When I was in college, I purchased the Red Shift program, which featured a nifty model of the sky with information about many of the shiny dots in space. I even utilized the model to determine the make-up of the night sky for a location I was using in a book I was writing (I finished writing the book (working title: Sparkwood and 21) about eight years ago. I now plan to publish it unedited on the Web. There is a lot of fun stuff in it, but a lot of unfortunate stuff too. I am working on something much more intense and focused now. I hope to finish it this year with a first draft, but I don't have much time to work on it, so its slow-going but fun).
Technology has changed significantly since Red Shift, but I don't think the improvements of these sky models are quite there yet. Google Sky, Stellarium, and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey on NASA World Wind are fun, but incomplete. They are not as intuitive and transformative as their Earth-bound counterparts.
However, we may on the cusp of a breakthrough. At TED, Microsoft previewed the Worldwide Telescope. The presentation did not floor me, but I read here that it will utilize the Photosynth technology (related links here and here). This adds the promise of 3D views of some of these space objects, which could revolutionize desktop astronomy viewing. I'll be looking forward to its release.
The Curious Case of Human Morality
In the post below, I referenced a Fresh Air interview with Richard Dawkins. While I found him very interesting and compelling, I was disappointed when he fumbled the question of whether evolution is poorly compatible with a sense of morality. I've had debates with friends in which they have claimed that we have been imbued by God with morality and without a basic gut feeling of right and wrong, a divine moral compass, we would devolve into a murderous animistic chaos.
Dawkins response to this was convoluted. He stated that it was an accident of evolution. It was an advantage to treat those in our tribe justly and to fear the others. However, as time progressed, the tribe became larger and larger and the other has become smaller and smaller. Thus, we treated nearly everyone like members of the tribe. I find this utterly unconvincing.
I think a more sensible evolutionary explanation is the development of logic and reasoning by humans, which has allowed us to achieve many great things as well as provide an amazing survival advantage. Once reasoning is achieved, morality follows. If you want to have a civilized and operating society which benefits everyone and maximizes survival, there are certain logical rules that we all generally agree upon. Murdering someone feels wrong not because God inserted this feeling in our gut, it feels wrong because permitting murder does not make sense. Things that do not make sense generally make me queasy. This includes murder, some quantum physics, and belief in the supernatural.
Morality is not accident, it is also not dependent of God (in a raucous takedown, Christopher Hitchens shows here that the Ten Commandments are incomplete and have no monopoly of moral thought). It is an evolved trait, one that will help perpetuate the species.
Bonus link: As this TED presentation, Steve Pinker provides a compelling history demonstrating that humanity is becoming less violent with time, despite the doom and gloom about the current time.
Dawkins response to this was convoluted. He stated that it was an accident of evolution. It was an advantage to treat those in our tribe justly and to fear the others. However, as time progressed, the tribe became larger and larger and the other has become smaller and smaller. Thus, we treated nearly everyone like members of the tribe. I find this utterly unconvincing.
I think a more sensible evolutionary explanation is the development of logic and reasoning by humans, which has allowed us to achieve many great things as well as provide an amazing survival advantage. Once reasoning is achieved, morality follows. If you want to have a civilized and operating society which benefits everyone and maximizes survival, there are certain logical rules that we all generally agree upon. Murdering someone feels wrong not because God inserted this feeling in our gut, it feels wrong because permitting murder does not make sense. Things that do not make sense generally make me queasy. This includes murder, some quantum physics, and belief in the supernatural.
Morality is not accident, it is also not dependent of God (in a raucous takedown, Christopher Hitchens shows here that the Ten Commandments are incomplete and have no monopoly of moral thought). It is an evolved trait, one that will help perpetuate the species.
Bonus link: As this TED presentation, Steve Pinker provides a compelling history demonstrating that humanity is becoming less violent with time, despite the doom and gloom about the current time.
Tempest in Hudsonville
It has been an interesting year and a half for Atheism and secularism. The publications of books by Richard Dawkins (here) and Christopher Hitchens (here and here) received considerable media attention. The Pew Forum for Religion and Public Life made a splash with its survey showing that many Americans are drifting away from traditional organized religion (a trend which our church has benefited from).
Even in our little corner of the world here in West Michigan, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has caused a stir by attacking the City of Hudsonville for including a reference to God in its mission statement, leading to a thorough review by the Grand Rapids Press of the prevalence of religion in local government in the area.
As a former reporter, I have attended many local government meetings and witnessed many invocations and references to God before board meetings, planning commissions, and even some of the most mundane and sparsely attended committee meetings. I was slightly surprised at first because this is government. However, I was also not too shocked because this is West Michigan and religion is deeply rooted here.
Today, I listened to this interview with Richard Dawkins from March 2007 that re-aired on Fresh Air last week. He spoke very eloquently about the ways in science provides a superior and far more fascinating explanation of the universe than you would find in the Bible or other religious texts (Although my minister, Ian Lawton, writes a nice article explaining that religion
and science serve complementary purposes). Dawkins also explains that Einstein described himself as a "deeply, religious non-believer." That is how I would characterize myself, as an Atheist who finds something very spiritual about the vastness and intricacies of the universe.
I would also say that I am not as militant as Christopher Hitchens, who would rather see no religion. I respect that others have religion, I just have no capacity for faith in the supernatural. That being said, I have never run into much trouble for holding these views and found that people here in West Michigan are respectful and very willing engage you on this topic and hear you out.
This brings me to the meat of this post: my problem with the Freedom from Religion Foundation's (FFRF) attack on the City of Hudsonville. Although I would prefer it if local government did not have such blatant expressions of faith here in West Michigan, I think its a deeply-held and generally harmless tradition. There is not a slow ineffable creep toward theocracy here. Generally, the prayers ask for guidance in decision-making. There are not pleas that non-believers repent or convert. Also, no laws or special privileges. are being given. This is also not the same as prayer in school, where minors are compelled into a moment of silence and the chances for ostracism are much higher if you forgo participation (All this is not to say that communities in West Michigan have a totally spotless record of tolerance and standing for free thought. In 2000, Zeeland Public Schools became infamous for attacking Harry Potter).
Hudsonville mission statement is an easy target and the consequences are minor. However, I would be much more impressed if the FFRF was going after Harvard for instituting a gender segregation policy to accomdate muslim students (link here also Instapundit links here, here, and here). As far as I can tell, the FFRF has not taken a stand on this.
Even in our little corner of the world here in West Michigan, the Freedom from Religion Foundation has caused a stir by attacking the City of Hudsonville for including a reference to God in its mission statement, leading to a thorough review by the Grand Rapids Press of the prevalence of religion in local government in the area.
As a former reporter, I have attended many local government meetings and witnessed many invocations and references to God before board meetings, planning commissions, and even some of the most mundane and sparsely attended committee meetings. I was slightly surprised at first because this is government. However, I was also not too shocked because this is West Michigan and religion is deeply rooted here.
Today, I listened to this interview with Richard Dawkins from March 2007 that re-aired on Fresh Air last week. He spoke very eloquently about the ways in science provides a superior and far more fascinating explanation of the universe than you would find in the Bible or other religious texts (Although my minister, Ian Lawton, writes a nice article explaining that religion
and science serve complementary purposes). Dawkins also explains that Einstein described himself as a "deeply, religious non-believer." That is how I would characterize myself, as an Atheist who finds something very spiritual about the vastness and intricacies of the universe.
I would also say that I am not as militant as Christopher Hitchens, who would rather see no religion. I respect that others have religion, I just have no capacity for faith in the supernatural. That being said, I have never run into much trouble for holding these views and found that people here in West Michigan are respectful and very willing engage you on this topic and hear you out.
This brings me to the meat of this post: my problem with the Freedom from Religion Foundation's (FFRF) attack on the City of Hudsonville. Although I would prefer it if local government did not have such blatant expressions of faith here in West Michigan, I think its a deeply-held and generally harmless tradition. There is not a slow ineffable creep toward theocracy here. Generally, the prayers ask for guidance in decision-making. There are not pleas that non-believers repent or convert. Also, no laws or special privileges. are being given. This is also not the same as prayer in school, where minors are compelled into a moment of silence and the chances for ostracism are much higher if you forgo participation (All this is not to say that communities in West Michigan have a totally spotless record of tolerance and standing for free thought. In 2000, Zeeland Public Schools became infamous for attacking Harry Potter).
Hudsonville mission statement is an easy target and the consequences are minor. However, I would be much more impressed if the FFRF was going after Harvard for instituting a gender segregation policy to accomdate muslim students (link here also Instapundit links here, here, and here). As far as I can tell, the FFRF has not taken a stand on this.
Superbugs: Why are Virulent Strains of Anti-Science so Hard to Shake?
In a previous post, I discussed why Americans are unhappy with health care. It is a problem that could lead to a potentially catastrophic solution (nationalized health care). But, I think the health care problem may be related to an even more troubling phenomenon: the worldwide suspicion/distrust of science.
A possible tipping point in this trend came last week in the Hannah Polling case, in which the government conceded that:
Many have trumpeted this as a turning point in the battle to prove that vaccines cause Autism (See this link for militantly anti-Vaccine Web site). John McCain also endorsed the idea (see earlier post and this link). There is, fortunately, plenty of solid response posts to the Polling case and the McCain issue, including a well-done round-up of the Polling case from Respectful Insolence (post here via Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy).
My question is how did we arrive at this point? There is a growing body of science which disputes the vaccine connection and there a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that Autism has genetic origins. Why are we still debating this?
There are numerous factors, but one major factor is that there is a credibility gap in science and medicine. It's related to the old cliche that "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." People have a long memory for scientific failures, but a short memory for achievements. The ravages of science and technology receives the most attention while the staggering achievements of science and medicine as run-of-the-mill or possible curses in disguise.
A possible tipping point in this trend came last week in the Hannah Polling case, in which the government conceded that:
In sum, DVIC has concluded that the facts of this case meet the statutory
criteria for demonstrating that the vaccinations CHILD received on July 19,
2000, significantly aggravated an underlying mitochondrial disorder, which
predisposed her to deficits in cellular energy metabolism, and manifested as
a regressive encephalopathy with features of autism spectrum disorder.
Therefore, respondent recommends that compensation be awarded to petitioners
in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(c)(1)(C)(ii).
Many have trumpeted this as a turning point in the battle to prove that vaccines cause Autism (See this link for militantly anti-Vaccine Web site). John McCain also endorsed the idea (see earlier post and this link). There is, fortunately, plenty of solid response posts to the Polling case and the McCain issue, including a well-done round-up of the Polling case from Respectful Insolence (post here via Instapundit and Volokh Conspiracy).
My question is how did we arrive at this point? There is a growing body of science which disputes the vaccine connection and there a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that Autism has genetic origins. Why are we still debating this?
There are numerous factors, but one major factor is that there is a credibility gap in science and medicine. It's related to the old cliche that "Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate." People have a long memory for scientific failures, but a short memory for achievements. The ravages of science and technology receives the most attention while the staggering achievements of science and medicine as run-of-the-mill or possible curses in disguise.
There have been major failures. For instance, the science of child-birth and breastfeeding in the mid-20th century was woefully wrong, misguided, arrogant, and sexist. In the case of breastfeedingm, it took modern medicine only a single generation to nearly wipe-out a practice that had been very successful for millions of years. Fortunately, better science has prevailed and breast-feeding is now mainstream. But, that is the beauty of science, better science will prevail.
Skeptism about science has been exasperated by poor science reporting, poor marketing, and poor decision-making in the private sector, including hype surrounding the often contradictory science of nutrition (eggs are bad for you, eggs are good for you), the prevalence of anti-bacterial products and over-sanitation, and the botched introduction of genetically-modified foods.
While these failures have cost lives and injury, caused environmental degradation, and caused general confusion, they should not overshadow the achievements of science. Before the advent of modern science, infant mortality was high, life expectancy was lower, many people succumbed to diseases which have been wiped out. We have made amazing strides in these areas and we are on the cusp of many, many more. This is an unequivocal societal good.
I think few people feel this way. Many people believe that science is co-opted by profit and greed, that we were better off when we were "closer to the Earth," and that they can find better answers and treatments from the alternative or peripheral community. The problem with investing emotional and mentally in the alternative community is while they provide a correct every once in awhile, they far more often led people down a false path. For every Dr. Bradley, there are far more Dr. Nicks. Many studies are not peer-reviewed, or when they are disputed, the scientists behind them continue to promote their views despite the evidence. True, good, and well-done science can be proven wrong and will yield to even better science. Somehow, poorly done science on the periphery seems to linger. For this, there is not yet a vaccination.
Paleobiology = Extinct Creationists
One of the small pleasures in life is encountering an article that is a complete game-changer. What I am referring is the rare article which provides information so new and surprising that it revolutionizes your understanding of the world, if only in a small way.
I came across such an article last December in the New Yorker. Michael Specter's story "Darwin's Surprise," explains the burgeoning field of Paleovirology, in which biologists study evolution utilizing gene remnants of viruses inserted over the past millions years into our genome. In some cases, scientists have been able to locate the virus genes in the human genome (virus code is numerous in our DNA) and utilize them to reassemble and resurrect long extinct viruses.
These scientists believe that viruses have played a major role in our evolution. Specter also posits that their existence in our genome is a sort of smoking gun proving evolution. The money graph:
The science behind this is so unlikely, so sophisticated that it nearly defies belief. For that reason, it lends an otherworldly quality to the tie between our genes and evolution. There are demons in our DNA and if you don't believe there we can conjure them up to show you.
Through our DNA we can peer back in time, like a telescope or a soil sample. But unlike these, our DNA is a time machine for hibernating viruses, awaiting the proper technology to awake and attack the doubters of evolution.
I came across such an article last December in the New Yorker. Michael Specter's story "Darwin's Surprise," explains the burgeoning field of Paleovirology, in which biologists study evolution utilizing gene remnants of viruses inserted over the past millions years into our genome. In some cases, scientists have been able to locate the virus genes in the human genome (virus code is numerous in our DNA) and utilize them to reassemble and resurrect long extinct viruses.
These scientists believe that viruses have played a major role in our evolution. Specter also posits that their existence in our genome is a sort of smoking gun proving evolution. The money graph:
"Darwin’s theory makes sense, though, only if humans share most of those
viral fragments with relatives like chimpanzees and monkeys. And we do, in
thousands of places throughout our genome. If that were a coincidence, humans
and chimpanzees would have had to endure an incalculable number of identical
viral infections in the course of millions of years, and then, somehow, those
infections would have had to end up in exactly the same place within each
genome. The rungs of the ladder of human DNA consist of three billion pairs of
nucleotides spread across forty-six chromosomes. The sequences of those
nucleotides determine how each person differs from another, and from all other
living things. The only way that humans, in thousands of seemingly random
locations, could possess the exact retroviral DNA found in another species is by
inheriting it from a common ancestor."
The science behind this is so unlikely, so sophisticated that it nearly defies belief. For that reason, it lends an otherworldly quality to the tie between our genes and evolution. There are demons in our DNA and if you don't believe there we can conjure them up to show you.
Through our DNA we can peer back in time, like a telescope or a soil sample. But unlike these, our DNA is a time machine for hibernating viruses, awaiting the proper technology to awake and attack the doubters of evolution.
Green Future
The Long Now Blog links to the results of the History Channels City of the Future contest. Intriguingly, the featured projects are noticeably integrated with nature and with green technologies. Personally, I'm enamored with the green integration concept and have been for quite awhile. Green roofs for stormwater runoff just makes too much sense. I'm proud to say that one this country's pioneering green buildings is located here in Ottawa County.
During our recent trip to Disney World, one of the more interesting rides at Epcot was Living with the Land. The end of the ride was a tour through an experimental greenhouse, which also serves as a food source for the park. Some of the plants in the greenhouse were quite impressive (see the Beets photos we took above). Maybe a Green Acres in the city is not too far-fetched.
Oil Prices Tipping Point?
Today, the Instapundit provided a link to this discussion of speculative oil trading driving prices beyond their true market value. On All Things Considered, NPR also had this story about the same issue. I would be getting nervous as an oil investor, the psychology might be shifting in the wrong direction. The upside could be falling gas prices, the downside could be all the pension funds which have poured money into oil. If pension funds can drive up prices so furiously, it makes me wonder about the wisdom of allowing pension funds to invest so freely in the market.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
