Donegal pensioner jailed for abusing three sisters

first_imgA Co Donegal pensioner who sexually abused three sisters over a 10-year period starting more than 40 years ago, has been jailed for 2½ years.71 year old John Callaghan from Drung in Quigley’s Point, was sentenced by Judge Philip Babington for what the judge described as appalling abusive behaviour. Callaghan, who had no previous criminal convictions, pleaded guilty to 14 charges of indecently assaulting the three sisters in the homes of family members and friends in Derry between January 1972 and January 1982.The sisters were aged six, nine and 11 respectively when Callaghan started abusing them.They first reported the abuse to a social worker in Letterkenny hospital in July 2014 and then made formal statements of complaint to the PSNI in Derry the following August and September.Last March, Callaghan was arrested by gardaí and after he was handed over to the PSNI he was interviewed and denied the allegations saying: “I never interfered with anybody.”He later pleaded guilty to the offences and told a consultant psychiatrist during the preparation of a presentence report: “I didn’t think it was any harm, I didn’t think there was any harm in it.”The court was told that Callaghan now accepted that what he did was wrong and he apologised to his three victims.The judge said that victim-impact reports stated that the three sisters had been deeply affected by the abuse and that they might require professional counselling in the future. He said Callaghan’s abuse of his victims had a destructive effect on their family.Donegal pensioner jailed for abusing three sisters was last modified: October 15th, 2016 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:courtdonegalInishwoenJOHN CALLAGHANSisterslast_img read more

LETTERKENNY TEACHER APPEALS FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO RUN DUBLIN MARATHON

first_imgA LETTERKENNY-based teacher is appealing for help to represent Donegal in the Dublin marathon just a few weeks after taking up running.Linda Sweeney, from Dungloe, only ran her first 5k in February.And she will hit the streets this weekend in the North West 10k. Now she wants to do the Big One!Said Linda: “I only started running in February of this year after receiving encouragement and help from my brother Damian and husband Anthony.“I ran my first 5k shortly afterwards and it felt just amazing that I could achieve so much in such a short time.“I will be doing the 10k this weekend and the half marathon in Ballyliffen later this month but I have now entered the Spartan Challenge so I can run the Dublin marathon. “If I get picked to run the marathon, I will get specialist training and a dietician to help me prepare.”And Linda is hoping that she can be an inspiration to others who are thinking about taking up running if she gets to run the marathon on October 29.“I think I would be a good choice for the Donegal Spartan because if I can learn to run so can anyone,” she told us.“I think if I could run this marathon I would give hope and inspiration to all people who are like I was and think they couldn’t possibly run or achieve anything without ever having run before!“Please vote for me so i can represent Donegal and I assure you I will do whatever it takes to complete the marathon and I will not let you, myself or my county down.” Need we say more?If you want to support Linda log on tohttp://spartan.spar.ie/s/ohTjL8toQEpOuccsiGZVCKy9p6rH3KZqLETTERKENNY TEACHER APPEALS FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO RUN DUBLIN MARATHON was last modified: May 5th, 2012 by BrendaShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:LETTERKENNY TEACHER APPEALS FOR YOUR SUPPORT TO RUN DUBLIN MARATHONlast_img read more

COMMENT: THIS IS THE IRELAND TEAM THAT ‘MUST’ START IF WE ARE TO QUALIFY

first_imgShane Duffy should start for Ireland against Italy tonight.COMMENT: Ireland face Italy tonight knowing nothing more than victory will be enough to see us progress to the last sixteen of the European Championships. Ireland kicked off their campaign with an excellent performance against Sweden, the game ultimately ended in a draw, but Ireland were the better side.On Saturday, a classy Belgium side dismantled a lethargic looking Ireland team, that seemed to be still feeling the effects of the match with Sweden. Tonight, they face Italy, a side already qualified and guaranteed to top the group, who are expected to make a string of changes for the match.That doesn’t make the game any easier, the players being given an opportunity tonight by Antonio Conte will be out to stake a place in his starting XI.However, below is the team I feel must play in order to give us our best opportunity to win the match – and join the rest of the sides in the last sixteen!In goals, Darren Randolph has done little wrong, and his kicking and distribution has been excellent and should keep the No.1 jersey. The back four should consist of Seamus Coleman, John O’Shea, Shane Duffy and Robbie Brady.Brady was Ireland’s best player against Sweden, and while Stephen Ward done OK on Saturday, Brady was less effective in a higher role.The reason for this is Brady didn’t receive the ball as much higher up the park because he didn’t have enough quality players to get him on it.When he plays in a deeper position like at left back, he can get the ball more often and initiate attacks from deep.He did that against Sweden and linked up with Jeff Hendrick and Wes Hoolahan brilliantly throughout. Martin Olsson for Sweden in the same fixture was their best player because he was able to do the same as Brady from left-back.Ciaran Clark looked tired on Saturday, and I think Shane Duffy deserves an opportunity, he had a fine season with Blackburn and has impressed in friendlies for Ireland.That’s a bit harsh on Andy Keogh, who has done very well for Ireland in the qualifiers, but Duffy is a better footballer and can get us playing out more from the back in my opinion.The midfield should consist of Wes Hoolahan, Jeff Hendrick, Glenn Whelan and James McClean. McClean isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, but he can be extremely effective both offensively and defensively, and having a natural wide left player will give us good width and balance.I’d leave James McCarthy out, he has became a bit of a scapegoat which is unfair, but he hasn’t performed well.For his club he sits in front of the back four, and does it very effectively, for Ireland, Whelan is given that role and McCarthy is asked to play slightly further ahead of him – and in truth he isn’t comfortable playing that role.McCarthy’s best game for Ireland was against Germany when Whelan was suspended.However, Whelan was good against Sweden and I think Jeff Hendrick should partner him in midfield with Wes Hoolahan on the right.Up top, Jon Walters needs to be partnered with Shane Long.Granted there are huge, huge fitness concerns over the Stoke City man, but if hopefully he will be OK to play.He’s a huge player for us, he can hold the ball in for us high up the park and get others playing around him.He’s the perfect foil for Shane Long, and the two are Ireland’s most effective partnership up top.If Walters doesn’t make it, then I’d play Hoolahan just behind Long, move Hendrick wide right and bring McCarthy back into the side.My Ireland XI: Darren Randolph, Seamus Coleman, John O’Shea, Shane Duffy, Robbie Brady, Wes Hoolahan, Jeff Hendrick, Glenn Whelan, James McClean, Jon Walters, Shane Long.What team would you pick?#COYBIGCOMMENT: THIS IS THE IRELAND TEAM THAT ‘MUST’ START IF WE ARE TO QUALIFY was last modified: June 22nd, 2016 by Mark ForkerShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:Euro 2016IrelanditalynewsSportlast_img read more

WOMAN CLAIMS DONEGAL GARDAI IMPRISONED AND ASSAULTED HER AUTISTIC NEPHEW

first_imgThe aunt of an autistic man is suing the Gardaí claiming they falsely imprisoned and assaulted her nephew in Co. Donegal.The High Court has heard today how the 27-year-old was arrested in September, 2010 for allegedly chasing two girls with a stick.It’s alleged the man was wrongfully and unlawfully arrested in Donegal and forcibly detained with handcuffs behind his back. His family say this caused him trauma and upset and they claim no effort was made by officers to contact his parents or inquire of neighbours as to who he was.They say he is limited physical boundaries because of his autism and they dispute the location where Gardaí say they arrested him as well as the allegation that he was chasing two girls with a stick.The court heard his mother frantically searched for him and was shocked to find him detained at a garda station under the Mental Health Act where Gardaí refused to immediately release him.It is claimed the Garda Ombudsman has received no response to a complaint lodged by his mother 18 months ago. Now his aunt is suing for damages – including aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages – for false imprisonment, assault and breach of his right to liberty.COMMENTS ARE CLOSED ON ONGOING COURT CASES WOMAN CLAIMS DONEGAL GARDAI IMPRISONED AND ASSAULTED HER AUTISTIC NEPHEW was last modified: August 29th, 2012 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)last_img read more

Oswalt pitches Astros to win

first_img AD Quality Auto 360p 720p 1080p Top articles1/5READ MOREWalnut’s Malik Khouzam voted Southern California Boys Athlete of the Week “Well, I was hardly the hero tonight; Roy (Oswalt) was great; seven innings pitched and one run; he bailed us out quite a few times,” Burke said. “Luckily, I was able to get a couple knocks.” Lidge came on for a two-inning save, closing out the six-hitter with three strikeouts. Oswalt allowed only five hits, struck out six and didn’t let a runner past second base except for Albert Pujols, who led off the sixth with a 438-foot home run that cleared the Houston bullpen. Otherwise, Oswalt made every big pitch he needed, improving his career postseason record to 3-0. The Cardinals went 0 for 6 against the right-hander with runners in scoring position. Oswalt twice faced Jim Edmonds with two runners on and came out on top both times against the dangerous left-handed hitter. Houston scrounged for a couple of runs off Mark Mulder one scoring on a passed ball, the other on Craig Biggio’s groundout. The Astros added two more in the eighth off reliever Julian Tavares. Division series hero Chris Burke came through again, scoring two runs and driving in another with a two-out single in the eighth ending Houston’s 0-for-14 drought with runners in scoring position. In the fifth, Edmonds took a called third strike on a 3-2 pitch. Two innings later, the crowd of 52,358 nearly all of them adorned in red was in an uproar after the Cardinals put runners at first and second with only one out. But Oswalt retired David Eckstein with a fly ball to center, then got Edmonds on a grounder to first the last of the starter’s 108 pitches. Oswalt covered on the play, pumping his fist after he took the flip from Lance Berkman. The Central Division rivals are meeting in the NLCS for the second year in a row, and their first eight games all went to the home team. The 2004 series went the distance, with St. Louis advancing to the World Series by winning four games at Busch Stadium. The streak continued with the Cardinals winning 5-3 in Game 1 Wednesday. Now, St. Louis has to win at least one game in Texas something it couldn’t do last year to bring the series back to soon-to-be demolished Busch. The next three games are in Houston, beginning with Saturday’s contest matching Roger Clemens of the Astros against St. Louis’ Matt Morris. “We’re definitely pleased to take one game here and take the momentum,” Burke said. “We’re excited to get home to our fans and that place will be rocking.” Burke’s run-scoring single off Tavares gave the Astros a 3-1 lead, and the runner came all the way around to score when Adam Everett tripled off the glove of left-fielder Reggie Sanders. Sanders, the Cardinals’ hottest postseason hitter with 12 RBI, fell awkwardly on the warning track and left the game. He sustained a sprained lower back. Houston started quickly against Mulder, beginning the game with singles by Biggio and Willy Taveras. But Berkman struck out and Morgan Ensberg hit into a comebacker to Mulder, who started an inning-ending double play. St. Louis led the majors with 196 double plays during the regular season, and this was their ninth in five postseason games. Mulder pitched good enough to win, giving up eight hits and one earned run in seven inning. While it wasn’t as controversial as the call that helped Chicago win Game 2 of the ALCS, home plate umpire Greg Gibson got one wrong in the second. He ruled St. Louis’ Grudzielanek grounded out on a dribbler to the mound, but television replays clearly showed the ball went off the hitter’s foot and should have been called a foul ball. Grudzielanek and Cardinals manager Tony La Russa briefly argued the call, but Gibson stood by it and didn’t ask for help from any of the umpires in the field who might have had a better view. NLCS NOTES: Andy Pettitte’s knee is getting better, and the Astros anticipate he should be ready for his next start. Pettitte was running the bases during batting practice before his Game 1 start and took a line drive off the knee. It swelled significantly. Pettitte and Cardinals Game 1 starter Chris Carpenter are scheduled for a rematch in Game 5 Monday in Houston. … Cardinals right fielder Larry Walker skipped outdoor batting practice before Game 2, spending extra time on the training table to have a sore right knee and assorted bumps and bruises treated. Of greater concern now is left fielder Reggie Sanders, who fell hard chasing Adam Everett’s triple in the eighth. Sanders hurt his back, and La Russa described the injury as a “train wreck.” He was uncertain if Sanders would be available for Game 3 Saturday. NLCS notes contributed by Jim Salter of AP., 160Want local news?Sign up for the Localist and stay informed Something went wrong. Please try again.subscribeCongratulations! You’re all set!center_img ST. LOUIS — Yes, it is possible to win on the road in the NL championship series. Roy Oswalt showed the way for Houston, silencing the St. Louis Cardinals and all their red-clad fans. Oswalt pitched seven stellar innings, closer Brad Lidge finished up and the Astros defeated the Cardinals 4-1 Thursday night, evening the best-of-7 series at one game apiece. last_img read more

Uganda Cubs held by Kenya in friendly

first_imgThe Cubs line up before Tuesday’s game (FUFA Photo)NAIROBI – The Uganda Cubs played to a goalless draw with the Kenya U18 team in a trial match at Utali Ground in Nairobi, on Tuesday.It was the first match for the youngsters as they prepare for the CAF U17 Championship scheduled for April 14-28 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.The team head coach Samuel Fabin Kwesi was impressed with the performance of his side despite the result.“I am happy with the results and the overall performance of the boys despite the result. Kwesi saidHe also added that the trail match has given him a good analysis of the boy’s performance and it has helped him in rating them (the players) and what to add while they prepare for the finals in Tanzania.“The game has given me a good analysis of the boys’ performance and helped in rating them and what to add while we prepare for the finals in Tanzania.” He added.The Cubs will spend the next seven days in Kenya before heading to Tanzania on April 10 for the tournament.Uganda is in group A with the hosts Tanania, Nigeria and Angola.Uganda Cubs XI: Jack Komaketch (GK), Rogers Mugisha, Idi Abdul Wahid, Isma Mugulusi, Samason Kasozi, Gavin Kizito Mugweri (C), Andrew Kawooya, Thomas Kakaire, Innocent Opiro, Ivan Asaba and Ibrahim Juma.Comments Tags: CAF U17 ChampionshipFabin Kwesiuganda cubslast_img read more

Listen: Teenage Donegal DJ releases new track with major European record label

first_imgTeenage Donegal DJ Cristian McDaid has released a new track with major European Record Label LithuaniaHQ.The 15-year-old Newtowncunningham man’s new track, ‘Don’t Leave’ was released this weekend to an excellent reception.Producing and DJing as Crizify, Cristian told Donegal Daily that he was delighted when the owner of LithuaniaHQ wanted to take Cristian’s music on board. “I had a rough idea for the track, I was passing it around for feedback and I sent it over to Gabrielius, the owner of LithuaniaHQ. To my surprise, he wanted to sign the track to his label and we took it from there!”Cristian puts his heart and soul into his tracks, and harnesses how he feels to produce his music.“With every track I produce, or every lyric I write, my emotions ALWAYS go into it. When I make music, I always use my emotions and how I’m feeling for inspiration.” “I wanted ‘Don’t Leave’ to have a ‘feel good’ vibe to it. When making the record, I made sure there was plenty of energy throughout the song.”His first major radio support came in December 2016, when International DJ and Producer Nicky Romero played Crizify’s remix of Lykke Li’s ‘I Follow Rivers’ on over sixty radio stations, including the largest radio station in Holland, SLAM! FM.Balancing school work with his budding career can be challenging, but he is stopping at nothing to achieve excellent results in both the classroom and the studio.“Balancing school with music is not easy, but I try to keep a healthy balance. I’m in Transition Year now at Deele College. The whole staff know about what I do, and are all really supportive when it comes to music.”Cristian’s role models include Post Malone and Logic, as well as Letterkenny based DJ and producer Reuben Keeney.“Post Malone has a big influence on me, mainly because he doesn’t care what people think. Logic is another artist that stands up for what he believes in, all the time.” “Reuben has helped mould me into the artist I am today, and I am so thankful for that. Reuben is probably the best producer I know and his work ethic is on another level.”“Any artist that has a message in their music is an inspiration to me. I feel like artists, including myself, have an absolutely massive influence on people who listen to our work. One song, can literally, save a life. I hope I can influence other people to spread positivity to others.”Although he has had a few gigs, he finds them difficult to come across due to his age, although he is optimistic it’ll all come in good time.With a virtuoso flare for music production and an unwavering work ethic, we’re positive this is only the beginning for this incredible Donegal DJ. To keep up to date with Crizify, you can find him on Facebook, Soundcloud, and Youtube.To listen to the new track on iTunes, you can follow this link:https://itunes.apple.com/ie/album/dont-leave-single/id1289810987Listen: Teenage Donegal DJ releases new track with major European record label was last modified: October 1st, 2017 by Elaine McCalligShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)Tags:cristian mc daidDJdon’t leaveLithuaniaHQlast_img read more

Review:  Lehigh Prof Critiques ID Colleague in Science Wars

first_imgDr. Steven Goldman (Lehigh University) has produced a series of lectures for The Teaching Company entitled Science Wars: What Scientists Know and How They Know It.  CEH highly recommends this series for its wealth of historical background applied to an intriguing question: what is the nature of truth claims in science?  To what extent do scientific hypotheses and theories, built out of the particulars of our experience, apply to reality as it is, beyond our experience?  Goldman explains that many books on this history of science talk about what scientists know, but almost none talk about how they know what they know.    In this second of his lecture series for The Teaching Company, after the equally-informative Science in the 20th Century, Goldman does a superb job of developing this fascinating and important problem.  For 12 hours divided into 24 lectures, he brings in many important philosophers, thinkers and scientists from Socrates to the present to show the diversity of opinions on this controversy within science – a dispute that remains unresolved to this day.  Anyone afflicted with logical positivism, objectivism or naive realism will get a reality check from this series that shows how difficult it is to say with certainty that scientific theories are true to an external reality beyond our experience.  They may work; they may predict things; they may give us some control over nature, but to ask if a scientific theory is true with a capital T; i.e., whether it represents a reality beyond experience that is the cause of our experience, yielding knowledge that is timeless, universal, necessary and certain, is an entirely different question.    A colleague of Michael Behe, Goldman ends by discussing whether intelligent design is a scientific hypothesis.  Though he takes a strong position against it, he refrains from emotional arguments and does try to defend his position with arguments from history and logic.  Our analysis follows.Let’s see if any of the pillars of his argument are left standing after our critique of his critique.Intelligent Design is a second-generation version of creationism that has already lost several court rulings.  Actually, the controversy goes much further back, to the ancient Greeks at least.  Later, Goldman acknowledges that design arguments are ancient and that asking the question is an intelligent hypothesis (though, he says, not a scientific one) worth discussing, but then defends theistic evolution as a compromise: i.e., God as the ultimate designer, but evolution as the process.  These are incompatible positions (see David Klinghoffer op-ed) despite the ability of many schizophrenics to claim they can have it both ways.  We doubt, also, that Goldman seriously believes that politically-appointed judges should be the arbiters of what constitutes science.Who decides if a hypothesis is scientific, if not the community of scientists who deal in science?  Somebody has to decide, he argues, and who else but the very people doing the research in question?  This ignores the possibility that the entire community can become entrenched in a habit that excludes new ways of thinking and discourages asking new questions.  It also downplays the role of the maverick in science who bucks the establishment and turns out to be right.  Further, it fails to distinguish between the science communities of the past, who were often theologians working independently out of their own resources, and the Big Science establishments of today, whose motives are tainted by the need to keep government funds flowing.  (Elsewhere in the series, Goldman shows he is keenly aware of these issues.  He has a good treatment of Kuhn’s argument that science has a paradigmatic character.  He concludes that, with all its flaws, Kuhn’s critique cannot be entirely dismissed.)I.D. fails the minimum criteria of a scientific hypothesis.  Goldman hastens to explain that there are no ironclad formulas, or methodological rules to decide if a hypothesis is scientific, but argues that, at a minimum, it should include the following:Explanatory power:  He claims that a legacy of science from the earliest medieval philosophers is that scientific explanations for natural phenomena can only appeal to natural causes.  He argues that I.D. necessarily invokes a supranatural agent, and that this breaks the rules of the game (and only the scientific community can make the rules).  Further, he argues that without access to the Designer to interview, or without the blueprints of the design, pursuing a design explanation is vacuous.  What instruments do we build to detect the signals? he asks.  Radio telescopes?  he asks in an offhand way (though catching himself to remember that radio waves were discovered accidentally).    In answer, what if intelligent design is true?  What if there really is a Designer, a Creator, or God, that intentionally made the universe, the world and life?  A science committed to natural causes will never find the truth.  We believe that science should at least be a search for the truth about the world.  This cannot exclude a cause from the toolkit of science just because of a philosophical dislike for it.  A science restricted to natural causes when intelligent causes were responsible will degenerate into a false religion or cult, and that is what many in the ID movement believe has happened.    Goldman should recall his own sermon that science is not just a game, but that it has huge sociological implications: nuclear weapons, stem cells, health and safety, matters of life and death.  Science is much more serious in the 21st century than just making up a game as they go along.  In fact, Goldman’s whole series struggles with the truth claims of science and how they should be understood.  Why, he asks, is Darwinian evolution so threatening if it is just about method?  “Because the evolutionary explanation claims to be true.”  If evolutionists deny they are searching for at least a semblance of truth, and believe instead they are just playing a game, let them set up their own game clubs, like bingo or lotto, and not expect the citizens to pay for it and have it force-taught to their children.    The most serious flaw in this argument is that it does not address the capacity for Darwinists to trade in just-so stories in order to keep their pet paradigm going.  Busy-ness with all kinds of ecological, geological and biological storytelling does not justify evolutionary theory’s continuance, with its insatiable demand for public funding, when the facts keep stacking up against it (e.g., the Cambrian explosion, the fine-tuning of the universe, the molecular machinery in the cell).  Goldman also fails to recognize the sciences that already invest huge amounts of money on design-theoretic assumptions, such as SETI, cryptography, forensics, archaeology and information theory.  It’s ironic that he mentioned radio waves.  ID supporters have long pointed out that SETI proceeds on the assumption of intelligent design.  SETI presupposes that intelligence is detectable by the methods of science.Predictive success: while not necessary for a scientific hypothesis, this is at least valuable, Goldman argues; a good hypothesis predicts novel phenomena and makes startling predictions that at least give us confidence in the hypothesis.  Yet throughout the series, Goldman repeatedly pointed out the “fallacy of affirming the consequent” – i.e., just because a prediction comes true, this does not prove a hypothesis.  ID predicts that we will find large amounts of functional information in DNA and proteins, even if we don’t understand the function.  This prediction continues to bear fruit.Control over nature:  Though there are exceptions to this rule, like black hole theory and the big bang, a scientific hypothesis should produce a research program that gives us some degree of control over nature.  Without access to the design blueprints, Goldman claims, ID does not specify the kind of research a scientist would do, so what good is it?  Since the design scientist would end up doing the same kind of research as the evolutionist, ID is operationally vacuous, he claims.    Tell this to SETI, then.  Tell it to the FBI searching for patterns in noise.  They are spending an awful lot of money building elaborate detectors and computers on the assumption that intelligent design leaves footprints.  None of these and the other design sciences have the blueprints either, but they know that intelligently-caused patterns are detectable.  ID does have a criterion.  It is complex specified information (CSI), any effect that, as William Dembski argued exhaustively in The Design Inference and No Free Lunch allows us rule out chance as a cause, and infer intelligence as the cause.  As for control over nature, biomimetics (see below) is the most promising avenue today for such control.Testability and verifiability:  Goldman knows that these are sufficient criteria, but not necessary ones, for scientific hypotheses.  He fails to recognize that Darwinian evolution is so malleable that it bends itself to every anomaly, and therefore fails this test.  ID, by contrast, has an ironclad criterion: CSI.  Dembski granted an extremely generous universal probability bound of 10-150 before excluding chance and natural law and making a design inference.  ID can have false negatives – there may be cases where a designer hid his design from us, as in some modern art – but it does not generate false positives.  When CSI exists, it came from an intelligent cause.  That’s testability.Suggestive of a research program:  What experiments will a scientist do to research intelligent design? Goldman asks.  He repeats the common canard that ID brings explanation to a halt: “God did it–end of story.”  He says this should at least make us deeply suspicious about the ability of ID to satisfy the rules of scientific hypotheses.  Apply this rule to the Darwinists, then.  When they say “evolution did it,” or disguise that simplistic answer in phrases like “This represents a remarkable case of convergent evolution,” the playing field is level.  Darwinists brought the study of interesting biological phenomena to a halt by explaining away unknown biological phenomena as junk DNA or vestigial organs.    Goldman recalled Francis Bacon’s measure of good scientific hypotheses, “By their fruits ye shall know them” (three guesses where Bacon got that idea from).  So here is the fruit: design thinking is actually producing some of the most vibrant and cutting-edge research in the world today: biomimetics.  Whole multidisciplinary labs are springing up to mimic nature’s designs.  To do so, these designs must be understood – and science marches along. Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance.  Goldman claims that ID cannot merely argue that Darwinian evolution is inadequate because it cannot explain the spontaneous emergence of complex biochemical systems (e.g., Behe’s mousetrap).  Debunking Theory A does not establish Theory B.  This is the “argument from ignorance,” he says, a logical fallacy.  Granted, but it does not follow that Darwinism must be taught as fact without debate, either: that would be the best-in-field fallacy.  Darwinists have an endless capacity to rationalize and tiptoe around the problems.  Refusing to let serious challenges be heard is not healthy for any scientific explanation.  That being understood, irreducible complexity is not merely an argument against Darwinian evolution, anyway.  It is a marker for CSI that allows one to discriminate intelligent causes from non-intelligent causes.Scientists are not convinced irreducible complexity is a challenge to evolutionary theory.  Maybe evolution cannot explain complex systems yet, he says, but the community of biologists does not seem worried about it.  This is a very weak response.  Maybe they should be worried about it.  Geologists weren’t worried about plate tectonics and catastrophic floods for decades, either, till they were forced to follow the evidence.  How the community of scientists feel about something is no measure of its validity or importance.  They’ve had 146 years to explain complex systems by unguided processes and are in worse shape now than in Darwin’s time.  How much longer do they get to filibuster?Self-organizing systems show promise for explaining irreducible complexity.  The new study of self-organizing systems shows that complex systems can emerge spontaneously, Goldman argues; ID needs to make sure self-organization is incapable of producing complex systems before reaching outside of nature to explain them.  Been there, done that.  Why is this a requirement?  Why is it better to follow blind alleys?  For how long should we take a wrong road before giving up?  We already know that intelligent causes are adequate to explain CSI.  The kind of complexity that self-organizing systems exhibit is very different from information, the hallmark of intelligent design.  Spilled ink might produce wave patterns if shaken or subjected to the wind, but it does not produce meaningful text.By analogy, technological systems do form spontaneously without planning.  Goldman argues that nobody followed a master plan that resulted in all the complex systems built around the automobile: the internal combustion engine, gasoline as fuel, highways, carburetors, filling stations–these were all co-opted after the fact without any top-down design.  The system emerged from the bottom-up emergence for self-interested reasons, so why not consider this as a model for how the biochemical world emerged?  (“I’m not saying it’s true,” he adds).  My dear Dr. Goldman, do you fail to realize that your analogy is irrelevant, because human beings are intelligent agents?Criticizing gaps in evolutionary theory misunderstands the nature of scientific theories.  ID focuses its criticisms on “Darwinian” evolution, but a lot has happened since Darwin.  Theories evolve.  Evolution is now woven into a web of correlated theories, which is a key test of a scientific theory.  Geology, ecology, molecular biology, and genetics have all incorporated Darwinism or some variation of evolution, though there is still a controversy whether natural selection is the only force acting.  These are lively controversies, he argues, but none of the combatants have raised intelligent design as the missing ingredient that stymies their progress.    Again, science is not just a game, and you cannot trust Big Science to set the rules of their game fairly when they have a great deal of self-interest to perpetuate their ideologies and exclude alternatives from consideration.  In the history of science, proponents of one view have failed to see the significance of gaps in their explanations even when face to face with contradictory evidence.  Sometimes they died maintaining their flawed theories.  No historian of science can claim that evolutionary theory is immune from a massive paradigm shift.  Its critics feel it is a monstrous house of cards on a shaky foundation and that the pressures of new discoveries are making it vulnerable to a collapse of historic proportions.    Goldman had argued forcefully in the earlier lectures that scientists cannot entirely dismiss the sociological and historical nature of their theories.  He illustrated this not only by quotes from the most eminent philosophers of science, but also with specific instances.  Our concepts of the universe, the earth, life and atoms have changed dramatically since 1900.  We have no guarantee there will not be similar radical transformations in the future.  That being understood, he cannot rule out that science is evolving again in the current controversy.  Biology of the future will include intelligent causes in its toolkit, while evolutionary theory may be on the way out.ID may be a legitimate support for believing in a Designer behind nature, but design is not a scientific hypothesis.  Goldman recognizes that the design argument has a long and venerable history.  Everyone knows that nature looks designed, he acknowledges.  So are we to throw out the evidence of our senses, and our common sense, and be forced to invoke uncaused, undesigned forces to explain the most elegant machinery we know?  Who decides?  Calling something a scientific hypothesis does not make it so, nor does the converse make it not so.  Since evolutionary theory fails all of Goldman’s own minimum criteria for scientific hypotheses, and ID does not, he cannot simply dismiss ID as a scientific hypothesis by a flat-out statement of his opinion.Attacking a theory because it threatens one’s religious convictions is not a scientific posture.  OK, so ID threatens materialism and atheism.  Let the Darwinists admit that, and let’s talk about the evidence.  Evolutionists continually attack ID and creation as being religiously motivated.  This rule cuts both ways; Dawkins said that evolution allows one to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist.  Attacking one’s motives instead of his argument is the ad hominem strategy.  So evolutionists, stop attacking the motives of creationists, and focus on the evidence.Goldman noted that he only wished only to critique ID, not malign it.  We leave it to the reader to judge if any of the pillars of Goldman’s critique are left standing.  Though cogently argued, none of his points are new.  William Dembski has answered them all, and many more, in his book The Design Revolution, to which the interested reader is referred for more detail.    At the end of the lecture, Goldman acknowledged that “Imperial Science” misconstrues the debate as much as “Imperial Religion.”  He says that the defensiveness of the scientific community over the attacks by sociology, philosophy and religion “obscures the fundamental fact that we have learned in this course, namely, that no theory – no theory – can have the status of an empirical fact.”  It is a category error to claim that evolutionary theory or any other scientific theory is a fact, “contrary to the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times and various op-ed pieces opposing intelligent design,” he remarks.    Sounds like we have a legitimate controversy here.  Good; let’s teach it.(Visited 14 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

The Conversation goes live in Africa

first_imgThe arrival of The Conversation Africa website allows journalists in newsrooms and researchers and academics in universities to join forces for ground-breaking work. Articles on the site are also allowed to be republished elsewhere, so the information reaches more readers. The editorial team cheer as The Conversation Africa website goes live after months of planning and hard work. (Image: Supplied)• Oxford and UCT: oldest universities working together for new solutions • The South African who dresses the walkers • Spelling Bee aims to improve literacy• Social enterprises set up to change lives• Shuttleworth’s Ubuntu smartphone is a leap ahead Priya Pitamber Journalists and academics are combining their forces to produce magic, said editor Caroline Southey after the introduction of The Conversation Africa news site in South Africa in early May. Content on the site comes from the “deep knowledge of academics and researchers” which is mixed “with the journalistic skills of editing and having a nose for a story”.Co-founder and editor-in-chief Andrew Jaspan explained that there was a huge difference between journalists and academics. “Journalists tend to want to tell you the bad news so bad weather outcomes – there is another flood, another hurricane – whereas the academic will try [to] understand those and give you some real context for changes in climate and also offer potential solutions.”Jaspan wanted to find a new way for the two to work together, and to be able to mend the relationship of mistrust that had brewed between those in the newsroom and those in the university. “My quest was to find a new way for academics and journalists to work together where we still try to understand complexity but try to offer something more,” he said.“And by offering something more, what we wanted to do was put better integrity of information out there so that all of you can have better public conversations.”The Conversation was set up in Australia in 2011, followed by the United Kingdom in 2013, and the US in 2014. The Africa version is its latest offering.Africa’s turnSouthey first heard of the site in late 2013 and thought it would be a good idea to have it on the continent because she felt academics were doing game-changing research. The site would be a perfect vehicle to share that knowledge with a wider audience. She approached two vice-chancellors, Saleem Badat, who was at Rhodes University at the time, and Adam Habib at the University of the Witwatersrand. Both men showed a lot of support and Southey began looking for a way to fund the project.“The National Research Foundation came on board and then others started to show interest,” she explained. “Alexandra Storey, the general manager of The Conversation Africa, and I worked on the project from June last year and by December we had raised enough money to put a team of editors together.”We’re live! Please come for a visit! Join The Conversation, Africa. https://t.co/5HibdVaoC0 pic.twitter.com/lxtgShz0lR— TC Africa (@TC_Africa) May 7, 2015More of the same, with a twistThe difference between the Africa site and the others was that “we are commissioning our own stories from academics about issues affecting Africa”, Southey said. The Conversation Africa will still maintain the high quality of copy on the other versions of the site, and has also learned much from them. “The biggest lesson we have learned from the other sites is that it is possible to produce fantastic explanatory journalism.“We are also emulating the way they have made sure their stories are read by a diverse set of readers,” Southey explained. “We are doing this through active engagement with media houses and an intensive social media strategy, which is being run by Tanya Pampalone.”Content on The Conversation Africa can be republished, within guidelines, on other websites and in print media. Southey called it an incredible feature because it helped to reach a wide reader base. “Republishing of material on other sites has meant that The Conversation is reaching 22 million readers a month.”Media outlets: steal our articles! No. Really. Steal them. Here’s how: https://t.co/bMinymbtlT— TC Africa (@TC_Africa) May 7, 2015Interest in stories it had published had been overwhelming, she added. “We have been going for only a week and already our stories are being republished by online sites and by newspapers.” But the biggest challenge is creating and growing the countrywide network of academics, and having a regular flow of information and articles.The groundwork“Our job as journalists is to use our skills to make the stories from academics interesting and appealing.” This was done by trying to find the most interesting angle from university research and editing it so that it was easy for the user to read.“I am confident we can do this because we have a fantastic team of editors – Jabulani Sikhakhane, Thabo Leshilo, Natasha Joseph, Candice Bailey, Ozayr Patel and Edwin Naidu.”In the next five years, she would like to see editorial teams in East and West Africa to get readers from across the continent. “And I hope that we have succeeded in putting game-changing research and ideas and knowledge into the public domain.”Thumbs upReaders, academics, editors and journalists have welcomed The Conversation Africa into the fold.“Well done Caroline and team on getting The Conversation Africa off the ground,” Craig Blewett, the senior lecturer in education and technology at University of KwaZulu-Natal, wrote on the website. “This is going to be an amazing channel for academics to finally have a voice where it counts, outside of the ‘dusty’, unread journals where they normally share ideas (with each other). I’m looking forward to many well-reasoned, well-written, topical articles – let Africa’s conversation begin!”@TC_Africa @carolinesouthey wonderful to see the site live, and fizzing— Nicholas Dawes (@NicDawes) May 8, 2015@TC_AfricaGreat new entrant into SA’s intelligent content arena, The Conversation. http://t.co/zdEBLaas2c @TC_Africa (feat. @tanyapampalone)— Chris Roper (@ChrisRoper) May 7, 2015“Congratulations on the successful launch,” wrote Peter Ellerton, a lecturer in critical thinking at the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia. “This is a wonderful way for academics to become engaged in real time on topical issues with serious traction. Well done Caroline and the team.”last_img read more

Highlights from BRICS 8th annual summit

first_imgThis year marks the 10th anniversary of the BRICS co-operation mechanism. Comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, the bloc unites the world’s five major emerging economies.At the end of the eighth BRICS summit on 16 October in Goa, India, held under the theme of “Building Responsive, Inclusive and Collective Solutions”, the bloc issued the Goa Declaration.Brazilian President Michel Temer, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Chinese President Xi Jinping and President Jacob Zuma attended the summit.#5GoalsfromGoa announced by PM @narendramodiFor positive direction & strong momentum of intra-#BRICS engagement. pic.twitter.com/pkZ6Wp2f1j— BRICS 2016 (@BRICS2016) October 17, 2016New Development BankBRICS members were satisfied with the approval of the first batch of loans by the New Development Bank (NDB), particularly in renewable energy projects in BRICS countries.On a global scaleThe group said it was grateful to former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon for his contribution in the past 10 years and congratulated António Guterres on his appointment as the next UN chief, pledging continuous support for the world body.Regarding the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the declaration urged developed countries to honour their commitment to earmark 0.7% of gross national income for official development assistance to developing countries.The five BRICS leaders also welcomed the G20 Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda adopted during the Hangzhou Summit and committed themselves to its implementation. In addition, the bloc pledged to enhance consultations and co-ordination on the G20 agenda, especially regarding issues of mutual interest to their countries.In particular, the member countries would continue to work closely with G20 members to strengthen macro-economic co-operation, promote innovation and sustainable trade and investment to propel global growth, improve global economic governance, enhance the role of developing countries, strengthen international financial architecture, support industrialisation in Africa and least developed countries, and enhance co-operation on energy access and efficiency, according to the Goa Declaration.World securityBRICS strongly condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, particularly attacks against its members. It said there was no justification for acts of terror.Member countries agreed to strengthen co-operation in combating international terrorism at the bilateral and international levels. They called on all nations to adopt a comprehensive approach to ending terrorism.The environmentProtecting the environment is important to BRICS members. The bloc welcomed the Paris Agreement and urged countries to implement it by providing financial resources, technology and capacity building assistance to support developing countries.The leaders also emphasised that the comprehensive, balanced and ambitious nature of the Paris Agreement reaffirmed the principles of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, including the principle of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances.Watch:Source: South African Government News Agency and SouthAfrica.info reporterWould you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See Using SouthAfrica.info materiallast_img read more