Howard Lake | 30 May 2016 | News John Matson, CEO of UKCI, said:“Our goals are to support existing museums, galleries, artists, auction houses and others in protecting and enhancing their brands, to inspire new organisations to build on .ART real estate, and to make domain names available to younger players to the art scene whose names are no longer available in other TLDs and want to immediately be identified with the art world.”UKCI was founded by Russian venture capitalist Ulvi Kasimov, who serves on the Board of Trustees at the Moscow Multi-Media Art Museum and has sponsored a number of exhibitions and publications. Tagged with: arts domain names 207 total views, 1 views today 208 total views, 2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis70 About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Advertisement Arts and culture sector to get their own .art domain name AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis70 The arts and culture sector will this year have its own distinctive top-level domain name, .art, to offer immediate identification with the arts.The domain name was the idea of UK Creative Ideas Limited which, following agreement with ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, will act as the exclusive operator of the domain. It will be available to arts organisations from Autumn 2016. Organisations and individuals can request an .art domain from dotart.domains.
AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterShare to MoreAddThisA total lunar eclipse will be in full affect this Wednesday making history once again. The moon is expected to turn a “blood red” color and will be visible to the eye. Besser Museum’s Digital Dome Program Coordinator, Thaddeus LaCoursiere said a viewing party will be held from 6 am until 8 am to witness the moment. Watch the full interview for more details.When: Wednesday, January 31, 2018Where: Besser MuseumTime: 6 am until 8 am AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitterShare to MoreAddThisContinue ReadingPrevious Hubbard Lake fishing tournament draws record numbersNext Great-great granddaughter said family once owned Mich-E-Ke-Wis park
Tags: England teams, Meghan MacLaren 1 May 2020 “I think it’s cool” – MacLaren eager for a celebration of men’s and women’s golf Meghan MacLaren has backed the history-making plan to stage the English Men’s and Women’s Amateur Championships simultaneously at Woodhall Spa in July as another innovative step forward for golf.The Ladies’ European Tour player and former England Golf graduate was this week the latest golfer to give up time and impart her knowledge of the game to our national squads via an online Q&A.MacLaren looked back fondly on her amateur career with England and her time at Florida State University before making it onto tour.In 2016, MacLaren was crowned European champion with England’s women’s amateur team – the same year she helped GB&I to win the Curtis Cup.As a pro, MacLaren has won twice on the LET and has earned praise for her thought-provoking blogs about life on tour and her championing of the women’s game.England Golf’s announcement last week that the staging of both the men’s and women’s amateur championship had been provisionally re-scheduled for the last week in July at the same venue has created a buzz.MacLaren is a strong advocate of equality in the game and hopes the coronavirus situation has eased by then to allow the events to take place side-by-side as planned.“It might only be because of circumstances, but it’s a brilliant opportunity to see how it works going forward,” admitted the 25-year-old pictured above playing for England in the 2013 European Ladies’ Team Championship.“There are a couple of events like that on the pro circuit – the Vic Open in Australia is the main one. It’s two separate events for men and women, but staged at the same time.“I think it’s cool that it could be considered normal.“Men’s and women’s golf is different, but it doesn’t have to be different in terms of opportunities or prize funds at the pro level or levels of talent.“It’s just golf being played by different genders and the earlier that becomes normal the better it is for the game as a whole.”MacLaren’s chat with the class of 2020 provided more than an hour’s worth of insight into her career, her development and her hopes for the future.As with previous guests, Matt Wallace and Matt Fitzpatrick, the questions flooded in and MacLaren was only too happy to give a little back to the organisation that gave her so much in her amateur career.She added: “All the squads are in great hands with the coaches at their disposal.“But sometimes it’s different to hear things from a player who has previously been in squads.“A player might go through the emotion of not being picked for a team or not knowing if they are good enough to get on tour or not knowing how they stand in relation to the best players in the world.“It can even be something as simple as being told it’s ok not to practice for a couple of days if you’re working on mental or physical things.“Now this seems to me like common sense, but when I look back there was a lot that I didn’t know.“I questioned a lot of things, but I didn’t really know where to find the answers.”MacLaren still keeps tabs on the amateur game and in January caught up with women’s squad player Charlotte Heath in Australia.Heath had qualified for the Vic Open after winning the Australian Women’s Amateur and the English contingent of Felicity Johnson, Hannah Burke, MacLaren and Heath (pictured above) enjoyed a rare photo opportunity.“We were all on the putting green one day and it was cool to see different groups from England Golf coming together at an event like that,” said MacLaren.“Charlotte did really well – I think out of the four of us she was the only one that made the cut. We had to learn from her!“I still look at the amateur ranks and while I don’t know someone like Lily May Humphreys, I’ve seen how successful she has been and it’s intriguing for me to see what happens next.“I loved my England days and still miss the input of being in a team environment – talking to coaches, players and practising together. You gain a lot from that and you only realise how much when it’s not there.”In the coming weeks, Tommy Fleetwood, Danny Willett, Chris Wood, Mel Reid and Bronte Law will be next to pass on their wit, wisdom and experience to the squad via online webinars.
Facebook6Tweet0Pin0Submitted by Saint Martin’s University Opera tenor Thomas Harper will be performing a selection of musical works by German artists at the next Music @ 11 event Tuesday, March 18, at 11 a.m. in Kreielsheimer Hall, on the Saint Martin’s University campus, 5000 Abbey Way. The event is free and open to the public.The pieces Harper is presenting include Robert Schumann’s Widmung, Richard Strauss’ Zueignung and Hugo Wolf’s Der Tambour. Harper will also take time to talk about performing and he will share his reflections on life as a professional, full-time singer.Harper has been a member of the voice faculty at the University of Washington since 1998. Before moving to Seattle to work at the University of Washington, Harper sang primarily in Germany. He was a resident singer at Dortmund Opera and was named Artist of the Year there in 1993. Harper also sang at Theater Hagen, Pfalztheater Kaiserslautern, and Landestheater Coburg. His roles with those companies include the Duke in Giuseppe Verdi’s Rigoletto, Loge in Richard Wagner’sRheingold, Eléazar in Fromental Halévy’s Juive, Canio in Ruggero Leoncavallo’s Pagliacci, the title role of Wagner’s Parsifal, and Rodolfo in Giacomo Puccini’s La Bohème. Harper is currently the head of the voice department at the University of Washington.In addition to the Music @ 11 event, Harper will be hosting a master class at 1 p.m. for Saint Martin’s student singers who are working with German songs. “Primarily, I will be helping them with German diction and interpretive delivery of the texts,” Harper notes.Harper made his U.S debut in 1991 singing as Mime, a character in Richard Wagner’s The Ring Cycle, at the Seattle Opera. He returned for the role in 1995, 2000, 2001, and 2005. Harper has reprised Mime with many other companies, including Deutsche Oper Berlin, Staatsoper Hamburg, Grand Théâtre de Genève, Dortmund Opera, RAI Radiotelevisione Italiana (Turin), Teatro Municipal in Santiago, and Dallas Opera. Other Seattle Opera roles for Harper include Grigory in Mussorgsky’s Boris Godunov and the Witch in Humperdinck’s Hänsel und Gretel, a role he has sung with Hamburgische Staatsoper (four seasons), Cologne Opera, and Staatstheater Darmstadt, among others.The “Music @ 11” recital series, now in its ninth year, was created by Saint Martin’s University Associate Professor of Music Darrell Born, M.M., chair of the University’s Department of Fine and Performing Arts, to raise awareness of the musical arts and provide opportunities for students and the community to experience various kinds of music in a recital setting.
It wasn’t that long ago — the 2013 Murdoch Division Semi Finals to be exact — when the Beaver Valley Nitehawks scored four times in the third period to erase a 3-0 deficit en route to a 4-3 victory over the Nelson Leafs.The Beaver Valley win eliminated Nelson from the Murdoch Division playoffs.For the record the Green and White did one better Friday night at the NDCC Arena.Nelson rallied from a 4-0 margin, scoring six times in the third period, to shock the Hawks 6-4 in Kootenay International Junior Hockey League Murdoch Division action.The win was the second in as many weeks for Nelson over Beaver Valley.In the period the Leafs outshot the Hawks 23-2. The KIJHL’s leading goal scorer Travis Wellman (17) netted a pair with singles going to Aaron Dunlap, Jamie Vlanich, Alec Wilkerson and Linden Horswill.Wilkerson finished the game with four points.The game looked all but over for the Leafs as Beaver Valley held period leads of 1-0 and 4-0.Sam Barker, Taylor Stafford and Dallas Calvin with a pair — the latter coming on the power play, scored for Beaver Valley.But in the third Beaver Valley ran into penalty trouble in the final 10 minutes of the game, allowing the Leaf power play to score four times.Beaver Valley netminder Grayson Sharpe took the loss in goal while Leafs Tyler Moffat, getting the four consecutive start in goal for Nelson, won his seventh game of the season.Nelson, improving to 9-0-1-1 on the season, increases its Murdoch Division lead to four points over Beaver Valley.The Leafs now travel to Grand Forks Saturday to face the Border Bruins in Murdoch Division action.BLUELINES: Practice has been rather tough on the Leafs of late. Both defenceman J.J. Beitel and forward Austin Lindsay suffered injuries during practice this week and were forced to miss games. . . . The news is also not good for Leaf netminder Adam Maida, who was diagnosed with a knee injury that could force the Nelson Minor Hockey product out of the lineup for at least six weeks. Braden Pompu served as back up for the Leafs. . . . It was bra night at the NDCC Arena as people tossed the undergarment onto the ice during the second intermission to raise money for breast cancer research.
In order to reduce the importation and use of substandard electrical products which often result in damages and fires, the Guyana National Bureau of Standards (GNBS), in partnership with the Government Electrical Inspectorate (GEI), has developed a number of standards which will see the supervision of various electrical items being imported, resold and used throughout the country.Business Minister Haimraj RajkumarA total of 31 national standards were developed by the Bureau’s electro-technical committee, and were later approved by the National Standards Council to stipulate requirements for the electrical fittings and equipment.In light of this, the GNBS on Wednesday engaged private and public stakeholders during a forum on what is required when importing and reselling electrical equipment now that these standards were made compulsory.These requirements, together with the role of the GNBS in the compliance process, were presented by GNBS Head of Product Compliance Department, Shailendra Rai in his opening remarks at the event.“Importers and dealers of these products would be required to register with the GNBS to import and sell these products, we are also advising that importers and dealers acquire the relevant standards for products they intend to import and familiarise themselves with the requirements of these standards…these products will be inspected at the time of importation and at the sale outlets to ensure compliance,” Rai conveyed.The Head of Department further noted that a request was received from the GEI to develop standards relating to electrical installation products, primarily as a result of the importation and sale of substandard electrical products on our local market.As a result, a number of standards were developed by the electro-technical committee.Meanwhile, in expressing satisfaction with the partnership and development of the new standards, Business Minister Haimraj Rajkumar highlighted that the approval and implementation of same pushes Guyana forward to national development.“This forum is very important and necessary and one step in the direction of Guyana embracing quality standard as a tool in national development. The Ministry of Business through the National Bureau of Standards is pleased to partner with the Government Electrical Inspectorate to adapt the 31 standards for electrical installations out of concern about the alarming of substandard electrical products on the market”.Some of the standards titles include: seasonal and holiday decorative products, lamp holders, armoured cables, panel boards, surge protective devices and grounding and bonding equipment, among others.The Bureau is expected to commence the enforcement of these standards on February 1, 2020.
Angel Di Maria’s 24th-minute free-kick – his first goal for Manchester United – put them ahead before strikes from Ander Herrera and Wayne Rooney put them in total control.Following a needless foul by Clint Hill, Argentine Di Maria whipped a great delivery in from the right flank that flashed past everyone, including Rob Green, and into the far corner of the net.Di Maria was also involved in United’s second, carrying the ball 50 yards before finding Rooney.The England captain’s shot was blocked but Herrera pounced on the loose ball and belted home from near the edge of the penalty area.And Rooney fired past Green at his near post a minute before the break, taking full advantage after Steven Caulker was far too slow to challenge him.QPR, thrashed 4-0 at Tottenham in their last away league match, had got men behind the ball and managed to keep United at bay in the opening 20 minutes.Rio Ferdinand, playing against the club he spent 12 years with, was given a rousing reception by the home fans and was presented with a special trinket by United legend Sir Bobby Charlton just before kick-off.But Ferdinand and the rest of the visiting defence were soon under pressure as United, full of optimism after a number of eye-catching signings, made a predictably high-tempo start to the game.Former Chelsea man Juan Mata fired over after being found by Herrera, but otherwise Harry Redknapp’s side kept their shape well and keeper Green did not have a shot to save before Di Maria’s goal changed everything.Rangers have barely threatened, but out of nothing were given a chance to equalise after David de Gea’s misjudgement left the United keeper in no man’s land, but Matt Phillips’ tame effort was easily cleared by Jonny Evans.QPR are without midfielders Joey Barton and Jordon Mutch at Old Trafford, where Sandro is making his debut and Niko Kranjcar is making his first appearance since returning on loan.Barton had been expected to recover from a hamstring injury in time to play, while Mutch has also been nursing a knock.For United, Marcos Rojo and Daley Blind are making their debuts, while fellow new signing Radamel Falcao is on the bench. QPR: Green; Isla, Caulker, Ferdinand, Hill; Sandro, Kranjcar, Fer; Phillips, Hoilett; Austin.Subs: McCarthy, Traore, Zamora, Onuoha, Taarabt, Henry, Vargas.Follow West London Sport on TwitterFind us on Facebook
The PBS-Vulcan film Judgment Day just aired on national TV (see 10/12/2007) and is sure to represent a new rallying point for both sides of the ongoing controversy over Darwinian evolution that has raged for 148 years. For material on both sides, see the PBS website, which put Intelligent Design on trial, and the responses at the Discovery Institute’s Evolution News and Intelligent Design.org, which put Darwin on trial (per the title of Phillip Johnson’s influential ID book). Also see the DI’s new intelligent design central, Intelligent Design.org. For those who missed the show, the entire transcript and film will be available online November 16. The transcript of the entire interview with Phillip Johnson, of which only selected portions were shown on camera, is available on the PBS site. It is about the only ID-friendly material on the entire site except for some listings on the Resources page. The list of authors for every other pro-Darwin article or recording reads like a who’s who of lawyers, scientists, educators and activists who have made a career out of discrediting intelligent design. Phillip Johnson had some pre-game thoughts on the show and his involvement on the ID the Future podcast for November 12. Just as generations of students were exposed to Inherit the Wind in school, it is likely new generations will study Judgment Day as the definitive depiction of “intelligent design on trial.” The PBS website offers teachers a selection of resources for the classroom and encourages teachers to use the film as an instructional resource.We recommend readers become familiar with the best arguments on both sides and avoid caricatures and propaganda tricks, a number of which were clearly in use in the program. This film, indeed, could well be used as a case study in how to bias a controversy to favor one side. It would be worth watching it side by side with Unlocking the Mystery of Life, The Privileged Planet and Icons of Evolution. The key to understanding will be to discern what pieces of evidence are relevant to the central issue, and how they are portrayed. In the re-enactments, notice how the producer pretended to give an accurate portrayal of courtroom events but included subtleties that buttressed the anti-ID bias. Darwin propagandists undoubtedly learned their lesson from Inherit the Wind, which did not even pretend to be a factual reconstruction of the Scopes Trial and has been roundly criticized by secular historians as completely misleading regarding what really happened in Dayton in 1925. In Judgment Day, the producer tried to pick actors that resembled the main characters, and had them quote the transcript more-or-less verbatim, without overblown histrionics or garrish TV effects. It was evident, however, that the Ken Miller character was made to look very sure of himself and persuasive to the audience, whereas the Michael Behe character, through body language and facial expressions, was made to start out with a phony air of confidence that degenerated into uneasiness and doubt. You can be sure that the parts of the transcript quoted were carefully selected as well. The closing statements, similarly, contained the same subtle cues intended to reinforce the desired effect: that the anti-ID lawyers and witnesses were on the side of reason and science, and could see through the supposed duplicity of the other side with complete clarity, as if “come on, you guys, we know exactly what you are up to.” The pro-ID lawyers and witnesses were made to look like bumbling, ruffled, evasive, almost sinister advocates who were not very good at covering up their hidden agenda – especially the two pro-ID school board members, who were portrayed as criminal perjurers who belong on America’s Dumbest Criminals. The film was careful to quote enough of the opposition to sidestep charges that they were completely and utterly biased against ID – but in each case, either quoted them to knock down a straw man, or did not allow them to elaborate sufficiently to support their assertions. The Darwinists always got the last word. In evaluating this film, it is essential to first toss out the irrelevant material. There was a lot of that. Consider a short list of vignettes the film focused in on that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue of whether Darwinism alone is science and deserves exclusive treatment in public education, or whether intelligent design can be treated apart from religious implications.The ineptitude of the Dover school board members. Irrelevant.The outrage of the science teachers, and their brave stand against the “conspiracy”. Irrelevant.The tragedy of a town embattled in controversy. Irrelevant.The fact that school board meetings “erupted in chaos.” Irrelevant. They erupt just as readily over Walmart.The tragedy of a reporter unable to reconcile with her Christian father. Irrelevant.The “smoking gun” evidence of clumsy editing changes to the book Of Pandas and People. Irrelevant.How hard Barbara Forrest had to work to find the “smoking gun.” Irrelevant.The glee the NCSE experienced over finding evidence that Pandas and People was construed as “creationist” before it used the term “intelligent design”. Irrelevant.The eagerness of the ACLU to help, and the prosecutors’ excitement over getting the case of a lifetime. Irrelevant.Whether the school board was religiously motivated. Relevant perhaps to this particular case and the interpretation of the Establishment Clause as recently given by the Supreme Court, but irrelevant to the validity of Darwinism or intelligent design, and irrelevant to the original intent of the Constitution; also, arguably false or impossible to know one’s true motives or whether religion was any more motivating than a common human desire for fairness. The policy statement made no reference to religion or to any particular church that would have been “established” had students been informed that alternatives to Darwinism exist (which is true). A statement should be judged on evidence for its veracity, not by what motivated it.Whether intelligent design can be construed as somehow violating separation of church and state. Irrelevant.Whether 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans doubt Darwinism. Irrelevant.Whether most creationists tend to be Christians. Irrelevant.Whether Christians usually feel the Designer is God. Irrelevant.Whether many creationists accept Genesis. Irrelevant. Whether some evolutionists are not atheists. Irrelevant.Whether Ken Miller is a practicing Catholic. Irrelevant.Whether Christians would like to see a renewal of culture they feel was ravaged by materialism, for which they feel Darwinism is largely responsible. An important issue, but irrelevant to the question of whether Darwinism deserves educational priority in science classrooms to the exclusion of anything else.That the Discovery Institute wrote a Wedge Document with broad goals seeking a renewal of science and culture. Irrelevant; the Discovery Institute was not on trial – in fact, they disagreed with the Dover policy. For rebuttal, and a discussion of how this line of motive-baiting can be turned just as easily against Darwinists (for instance, because of Eugenie Scott’s signing of the Humanist Manifesto III), see Evolution News.Whether Darwin’s finches are evidence for evolution. Irrelevant; even creationists accept microevolutionary change.Whether teaching ID would harm America’s future in science. Irrelevant and absurd.Whether minimizing Darwinism would hurt medicine or agriculture. Irrelevant and absurd; most medicine and agriculture was advanced by creationists (e.g., Pasteur, Mendel, Carver).Whether ID lacks a fully fleshed-out scientific approach, as Paul Nelson confessed. Irrelevant. Design-based science arguably does more real legwork in science than Darwinism does (e.g., biomimetics, archaeology, forensics, information technology); besides, Darwinism was little more than a suggestion in 1849, but that didn’t stop them. Read Dembski’s The Design Revolution for more answers to this type of criticism.Whether textbook writers have ever been afraid to present evolution in high school textbooks. Irrelevant. Whether Behe, Minnich, and the lawyers for the defense made a good case. Irrelevant; they are only human. Other witnesses said they did much better than this movie portrayed.Whether Behe was embarrassed by a pile of books and papers that claimed they explained the evolution of the immune system. Irrelevant. A detailed inspection of these publications would undoubtedly confirm the pattern reported in these pages, that evolutionists fill in the gaps with pure speculation in spite of evidence, based on an a priori commitment to naturalism.Whether the trial produced a flap of worldwide media coverage. Irrelevant.What Darwin’s great great great grandson thought of the trial. Irrelevant.Whether evolution critics understand what a “theory” is in science. Irrelevant. Look how some Darwinists exhibit their ignorance by comparing the theory of evolution to the law of gravity.Whether Michael Behe’s definition of science as presented at the trial was so loose so as to allow astrology. Irrelevant; as all philosophers of science know, there is no universal definition of science, nor is there a universal scientific method, nor any epistemic justification that even the most basic science preserves an accurate reflection of external reality, whether or not it proves useful. Definitions of science vary from extremes that it is The Truth to it is a socially-constructed set of cultural biases. As philosopher J. P. Moreland claims, hardly any working scientist has a clue what science is; it is not typically a part of their education. The definition of science is not science, it is a second-order claim of philosophy about science. It follows that Michael Behe can work as a scientist without being expected to define science in a courtroom in a way that will satisfy his critics.Whether the teachers and Judge Jones received hate mail and death threats. Tragic, but irrelevant. By the way, as if any readers here need to be reminded of the obvious, this is NO way to be effective for ANY point of view! It is harmful, wicked and criminal. If you are given to this tendency, repent.Whether David DeRosier, whom Behe quoted, believes in Darwinian evolution or not. Irrelevant.Whether Darwinists can say “evolution is science, ID is religion” with feeling (or with a straight face). Irrelevant.Whether Judge Jones ruled that teaching ID is unconstitutional. Irrelevant; he is just one unelected man who took on himself to decide issues far beyond what the case was about, and his decision is limited to the Dover area. It has no judicial weight outside that district, for whatever propaganda chaff the victors want to glean from it.Whether Darwinists were pleased that a judge decided what science was. Irrelevant and counter-productive. Scientists do not want to go to unelected judges to decide matters of science. What if some day a judge decides federal funding for science is unconstitutional?Now, we are not saying these elements of the movie were completely worthless. They had entertainment value. Like the mission statement in Paul Allen’s Vulcan film company stated, they wanted to engage in “elegant and compelling storytelling.” For that matter, Inherit the Wind and even Birth of a Nation succeeded at that, too, in a perverse way. The point is that none of this has anything to do with the truth claims or epistemic superiority of Darwinism. OK, we have just dispensed with about 75% of the program. Another 5% consisted of baseless, unsupported assertions, like Ken Miller blurting out “ID is a science stopper!” Sorry, unsupported assertions prove nothing. (These were used to good effect in the Scopes Trial by the Darwinists, too.) Another 5% consisted of card stacking, or selective evidence. For instance, Neil Shubin and Kevin Padian carried on and on about all the transitional forms, especially their star witness, the fish-o-pod Tiktaalik (see 04/06/2006, 05/03/2006, 10/20/2006), but said nothing about the Cambrian explosion, which makes Tiktaalik irrelevant because the Cambrian explosion falsifies Darwinism from the get-go. Noticeably absent was any discussion of the origin of life, other than Shubin’s passing comment, “Many scientists believe life began in the water,” as if anybody cares what many scientists believe. This is not supposed to be a matter of belief or faith, but science, remember? Many scientists believe in unobservable universes. Should they teach that in school? Another 5% consisted of wild extrapolations from these controversial examples to the claim that the entire fossil record is replete with transitional forms. Which brings us to the out-and-out lies, like asserting that Archaeopteryx represents a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, or that the Establishment Clause teaches Separation of Church and State, or that ID consists entirely of negative arguments, or that creationism is an attack on all that Galileo and Newton tried to accomplish (ahem, they were creationists). (For more lies told in the film, see Evolution News). Then there were the half-truths, such as that the Discovery Institute would not agree to be interviewed because of their refusal to abide by “standard journalistic practice” (see EvolutionNews for their side of the story), or that their scientists “dropped off like flies” from testifying, without explaining that they had tried to get the Dover school board and the Thomas More Law Center to abandon the policy because they felt it was an ineffective approach that was legally doomed. Another half-truth: emphasizing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the exclusion of the Free-Exercise Clause. Another 5% consisted of question-begging statements that assumed people know what science is, and that evolution is science, but ID is not. An unbiased presentation would have correctly explained that there is no universally-accepted definition of science, there are no demarcation criteria that can successfully keep the desired sciences in and the undesirable sciences (including astrology) out – so Michael Behe had a point, when understood this way: if you want to exclude astrology, then guess what! you are going to exclude Darwinism, too.Other questions begged in the movie:Whether the Arkansas ruling made any and every kind of teaching creationism unconstitutional.Whether creationism deserves to be regarded as a pariah.Whether ID should be expected to have some overlap with creationism or not.Whether discussions of ID must include the religious motivations of some of its proponents.Whether ID proponents must identify the Designer.Whether evolutionary explanations are any more successful at propelling science forward. Consider the Darwinists’ science-stopping explanations about vestigial organs and junk DNA, for instance.Whether all sciences are equally empirical, testable, falsifiable (consider political science, sociology vs the science used in space flight operations).Whether ability to make predictions defines something as scientific. Popper and other philosophers of science denied this. Even astrology made predictions that sometimes worked, and few practicing scientists abandon a theory over a failed prediction.Whether the ability to speculate on a possible gradualistic path to an irreducibly complex structure is equivalent to establishing that this is actually what happened. The plausibility criterion is insufficient to make a speculation scientific. Anybody can make up a story. Maybe a meatball traveled across the Atlantic and resulted in music (08/26/2003 commentary). It’s plausible, isn’t it? If I expect you to prove me wrong, I am shifting the burden of proof.Whether the rise of Darwinism was correlated with progress in science. A case could be made that it was anti-correlated; that it rode on the coat-tails of a scientific revolution that was happening anyway (e.g., because of the work of creationist physicists Faraday, Maxwell, Kelvin). A strong case can be made that Darwinism actually was parasitic on scientific progress, borrowing from its prestige while generating disasters like eugenics and racist criminal theory.The worst example of question-begging of all was assuming that science cannot infer design because that requires a supernatural God. How convenient—that makes science materialistic by definition! Again, this is not a question science can address; it is a second-order claim about science. But with a sweep of the hand, with an arbitrary and philosophically-indefensible rule (not scientific evidence), they cleared the playing field of any contenders, such that something like Darwinism must be true, no matter how implausible, simply because it is materialistic. The film employed the either-or fallacy to make any references to so-called “supernatural” causes (should be intelligent causes) look as arbitrary as possible. Up to this point we have not addressed the few minutes of actual scientific evidence the film presented to support the dramatic claim that Darwinian evolution is so well supported, it deserves absolute supremacy in the classroom, to the exclusion of anything else. Here are the main three instances of empirical observations that were adduced to show support for Mr. Darwin’s grand tale:Tiktaalik: PBS clearly treated this as a showpiece in the film. Too bad it is irrelevant. See our earlier commentaries on this from 04/06/2006, 05/03/2006, and 10/20/2006. Also, Evolution News has a refutation of this fossil’s relevance to Darwinian evolution. Notice that Shubin bluffed that these rocks were from the “right age” for the fish-tetrapod transition, ignoring the fact that the dating of the strata was built on evolutionary assumptions. Let Shubin deal with the Cambrian explosion then we will listen to his fish-o-pod story – and yuck it up around the cave campfire, where Truth doesn’t exist anyway.The 4 other fossil transitions presented on the PBS website (not shown in the movie) are even less convincing. Notice how many times the feature uses the words “may have” and “probably” etc. The reptile-to-mammal sequence looks as ad-hoc as placing a lizard, a wolverine and a mouse in a line and calling it an evolutionary sequence. Look at the dates in the alleged dinosaur-to-bird transition; apparently they think evolution ran backwards in time here. The whale sequence relies little on bone, and heavily on artist imagination. The human evolution sequence is fraught with controversy among paleoanthropologists themselves, so this depiction is highly contrived. Each of these exhibits has more gap than data, and each relies heavily on inference from similarities. Have some fun; find evolutionary transitions among your garage tools.Flagellum and Type-III Secretion System (TTSS): The “co-option” argument for evolution was fully answered in the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life. In addition, many scientists now believe that the TTSS is a degenerate structure from the flagellum, not a transitional form. Furthermore, the use of a TTSS by disease organisms says nothing about whether they were designed or not, which is all ID tries to answer. If Darwinists want to argue that God would not have made such a thing, then they have left science and are now arguing theology, so they had better not bring that up in science class.Human chromosome #2 as a splice: Ken Miller gleefully showed evidence that humans have one less chromosome than great apes because sometime in human history two chromosomes were spliced together, and this proves evolution. It proves it only if you commit several logical fallacies. Notice that the splicing of a chromosome was not a prediction of evolution, but an observation, with a made-up evolutionary story after the fact. Miller committed the either-or fallacy by assuming that since he could not imagine God creating the chromosome this way, Darwinism is therefore established (this is also an example of the Argument from Personal Incredulity, one of his own favorite accusations in debate). Did Miller provide any evidence this change conferred fitness on evolving humans? No. Did he prove that this change occurred before humans came into existence? No. Did he establish a time frame for when it occurred? No. Did he rule out all other possible explanations, like a genetic bottleneck that might have occurred on Noah’s Ark or something? No. Does he or any other evolutionist have any explanation for the variety of chromosome numbers in animals, which seem to bear no correlation with fitness? No. It is a quirky observation that could lend itself to numerous explanations, none of which science has any way of establishing, so it is irrelevant to the film’s argument about why students should get only the Darwinian story. Do apes get along great with their 24 pairs of chromosomes? Do humans get along fine with 23 pairs? Sure; that’s about all that science can say. For more information on chromosome number variability, in answer to Miller’s claim, see Jean Lightner’s article on Answers in Genesis. Since everything else in the film was irrelevant, the entire weight of Darwin-Only Policy in Education (D.O.P.E.) must rest on these, their best examples of actual scientific evidence in support of the claim that 9th-grade students must be taught only the belief that humans had bacteria ancestors. You might have noticed that it was PBS that displayed the false dichotomy of Darwin vs Genesis. Don’t these same people squeal when we call evolution “Darwinism”? They had Charlie’s mug all over the screen, with his pet finches and Beagle and all. Clearly, they were equating Darwinism with evolution, so that’s why their critics do, too. A huge, underlying assumption that was downplayed was that Darwinists, and only Darwinists of the NCSE stripe, understand the nature of science and the nature of religion, including what constitutes the terms natural and supernatural. This was shamefully misunderstood and misconstrued by the entire pro-Darwin cast. Philosophers of science around the world should rise up in horror at the sophomoric definition of science that Judgment Day merely assumed was universally accepted and defensible. This film was a grandstand for the usual suspects, a certain cadre of Darwin Party Hacks who make a career out of protecting their idol from criticism. The names of these same People of Froth appear in just about every instance of an ID controversy. Take away their bullhorns and disarm their attack dogs at the ACLU, and most of the commotion over intelligent design would probably calm down into a nice, rational debate among reasonable people. While thinking about these issues, you might review yesterday’s entry (11/12/2007), since the film showed, over and over and over in Dover, a mesmerizing animation of their mystical icon, Darwin’s tree of life (see also the 10/08/2007 entry, with the remarks of Nick Matzke, one of the PBS heroes, worrying about what ID proponents would do with the clear evidence against Darwin’s tree). How can they reach a tree of life when they don’t even have knowledge of good and evil?(Visited 26 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
South African couple Konrad and Yolande Giering are part of an international ensemble in the Wonderful World of Disney on Ice. They’re excited to skate in front of local audiences for the first time.Konrad Giering plays the character of Scar in the Wonderful World of Disney on Ice, in South Africa from 30 June 2017, with performances in Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban. (Image: Showtime Management, Twitter)Compiled by Priya PitamberSouth African husband and wife team Konrad and Yolande Giering are in the international ensemble skating in the Wonderful World of Disney on Ice, coming to the country this winter.SA skaters, Yolande Giering & Konrad Giering on the ice soon in The Wonderful World of Disney on Ice SA Winter tour. #DisneyOnIce pic.twitter.com/g8yUTjA5lw— Deb Publicist (@DebPublicist) June 9, 2017This is the first time the duo will show off their talents to a local audience, which will include their family and friends.“I am excited,” Konrad told news website, IOL. “I have waited all my life to perform in South Africa, and now it’s finally arrived.”Watch:Passion for DisneyLike many children, Konrad grew up watching Disney’s animated movies, which he loved.One particular movie, The Lion King, resonated with the young Konrad because he could identify with the setting.“As a South African, the movie really spoke to me,” he said. “I grew up around wildlife and so naturally I was fascinated by the characters and the storyline.”Now, he gets to play Scar, the young sibling of King Mufasa. Bringing the character to life on ice, he said, was truly a dream come true.Scar was a really cool character, Konrad said, and because he was evil, he got to be aggressive on the ice, which he enjoyed.Yolande plays numerous Disney characters featured in the show.The start of a journey on iceAfter seeing Disney on Ice at Montecasino in Johannesburg a number of years ago, the pair decided to audition. They got the gig in 2009.Yolande said it changed their lives. Not only did they get to skate together, but they also travelled the globe, representing the country as they went.“It’s been a wonderful journey. We are about 40 skaters and 15 crew members that travel the world,” she said. “We have become one big family on tour. We work together, eat together, shop together. We do everything together.”Starting youngBoth Konrad and Yolande started skating when young, at four and seven years old, respectively.Yolande described skating as a lot of fun and encouraged young people to keep practising. “Work hard on your performance skills; that’s most important.”From 2000 to 2004, Konrad was South Africa’s national junior ice skating champion, a title he regained in 2007. He represented South Africa in international competitions such as Four Continents and Junior Worlds.About the showClassic Disney characters such as Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy appear in the Wonderful World of Disney on Ice, alongside the new generation including Simba, Timon and Pumbaa.Others from Pixar’s Finding Dory, and Disney’s Tangled also join the show.There will also be performances in Durban for the first time. The venues are:Ticketpro Dome in Johannesburg, 30 June-9 JulyICC Arena in Durban, 13-16 JulyGrandWest Casino and Entertainment World in Cape Town, 19-23 JulySource: IOLWould you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See Using Brand South Africa material.
Olympic sprinter Sanya Richards-Ross didn’t have much trouble beating the competition on the track in London.The American 400-meter dash gold medalist has put the International Olympic Committee in her sights next.Richards-Ross wants to help bring an end to Rule 40, an IOC statute that limits how athletes can promote their sponsors.The rule prohibits Olympians from specifically mentioning their sponsors by name or adding additional logos to their apparel when they compete. The Olympics offer no prize money for athletes reaching a final, and makes sure athlete even restrict their Twitter posts during competition to avoid mentioning the brand names of their corporate supporters.Richards-Ross, whose husband is Jacksonville Jaguars cornerback Aaron Ross, said the rule is antiquated and in need of changing.“If more athletes would speak up about it,” she said, “there would be more attention put on it. At the end of the day, it’s exploitation, and when people hear the facts, they’ll be outraged just like we athletes are. I think every movement needs a couple of people to stand up for it.“The Olympic reality has changed.”Olympic officials have long contended that their exclusive partnerships with sponsors have helped support the Games and allowed them to finance programs that give money to athletes in need worldwide.“It’s certainly something the vast majority of athletes tell us they appreciate,” IOC spokesman Mark Adams said.But athletes like Ross-Richards argue that the days of Olympic athletes being amateurs has past, and that profits from the Games have not trickled down to all athletes. The costs of training are high, the athletes insist, and the rules restrict their opportunities to cultivate private sponsorships to finance their profession.“It’s absurd,” said American middle-distance runner Nick Symmonds, one of the earliest critics of Rule 40 who counts Nike among his sponsors.“I understand that the IOC needs revenue, but I don’t see how an athlete having a sponsor detracts from that. I want to share the space.”Ross-Richards, who also anchored the American gold medal-winning 4×400 relay team, is the most high-profile athlete yet to speak out about the issue.But U.S. Olympic Committee spokesman Patrick Sandusky said that 40 percent of his organization’s budget came from its corporate sponsors. He predicted a decline in that support if the USOC could no longer provide exclusive rights to those companies.Supporter say opposition to Rule 40 stems from agents who have a financial interest in securing more deals for their clients.Richards-Ross balked at the suggestion.“This is athlete-driven,” she said.