(Satire) Damascus Dropbear: ANU To Drop Word “Gravity”

Australian National University urges staff to stop using the term ‘gravity’

Image Credits: AAP/Lukas Coch (edited)

Australian National University urges staff to stop using the term ‘gravity’

by D’bear | Mar 19, 2021 | Culture

CANBERRA, ACT – Australia’s leading university, the ANU, has discouraged staff from using ‘force-exclusive’ language such as ‘gravity’ to describe objective scientific realities.

The guidance appears to be an extension of the recent controversy around the release of an ANU Gender-Inclusive Handbook which replaced the terms ‘mother’, ‘father’ and ‘breastfeeding’ with ‘gestational’, ‘non-gestational’ and ‘chestfeeding’.

Vice-Chancellor of the ANU, Professor Brian Schmidt, described the reasoning behind the decision.

“The ANU has come to realise that many of our scientific terms actually discriminate against certain sections of students.”

“We recognise that the concept of gravity brings with it hateful attitudes around individual’s weight, balance and personal physical world beliefs.”

“I am ashamed to say that I am as culpable as anyone in this regard, as in all my Nobel Prize and astrophysics work I never realised the damage I was doing to people’s feelings by basing my supernovae studies on these harmful terms.”

“We hope these changes will uplift transweight and minority post-scientific students so they can be free to fly!”

There has however been strong criticism of the move from several distinguished physicists.

Associate Professor Stoot Frankman has told the Damascus Dropbear that he sees the move as ‘unhinged from reality’.

“When I look at the world I see a set of incredible and profound physical laws designed for human flourishing.”

 “I’m just not sure they have fully thought through the unintended consequences of removing the notion of gravity for the sake of avoiding offence.”

“People, and universities, can believe what they want – but as for me my feet are going to stay firmly planted on this solid rock.”

It is further reported that the ANU is looking to turn their ‘University inclusiveness audit’ towards medical treatments, mathematical calculations and engineering structures next.

Quote for the Day

The order of the keys is not important, just that you use them all. Embracing all four, by faith, can change your life. Simply quiet yourself down, tune to spontaneity, look for vision, and journal. He is waiting to meet you there. Mark Virkler

Creation Ministries: Snakes v. Cane Toads

A good article from Creation Ministries about why snakes adapting to cane toads is natural selection not evolution

Do toads goad snake evolution?

by David Catchpoole

First published: 27 April 2006 (GMT+10)
Re-featured on homepage: 10 March 2021 (GMT+10)
toad

When leading public institutions repeatedly broadcast as fact that ‘we see evolution happening today’,1 it’s not surprising that many people believe it.

One example is a recent prime-time breakfast radio segment on Australia’s national broadcaster, ABC Radio National. The University of Sydney’s Professor Richard Shine told the presenter Fran Kelly that he and his co-researchers studying snakes have observed ‘genuine evolutionary changes’.2

What were they? Allegedly snakes are evolving to cope with the spread of cane toads across the Australian continent. (Cane toads were introduced to north Queensland in the 1930s, and have steadily expanded their range, moving south into New South Wales and west into the Northern Territory.) The changes are making snakes ‘much less vulnerable’ to the toxin in the toad’s skin. (One reason that the cane toad has spread so rapidly is its toxic gland that can kill native predators that eat it.)Creationists do not dispute natural selection—indeed it is an important part of the biblical creation/Fall/
Flood/Dispersion model, and was theorized by creationists even before Darwin!

But as the interview progressed, the discerning listener would have picked up from Professor Shine’s own words that he and his colleagues had not observed evolution at all. Rather, it was an example of natural selection acting to favour certain already-existing genetically determined traits in the snake populations. Creationists do not dispute natural selection—indeed it is an important part of the biblical creation/Fall/Flood/Dispersion model, and was theorized by creationists even before Darwin!

The researchers had firstly been able to rule out learned behaviour as a factor in this case. ‘We’ve done a bunch of trials to see if it could just be that the snakes are learning and so forth but they seem to be remarkably stupid …’, said Professor Shine, going on to emphasize the genetic basis to snake behaviour:

‘Basically you’ve got a strong genetic component to feeding responses, and some snakes really go mad on eating frogs and others really want to eat nothing but mammals and so forth, and it’s actually pretty sophisticated. And there’s a lot of work overseas showing that even within a single litter of baby snakes you’ve got genetic variation in what kinds of things they treat as prey. And it’s just that the only snakes that survive after the toads arrive are the ones that happen to be born with a set of genes saying: “If it looks and smells like a cane toad, don’t eat it.”’

And genetically-determined physical attributes such as the snake’s head dimensions and body size are key factors too.

‘Essentially the size of the toad you can eat depends on the size of your head, so if you’ve got a small head you can’t eat a very big toad.’

So, if you’re a snake, having a small head stops you eating big toads, which have more poison, therefore helps you to survive. And having a big body helps as well:

Read the full story here