Comments on: God is in all things. Including agendas.

By: Wayne Conrad

Wayne Conrad — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:17:23 +0000

“If you want smarter juries, you’ve got to keep the dumb ones from reproducing.”

I let that go, but been eating at me. I was thinking that education would be a better place to start than eugenics. With education you don’t have to engage in forced sterilization to give a kid a good knowledge of science.

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:19:14 +0000

Nathan: If the juries are selected at random in the States as they are in Canada, does that mean we have to skew the whole population to the smarter end of the scale in order to kill off the “less-fit” juries?

(I’m intentionally misinterpreting your comment because I don’t want to think of what a jury reproduction would look like — probably a bit too much like a scene from Eyes Wide Shut for my taste, too many arms and legs everywhere!)

By: Nathan Myers

Nathan Myers — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:45:09 +0000

If you want smarter juries, you’ve got to keep the dumb ones from reproducing.

By: Wayne Conrad

Wayne Conrad — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 16:26:43 +0000

Good link. It’s a shame that the lawyers got to New Scientist. Juries keep giving huge awards for idiotic lawsuits, making frivolous lawsuits (and therefore the threat of frivolous lawsuits) profitable. I’d sure like to see smarter juries so that these things become unprofitable. I know, but it’s good to have dreams.

By: Roberto

Roberto — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:39:32 +0000

what is bernard d’espagnat agenda? god??

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:25:23 +0000

Oh, interesting. The blogosphere can be that way. I had a bunch of people on facebook congratulating me for getting a column at slate, but it was Rebecca Skloot getting the job………..

Well, I will revise and let the comments speak for themselves…

By: Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:06:44 +0000

I’m sorry if my formatting misled you about the authorship of the piece. The author is Amanda Gefter (whose name I put at the top of the piece) and it was originally published in New Scientist. Following a legal complaint New Scientist recently removed an online copy from its website, and I just put a copy on my blog because I think the absence of the piece from the web causes more damage than I could do by publishing it in my little blog–it seems quite harmless to me, though I understand that New Scientist’s lawyers may give more cautious advice.

By: The Science Pundit

The Science Pundit — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 12:04:18 +0000

Greg,

This is the Amanda Gefter article that was pulled from the New Scientist website because of creationists threats to sue.