A (partial) retraction

Reader Brittany Marie makes a good point about my last post.

…[W]hile I understand that you are not happy, it does not seem very good of you to post half the story and then blame it on his scientific occupation. The interaction of science and religion is not that clear cut for you to make such an assumption.

She was the only commenter who mentioned this, and it’s the one part of my post I think I’d do differently.  I should have left out this part:

And scientists are always butting heads with the Church because the Church says things like, “Well yes, you can do things like cloning embryos but you shouldn’t, and here’s why…”  To which the enlightened scientists respond by screaming, falling down and kicking their heels against the floor.  Because they’re so smart and important and how dare you judge them?

Not good writing, and not clear thinking.

My problem is that I don’t have much patience for people who believe that science can prove anything about God.  (I’m thinking of Richard Dawkins, here.)  Or, for that matter, that the Bible (Koran, Torah, etc.) can prove anything about the physical world.  (Feel free to discuss Gallileo below.)

However, while the Church has rightly backed off from overruling scientists’ findings, there are a number of scientists who show no such humility.  They seem to believe that science is capable of having anything to say on the subject of God, when science is only useful in understanding the material world.

In a way, it’s like the conflict between relativity theory and quantum theory.  They each work perfectly in the spheres for which they were designed, but if you try to use them both you get gibberish.  (That’s only an analogy.  The intersection of scientific research with correct moral teaching has resulted in the capability of producing stem cells without cloning humans.)

All that said, I shouldn’t have characterized scientists en masse as a bunch of babies who can’t bear to be told “no.”  That was not helpful to the discussion.

Further reading:

Why Science Cannot Address the Existence of God

Professor Paul Zachary Myers, Bigot

Recently, Paul Myers, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota had this to say about the Eucharist in a post entitled “It’s a Frackin’ Cracker!”

I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There’s no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I’m sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare… [I will]treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart. If you can smuggle some out from under the armed guards and grim nuns hovering over your local communion ceremony, just write to me and I’ll send you my home address.

I’m not going to link to his blog, but it’s easily accessible through the university’s web site, here.  (Scroll down until you see Paul Myers, then click the link.)  [Update: the link has since been removed.  If you want to find the site, search for "paul myers frackin cracker" here.  His blog is called Pharyngula.]

Here are some of the comments from his fans:

Well, this is a community that believes that every sperm is sacred…

Those f——s worship an imaginary a—– who told his acolytes, “Eat me,” and his name wasn’t even Michael Valentine Smith. They give these gomers drivers licenses and guns, too.

It is certainly sacred when it gets pooped out…I’m sure I’ve Jesus in the toilet bowl more than once…

These are from the first twenty or so comments, and there are hundreds of comments.  I’m sure these comments are from people who normally congratulate themselves on their tolerance.  Why the hate?  Well, you see it’s a science blog.  And scientists are always butting heads with the Church because the Church says things like, “Well yes, you can do things like cloning embryos but you shouldn’t, and here’s why…”  To which the enlightened scientists respond by screaming, falling down and kicking their heels against the floor.  Because they’re so smart and important and how dare you judge them?

Apparently, Myers got some flack for this post from the Catholic League and he’s asking people to e-mail the university’s president to defend him.  Here’s the e-mail address.  The president’s name is Robert Bruininks.

Here’s mine:

Dear Mr. Bruininks:

 I am appalled at the bigotry of your professor, Paul Z. Myers.  His mockery of a religion’s most solemn beliefs–and threat to commit the most outrageous sacrilege–is a sorry statement on the quality of your faculty.  The man seems to be motivated by nothing but malicious cruelty and an overwhelming hatred of Christianity.  If you have any interest in ensuring that your students are taught not only information but morality, decency, and tolerance for the beliefs of others, please do the right thing and discipline him.

 Write your own if you feel like it.

Quick hits

Fed Plans New Rules to Protect Future Homebuyers

[The mortgage rules] would prohibit lenders from engaging in a pattern or practice of lending without considering a borrower’s ability to repay a home loan from sources other than the home’s value.

This is a rule that shouldn’t need to exist.  But if lenders stop lending money to black and hispanic prospective homebuyers based on their ability to repay, expect Congressional hearings.

————-

Frozen Embryos Better Than Fresh, Study Shows

Infants born from embryos which were frozen and then thawed before being implanted into a woman had a higher birth weight and were less likely to suffer abnormalities.

Perhaps all embryos should be frozen?  Oh, wait…

“We think the reason for the differences is probably positive selection of the embryos for frozen embryo replacement, [said Dr. Anja Pinborg.] 

 ”Only the very top quality embryos survive the freezing and thawing process.”

That which does not kill you makes you stronger.  Of course, the embryos that had been frozen still had malformation rates of 7.1 percent.  They’re obviously not killing enough of them.

————-

Higher CO2 Levels May Be Good for Plants: German Scientists

How many German scientists does it take to prove the obvious?

————–

Stealing Recyclables Is Good Business

With prices for aluminum, cardboard and newsprint going up and an economic slowdown putting added pressure on people’s pocketbooks, curbside refuse has become a hot commodity.

A truck piled high with mixed recyclables can fetch upward of $1,000; newspapers alone can grab about $600.

Why is my city–Stamford, Connecticut–spending $1.5 million next year on recycling when ”thieves” will do it for free?

Some global warming updates

You know how you always hear that the US makes up X% of the planet, and uses Y% of its resources?

Here’s a new twist:

Human greed takes lion’s share of solar energy

HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun’s energy captured by plants – the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

Researchers said the findings showed humans were using “a remarkable share” of the earth’s plant productivity “to meet the needs and wants of one species”.

They also warned that the increased use of biofuels – such as ethanol and canola – should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

[H]umans used 24 per cent of the energy that was captured by plants. More than half of this was due to the harvesting of crops or other plants.

(But… we planted those crops!)

So let me see…  No power from oil or coal (global warming!), no hydroelectric power (the poor fish!), no nuclear power (Three Mile Island!), no wind power (the windmills block the view from the Kennedy compound!).  And now no solar power?  What’s left?  Hamsters in wheels?

——————————

Al Gore, the great thinker profiled by Time magazine, had an opinion piece in the New York Times (reg. req.) in advance of his Live Earth concert.  He talks about–surprise–the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere.

As a direct result [of our carbon dioxide emissions], many scientists are now warning that we are moving closer to several “tipping points” that could — within 10 years — make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable damage to the planet’s habitability for human civilization.

It’s funny how calamity is always ten years away.  I seem to recall we had until 1995 to save the planet, but I guess we squeaked through somehow.  I wish they’d tell us what we did to pull that one off.  Maybe we could do it again.

I’ll make Al Gore a bet.  Ten years from today, we’ll see how the Earth is doing.  If it’s been given another five to ten year reprieve, he’ll pay me whatever his electric bill is that month.  If disaster is one year away or less, I’ll give him whatever I owe for electricity.  Anything else is a push.

He also had this to say:

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

Yes, Mr. Gore, it’s the carbon dioxide.  Along with all the other gasses present in Venus’s atmosphere.  Along with the fact that Mercury has no atmosphere.  As a result, the lowest temparture on Mercury is -292 degrees Fahrenheit, which kind of skews its average temperature a bit.  Is Gore suggesting that we combat global warming by stripping Earth of its atmosphere?  Why else would he bring up Mercury?  Not to mislead the ignorant, surely?

And by the way, Mr. Gore, are you saying that 59 degrees is the “correct” temperature?  You call it “pleasant,” but I like it a little warmer than that.  My preferred temperature is 68 degrees.

——————————-

Why is idea of global warming so alarming to environmentalists?

This doesn’t seem so bad:

Researchers: Greenland really was green!

Ice-covered Greenland really was green a half-million or so years ago, covered with forests in a climate much like that of Sweden and eastern Canada today.

The researchers, led by Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, say the findings are the first direct proof that there was forest in southern Greenland.

Included were genetic traces of butterflies, moths, flies and beetles, they report in Friday’s edition of the journal Science.

Greenland was discovered by Vikings sailing from Iceland about 1,000 years ago. While it had an ice cap then, the climate was relatively mild and they were able to establish colonies in coastal areas. Those colonies later vanished as the climate cooled.

But the new research shows it hasn’t always been so cold there.

I’d guess environmentalists would answer: “But you see, that was in the past.  The future is so uncertain!”  And they have the gall to call themselves progressives!

Why Beauty Is Truth

Why Beauty Is Truth: A History of Symmetry – by Ian Stewart

I felt so bad about the stupid mistake I made–mixing up two books on the mathematical concept of symmetry, its history, and its usefulness in modern physics–that I had to read the other one, too.

In short, it’s a terrific book.  It covers more territory than the book I originally read–venturing deeper into the physics of the 20th and 21st centuries than Mario Livio’s “The Equation that Couldn’t Be Solved,” with more biographies of the pivotal figures involved.  “The Equation that Couldn’t Be Solved” also took a rather lengthy detour into the life of a French mathematician, Evariste Galois, which was fascinating but seemed to belong in a different book.  Galois’s final days (he was killed in a mysterious duel) are intriguing but have nothing to do with mathematics.

In my original review (where it turned out I was talking about the book by Mario Livio), I started by saying, “This is the kind of math book I like: no pages full of equations I can’t follow.”  I feel that Stewart’s book takes this too far.  I think there were not enough equations for the complexity of the math presented.  Analogies and illustrations can only take the reader so far, and I think it’s better to present some equations in the hope that they will help and with the knowledge that they may be skimmed or skipped.  Instead, I had to skim or skip some of the text when the concepts were just too difficult.

All in all though, a worthwhile book.

Give ‘em an inch…

When the sheep “Dolly” was cloned, scientists rushed to assure everyone that no one would ever clone a human being.

We’ve since learned that if scientists can do it, then all they need to come up with is a rationale.

What’s next?

British body backs inter-species clones

Making human-animal embryos for scientific experiments should be allowed because of the benefits to science and medicine, British experts said in a report released for Sunday.

The combinations would include animal eggs and the nucleus, containing the genetic material, of a human being, or human embryos that carry the genetic material of an animal, the independent advisory body said.

A cloning technique called somatic cell nuclear transfer, or SCNT for short, involves removing the nucleus from an egg cell and replacing it with the nucleus of a cell from the animal to be cloned — perhaps a skin cell, for instance.

Scientists have tried this using, for example, an egg cell from a cow and a human nucleus.

There are no laws against it in either Britain or the United states and the independent Academy said it should remain legal.

“Provided good laboratory practice is rigorously followed, research involving cytoplasmic hybrids or other inter-species embryos offers no significant safety risks over and above regular cell culture research,” said Martin Bobrow of Britain’s Wellcome Trust, who chaired the panel making the recommendations.

“We found no current scientific reasons to generate ‘true’ hybrid embryos by mixing human and animal gametes (eggs and sperm). However, given the speed of this field of research, the working group could not rule out the emergence of scientifically valid reasons in the future,” Bobrow said.

Give ‘em some time.  They’ll come up with something.

Such embryos should never, however, be implanted into either a woman or an animal, said the Academy of Medical Sciences.

Why not?  Why should these embryos be tossed out?  If you’re willing to clone human beings in order to harvest their stem cells, why be so squeamish about human-animal hybrids?  Those are the questions they’ll ask, and pretty soon those questions will seem reasonable.

And then what’s next?  I shudder to think.

Global warming as religion?

Local scientist calls global warming theory hooey

He’s a “local scientist” because the paper is published in Madison, WI.  He could also be described as “the father of scientific climatology,” which is how he’s described in the article’s first sentence.

Here’s what he has to say:

“There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the ‘Little Ice Age,’” he said in an interview this week.

“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

“It’s like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It’s just a total misplacement of emphasis,” he said. “It really isn’t science because there’s no really good scientific evidence.”

Just because almost all of the scientific community believes in man-made global warming proves absolutely nothing, Bryson said. “Consensus doesn’t prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe.”

Maybe he’s being paid off?

Bryson, 87, was the founding chairman of the department of meteorology at UW-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies. He retired in 1985, but has gone into the office almost every day since. He does it without pay.

“I have now worked for zero dollars since I retired, long enough that I have paid back the people of Wisconsin every cent they paid me to give me a wonderful, wonderful career. So we are even now. And I feel good about that,” said Bryson.

He thinks some people may be cashing in, though:

“There is a lot of money to be made in this,” he added. “If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can’t get grants unless you say, ‘Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.’”

Speaking out against global warming is like being a heretic, Bryson noted.

And it’s not something that he does regularly.

“I can’t waste my time on that, I have too many other things to do,” he said.

But if somebody asks him for his opinion on global warming, he’ll give it. “And I think I know about as much about it as anybody does.”

“There is very little truth to what is being said and an awful lot of religion. It’s almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts.”

Dr. Bryson compares the theory of anthropogenic global warming to a religion in that both discipline heretics.  There is another way in which they are similar.

Religious peoples’ views are infused by religion.  They tend to see things in terms of their religion, and find meaning in the world thereby.  Here’s an example of the same phenomenon in a global-warming context:

Climate change behind Darfur killing

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that the slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizon, in an article published Saturday.

“It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought,” Ban said in the Washington daily.

When Darfur’s land was rich, he said, black farmers welcomed Arab herders and shared their water, he said.

With the drought, however, farmers fenced in their land to prevent overgrazing.

“For the first time in memory, there was no longer enough food and water for all. Fighting broke out,” he said.

If we could only stop global warming, we’d have heaven on earth.

Honest liberals

…and yes, Governor Schwarzenegger is a liberal.

I point out liberal dishonesty as much as I possibly can–there are only so many hours in a day, you know.  So, it’s only fair to spotlight a few times this week where liberals spoke honestly.

Hollywood and Abortion, Ctd.

As a liberal who writes about film, there are few things that I find more irritating than the tendency of other liberal film writers to treat the 95 percent of Hollywood films that push (explicitly or implicitly) liberal ideas as if they were utterly apolitical and commonsensical, and then react with shock and despair on those rare occasions when a movie with conservative themes makes its way to theatres.

Yes, in two recent films, Waitress and Knocked Up, a woman whom we might otherwise expect to consider abortion instead opts to have the baby. (Isn’t it supposed to take three examples to establish a trend?) And yes, of course, Hollywood would prefer not to talk about abortion at all, as it’s a subject generally not known for its entertainment value.

But do we really need successive articles in Slate and The New York Times positing some conservative climate of fear in Hollywood? I seem to recall two recent films, The Cider House Rules (which the Times article mentions but dismisses) and Vera Drake (which neither article mentions at all) that netted Academy Award nominations (and one victory) for actors playing heroic abortion providers. (In the former case, Michael Caine won the Oscar despite delivering what may have been the most mawkish performance of his long and frequently riveting career.) When actors start getting nominations for playing anti-abortion activists, then I’ll expect to see a raft of articles about Pro-Life Hollywood. (If it needs to be added, I am myself firmly pro-choice.)

By the way, I try to check out movie reviews at Libertas.  Where else would you find a review of the new Fantastic Four picture (written by an anonymous someone in the movie business) that sounds like this?

Of course the U.S. Army’s evil. This is a studio film. Of course, the Army will eventually turn on the worst outfitted superheroes in movie history. Of course, the Army will do business with evil to save the village. Of course, when we all know it’s not true General Hager will say, “Mission accomplished.” (I’m not kidding,. He really says it. I swear. And please don’t spend $8.50 and risk another sequel to see if I’m lying. I’m begging you to take my word for it. Begging you.)

But the low point of many a low point is reached when the Army uses a loophole to torture a prisoner. This is a PG film aimed at young kids and this moment is obvious in its malicious intent and beyond the pale. This is a total propagandist sucker-punch slipped into a family Summer movie and unforgivable. I was horrified. It’s the most appalling abuse of an audience I can remember in a long time.

——————————-

Schwarzenegger: Turn Off Spanish TV

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger told a gathering of Hispanic journalists that immigrants should avoid Spanish-language media if they want to learn English quickly.

“You’ve got to turn off the Spanish television set” and avoid Spanish-language television, books and newspapers, the Republican governor said Wednesday night at the annual convention of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.

“You’re just forced to speak English, and that just makes you learn the language faster,” Schwarzenegger said.

“I know this sounds odd and this is the politically incorrect thing to say, and I’m going to get myself in trouble,” he said, noting that he rarely spoke German and was forced to learn English when he emigrated from Austria.

Of course, this was not received well by his audience:

“I’m sitting shaking my head not believing that someone would be so naive and out of it that he would say something like that,” said Alex Nogales, president and chief executive of the National Hispanic Media Coalition.

How could Arnold Schwarzenegger possibly know what it’s like to be a non-English-speaking immigrant?  What would he know about succeeding in this country despite those handicaps?

———————————–

Death Penalty Deters Murders, Studies Say

“Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it,” said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. “The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect.”

A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in five fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. “The results are robust, they don’t really go away,” he said. “I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) — what am I going to do, hide them?”

Imagine that.  A liberal scientist who’s not willing to fudge facts to push his agenda.

Paying taxes is a pleasurable duty?

Paying taxes is a pleasurable duty – being-human – 14 June 2007 – New Scientist

Paying taxes feels good, say researchers.

The surprising discovery, based on brain scans, can also predict which people are most likely to donate cash to charity.

Bill Harbaugh at the University of Oregon in Eugene, US, and colleagues gave 19 female university students $100, and told them some of this money would have to go towards taxes.

(Apparently, it’s only women who have been shown to like paying taxes.  Let’s double their taxes and eliminate taxes on men.  That way, everybody’s happy.)

Each volunteer then read a series of 60 separate taxation scenarios involving $0 to $45 in taxes, knowing that one of the scenarios would be selected at random and the related amount be subtracted from their $100.

As the participants viewed the tax scenarios, their brains were scanned using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Surprisingly, whenever the students read the taxation scenarios, scientists saw a spike in activity within two of the brain’s reward centres – the nucleus accumbens and caudate nucleus.

This is either sloppy reporting or a sloppy experiment.  The scenarios range from $0 to $45, and they all make women happy.  Are they happier with $0?  Or $45?  It doesn’t say.

Harbaugh says that people probably like paying taxes more than they admit. He believes the results of his new study help explain the widespread compliance with tax laws. “We like to complain about it, but based on what we do, we are not as opposed to it as we like to say,” Harbaugh says.

Okay, let’s test this sucker out.  Let’s eliminate withholding from paychecks.  Send us a bill every year for the taxes we owe, and let’s see how happy and compliant Americans can really be!

Lawyers doing science

Court to focus on vaccine-autism link

Since 1999, more than 4,800 families have filed claims with the government alleging their children developed autism as a result of routine vaccinations. Most contend that a preservative called thimerosal is to blame for the impaired social interaction typical of the disorder.

Previously, large scientific studies have found no association between autism and vaccines containing thimerosal.

But many parents say their children’s symptoms did not show up until after their children received the vaccines, required by many states for admission to school. If they prevail in the courts, the families are entitled to compensation from a multibillion-dollar trust fund.

How, exactly, will a court decide this case?  On the science?  On that score, there is no case.  Study after study shows that thimerosal is safe.  What other criteria are there?  Well, these families feel that there must be a connection.  After all, their children were diagnosed with autism after they received the vaccine.  Therefore, the vaccine is to blame: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Remember silicone breast implants?  I was never a big fan of them, but if women want to indulge their vanity that’s okay by me.  Not one shred of evidence ever tied them to any of the vague illnesses their hosts complained of, and yet that didn’t stop the courts from bankrupting Dow Corning.

What’s the evidence in the case of the claim that the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine causes autism?  Well, there’s not much there.  The concern is caused by the fact that thimerosal contains mercury.  But the mercury’s bound up in an organic compound that has been in use for over 70 years and has never been shown to be harmful.

 Here are the symptoms of an overdose of organic mercury:

[N]ausea, vomiting, lack of appetite, weight loss, abdominal pain, diarrhea, kidney failure, skin burns and irritation, respiratory distress, swollen gums and mouth sores, drooling, numbness and tingling in the lips, mouth, tongue, hands and feet, tremors and incoordination, vision and hearing loss, memory loss, personality changes and headache. Allergic reactions can also occur.

And autism?

Possible Indicators of Autism Spectrum Disorders

• Does not babble, point, or make meaningful gestures by 1 year of age
• Does not speak one word by 16 months
• Does not combine two words by 2 years
• Does not respond to name
• Loses language or social skills

Some Other Indicators

• Poor eye contact
• Doesn’t seem to know how to play with toys
• Excessively lines up toys or other objects
• Is attached to one particular toy or object
• Doesn’t smile
• At times seems to be hearing impaired

There are also characteristic repetitive behaviors.  Now, do these sound like similar conditions?

Anyway, proponents of the vaccine-autism link have no explanation for the recent rise in autism diagnoses; instead they blame a preservative that has been in widespread use for many decades.  Why has autism become more common?

They changed the definition, from both ends of the spectrum.  Some children now correctly diagnosed as autistic were previously categorized as mentally retarded.  Also, children who are mildly autistic (or who have Asperger’s syndrome) are more likely to be identified.  (This trend happened to coincide with the push for increased school funding for disabled children.)

So what’s the worst that can happen?  Well, if the court decides that the MMR vaccine is to blame, the families–and their lawyers–get a lot of money from the fund set up by the federal government to protect vaccine providers from lawsuits.  (Remember the flu vaccine shortage?  That was caused by lawsuits.  This fund is an effort to prevent the same shortages with all vaccines.)

What would be much worse?  If the rich countries (USA and Europe) decided to ban thimerosal from vaccines.  After all, we could afford more expensive preservatives.  But what about third world countries?  We already refuse them DDT, the single most effective method of preventing malaria.  Millions die every year because we are afraid that DDT is harmful to the environment.  We don’t have any proof that it is, but why take a chance?  “There are too many people anyway,” we shrug.

And we’ll shrug again when their children start dying from the measles.