Quite often I tell people that I came to humanism by way of science. What does that really mean? It means that early in my life I became skeptical, and as time went on I began to question those things that didn't, in my mind, fit in with reality. Most of those things were associated with religious beliefs, especially those that dealt with creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, etc. Those beliefs (and many others) appeared ridiculous to me.

They continue to be ridiculous to me to this day. As people try to discredit science and inject religion into public schools and other areas that should remain secular, for me it is necessary to focus on science by defending it, disseminating factual information about it, and by being more vocal in its importance and truth.

For the next few months, you will see this occur in the President's Message. In addition to the usual updates, requests and announcements, I plan to include a mixture of defense of science with some various educational facts. Hopefully this won't bore everyone to death! (You will have another opportunity for such boredom when I am the speaker at the September General Meeting.)

My purpose in all of this is to inform people in the areas in which I have some knowledge, as well as to defend science in every way possible. I believe that we must confront misconceptions of all kinds and to stand up to what are sometimes lies about scientific areas, or seemingly authoritarian pronouncements of "how the world really is."

Accuracy is one aspect of science we need to remain ever vigilant about; people often have incorrect and/or unreliable information that is designed to confuse or misinform. One example is the doubts so many people profess to have regarding the seriousness or even the reality of global warming-something which most respected scientists worldwide agree upon. I read a recent letter in the local newspaper in which an individual based his entire opinion on global warming (that it is bunk) on incorrect information about glaciers (melting rates, etc.) As someone who has studied Glaciology extensively, I could tell from the comments that the writer knew very little about the subject. This is not necessarily anyone's fault, but it does illustrate the importance of keeping scientific facts accurate and that the media have an obligation to report information correctly. A recent Google search of "glaciers" and "glaciology" was very disappointing: a lot of what I found was either inadequate or inaccurate-and this was on the premiere sites! It was troubling to think that people are getting their data from these sites that are either woefully inadequate or blatantly incorrect. It was a good reminder to me that when presenting any type of fact, about global warming or otherwise, scientists and the science minded alike must be scrupulous in our accuracy. Science should enlighten, not misinform, inform, not confuse, bring the truth, and not spread fallacies. Providing accurate information is vital in this endeavor.

--Robert Lane
President, HoU