, or flaws, in their own thinking. Ironically, “a larger bias blind spot was associated with higher cognitive ability,”[xi] This conclusion agrees with my review of academia and the intolerance against evangelical Christians, and may be one reason why studies indicate theists score lower on tests compared to those with more advanced education, especially in the sciences.[i] Laura Geggel, Senior Writer | June 5, 2017 study published May 16 in the journal Evolutionary Psychological Science under the title “Why is Intelligence Negatively Associated with Religiousness?” Springer International Publishing. http://www.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html.[ii] Sally Bennett. 2017. Emotional Intelligence. Geneva Publishing[iii] Miron Zukerman, Jordan Silberman and Judith Hall. 2013.The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 17(4) 325–354[iv] Greg Lukianoff, 2012. Unlearning Liberty: Campus Censorship and the End of the American Debate. New York: Encounter Books, p. 163.[v] Lukianoff, 2012, p.169.[vi] Lukianoff, 2012, p. 12.[vii] Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D. and Aryeh K. Weinberg, 2007. Volume 2: Religious Beliefs Behavior of College Faculty Institute for Jewish & Community Research p. 10.[viii] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karl-giberson-phd/young-earth-creationism-threat-to-american-survival_b_2192491.html.[ix] Lukianoff, 2013 pp. 4-5.[x] Gary A. Tobin, Ph.D. Aryeh K. Weinberg 2007. Volume 2: Religious Beliefs Behavior of College Faculty Institute for Jewish & Community Research, p. 11.[xi] West, Richard F.; Meserve, Russell J.; Stanovich, Keith E. 2012. Cognitive sophistication does not attenuate the bias blind spot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3): 506-519. September.Dr Jerry Bergman is the author of 40 books and monographs, and is also a science professor and public speaker. He is a frequent contributor to Creation-Evolution Headlines. See his Author Profile and previous articles here.
31 March 2013 South Africa thrashed Ireland by 86 runs at the ICC Women’s World Twenty in Sylhet, Bangladesh on Saturday to set up a showdown against New Zealand on Monday which will decide whether or not the Proteas progress to the semi-finals. With their huge victory, South Africa improved their net run rate significantly. Most importantly, it is now better than the White Ferns’, which means a win would pull Mignon du Preez’s team level with the Kiwis on points, but above them on net run rate. The Proteas were expected to beat Ireland, who fell to their third loss in three outings, but the one-sided nature of the result was perhaps a little surprising.‘It was wonderful’ South Africa went into the game on the back of a hard-fought six wicket loss to Australia, so Proteas’ coach Hilton Moreeng was happy to see his side back on the winning track. “It was wonderful to see such a good fight back from the team today,” he said afterwards. “It’s always difficult to bounce back after a loss, having played so well against a team like Australia. “I’m very proud of their professionalism and character during this match. The batters did so well up front to set us up and our bowlers were just exceptional.”Good start Du Preez elected to bat and Lizelle Lee and Dane van Niekerk, who put on 163 without loss against Pakistan, again got the team off to a good start, posting 57 for the first wicket before Van Niekerk departed for 25. Lee fell for the innings’ top score of 43 with the total on 72 in the 14th over, but some clean hitting by Chloe Tryon and Sune Luus saw the run rate soar in the closing overs, with Tryon finishing undefeated on 35 off only 12 deliveries, with three fours and three sixes, while Luus ended on 29 not out from just 10 deliveries, with six fours.Irish innings Ireland, in reply, lost Clare Shillington in the first over, but then steadied their innings as wicketkeeper Mary Waldron and captain Isobel Joyce added 41 for the second wicket before Waldron was stumped by Trisha Chetty off the bowling of Marcia Letsoala for Ireland’s top score of 33. Joyce went on to make 15 and Melissa Scott-Hayward 14, but when she departed on 67, another victim of Lesoalo, the Irish innings folded, with the next highest scorer making only six runs. The absence of Cecilia Joyce because of an injury did not help either.Standout bowlers Proteas’ opening bowler Shabnim Ismail led the assault on the Irish batswomen, capturing an eye-opening 3 for 5 in her three overs, while Dane van Niekerk did her bit by picking up 3 for 10 in two overs of leg spin. Letsoalo, who made two important breakthroughs, finished with 2 for 23 in her three overs.
20 April 2015The World Travel Market Africa (WTM Africa) was fantastic this year and exceeded all expectations, according to Sugen Pillay, the exhibition’s commercial director.Speaking on the sidelines of the conference, he said the international buyers at WTM Africa were impressive, and were “impressed with the exhibitors”.WTM Africa was held in Cape Town from 15 to 17 March. More than 200 hosted buyers attended the event, which was in its second year. It had grown significantly in just a year, he added: in 2014, there were 3 000 trade visitors and 200 exhibitors; this year there were 550 exhibitors. Visitor numbers still had to be aggregated.“We had the right type of international buyer and more than 20 African countries represented. This gave a real sense of what the continent had to offer,” he said. “Exhibitors and visitors were surprised by the number and type of buyers at the show.”WTM Africa is to be followed by the Tourism Indaba in Durban, the entrenched annual exhibition that runs from 9 to 11 May this year. Indaba showcases Southern Africa’s best tourism products, and attracts international buyers and media from across the world.Pillay saw no conflict between the two. Indaba focused on the inbound market, he explained.“The industry has responded well to WTM Africa,” said Pillay. “We also focus on the outbound market, and we featured countries from outside Africa. This means they see Africa as an outbound market, and that there is a demand for tourists from Africa.”EbolaAddressing the knock on effect of issues such as Ebola on tourism to Africa, Pillay said tourist numbers had dropped since the Ebola outbreak. “There is a perception globally that affects the consumer. There is a need for education that Ebola is in a small region of an entire continent.”Governments played a role in this education and the various tourism associations were working hard to get the message out. “Global issues like this do have an immediate effect on tourism, but it is not long term. And tourism is a long-term industry,” he added.“The response to WTMAfrica shows that tourism is on a growth path in Africa.”Figures released by Tourism Indaba earlier this month support Pillay’s comment. Indaba exhibitor numbers were up 30% and hosted buyers were up 100%.South African Tourism, owners of the Indaba, said on 10 April that exhibitor applications were up 30% compared to 2014, and 90% of the tradeshow floor space had been reserved. Approved non-hosted buyer applications were on a par with 2014; and approved hosted buyer numbers were double that of 2014.Outbound marketWTM Africa is marketed as Africa’s largest inbound and outbound business to business tourism show. It is a platform for buyers and exhibitors to do business. In addition, key issues and trends are presented and discussed via interactive networking sessions and panel discussions.This year, these included the Responsible Tourism Speed Networking Session, the Asata Western Cape Chapter Meeting and Young Professional in Travel Networking Session, Rhino Art’s presentation highlighting rhino poaching, and Wendy van der Byl’s presentation on the SADC Univisa between Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola.A highlight was the inaugural African Responsible Tourism Awards.Figures are not yet available for WTM Africa this year, but at the inaugural event in 2014 about 4 000 industry professionals negotiated deals worth $314-million (R3.7- billion). This was expected to be exceeded this year, and 2014’s figures surpassed, said WTM Africa.Freedom Park on showFreedom Park, the memorial park in Pretoria, was among the exhibitors. “[The] World Travel Market 2015 audience [was] exposed to the Wall of Names, which is an element amongst many within Freedom Park wherein more than 80 000 names of the heroes and heroines who perished in various wars like the First World War, Second World War, Anglo Boer War, Wars of Resistance and Liberation War are inscribed,” said Freedom Park spokesperson Naomi Madima.The market was a suitable platforms for Freedom Park to exhibit its iconic symbols because it hosted African and international exhibitors in the tourism industry. In keeping with the ethos of the park, the stand carried information dating back 3.6 billion years, as well as on various phases of the South African history from slavery, genocide, colonialism, industrialisation, liberation and democracy.“Freedom Park is a national monument in a true sense in that it encompasses and embraces a history of all South Africans and acknowledges other international liberation heroes and heroines,” Madima said.WTM Africa’s official charity this year was The Tourism Child Protection Code of Conduct. It, together with leading South African tourism industry stakeholders, used the event to signal their game-changing approach to protecting children from the worst forms of exploitation. The Code is an industry-driven, multi-stakeholder initiative with the mission to provide awareness, tools and support to the tourism industry in order to combat the sexual exploitation of children in contexts related to travel and tourism.WTM Africa forms part of Africa Travel Week, which comprises of three co-located industry events, namely: International Luxury Travel Market Africa, International Business Travel Market and Word Travel Market Africa.SAinfo reporter
What happens to by-products from the manufacturing process?Can the product be recycled at the end of its life?Is the waste safely disposed of or reused?As we educate ourselves, one another, and our clients on the continuum of sustainability, we begin to understand the bigger picture of globalization—people, animals, plants, and ecosystems—and that everything is connected. We learn that bamboo flooring made in China affects the quality of life in Greenland, and wool carpet from New Zealand can affect the health of people in the U.S. Armed with a multilayered understanding of a product’s environmental attributes, we actively engage in the reality that everything we do has an affect on the planet.Knowledge is power and leads to nurturing the future of our planet by choosing the greenest possible solutions. As Dr. Wangari Maathai, the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner and founder of the Green Belt Movement, says, “Peace on Earth depends on our ability to secure our living environment.”Be the difference! Don’t hesitate; start now on building your green library and enjoy your research in qualifying products by taking one step at a time. And remember, we are all in this together!Sources: Sustainable Residential Interiors by Associates III – Foster, Stelmack, Hindman (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)“REGREEN Residential Remodeling Guidelines” by ASID & USGBCPlanet Green The choices we make today are shaping what our world will look like tomorrow.We are all consumers, with an inherent responsibility in the choices we make on a daily, hourly basis. Our choices can lead to improving the quality of life for all, and eventually restoring and regenerating our planet. So where do we start in qualifying products that lead to the final selection of an environmentally preferable product?I like to ask manufacturers and suppliers questions that explore their sustainable strategies and principles. I enjoy the dialogue and engage them in discussing their specific strategies, which might include reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; the conservation of energy and water; the use of renewable raw materials; the improvement of indoor air quality; the support of renewable energy sources—the list (as they say) goes on and on.The next time you meet with a manufacturer or supplier, consider this short list of questions:Manufacturer’s Sustainability:Is there an environmental policy in place on the company’s website?Does the company openly provide an annual report on sustainability?Are products made using sustainable manufacturing practices— first reducing and reusing, then recycling?Does the company participate in reforestation or giving back to the community?Does the manufacturing process efficiently use resources such as water and energy?Product Composition:What are the raw materials? Where do they come from and/or how are the raw materials harvested?What are the material contents?Is it made from renewable and/or recycled resources?Product Characteristics:Is it third-party certified from such organizations as Forest Stewardship Council, Greenguard, or Scientific Certification Systems?Is it formaldehyde free?Is it treated with chemicals or preservatives?Does it include binders or adhesives? If so, what are they made from? Are they zero- or low-emissions?What colorants, dyes, finishes and/or sealants were used? Are they toxic or benign?What percentage of the material is from recycled content?If the product contains reclaimed material, where is it from, and is it free of lead, nails, tar, and creosote?If there is a backing, what is it made of?Does the product off-gas or emit toxins during the manufacturing process, and to installers or end users?What are the product’s life-cycle costs, including durability, embodied energy, maintenance, recycling/disposal?Packaging/Transportation:How is the product packaged?Can packaging be returned for reuse or recycling?How is the product shipped and from where?Recycling/Disposal:
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.