Podcasts about copernicus

What did the ancient world discover about the cosmos? What were the contributions of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo? How did the science of astronomy advance under Newton? And how did everything change again with the discoveries of special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics? With us to answer these questions is Sarah Alam Malik. Sarah is an expert on dark matter, and her work on large-scale experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider has placed her at the cutting edge of exploring the universe's mysteries and its fundamental laws. Today we discuss her new book entitled, A Brief History of the Universe (and our place in it).

Var finns kvinnan ägg? Hjälper bruna bönor potensen? Frågan om livets uppkomst har lett till många spännande teorier, konstaterar Fredrik Sjöberg. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Först sänd 2017-09-05.Biologen och rabulisten Bengt Lidforss berättade en gång om ett samtal med Strindberg, om befruktningens mysterier. Det var i Berlin på 1890-talet, på den tiden de och andra av deras kaliber söp skallen av sig på stamkrogen Zum schwarzen Ferkel, den svarta grisen. I essän ”Strindberg som naturforskare” skriver sålunda Lidforss:”Han lutade sig fram över bordet och sänkte rösten till en hemlighetsfull viskning:Ja – och kvinnan! Tänk, när vi börja avslöja henne på allvar! Hur tror du att det är beställt med hennes ägg? Har du sett ett kvinnoägg? Nej! Jag? Nej! Men Buffon, som var en jävla man, har funnit befruktade kvinnoägg i hannarnas sädesledare! Har du mod att tänka ut tanken? Det är mannen som lägger äggen och kvinnan är fågelboet! Hon kan ersättas, undanskaffas! Det gäller blott att hålla en konstant temperatur av 37 grader och bereda ett lämpligt näringsfluidum. Och så är mannen emanciperad! Fullständigt!”Ja, Strindberg hade en enastående förmåga att vara efter sin tid. I slutet av 1800-talet var mysteriet redan löst. Man visste hur befruktningen fungerade, låt vara att själva genetiken ännu var okänd. Men det hade tagit förvånansvärt lång tid. Bara några decennier tidigare hade Strindbergs teorier kunnat passera som tänkvärda. I århundraden hade forskarna famlat i blindo.Hur blir egentligen barn till? Varifrån kommer de? Ingen visste. Jo, alla visste såklart var de brukade dyka upp, och att sex mellan en man och en kvinna på ett eller annat sätt hade med saken att göra. Men sen var det stopp. Förresten var man inte alltid helt säker på att det räckte med en man; bland ursprungsfolken i Sydamerika fanns de som ansåg att en havande kvinna gjorde bäst i att ligga med så många män hon bara orkade, ända fram till nedkomsten, helst män med olika begåvning – en bra jägare, en bra historieberättare, en bra älskare och så vidare. Tanken var att barnet byggdes på undan för undan, ungefär som en snöboll.I den gamla världen var man inte mycket klokare; författaren Edward Dolnick berättar i boken ”The Seeds of life” historien om hur en kvinna i Grenoble, på 1600-talet, födde ett gossebarn vilket var trevligt men ändå lite dumt eftersom hennes man vid det laget hade varit utomlands i fyra år. Otrohet bestraffade hårt, och här fanns dessutom pengar med i spelet; den bortreste mannen var mycket förmögen. Saken hamnade i domstol. Och kvinnan vann målet – pojken fick ärva pengarna – tack vare en färgstark historia om att hon hade legat med sin make i en dröm som var så verklighetstrogen att hon blev med barn.På den tiden var det heller inte ovanligt att en kvinna som hade råkat bli gravid på bygden, ägnade sig åt att stirra på ett porträtt föreställande sin äkta man, dagar i sträck, för det kunde vem som helst räkna ut, att det var så det gick till när ett barn kom att likna sin far. Alla visste ju att modern till ett harmynt barn hade sett en hare. Och redan Aristoteles var för sin del säker på att en man i gott skick, med torrt krut i torpeden, eller vad det nu hette på hans tid, välsignade sin hustru med söner, medan män som i något avseende var undermåliga eller tillfälligt försvagade fick hålla till godo med döttrar. Hur skulle det annars gå till?Studier av könsorganen hjälpte inte heller. Den medicinska vetenskapens fader, Hippokrates, begrep visserligen att mannens testiklar antagligen hörde till pjäsen, men skapade ingen större klarhet med sin teori om att säd från höger testikel gav upphov till söner, medan döttrarnas ursprung var den vänstra.Sådär höll de på, långt in i modern tid. När den vetenskapliga revolutionens hjältar, Copernicus, Newton och de andra, lyckas klarlägga fysikens lagar, står kunskapen om vår egen fortplantning och stampar på samma fläck. Det enda man var helt överens om var att Gud hade hittat på alltihop. Resten var öppet för spekulation. Så sent som på 1670-talet fanns exempelvis de som på fullt allvar trodde att mannens organ vid själva erektionen fylldes av luft, ungefär som en flärpa, en sån där papperstuta som förekommer på barnkalas, och att väderdrivande födoämnen som bruna bönor därför kunde rekommenderas i samband med sex.Och när man vid samma tid upptäckte att sädesvätskan var full av pyttesmå sprattlande spermier, enades vetenskapsmännen om att detta var fråga om helt ointressanta parasiter. Med hjälp det nyligen uppfunna mikroskopet hade man fått syn på mängder av maskar och annan ohyra, så slutsatsen låg nära till hands. Att spermierna skulle ha med befruktningen att göra, det trodde man inte. Möjligen indirekt, genom att vispa den värdefulla vätskan med sina svansar, så att den inte koagulerade.Tidigt formerade sig forskarna i två rivaliserande läger. Dels de som trodde att kvinnan bidrog mest när ett barn blev till, dels de som likt senare Strindberg tänkte sig henne mera som en blomkruka där mannen sådde ett frö som i princip innehöll en komplett människa, låt vara i mikroformat. Grälet pågick ända in på 1800-talet, och alla var i någon mening styrda av den store glädjedödaren Augustinus; hans tröttsamma tankar om att allt som har med lust att göra är syndigt.Edward Dolnick berättar hela denna historia, från urtiden fram till de cellbiologiska genombrotten vid mitten av 1800-talet, när allt slutligen föll på plats, och man kan läsa boken som ett stycke underhållande vetenskapshistoria, men under ytan finns också annat. Reflektioner som pekar mera framåt.Att det tog så lång tid berodde inte i första hand på att man saknade mikroskop och andra tekniska förutsättningar; anledningen var mera själva tänkandet. Man kan inte utforska det man inte kan föreställa sig, och i det här fallet kunde ingen tänka sig en värld utan Gud. Den saken var inget problem för Newton; han kunde revolutionera fysiken utan att ge upp sin tro på en gudomlig plan, och likadant var det som bekant med Linné. De ordnade och räknade, utan att bekymra sig om var allt kom ifrån. Det visste de ju redan.Den inställningen visade sig vara ohållbar i frågan om sex och fortplantning. Legenden om Gud blockerade bara. Det är först med Darwins ”Om arternas uppkomst” – 1859 – som tänkandet blir tillräckligt fritt, och när sedan den digitala och genetiska informationsöverföringen långt senare blev intellektuellt allmängods, försvann de sista hindren för en sann bild av barnens tillblivelse.Men kanske är vi tillbaka på ruta ett. Det finns ett vetenskapligt problem i dag som på många sätt liknar den gamla frågan om befruktningen, ett mysterium som väldigt många forskare sysslar med och skriver lärda böcker om – frågan om vårt medvetande.Hur blir egentligen tankar till? Var kommer de ifrån? Ingen vet. Eller jo, alla vet förstås i vilken kroppsdel de dyker upp, och att evolutionen på ett eller annat sätt har med saken att göra. Men sen är det stopp.Om något blockerar förståelsen, och i så fall vad, vet ingen. Men teorierna är många och fantasifulla. Det finns till och med de som tror att våra idéer är en sorts immateriella parasiter, och vi bara värddjur. Fast det där tror jag inte på. Men ändå, också misslyckade hypoteser kan vara tänkvärda, och vad som är användbart vet man inte förrän efteråt. Vilket påminner mig om att jag är lite hungrig. Jag tror det får bli bruna bönor i dag.Fredrik Sjöberg, författare och biolog LitteraturEdward Dolnick: The Seeds of life – From Aristotle to da Vinci, From Sharks' Teeth to Frogs' Pants, the Long Strange Quest to Discover Where Babies Come From. Basic books, 2017.

In this week's episode of The Learning Curve, co-hosts Alisha Searcy of the Center for Strong Public Schools and Jake Tawney of the Institute for Catholic Liberal Education speak with Dr. Snezana Lawrence, an independent scholar affiliated with Middlesex University London, about the origins and development of mathematics across human civilizations. Dr. Lawrence reflects on her work, including her book A Little History of Mathematics, tracing early counting systems and artifacts such as the Mesopotamian cuneiform and Egyptian mathematical practices. She explains how Greek thinkers like Pythagoras and Euclid shaped mathematics, geometry, and logical reasoning, while highlighting India's development of zero and the later adoption of the Hindu-Arabic numeral system. She connects these mathematical traditions to modern science through Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and the Newton–Leibniz calculus controversy, underscoring mathematics as the language of science and discovery across time and diverse human civilizations. In closing, Dr. Lawrence reads a passage from her book, A Little History of Mathematics.

"I think the US in general doesn't pay much attention to European space." That's how Dr. Michael Gleason of the Aerospace Corporation opens - and it's exactly the blind spot this conversation sets out to expose.Recorded live on day two of the 41st Space Symposium in Colorado Springs, Torsten Kriening sits down with the analyst whose latest paper, "Geopolitical Awakening: The European Union and Space," made a lot of Europeans uncomfortable - not because he got it wrong, but because an American got it right. It's Gleason's ninth paper on EU space activities across more than twenty years of watching the continent's slow, incremental, and now suddenly accelerating progress.The conversation digs into what mapping Europe's space ecosystem from the outside reveals that insiders often miss. Gleason walks through the political-will framework he first built in 2004 - policy, institutions, senior-leader attention, and money - and explains why, with up to €60 billion on the table in the next EU budget, he believes this time Europe means it. Then comes his one truly original insight: as EU funding flows into ESA, the share could climb past 50%, and that "different color of money" might quietly loosen the geographic-return rule that has held European space together for forty years.From strategic autonomy (and what Washington actually hears when Europeans say it - "not much") to dual-use tensions around Galileo, Copernicus and IRIS², from missile-warning data sharing to the role of NATO, this is a clear-eyed, transatlantic exchange. And it ends on a provocation worth sitting with: the most uncomfortable thing isn't Gleason's conclusions - it's that a European institution didn't write the paper. Strategic autonomy, as Torsten argues, starts with self-understanding.Torsten's Op'ed: #SpaceWatchGL Opinion: Who Understands European Space Better - Washington or Brussels?Space Café Radio brings you talks, interviews, and reports from the team of SpaceWatchers while out on the road. Each episode has a specific topic, unique content, and a personal touch. Enjoy the show, and let us know your thoughts at radio@spacewatch.globalWe love to hear from you. Send us your thought, comments, suggestions, love lettersSupport the showYou can find us on: Spotify and Apple Podcast!Please visit us at SpaceWatch.Global, subscribe to our newsletters. Follow us on LinkedIn and X!

In the second episode of DeepDive SpaceTech, a special series of the DeepDive CleanTech Podcast, David Wortmann speaks with Gopika Suresh, Co-Founder and Chief Strategy Officer of Marble Imaging. Marble Imaging is building a European constellation of multispectral satellites designed to provide high-resolution Earth observation data and help close a strategic gap in Europe's SpaceTech ecosystem. Why are satellite images becoming increasingly important for security, climate action, disaster response and infrastructure monitoring? Why are existing programmes such as Copernicus not sufficient for every use case? And what does it mean when Europe still depends heavily on non-European providers for high-resolution Earth observation data? Gopika explains how Marble Imaging aims to create new possibilities through high-resolution multispectral Earth observation, short revisit times and dedicated analytics tools. The conversation covers critical infrastructure monitoring, mangrove and coastal protection, terrain analysis for emergency responders, launch capacities, SpaceX, European microlaunchers, space debris, regulation, investors, government anchor customers and why Earth observation is no longer just about “images from space”. An episode about SpaceTech made in Europe, digital sovereignty, climate applications and the growing importance of satellite data for better decisions on Earth.

Nuacht Mhall. Príomhscéalta na seachtaine, léite go mall.*Inniu an tríochadú lá de mhí Bealtaine. Is mise Alanna Ní Ghallachóir.Tá tús curtha le triail iar-cheannaire an Pháirtí Aontachtaigh Dhaonlathaigh, Jeffrey Donaldson, agus a mhná céile, i ndiaidh do bheirt bhan líomhaintí a dhéanamh go ndearna sé mí-úsáid ghnéis orthu agus iad ina bpáistí. D'inis abhcóide an ionchúisimh, Rosie Walsh KC, don ghiúire de chúigear ban agus seachtar fear ag Cúirt Chórónach an Iúir, go ndúirt duine de na gearánaigh gur thosaigh an mhí-úsáid agus í fós sa bhunscoil, agus gur leanadh ar aghaidh leis ar feadh roinnt blianta. Dúirt an gearánach eile gur chreid sí gur tharla na teagmhais bainte léi féin thart fán aois chéanna. Agus é i mbun agallamh le póilíní tar éis á ghabhála i Mí an Mhárta 2024, dúirt Donaldson gur rud “dochreidte” a bhí sa chúiseamh éignithe ina aghaidh agus shéan sé na cúisimh a bhí curtha ina leith. Phléadáil iar-cheannaire an DUP neamhchiontach do 18 gcúiseamh agus shéan Bean Donaldson cúig chúiseamh. Deirtear gur tharla na teagmhais idir na blianta 1985 agus 2008Dé Céadaoin, sáraíodh an churiarracht teochta um mí na Bealtaine in Éirinn ag Aerfort na Sionainne, nuair a bhain an mearcair 30.6C amach. Lean sé seo curiarracht eile ní ba luaithe sa lá ag stáisiún aimsire Páirc na Darach, taobh amuigh de bhaile Cheatharlach, inar taifeadadh teocht 29.7C. Agus sa Phortaingéil, taifeadadh an lá is teo i mí na Bealtaine ag 40.3C sa bhaile lárnach Mora, agus tíortha in iarthar na hEorpa ag streachailt leo san aimsir mharfach leáiteach. Sna tríocha bliain a chuaigh thart, tá ardú teochta 0.56C tagtha ar an Eoraip achan deich mbliana, de réir na Seirbhíse Aeráide Copernicus - neart leis na teochtaí as cuimse a dhéanamh níos coitianta. Déardaoin, dúirt na Náisiúin Aontaithe go bhfuil seans maith ann go ndéanfaidh na meánteochtaí domhanda na hardteochtaí as cuimse níos géire. Tháinig clú agus cáil ar bhuabhall ailbíneach neamhchoitianta a bhfuil gruaig fhada fhionn air sa Bhangladéis, agus an fhéile Eid al-Adha ag bualadh linn, agus é ag tarraingt na sluaite cuairteoirí fiosracha a deir go bhfuil an-chosúlacht idir an t-ainmhí agus Uachtarán Stáit Aontaithe Mheiriceá, Donald Trump. Tógadh an buabhall, a bhfuil beagnach 700kg meáchain ann, ar fheirm i gceantar in aice leis an phríomhchathair, Dhaka, agus tugadh an leasainm Donald Trump air mar gheall ar an dos gruaige bán thar a bhaitheas. Is Moslamaigh iad formhór na mBangladéiseach, náisiún san Áise Theas a bhfuil 170 milliún duine ann, a bhí ag céiliúradh Eid al-Adha, féile na híobairte le linn na seachtaine. Bhí sléacht le déanamh ar an bhuabhall leis an fhéile a chomóradh ach, sna huaireanta sular cuireadh é chun báis, ghníomhaigh an rialtas leis an t-ainmhí a shabháil. Dúirt coiméadaí an Zú Náisiúnta um Bangladéis, Atiqur Rahman, go dtabharfaí cúram maith don ainmhí, agus bóthán áirithe tugtha don bhuabhall in éineacht le cúramóir, agus go mbeidh sé ar coraintín le haghaidh coicíse. *Léirithe ag Conradh na Gaeilge i Londain. Tá an script ar fáil i d'aip phodchraolta.*GLUAISgearánach - complainantcúiseamh éignithe - accusation of rapeleáiteach - meltingmeánteochtaí - average temperaturesbuabhall ailbíneach - albino buffalodos gruaige - tuft of hair

May 20, 2026Dr, Hakeem Oluseyi (CEO, Astronomical Society of the Pacific)n his new book, Why Do We Exist, Dr. Oluseyi suggests that the story of our existence can be told as a passage through nine interwoven realms—each revealing a new layer of cosmic information. In this public talk, he introduces each of the realms, but then focuses on cosmic connections to the Middle Realm, where we humans live, and to the Realm of Life, where organisms flourish across the vastness of space. He explores these realms with humor and honesty, weaving in stories from his early life in Mississippi and his career in science.

April 23, 2026 - Equipped 2026 - Day 1 - 7:00 PM Session Room:  Auditorium Title:  Getting to Know God Through Creation Speaker: Andrew Itson Summary: The lecture examines the theological theme of God's creative work as ongoing, using Copernicus's heliocentric insight to argue that humans lack the “gravity” to hold life together, while God—and ultimately Christ—does. Drawing from Genesis, Psalms, Hebrews, Colossians, and multiple New Testament narratives, the speaker highlights identity, community, and purpose as core human needs addressed by creation. Key motifs include God as sovereign initiator and finisher; creation as continuing, not merely a past event; the Spirit bringing order from chaos; rest (Shabbat) as trust; and work as purposeful multiplication rather than punishment. Practical applications include making Jesus preeminent, embracing communal life, practicing confession and repentance instead of hiding and blaming, and trusting God to start and stop what's needed in our lives.  Duration 37:36

May 22, 2026 – Just as Copernicus revolutionized astronomy, he also revealed the vital role of sound money. Ralph Benko explains how currency debasement endangers prosperity, and why Copernicus's age-old wisdom on stable money...

#płatnawspółpraca | Zapraszamy na środowe #OnetRANO, w którym gośćmi Mikołaja Kunicy będą: Maciej Konieczny - Razem, Wojciech Tochman - pisarz, Krzysztof Cibor - Greenpeace Polska, prof. dr hab. Tomasz Grzyb - psycholog. W części #OnetRanoWIEM gośćmi Marcina Zawady będą: Diana Sałacka - Centrum Kopernika Badań Interdyscyplinarnych Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, dr inż. Klaudia Żerańska - fizyczka materiałowa, popularyzatorka nauki, Copernicus Center.

Send us Fan MailParticle physicist and author Dr. Sarah Alam Malik stops by for an expansive conversation about astronomy, the history of scientific discovery, and our endless fascination with the night sky. In her new book, A Brief History of the Universe, And Our Place in It, Dr. Sarah explores how our understanding of the cosmos has evolved from ancient observers tracking the stars, through the revolutionary ideas of Copernicus and Newton, to modern discoveries about dark matter and the origins of the universe itself.Why do humans feel compelled to explore? What does it mean to confront the scale of the universe, and how can astronomy change the way we see ourselves here on Earth. Dr. Sarah also reflects on her own path into physics, the moments of awe that still stay with her, and the discoveries she hopes for in the coming decades.This is a conversation about curiosity, perspective, and the incredible human need to understand where we came from, and what the distant future of the universe might hold.Check out A Brief History of the Universe at Harper Collins (USA)Check out A Brief History of the Universe at Simon & Schuster (UK)Check out A Brief History of the Universe at Simon & Schuster (Australia)sarahalammalik.comEmail us! cosmiccoffeetime@gmail.comYou can request a topic for the show! Or even just say hi!We'd love to hear from you.

En la 1471-a E_elsendo el la 15.05.2026 ĉe www.pola-retradio.org: • Hodiaŭ nia antaŭmikrofona gasto estas la prezidanto de la Kataluna E-Junularo kaj samtempe membro de la organiza komitato de IJK-2026, Jaime Tapia Zaragoza. Nia interparolo rilatas al ĉi tiu evento. Detaloj pri la nunjara IJK  estas konsulteblaj ĉe: https://ijk2026.tejo.org/. • En aktualaĵoj hodiaŭ ni informas pri la raporto de Internacia Agentejo pri Migrado pri triobliĝo de la nombro de migrantoj inter 1970-2024. Ni prezentas la polan laŭreaton, longtigan ulmon el la loko Szydłowiec, kiu nunjare gajnis la 3-an lokon kiel Eŭropa Arbo 2026. • En la scienca rubriko ni informas pri la laŭreatoj de la pola-germana scienca premio Copernicus. • Ĉi-foje – lige kun la amhistorio, kiu ligiĝas kun la premiita pola arbo – ni elektis por komuna aŭskulto la malnovan kanzonon en la plenumo de pola esperantisto, tenorulo, Remigiusz Kossakowski pri Maria, majo kaj rozoj. Krome ni uzas en la elsendo fragmenton el la kanto de Kaj Tiel Plu „Kiam najtingalo kantas”. • La programon akompanas foto pri Sagrada Família, kiun la partoprenontoj de IJK-2026 rigardos dum la ekskurso en Barcelono,  foto de Kanaan CC BY-SA 4.0. • En unuopaj rubrikoj de nia paĝo eblas konsulti la paralele legeblajn kaj aŭdeblajn tekstojn el niaj elsendoj, kio estas tradicio de nia redakcio ekde 2003. La elsendo estas aŭdebla en Jutubo ĉe la adreso: https://www.youtube.com/results?q=pola+retradio&sp=CAI%253D Interalie pere de Jutubo, konforme al individua bezono, eblas rapidigi aŭ malrapidigi la parolritmon de la sondokumentoj; eblas transsalti al ajna serĉata fragmento de la elsendo.

Aliens, UFOs, UAPs, secret pastor meetings, and the Bible. Would the discovery of extraterrestrial life cause Christians to reject Scripture? Pastor Cole Phillips and Pastor Bobby Fraumann talk about recent UAP disclosures, why Christians should avoid panic and conspiracy-driven theology, how the Bible speaks about creation and spiritual beings, and why Jesus remains supreme over all creation.Christian faith isn't fragile. Unidentified does not automatically mean alien. And no discovery can dethrone Christ.KeywordsAliens, UFOs, UAPs, unidentified anomalous phenomena, Christian faith, Bible and aliens, science and faith, creation, intelligent designChapter Titles00:00 | Welcome to the Connect Podcast Cole introduces the episode and explains why Christians should not run from hard questions.03:40 | Ancient Aliens and The Twilight Zone Bobby brings up Ancient Aliens, and Cole shares his favorite Twilight Zone episode, “To Serve Man.”06:30 | UFOs, UAPs, and Recent Government Files The conversation turns to the May 8, 2026 UAP document release and why Christians should be careful with the difference between “unidentified” and “alien.”09:45 | Secret Pastor Meetings and Wild Claims Cole and Bobby discuss recent claims about private meetings, alleged government briefings, reptilian beings, end-times deception, and the danger of building theology on rumors.15:45 | Discernment Over Panic Bobby emphasizes discernment, wisdom, and the need for Christian leaders to be careful with public claims.19:20 | Our Faith Is Not Built on Secret Information Cole reminds listeners that Christian faith is built on Jesus Christ, not leaked intelligence, viral clips, or secret meetings.21:10 | Would Aliens Cause Us to Reject the Bible? Cole gives the short answer: no.24:00 | God Created the Heavens and the Earth The first major point: the Bible does not say God only created life on earth.25:30 | Science, Water, Carbon, and the Conditions for Life Cole explains how scientists look for life and why the complexity of earth should lead us to worship.28:00 | Fine-Tuning and Intelligent Design Bobby responds with the importance of seeing creation through the lens of an intelligent Creator.32:30 | The Bible's Focus Is God's Redemption of Humanity Cole explains that the Bible is not an encyclopedia of everything God ever made. It is the story of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration.34:30 | Christians Have Asked This Question for Centuries Cole walks through Christian thinkers, Copernicus, heliocentrism, and the rise of astrotheology.38:30 | Psalm 8 and the Wonder of Creation Cole and Bobby reflect on the vastness of the universe and the personal care of God.40:30 | The Real Theological Questions If intelligent alien life existed, are they moral? Fallen? In need of redemption? Cole frames the questions Scripture does not directly answer.42:00 | Jesus Is Lord of All Creation Cole points to Colossians 1 and explains why Christ's work is sufficient and His supremacy is not threatened.44:30 | Bobby's View: Extraterrestrial or Spiritual? Bobby shares why he leans more toward a spiritual interpretation49:00 | Spiritual Beings in the Bible Cole lists biblical categories like angels, cherubim, seraphim, demons, principalities, powers, Leviathan, Behemoth, and the Nephilim.52:30 | Satan Is Not Equal with God Cole explains why Christianity does not teach dualism. Satan is a created, defeated being.54:30 | No Discovery Can Dethrone Jesus Bobby reflects on creation pointing to Christ56:45 | C. S. Lewis, Space, and Human Sin Cole summarizes C. S. Lewis' view that alien life would not disprove Christianity and that humanity would carry sin wherever it went.59:30 | What If Aliens Shook Someone's Faith? Bobby explains how he would help someone whose faith felt threatened by the idea of alien life.1:03:00 | Final Encouragement: Be Curious, Discerning, and Courageous Cole closes by reminding listeners that Jesus is Lord over all creation.

durée : 00:04:24 - Le Reportage de la rédaction - En Amérique latine, pour lutter contre les feux de forêts, l'aide du programme européen Copernicus, qui repose sur des satellites, est précieuse. Au Honduras, les satellites Sentinelles de l'Union européenne permettent de surveiller plus de 5 millions d'hectares.

durée : 00:04:22 - Le Reportage de la rédaction - En Amérique latine, pour lutter contre les feux de forêts, l'aide du programme européen Copernicus, qui repose sur des satellites, est précieuse. Au Honduras, les satellites Sentinelles de l'Union européenne permettent de surveiller plus de 5 millions d'hectares. - réalisation : La Rédaction de France Culture, Caroline Bennetot, Éric Chaverou Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

Relatório do Copernicus conclui que 2025 é o terceiro ano mais quente de sempre na Europa. Em Portugal, além de ondas de calor e incêndios devastadores, registou-se também chuva muita acima da média - 229% acima da médiaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

L'Europe est le continent qui se réchauffe le plus vite, selon l'OMM et Copernicus, à partir de données satellites et météorologiques. Ce phénomène s'explique par l'influence du réchauffement rapide de l'Arctique et par la chaleur accumulée par les mers européennes, notamment la Méditerranée, qui intensifie les canicules. Avec :- Françoise Vimeux, climatologue, directrice de recherche à l'IRD - Institut de Recherche pour le Développement- Dominique Bourg, philosophe, professeur honoraire à l'université de LausanneRetrouvez tous nos contenus, articles et épisodes sur rcf.frSi vous avez apprécié cet épisode, participez à sa production en soutenant RCF.Vous pouvez également laisser un commentaire ou une note afin de nous aider à le faire rayonner sur la plateforme.Retrouvez d'autres contenus d'économie et société ci-dessous :Silence, on crie : https://audmns.com/jqOozgUOù va la vie ? La bioéthique en podcast : https://audmns.com/UuYCdISContre courant : https://audmns.com/swImDAMAu bonheur des herbes : https://audmns.com/XPVizmQSacré patrimoine : https://audmns.com/TNJhOETEnfin, n'hésitez pas à vous abonner pour ne manquer aucun nouvel épisode.À bientôt à l'écoute de RCF sur les ondes ou sur rcf.fr !Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

L'Europe se réchauffe deux fois plus vite que les autres continents. C'est le constat inquiétant de l'observatoire Copernicus. La semaine dernière, ce service européen a publié son rapport annuel. Les faits sont têtus, notre planète brule. Pour en parler, Pierre-Hugues Dubois reçoit Franck Lirzin, ingénieur des mines et polytechnicien. Il publie Habiter un monde qui brûle (Ed. de l'Aube) .Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:04:34 - Le Reportage de la rédaction - En Amérique latine, pour lutter contre les feux de forêts, l'aide du programme européen Copernicus, qui repose sur des satellites, est précieuse. Au Honduras, les satellites Sentinelles de l'Union européenne permettent de surveiller plus de 5 millions d'hectares.

durée : 00:04:31 - Le Reportage de la rédaction - En Amérique latine, pour lutter contre les feux de forêts, l'aide du programme européen Copernicus, qui repose sur des satellites, est précieuse. Au Honduras, les satellites Sentinelles de l'Union européenne permettent de surveiller plus de 5 millions d'hectares. - réalisation : La Rédaction de France Culture, Marie-Aimée Copleutre, Caroline Bennetot, Éric Chaverou Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

L'

Vagues de chaleur, fonte des glaces... Les extrêmes climatiques augmentent en Europe. C'est le principal enseignement d'un rapport publié ce mercredi 29 avril 2026 par le service européen Copernicus sur le changement climatique et l'Organisation météorologique mondiale. Face au manque d'action dans la lutte pour le climat, les procès se multiplient, visant des pays ou des entreprises.  Quel bilan peut-on tirer de ces « procès climatiques » ? Constituent-ils un levier dans le combat pour la sauvegarde de la planète ?   Pour en débattre : - Elsa Ingrand, porte-parole de Notre Affaire à Tous - Marta Torre-Schaub, directrice de recherche au CNRS, spécialiste en droit de l'environnement et changement climatique. Elle enseigne le droit de l'environnement à l'Université Paris 1 et à Sciences Po Paris. Autrice des livres, Dictionnaire juridique du changement climatique, éditions Mare Martin, Justice climatique : Procès et actions, aux CNRS éditions et Les risques climatiques à l'épreuve du droit, publié chez Mare Martin.  - Corinne Lepage, avocate engagée dans la protection de l'environnement, enseignante à Sciences Po, ancienne ministre de l'Environnement et ancienne eurodéputée. 

durée : 00:52:01 - Les informés de franceinfo - Tous les soirs, les informés de franceinfo débattent de l'actualité, cette semaine autour de Renaud Blanc. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

durée : 00:16:43 - Rapport Copernicus : l'Europe se réchauffe deux fois plus vite que le reste du globe Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

durée : 00:19:54 - Le journal de 18h00 - Presque toute l'Europe subit de plein fouet les effets du réchauffement climatique, alerte l'observatoire européen Copernicus. Et le phénomène El Niño attendu cet été pourrait amplifier la hausse des températures. - réalisation : La Rédaction de France Culture, Stanislas Vasak, Brice Garcia Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

Der Auftritt von König Charles im US-Kongress fiel unerwartet politisch aus. Zwar zeigte sich Charles humorvoll, äusserte aber auch indirekt Kritik an US-Präsident Donald Trump, etwa bei den Themen Umweltschutz und Ukraine. Weitere Themen: Die UBS vermeldet für das erste Quartal einen Gewinnsprung. Die Grossbank verdiente in den ersten drei Monaten des Jahres rund 3,04 Milliarden US-Dollar. Das sind 80 Prozent mehr als im gleichen Zeitraum des Vorjahres. Das vergangene Jahr war in Europa ein Jahr mit extremen Wetterverhältnissen. Das sagen die Welt-Wetter-Organisation und der EU-Klimabeobachtungs-dienst Copernicus. Die Schnee- und Eisflächen seien enorm zurückgegangen.

Trump: “In Iran abbiamo vinto, paese vicino al collasso”. Gli Emirati Arabi Uniti escono dall’OPEC. Ne parliamo con Matteo Villa, direttore del DataLab ISPI. Copernicus: nel 2025 temperature sopra la media nel 95% dell’Europa. Sentiamo Giulio Betti, climatologo e meteorologo del CNR - Consorzio Lamma. 25 aprile, per gli spari a Roma fermato un 21enne della Comunità ebraica. Ne parliamo con lo storico Gianni Oliva.

durée : 00:19:54 - Journal de 18h - Presque toute l'Europe subit de plein fouet les effets du réchauffement climatique, alerte l'observatoire européen Copernicus. Et le phénomène El Niño attendu cet été pourrait amplifier la hausse des températures.

durée : 00:15:03 - Journal de 7 h - L'Europe se réchauffe deux fois plus vite que le reste du monde, et voit se multiplier les phénomènes climatiques extrêmes. C'est ce que note le rapport de l'Observatoire Copernicus qui porte sur 2025.

Vagues de chaleur, fonte des glaces... Les extrêmes climatiques augmentent en Europe. C'est le principal enseignement d'un rapport publié ce mercredi 29 avril 2026 par le service européen Copernicus sur le changement climatique et l'Organisation météorologique mondiale. Face au manque d'action dans la lutte pour le climat, les procès se multiplient, visant des pays ou des entreprises.  Quel bilan peut-on tirer de ces « procès climatiques » ? Constituent-ils un levier dans le combat pour la sauvegarde de la planète ?   Pour en débattre : - Elsa Ingrand, porte-parole de Notre Affaire à Tous - Marta Torre-Schaub, directrice de recherche au CNRS, spécialiste en droit de l'environnement et changement climatique. Elle enseigne le droit de l'environnement à l'Université Paris 1 et à Sciences Po Paris. Autrice des livres, Dictionnaire juridique du changement climatique, éditions Mare Martin, Justice climatique : Procès et actions, aux CNRS éditions et Les risques climatiques à l'épreuve du droit, publié chez Mare Martin.  - Corinne Lepage, avocate engagée dans la protection de l'environnement, enseignante à Sciences Po, ancienne ministre de l'Environnement et ancienne eurodéputée. 

durée : 00:15:03 - Journal de 7 h - L'Europe se réchauffe deux fois plus vite que le reste du monde, et voit se multiplier les phénomènes climatiques extrêmes. C'est ce que note le rapport de l'Observatoire Copernicus qui porte sur 2025. - réalisation : La Rédaction de France Culture, Anne-Laure Chouin, Nicolas Pommé Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

Europa ist nach wie vor der Kontinent, der sich weltweit am schnellsten erwärmt. Das bestätigt der Copernicus-Klimabericht 2025. Einzelheiten von Marie-Christine Werner

Why Isn't TEAM More Popular? Why Do So Many Therapists Resist TEAM CBT? Featuring Matt May, MD Why has the therapeutic community been so resistant to TEAM? This topic has been a concern to me or many years. To be honest, it isn't new. From the very start of cognitive therapy, when I was first learning it, I began modifying it to make it more dynamic, powerful, and effective. But to be honest, I ran into a small (at the time) of Beck loyalists who branded me as an "outsider," something Beck also did when my book, Feeling Good, began to sell and gain popularity. This saddened and frustrated me, and still does, but it had some great spin-off. On my own, my ideas and approaches grew rapidly, and there was no scarcity of young therapists who wanted to work with me.  Below, you will ready Matt's take on why TEAM CBT has not caught on better, followed by my own thoughts. So read, and enjoy, and feel free to share your own thinking on this topic!  On the live podcast, you will hear our lively discussion with our beloved and brilliant host, Rhonda! Thanks for listening today!  Matt, Rhonda, and David Matt's take: Hi David, I'm excited to discuss this topic!  Also, I agree we would be hard-pressed to cover it in an hour, which I believe is the goal for the podcast. So, why isn't TEAM isn't more popular?  My short answer is that TEAM isn't more popular because many therapists don't want to learn it. Those reasons will vary from one person to another and relate to concepts in the model, itself, like 'process resistance' and 'outcome resistance'. While biological factors, like deficits in cognitive flexibility and neuroplasticity, the 'primacy effect' and age-related changes in the brain, combined with the complexity of the TEAM model, will make it near-impossible for some folks to learn it, these barriers are hard to address with our current technology For the purpose of this conversation, it probably makes more sense to consider the psychological barriers therapists have to adopting a model that is scientifically proven to be superior to other approaches.  As a proponent of TEAM and an instructor, I'd love to know what I'm doing wrong, in presenting the model and how to get more people excited about learning it.  While more research would help us see the problem more clearly, here are some factors that likely play a role: It seems humans have a hard time adopting new truths, regardless of the field being considered. I believe it was Schopenhauer who said all new truths go through three phases on the way to acceptance:  People will ridicule it, violently oppose it, then say they knew it all along as self-evident! One cause of this is something called the 'primacy effect'. People preferentially retain the first version of a story they hear.  If that information is corrected, later, they will continue to believe the first version they heard.  Biological Factors play a role in learning, including genetics, aging, illness and toxic exposure. 'Switching gears', mentally, is more challenging in people with Schizophrenia and their first-degree relatives, for example.  We know that neuroplasticity is greatest in our youth and declines over our lifespan.  Hence the importance of early education and attending to our overall health, habits, nutrition and medical care.       Socioeconomic and Cultural factors certainly play a role.  This is well documented in the book, 'The Emperor's New Drugs', showing how marketing prevailed over science in promoting "antidepressants".  Many therapists in training tell me, 'oh, they wouldn't let me use a measurement tool where I work'.   Lack of 'Critical Thinking'. What people believe often has nothing to do with what is evidence-based or logical.  Many people reject global warming despite the evidence and prefer to believe in conspiracy theories.  We tend to preferentially believe what someone says if we feel a kinship or loyalty to that person or view them as an 'expert'. People might believe RFK Jr. when he says immunizations are dangerous, for example, because he is in their political party and in a position of power, rather than review the science for themselves. Sunk-Cost Fallacy:  People who have gone through training may have a sense that they have invested too much time and money in their education to discard that model and start afresh. Even if we covered this in just a few minutes, we'd still be up against the hardest part of TEAM to learn, Agenda Setting.   Lots of 'Good Reasons' NOT to have open hands, explore topics paradoxically, and reasons this is challenging, technically. So, yeah, we'll have a lot to discuss and I'm looking forward to that! Sincerely, Matt Here is David's list Taking a page out of your book, Matt, our field is filled with so-called "schools" of therapy that function much like cults, most with a narcissistic "leader" at the helm. In a cult, members are required to be absolutely loyal, and to believe in claims the guru makes that have little or no evidence to back them up. For example, most "schools" of therapy claim to know "the" cause of emotional distress, when the causes of depression and other forms of emotional disturbance are still not known. What I have been suggesting is that we get rid of all the schools of therapy and usher in a new era of science-based, data-driven therapy, which would amount to a revolution in our field. This idea, which I feel passionate about, always meets with stiff and hostel opposition / push back. People just don't want to hear it. TEAM integrates high-level empathy and compassion with firm accountability. Give Stanford story with Sunny Choi, and the statement that "Stanford graduate students and faculty cannot be held accountable for doing psychotherapy homework. The need insight-oriented therapy!" This angrily issued statement conveyed, actually, two cult-like (to my thinking) components: First, we KNOW that patients should not be asked to do psychotherapy homework between sessions. Second, we KNOW that "insight-oriented therapy" is the treatment, without ever evaluating them. TEAM focuses on the here and now, and emphasize a "fractal" approach to treatment, where the same distortions and self-defeating beliefs will be embedded in the patient's negative thoughts and feelings every time she or he is upset. So, when you change the present, you have already changed the past. Whereas most therapies have traditionally (and still) focus on the past, thinking they will find the cause of the patient's distress in some pattern or traumatic event. TEAM focuses on rapid change in the here and now, where as many (most?) therapies focus on talk therapy that unfolds slowly, over a period of months, years, or even more. This DOES provide a powerful financial incentive to do "talk therapy," since this drastically provides financial security and reduces the incredible pressure of constantly have to find new patients. TEAM is very challenging to learn. I have taught over 50,000 therapists in the past 35 years or more, through my supervision of graduate students and psychiatric residents, my weekly training group at Stanford, and my workshops, including intensive, around the US and Canada. And one lesson that has emerged is just how difficult it is to learn TEAM. It requires a high level of intelligence and aptitude, and an unusual dedication and commitment. A great many of the most important tools, like Assessment of Resistance, and Externalization of Voices with the CAT, Self-Defense, and the Acceptance Paradox, are extremely difficult to learn and master.  And most give up, and drop out, in favor of some simpler and more formulaic therapy that is easy to learn. TEAM training requires constant role-playing with specific and immediate feedback on your performance, which includes bot a letter grade (A, B, C, etc.) as well as what you did that was effective, and where you fell short and might need to fine-tune your technique with frequent role reversals, always with feedback. This means lots of criticism along the way, which many (most?) therapists do not like. And although we repeatedly emphasize the philosophy of "joyous failure," and "learning through failure," most people do not buy it emotionally. We all want success and compliments! And NOT the "great death" of the self." The "great death" permeates every phase of the T E A M process. At the T = Testing, you will nearly always learn that your perceptions of your patients feel, and how they feel about you, are way off base. This is critically important, but painful for most, as it is a direct body blow to our "need" to be in the role of "expert." Unlike most other forms of therapy, we require therapists to measure patients' feelings, "in the here and now," at the start and end of every therapy session, using brief, highly reliable scales that assess feelings of depression, suicidal urges, anxiety, anger, and also happiness, as well as relationship satisfaction or discord. These scales function like an "emotional X-ray machine," allowing therapists for the first time to see exactly how effective or ineffective you were in every therapy session. Can you take it? On the positive side, this information will allow you to fine tune the therapy and learn from all of your patients every day. On the negative side, you may not want to have to "see" your failures before your eyes at every session with every patient. David: Tell the story of Tuesday group patient who proudly showed me her depression (and other scores) over the previous year with one of her patients. . . But there was absolutely no improvement in any scale. This was shocking and it made me very sad. My goal is to get dramatic changes within a single session. This "great death" continues during the E phase. TEAM therapists are required to ask "What's my grade on empathy" during the session, and also patients fill out the Empathy Scale and other scales on the "Patient's Evaluation of Therapy Session" right after the session. These scales are set up to make therapist failure common, almost universal at first. A warm and curious dialogue about where the therapist went wrong can revolutionize the therapy and deepen the relationship—quickly. But at what cost to the fragile ego of the insecure shrink? The "great death" continues with A = Paradoxical Agenda Setting. You give up your role as the "expert:" or "helper" or "rescuer," which many therapist refuse to do, and instead "become" the patient's subconscious resistance, arguing, with compassion and logic, that there are many GOOD reasons NOT to change. This freaks therapists out! The "great death" continues with the M = Methods phase of the session. I have developed roughly 140 methods to help people challenge distorted negative thoughts and self-defeating beliefs, and have always taught that no one method will work for everyone who's depressed and anxious. So you will have to try many methods, using the Recovery Circle, to find the one that works for each patient. But these methods are challenging to learn, and most therapists don't seem to have the intelligence, aptitude, or commitment to learning how to use them. Many of the methods and insights of TEAM or subtle nuances that many therapists do not "get" or perhaps do not want to "get." Example, the ACT training group, where someone held up the Feeling Good book and said, "We do not want THIS!" They falsely believed that "leaning into" your feelings is always the answer, and wrong believed that TEAM tried to make people happy all the time—called Toxic Positivity—whereas nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, I mentioned healthy negative feelings as early as, I think, Chapter 3 in Feeling Good, "Sadness is Not Depression," where I told the story of an elderly man who died on the Stanford inpatient medical service one evening when I was a medical student. Much of what I teach is shocking and at odds with what people are taught in graduate school. For example, the idea that most people with depression and anxiety—NOT everybody!—can be effectively treated in a single, extended therapy session. Curses! That sounds horrible! And even worse-sounding is the idea that change typically happens suddenly, at the very moment patients stop believing their distorted thoughts. Of course, since most therapists have not seen these phenomena, due perhaps to not having the skill, they insist instead that David is some type of fool, liar, or con artis. Okee Dokee! People—therapists and patients alike—do not "get" a great many of the key ideas in TEAM. For example, let's say the socially anxious patient totally believes the thought, "I shouldn't be so screwed up!" the necessary and sufficient conditions for emotional change. The necessary condition: The Positive Thought (PT) must be 100% true. Rationalizations and half-truths have never helped anybody. The sufficient condition: The PT must drastically reduce your belief in the negative thought. And that's when your negative thoughts will suddenly change. There is even more of what I teach is shocking and at odds with what people believe. For example, 2,000 years ago Epictetus stated they key premise of all the cognitive therapies: "People are disturbed, not by things, or events, but by the views they have of them". And recently, our research team has provided proof of this for the first time, in a study of nearly 7,000 users of our Feeling Great app, using sophisticated statistical modeling techniques. So, the three tenants of cognitive therapies, including TEAM, are: First, you FEEL the way you THINK. In other words, all of your positive and negative feelings result from your thoughts in the here-and-now. Second, depression and anxiety are the world's oldest cons. In other words, your negative thoughts, like "I'm not as good as I should be," or "I'm a hopeless case,"—will be loaded with many of the ten cognitive distortions and are extremely misleading—but you don't realize this when you're upset. You will believe these thoughts with all your heart and feel CERTAIN that they are 100% true. Third, you can CHANGE the way you FEEL. But lots of people will won't have it. They keep insisting on theories that simply aren't true—that emotions cause thoughts, for example—and on methods that may have little or no "punch" above and beyond the placebo effect. Story of Tuesday group student who was scolded in her graduate school counseling program for using the words "thought" or cognition during a therapy session. She was told ONLY to focus on feelings. Many people—therapists and patients alike—strongly believe that therapist empathy is THE key to healing. I have developed many powerful empathy tracking and training methods, but our clinical experience and research has shown, over and over, that therapist empathy is NOT the key to healing. They keys involve using TEAM systematically, and the rapid healing happens during the A and M for the most part. But those are the hard parts! Other problems include the idea that we can convert normal human emotional distress into a series of "mental disorders" that are listed in the DSM, the "bible" of the American Psychiatric Association. In TEAM, we consider each patient's patterns of suffering at the start of therapy, quickly and easily screened by the EASY Diagnostic System, but monitor therapy and patient progress with simple tools that measure feelings, like depression, anxiety, anger, and more. But this is an argument for another day. There's a lot more issues, too. Have I, David, contributed to the resistance to TEAM? Absolutely I have. I plead guilty as accused, and I'm proud of it. I'm totally aware that people—maybe even you— get turned off by criticism, and naturally recoil to protect your "in group," as Matt so clearly pointed out, and maintain loyalty to your "leader," whether it's Freud, Jung, Beck, Hayes, Rogers, or whoever. People are more emotional than rational, and people can be intentionally cruel and deceptive, too, all in the name of what they believe. We see that in our politics these days too. People believe things that are totally false, and wildly implausible, because the group or leader says it's true, it's the way things are. I'm a strong believer that science and truth will win out in the long run. Is this inevitable? I'm not totally confident, and have my doubts, but I am also filled with hope, and look to a future with more therapists like our beloved Matt May, MD and others who have dared to venture in a radically new direction, much like the early astronomers like Galileo and Copernicus who dared to challenge the superstitious teachings of the Catholic church. Those brave and brilliant early souls said, "things are NOT the way you think!" And they used data and mathematical modeling to prove their points. But there were a hundreds years of intimidation and suffering until people finally began to catch on to the then-ridiculous and outrageous ideas that the sun does NOT actually revolve around the earth, and that the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Those NOTS changed history. Can it happen again in the fields of psychiatry and psychotherapy? I hope so, and I've been giving my all, in my teaching, research, clinical work and writing, to make this happen. Sadly, I've fallen far short of my dream, but I'm thankful every day for what I've got, and the wonderful colleagues I'm privileged to know and love. Warmly, David, Matt and Rhonda

The White House deflects questions about US threat to hit Iranian energy infrastructure. President Trump expects Iran to make a deal to end the war. He has said he'd strike targets including electricity plants, and Iran's main oil-exporting site, Kharg Island. Presenter Andrew Peach examines what this all means for Iran and its neighbours in the Middle East.(Photo: A handout satellite image made available by Copernicus, the European Union's Earth Observation Programme, on 14 March 2026 shows Kharg island, Iran, 07 March 2026. Credit: European Union Copernicus Sentinel-2 IMAGERY HANDOUT/EPA/Shutterstock)

In this 45-minute presentation, I walk through five beliefs about the science of reading. The intent is to spark curiosity and encourage conversation. Watch this presentation in tandem with my free eBook What School Leaders Need to Know About the Science of Reading. Use these resources as a starting point for holding much-needed discussions in your school around effective literacy instruction. If you would like support with facilitating this type of conversation, don't hesitate to get in touch with me here.Take care,MattP.S. Join me for the next professional learning event: a conversation with Dr. Kelly Cartwright, author of Executive Skills and Reading Comprehension: A Guide for Educators.Full TranscriptWhat School Leaders Need to Know About the Science of ReadingTranscript of a presentation based on the free ebook resource available to download.About MeHi, I'm Matt Renwick. I'm sharing this presentation: What School Leaders Need to Know About the Science of Reading, based on the free ebook resource available to download.A little bit about myself. I'm a father of two teens and a husband to Jodi, who is also a teacher. My son is currently in college — whenever I visit, I try to find something fun for us to do together. My daughter is a junior in high school. I'm also a very part-time bookseller at an independent bookstore in my hometown. This is our dog, Millie. She works Sundays with me and is excellent at her job. And one of the things I most enjoy is visiting national parks. My most recent trip was to the Rocky Mountains for a mountain biking trip — though I'll admit I'm not a big fan of heights, so I drove the rest of the party up to the trailhead and cheered them on from there.Starting With a BookI want to begin by referencing a book — not reading it aloud, but using it as a frame. It's called Duck! Rabbit! by Amy Krouse Rosenthal and Tom Lichtenheld. You may have seen it. It uses an optical illusion — is it a duck or a rabbit? One person sees a duck; another sees a rabbit.I've found this book especially useful for lowering the emotional temperature when we start talking about the science of reading. After reading it aloud, I typically invite a group to pause and reflect on these three questions:* When we debate reading instruction, are we arguing about what's best for kids — or about who's right?* Where in your work do you notice people looking at the same data and seeing completely different things?* What would it take for you to genuinely consider a perspective on reading instruction that you've resisted?If you're watching this with a group, I'd encourage you to pause here and have a conversation.How This Resource Got StartedThe impetus for this presentation came from a colleague who was supporting a new administrator. This new administrator was already getting inundated with requests for evidence-based workbooks and heavily phonics-focused resources. She reached out and asked me to share my take on the science of reading with this administrator.Here's what I shared in an email:First, reading instruction is complex. It's not a simple equation you can plug resources into and expect to produce readers.Second, science requires inquiry, not dogma. If a field is a true science, it will continue to conduct research, look at what's working and what's not, and reevaluate its philosophies in light of new evidence.Third, multiple sciences of reading matter. We can't just look at cognitive science. We also have to look at the science of engagement, the science of motivation, the science of efficacy, and the science of goal setting. These all matter.Fourth, authentic texts should support skill development. A lot of resources strip away rich, relevant text in service of isolated skill practice — and we know that doesn't work.Fifth, programs do not equal responsive instruction. I've heard this called “solutionitis” — the idea that buying a program will automatically raise reading scores. We know that's not the case.I sent that email and waited a few weeks without hearing back. I eventually reached out to my colleague and learned the administrator had left the position. My first assumption was that the complexity of the topic had scared them off — but actually, they'd landed a dream job. Still, the experience got me thinking about all the new administrators coming into these roles without much background in this area. That's what I want to address through both this presentation and the ebook.My Beliefs — A DisclaimerWhat follows is based on my current beliefs, grounded not just in my own experience but also in research and in conversations with colleagues who know more than I do in certain areas. These beliefs are evolving. I hold them with humility.Belief 1: Teaching Reading Is Not SimpleThere's been a lot of conversation lately about the “simple view of reading.” I'd argue that teaching reading is anything but simple. It takes a long time to become highly skilled at teaching readers.I recently came across a New York Times article titled “Kids Rarely Read Whole Books Anymore — Even in English Class.” I found it striking because when I taught fifth and sixth graders 25 years ago, we were reading multiple novels a year as a class. Then we moved away from that — toward anthology series, excerpts, comprehension questions, skill packets. I'm not saying whole-class novel study is a best practice across the board. But it's worth asking: we introduced all these programs, and the result is that kids aren't reading books anymore. How do we find the balance — where resources support instruction without becoming the curriculum? As Peter Afflerbach likes to say: How do we teach readers, not just reading?The Simple View of Reading — from Gough and Tunmer — reads like an equation: decoding + language comprehension = reading. There's research that supports this. The problem is that it's incomplete. It doesn't account for all the other ways kids become readers.One of the biggest promoters of this simplified narrative has been Emily Hanford's Sold a Story podcast. I counted the transcripts of the first eight episodes: phonics is mentioned 48 times, comprehension 10 times, and engagement 0 times. You can see how media shapes the public's understanding of reading instruction — and how that narrative flows into legislation. Wisconsin's Act 20, for example, is heavily phonics-focused. Some of the assessments it prioritizes, like oral reading fluency, can be useful indicators — but they don't even measure comprehension.An Active View of Reading — introduced by Duke and Cartwright — is what I promote instead. It still values word recognition and language comprehension, but adds important components: bridging processes (print concepts, fluency, vocabulary knowledge), and active self-regulation (motivation, engagement, executive functioning, strategy use). These aren't extras — they're prerequisites for students to become highly effective, engaged readers. Notably, this is a reader model, not a reading model. It recognizes that reading is also shaped by the texts we choose, the tasks we design, and sociocultural context — including diverse authorship, representation, and the absence of bias.A practical implication: expand your assessments. As a principal and teacher, I learned that what we measure is what matters. Right-to-read legislation may mandate oral reading fluency screening, and that's fine — but we can also look at attendance and behavior as root causes, consider whether language barriers rather than reading skill are the real challenge for some students, and include teacher observations and student voice. Think about what it means to take a fuller picture of a reader.Belief 2: The Science Is Anything But SettledI once posted this on Twitter:“I don't know who needs to hear this. Teaching a literacy curriculum program like a script, lesson by lesson, to all kids without considering their current interests, abilities, and needs is not scientific, drains the joy out of learning, and leads to inequities.”It got significant engagement — many positive responses, but also real pushback. Someone at the higher ed level responded that teachers actually love the script because it gives them structure. I understand that perspective. But the insistence that the science is settled — and that it's simply a matter of implementing the right program — is not only factually wrong; it's intellectually closed.Notice even the language: the science of reading. That definite article is essentialist, exclusive — like “the Olympic Games” or “The Ohio State University.” If you're for the science of reading, you believe X. If you don't, you're outside the movement. People have been pushed to the margins of these communities simply for raising questions. That doesn't feel very scientific.Any professional field that considers itself a science goes through paradigm shifts — a concept introduced by Thomas Kuhn. Normal science gives way to anomalies, then to a model crisis, then to revolution, then to a new paradigm. Copernicus gave us one example. I believe reading instruction is stuck in the model crisis — cycling through the same debates without genuine revolution. We can't change the whole profession, but we can make progress locally.One approach I've found effective: use professional journal articles to facilitate conversation — not to prove a point, but to create space for educators to engage with ideas. Rachel Gabriel's article “The Sciences of Reading Instruction” is a good one. It's balanced, uses helpful metaphors, and raises productive questions.Pair it with shared agreements (I use: stay engaged, experience discomfort, speak your truth, expect and accept non-closure) and a dialogue protocol — like the 4As — to make sure all voices get space, not just the loudest ones.Belief 3: Good Intentions Can Lead to Inequitable OutcomesWisconsin's Act 20 — our right-to-read law — was written in July 2023. Like many state laws of its kind, its language has been heavily influenced by certain think tanks, commercial providers, and media figures. It requires science-based early reading instruction, mandates universal screening and intervention systems, restricts certain curriculum approaches (no three-cueing in core reading curriculum starting in 2024–25), and requires professional development around structured literacy for K–3 teachers, principals, and reading specialists.There are also third-grade promotion policies. In some states — Ohio, Florida, Mississippi — students who are not deemed proficient can be retained. Up to a third of an entire third-grade cohort in some cases. The long-term effects of that are deeply concerning.I share this because I do believe most people involved in this legislation want kids to perform better. But good intentions can produce inequitable outcomes when:* Single scores become students' identities* A student who scored at the 24th percentile versus the 25th percentile on an ORF assessment receives a personal reading plan and a letter home — without anyone asking whether they had a rough night, or whether they still see themselves as a strong reader* We do things to students rather than with them, stripping away agency and voiceWhat I've observed as this movement plays out in schools: more scripted curricula, limits on responsive instruction, isolated skill practice, decontextualized text, and assessments that measure only what's easy to measure. The downstream effects include the removal of voice and choice, classroom and school libraries collecting dust, independent reading squeezed out, teacher professionalism diminished, and authentic tasks like project-based learning deprioritized.One counter-move: empower students to curate and organize their classroom or school library. This can be an ongoing project — lay the books out, let students decide the organization, identify gaps, and bring in culturally relevant titles. Use book order points and let kids choose. You'll see more engagement, more reading, and you'll free up some of your own time in the process.Belief 4: One Science Is Dependent on AnotherI was recently working with a team discussing teacher beliefs and their role in effective reading instruction. I posed this question: Imagine your principal removed all the core ELA resources from every classroom. Could your teachers still teach their students?After a pause, the group said — yeah, we could.So what would that look like?And that's when the real conversation started.I raise this because critics of the science of reading movement have pointed out that proponents often can't articulate a coherent theory. “Sequential and explicit direct instruction” is a process, not a theory. What's the actual theory of action for teaching readers? That question matters.One answer is an instructional model that allows teachers to be responsive. I've used Regie Routman's Optimal Learning Model from Literacy Essentials in two schools as a principal. What I like about it is the arrows going both directions — we move between whole-class demonstration, shared practice, guided reading, and independent reading based on real-time, informal assessment. If kids aren't ready, we go back. This takes significant professional development to build capacity, but it also inoculates schools against scripted program dependency.The larger point is this: teaching readers well requires holding multiple sciences in tension simultaneously. Cognitive science — comprehension, decoding, fluency. Affective science — motivation, engagement, identity. Metacognitive science — goal setting, self-efficacy, agency. These don't operate in isolation. When you weave them together — for example, using a classroom library project that builds both reading identity and cognitive engagement — you see real growth.How to build this knowledge in your staff: As a principal, I had to build my own curriculum. I subscribed to several journals — I didn't read every article, but I'd browse the table of contents, pull one article, read it with margin notes, and then summarize it in my Friday staff newsletter, linking to the original. I became an information distiller. That made it possible to walk into a classroom and have a research-grounded conversation with a teacher who held strong views — not as an expert telling them what's right, but as a colleague asking questions. What did you think about that article on Orton-Gillingham? It becomes a much more objective, productive exchange.Belief 5: You Can't Buy the Science of ReadingThis became real to me as a principal when a reading recovery interventionist was trying to get a first-grade student to come to his sessions. Reading Recovery is a highly evidence-based intervention — but she couldn't get him to come. We suspected executive functioning challenges and a history of reading struggle that made being singled out feel threatening.So she brought in a Venus flytrap. She told the student: if you come to my room, you get to feed it one fly.Eventually, I walked in, and there was a pile of dead flies next to the plant. This student had started bringing his own food supply. The teacher had to explain that they couldn't overfeed it. What started as external motivation — a Venus flytrap — gradually shifted toward internal, identity-forming reinforcement. She had the student, after reaching a benchmark, choose a few books he actually wanted to read. That was the celebration.You can't legislate this. You can't buy it. It's built over time through teachers developing deep knowledge — not just of reading, but of kids, of pedagogy, of motivation and engagement, of executive function, of the ways all these strands weave together into a reader's identity. It takes sustained investment in self-study and collective growth.This shakes out in school-level data as well. As a principal, I used to look at statewide scores and identify schools similar to mine demographically — Title I schools — that were doing better. Then I'd cold-call their principals and reading specialists and ask: what are you doing?Four themes emerged:* High expectations for every student. Inclusion was the default. Intervention was carefully integrated with Tier 1, not siloed.* Sustained investment in teachers. Not cutting PD days. Not just buying a program and saying good luck. Actually coaching and developing teachers over time.* Different programs, shared beliefs. Every school used something different — some used Units of Study, some used anthologies, one had developed their own materials. What they shared was a deep commitment to common beliefs and practices. One principal described respectfully but clearly inviting a teacher who wouldn't get on board to find a better fit elsewhere.* No superheroes. No one teacher stood out as exceptional. What they had was a willingness to have hard conversations and an evolving, collective commitment to what they knew to be effective.One practical strategy: develop shared beliefs as a staff. I used Regie Routman's Read, Write, Lead, which includes over 20 belief statements. Each year I'd put them in a Google form — agree or disagree. The first year, we had two shared beliefs. We celebrated. The next year, we focused our professional development on the areas of disagreement. The year after that, we had five. And we kept growing.As a principal, I could then walk into classrooms and reference those shared commitments — affirming what I saw that was aligned, and asking honest questions when something was missing. The expectations were clear. The conversations were respectful.You can also do this as a whole-group activity: post belief statements on chart paper, give staff colored dots, and ask them to place their dots on a spectrum from agree to disagree. Then have them talk about why. This builds not just shared beliefs but perspective-taking — recognizing that most people sit somewhere in the middle, and that the goal is to move together toward greater alignment over time.ClosingI want to close with a student I remember from third grade — a kid who by second grade saw reading as something you do in school, not something you love. A capable reader, but not a joyful one.In third grade, his teacher read aloud Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing by Judy Blume. He related to Peter Hatcher — oldest of three boys, with a younger sibling who was like Fudge. He read and re-read that book until the pages were falling out of his copy. He loved it so much that he wrote some not-so-great fan fiction trying to emulate Judy Blume.If you look closely at the bottom left of the fan fiction — you can see my name there.That's how I became a reader. Not through a script. I'm sure I learned some skills in kindergarten and first grade. But what unlocked reading for me — what helped me see myself as a reader and to love it — was one read-aloud by one teacher who knew her students and knew what would turn them on to reading.Closing question: How do you choose to see your readers? Take a moment to think about how you're seeing them now — and how you might choose to see them a little differently tomorrow.Thank you for watching What School Leaders Need to Know About the Science of Reading. Please reach out if you have any questions. And thank you for your work, your leadership, and your readership. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit readbyexample.substack.com/subscribe

Humanity is going back to the Moon, and Europe is already playing a critical role in making it happen. This week, Planetary Radio brings you voices straight from the 18th European Space Conference in Brussels, Belgium, where more than 2,000 of the world’s top space leaders gathered to shape the future of European space exploration. We begin with conference co-organizer Tomas Dimitrov of Logos and Business Bridge Europe, who sets the stage for the conversations ahead. From there, we hear from European Commissioner for Defence and Space Andrius Kubilius, ESA Director General Josef Aschbacher, French Minister Delegate for European Affairs Benjamin Haddad, and Germany’s Federal Space Minister Dorothee Bär. We also take you inside the Moonlight Initiative panel, bringing you the full conversation as scientists and engineers from ESA, NASA, and industry lay out their vision for building GPS and communications infrastructure around the Moon, and wrestle with what it will really take to support a permanent human presence there. Then, Planetary Society Chief Scientist Bruce Betts joins us for What’s Up to tackle one of the most fascinating and unexpected challenges of lunar exploration: what time is it on the Moon? Discover more at: https://www.planetary.org/planetary-radio/2026-european-space-conference See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Una nuova crisi energetica scuote il mondo e colpisce duro l'Europa colta a metà del guado, o forse più indietro. Da una parte sul fronte energetico con una transizione incompiuta e diffusamente ostacolata dall'interno, dall'altro su quello della Difesa che vede incepparsi il meccanismo Safe anche a causa delle divisioni interne alla Polonia. Ne parliamo a Europa Europa, in onda domenica alle 11,30 con la conduzione di Gigi Donelli. Con il fisico climatologo Antonello Pasini, parliamo degli ultimi dati di Copernicus, con il collega di RSI Alan Cràmeri parliamo invece del no alla riduzione del canone per l'informazione in quello che - secondo World Press Freedom Index) è uno dei paesi con la miglior qualità dell'informazione nel mondo.

In this episode, Dr. Killeen explains why introducing systems into your practice can feel slower and more frustrating than expected. Drawing on the story of Copernicus and the resistance to new ideas, he explores how real change challenges comfort and identity, not just workflow. If you are facing pushback or slow adoption, this is a steady reminder that meaningful shifts take time. Stay patient, keep reinforcing the why, and trust that lasting progress rarely happens overnight.

Copernicus, Darwin, and Freud once convinced the world that science made God obsolete. Olivier Bonnassies argues that modern physics—from the Big Bang to DNA complexity—has triggered a "Great Reversal," turning science into the ultimate ally of theism and rendering materialism an irrational belief.

We start by wishing for fast trains and maglev transportation in Europe – much better for the environment than air travel. Because even if we have had a rather cold January here in Europe, Copernicus tells us that we are still warming the globe in a reckless pace. In TWISH we remember István Vágó on what would have been his 77th birthday. Vágó was the first president of the Hungarian Skeptics and also a TV personality specializing in quiz shows and a famous promoter of the virtue of facts. Then, we turn to the news:UK: Only 4 of 66 ‘statin side effects' are actually from the drug itselfHUNGARY: Meta fails to filter political ads, Tisza fails to use statistics correctlySWEDEN: Exorcism in SwedenUK: Young people fearful of false claims and AI misleading votersSWEDEN: Murder of Olof Palme: Attorney General has some explaining to doRussia is now so short of labor and soldiers due to their invasion of Ukraine that they use any means to lure foreigners to sign up as cannon fodder. For that, and for ruining not just Ukraine but also Russia itself, Vladimir Putin (again) gets the Award for being Really Wrong.Enjoy!https://theesp.eu/podcast_archive/theesp-ep-518.htmlSegments:0:00:27 Intro0:00:51 Greetings0:07:46 TWISH0:18:34 News0:52:11 Really Wrong0:54:53 Quote0:57:05 Outro0:58:27 Outtakes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

El mes de gener ha estat el m

Welcome back to The Deep Talk! Today I am joined by Copernicus Johnson, entrepreneur, content creator & fitness guru! We talk today about chasing your dreams and the courage to carve your own path. He shares his journey, from eating ramen to building his own business. It's not easy, but it's worth it. I hope this episode shares allllll the wisdom with you & encourages you! Where to find Copernicus:InstagramTik TokIf you liked this episode, share on your IG story and tag me @deeptalkwithmads. I'd love to hear what you learned! And, don't forget to hit that follow button so you never miss a future episode, and leave a review so I can reach more listeners just like you who are looking to connect deeper.

Many of the features on the Moon are named for astronomers. So are features on Mars and other planets and moons. And hundreds of asteroids are named for astronomers as well. But you won’t find many features named for astronomers here on Earth. Quite a few streets and schools are named after them. But when it comes to major features, the list is pretty thin – especially in the United States. One of the few is Mount Langley, a 14,000-foot summit in California. It’s named for Samuel Pierpont Langley, who was a long-time director of the Allegheny Observatory. To see more features named for astronomers, though, you need to head south – to Australia, New Zealand, and even Antarctica. In Australia, for example, a river and an estuary are named for Thomas Brisbane, an early governor of the state of New South Wales. And so is the city of Brisbane, the capital of Queensland. In addition to his government duties, Brisbane was an astronomer. He set up Australia’s first major observatory. In New Zealand, several peaks in a large mountain range are named for astronomers, including Galileo and Copernicus. And an entire range is named for Johannes Kepler. In Antarctica, many features are named for James Ross, an early explorer. But Ross himself named several features for astronomers, including Cape Smyth and Mount Lubbock – down-to-earth features named for men who studied the stars. Script by Damond Benningfield

Podle meteorologické služby Copernicus byly roky 2023 až 2025 výrazně teplejší než předchozí, které rovněž patřily k těm teplejším. „Klimatologové jsou ve svých odhadech značně konzervativní, to se potvrzuje posledních deset až dvacet let. Aktuální situace většinou předbíhá naše odhady, což se ukazuje i zde,“ upozorňuje na výsledky studie Radim Tolasz, český zástupce při Mezinárodním panelu pro změnu klimatu.

Proč se největší tuzemská zbrojařská firma rozhodla vstoupit na burzu? Co vypovídá o vývoji klimatu i z pohledu našeho regionu výroční zpráva unijní meteorologické služby Copernicus? Mohl by íránský režim i přes varování Donalda Trumpa přikročit k popravám demonstrantů zadržených při mohutných protivládních protestech? A co by mohl znamenat dnešní výrok Ústavního soudu k případu údajného sexuálního zneužívání katolickým knězem pro jiné podobné kauzy? Ptal se Tomáš Pancíř.

Julien Nicolas, Senior Climate Scientist with Copernicus, explains the research that found 2025 to be the third warmest year on record.

Das Jahr 2025 ist laut dem Erdbeobachtungsprogramm Copernicus das drittwärmste seit Beginn der Aufzeichnungen. Damit ist der Trend deutlich: Insgesamt waren die vergangenen elf Jahre die wärmsten jemals gemessenen - mit 2024 an der Spitze. Mrasek, Volker www.deutschlandfunk.de, Forschung aktuell

El 2025 es confirma com el tercer any m

Climate resilience via better data: 7 cm-resolution via satellites and aerial imagery that does in hours what 80,000 drones would do in weeks.