'God Spot' In Brain Proves Intelligent Designer!

LOL...I just had to use that headline for this article:

Belief and the brain's 'God spot'

I mean, if you were going to build a creature that you wanted to worship you, wouldn't you design a part of its brain that makes them believe in you?

But, what if you weren't very good at designing creatures? What if you did silly things like putting the penis next to the anus, or used the same tube for eating, drinking, and breathing, giving rise to a risk of choking? Then it wouldn't be a stretch to think that the designer wouldn't do a very good job at creating the belief centers of the brain, which explains doubters like me.

I don't REALLY think that what these scientists have found shows there is a designer, but I can totally see how there will be lots of ID and creationist people who would come to that conclusion. After all, they are the ones who only use scientific findings when it suits their needs and ignore all the rest.

Scientist Cock Fight

(I used the word cock in the title in hopes that I would get more traffic from the random Internet searches! LOL!)

Over at Rationally Speaking there is a healthy debate between Massimo Pigliucci and Ken Miller.

Orignial post here titled "Why I disagree with Ken Miller"

Rebuttal from Miller here titled "Ken Miller responds to Massimo."

They're too professional and polite. I want some profanity thrown around! Come on, one of you needs to drop an F bomb! haha, j/k.

I found Miller's explanation of why evolution requires suffering very interesting:

What you suggest is that a gracious God would have design a world in which there was no death, no pain, no suffering, no “waste,” and no extinction. Fair enough. But in that world, there would also be no room for a new species (since nothing would die to make room for it), no reason for evolutionary novelty (none of the competition that leads to natural selection), and no beauty (why produce beautiful flowers, plumage, or natural ornaments if survival is assured for every individual?). Furthermore, in the world you envision as ideal, there is no place for human courage, since there is nothing to fear, no place for virtue, since good is universal, and no reason to invent, discover, and create. Why bother to heal when there is no sickness, why help the poor and sick and disabled when they do not exist, and why face difficulties with courage when there are no such difficulties?

From a purely philosophical point of view, if I were working from the premise that there IS a God then I tend to agree with what he is saying as long as God is not very personal. It would have to be an impersonal God and not gentle Jesus meek and mild.

Looks like I will have to read more on the anthropic principle to better understand Massimo's response.

Dr. Michael Shermer at UNF for the "University Skeptics Forum"

My wife and I had the pleasure of seeing Michael Shermer speak last night at what was billed as a debate about ID versus evolution. It took place on the University of North Florida campus.

A few people from an organization called "Reasons To Believe" were part of a panel of professionals who were to discuss their testable creation model while Michael Shermer was to provide arguments against what they were proposing. It turns out that the event was sponsored by a few Christian organizations and the "University Skeptics Forum" was a title from the Reasons to Believe organization. They were quick to point out that they were NOT young earth creationists or Intelligent Design proponents but had come up with a real scientific way to prove that the universe was created by God.

All three were given 25 minutes each to make their arguments, so we had 50 minutes from the creationists and only 25 minutes from the rational scientist.

Dr. Hugh Ross started things off with a whirlwind tour of how their biblical cosmology fits perfectly with both scripture and science. There were a lot of big words used and large numbers were presented as proof of the number of discoveries in astronomy that point to a divine creator. Each year more and more discoveries show proof of God. But he didn't exactly go into what these discoveries were, instead we were directed to read his book. He made many references to Genesis and the story of Job for evidence that scientific ideas were presented in the bible long ago but we just weren't reading it correctly. I should have taken notes so I can provide you with specifics but one of the things he kept talking about was how in the story of Job God is described as having "stretched" the heavens. He takes this to mean God created an expanding universe. But it is his ideas that are the stretch. He kept talking about how scientists will never find God by using a naturalistic approach because God is currently resting, we are in the seventh day still. But then he said that as an astronomer when he looks in his telescope he is looking back in time, back into the first 6 days, so if that were true would we not see God doing all that work from the first 6 days? Also, he was later contradicted by his own partner because the next presenter talked about how God was still remaking animals and that explained all of the fossils. So is he resting or is he still working?

The next presenter was Dr. Fazale Rana, who spoke about their theories of biological science that were supposed explained things better than evolution and were still backed up by the bible. Again, the 25 minutes was densely packed with lots of big words that made it difficult to figure out where to start with your rebuttal. One feature of his talk that I found humorous was his frequent use of quotes from Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould to back up his premise that what we see in nature is actually designed by a creator and not by evolution. Dawkins does comment a lot about the apparent design of things in nature but he does a very good job of explaining how evolution by natural selection makes that possible.

The final presenter was Dr. Michael Shermer. His presentation gave a broad smattering of ideas in the skeptical community. Rather than spend his 25 minutes making point by point rebuttals he simply tried to tackle some of the typical misinformation held by society on subjects like cosmology, evolution, and religion. I have a feeling there were a good number of believers in the audience who, like me until recently, had never bothered to learn about the parallels between Christianity and other believe systems from the Mediterranean area in first century like virgin births and resurrection, or the parallels between all of the creation stories from that area, or the flood stories. So, perhaps a few people were enlightened by what he said, or at least will be curious and start reading more.

Next, Shermer was allowed to ask direct questions of the first two presenters. He specifically brought up the expanding universe bible quote and showed how the description in Job of the heavens more closely resembled that of the Babylonian cosmology, probably taken from the time the Jews spent in exile in Babylon. Their response was that some guy, who's name they forgot, wrote a book, and he was a physicist and a theologian, and he proved that the description in Job was not that of a Babylonian cosmology. That was about as direct as any of their answers got.

The audience was then given time to ask questions. I think all of this information was sitting heavily on the moderator, Ken Amaro, because he started cutting off the questioners if they tried to ask followups. But the answers being given were so poor and went in so many different directions that followups were really needed. Only a few people asked Shermer anything; I was expecting people to throw bibles at him but nothing like that happened. By the end you could hear lots of groans from the audience when Dr. Ross would go on a lengthy answer that said pretty much nothing.

After things ended I went up and thanked Dr. Shermer for coming and I went over and asked Dr. Ross if all of his cosmology could be explained through Torah, why does he believe that the Christian religion is true and not the Jewish one. And if God is now resting in the seventh day why did he take time off to come down to earth as Jesus. He started to explain that there were some things in Romans that he uses and then went off on how the Jews don't read all of the torah and if they would just read the forbidden stuff that their rabbis told them not to read then they would see that Christianity was true. And we will have all of our questions answered on the Eighth day. It was at that point that I realized I was surrounded by people who were doing lots of nodding and I was in no position to try and argue my points since I am no biblical scholar. But I did get the feeling that they must have thought I was Jewish because of the wording of my questions and maybe they thought they could convert me!

Without reading their books and just going by what they presented last night my biggest problem with their "testable biblical cosmology" is that they cherry picked their evidence which ignoring other things in the bible that are just plain wrong. Gallileo was arrested for contradicting the biblical view of an Earth centered universe and we all know now he was right and the bible was wrong. Perhaps I will get a copy of a few of their books and use that as an exercise in debunking kooky ideas this year.

My Darwin Donations

Last month I posted a suggestion that we turn Darwin day into a charitable event. Well, today I made my Darwin Donations.

I donated 20.74 each to Doctors Without Borders and to this family to help with their medical costs. I added the 74 cents to note that it was a Darwin Donation and he was 74 when he died.

Regardless of the reason or the time of year I hope you all find the time and money to lend a hand somewhere. All of the people, including myself, who made a difference donating small amounts to the Obama campaign can do the same with charities.

*puts on Sally Struthers plea*
For the price of a triple venti non-fat latte you can make a difference!

Darwin Donations

February 12th is Darwin Day. And what better way to celebrate our evolved sense of empathy than to make a donation to our favorite charity in the name of Charles Darwin?

Darwin died at age 74 so you could make your donation end in 74 cents. If you can donate in someone's name then use Charles Darwin.

Lets see if we can put our money where our mouth evolved and do some good for the world?

Dick Dawkins Just Don't Get It

I recently watched the Channel 4 documentary "The Genius Of Charles Darwin" and I think it could have been retitled "Darwin Was A Genius But Dawkins Can't Get That Chip Off His Shoulder."

While I totally love Dawkins when he's talking science, unfortunately he can't say two sentences about evolution without telling us how stupid religion is. I wanted to see a documentary about how much of a genius Darwin was, and I would say about 70% of it presented just that. But a good portion was spent whining about the religious people who don't accept evolution.

The part where he really shows how he's out of touch with normal people (as opposed to the brilliant scientists he runs with) was in the third episode when he just couldn't understand why the high school science teachers were opposed to shaking up their student's religious beliefs. He just couldn't understand why these children would listen to lectures on evolution and not just understand it and reject their religion.

Would it hurt him to study that phenomenon...gasp...scientifically? Instead of gesticulating and convulsing over it?

He is presented with a group of children who for the last 15 years of their life have been presented with an acceptable (to a child) explanation of how the world came about. The closest and most trusted people in their lives assure them that it is the truth as handed down to them through generation after generation. At least once per week they go to church and hear it from another trusted authority that creation as presented in the bible is how the world was made. And somehow Dawkins doesn't understand why when presented with a strongly conflicting explanation by people who are NOT in their trusted circle of people, the children don't simply accept it as fact.

Why not instead of flailing helplessly doesn't Dawkins study this?

Anyway, I thought the second episode was the best. It touched a little on evolutionary psychology (hey, could that explain why the kids want to believe their parents?) which is a subject I'm interested in. The third episode presented an interesting look into what Darwin struggled with when he realized the implications of evolution.

All-in-all it is a good series. I leave you with Dick Dawkins, The Rap:

The Abortion Jihad

Remember when terrorism in America meant an abortion clinic bombing, or an abortion clinic doctor being shot?

Back when these things were popular, in the 90's, I remember thinking we were headed toward an abortion jihad. A war between pro and anti abortion rights fighters. I envisioned abortion clinics being patrolled by Pro-Choice Paramilitary, waiting for an attack by the Pro-Life Liberation Army.



I wonder now how much the increased surveillance of American citizens produced by 9/11 resulted in a decrease in abortion clinic violence.

I've never been in the middle of something I felt so strongly about that I thought I needed to attack someone. But some of the people behind the violent anti-abortion movement feel just that way. Similarly, certain factions in the animal rights movement feel moved to violence or terrorism in an attempt to force their opposing view on others.

The Animal Liberation Front feels strongly about keeping animals from being tested on. So strongly that they have been implicated in violent acts. On the surface I don't see a difference between their tactics and the tactics of the anti-abortion crowd. The differences lie in the argument over whether the rights of animals are different than the rights of a human embryo or fetus.

Animals:
-We either have the right to do with animals as we please or we don't.
-Animals experience pain and suffering in a way that is equivalent to or greater than the way we feel pain.
-There is a metaphysical existence that animals experience which makes experimenting on them morally reprehensible or there is not.

Embryos:
-We either have the right to end a developing embryo's life or we don't.
-Embryos experience pain and suffering in a way that is equivalent to or greater than the way we feel pain.
-There is a metaphysical existence that embryos experience which makes ending their life morally reprehensible or there is not.

I'm not ready to offer my thoughts on all of these items. I'm throwing them out there to see what responses they might generate. Without pushing my own opinions on you I'm curious to first hear what others thing about the points I list above. Which side of those issues they are on.

Here Be Dragons!

Brian Dunning, who puts out a great podcast called Skeptoid, is now offering a short introduction to skeptical thinking called Here Be Dragons.

It is available on Google Video and various download formats (including DVD ISO). The distribution license is fairly open and allows for use in the classroom. While watching it my wife and I thought it would make for a good basis either as a dedicated critical thought class or at least as part of a science class.

He steers clear of religion in the video, though a few of his podcast episodes have touched on subjects like young earth creationism. This video deals mainly with how to spot pseudo-science or false advertising when you see it in advertisements. (The podcast episode talking about Kinoke Foot Pads is a good example.)

I suggest you check it out for yourself...let me know what you think!

Naked Evolution

One of my favorite podcasts, The Naked Scientists, featured a show on evolution a few weeks ago, in celebration of the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "dangerous idea". I just got around to listening to it and thought others might want to check it out.

They talked with Dr. Lenski about his evolving e. coli and Dr. Remi Ware about an update to the controversial Peppered Moth experiment. , and Dr. Alastair Wilson about some horny sheep. Alastair is SUCH a British name...hehe...

There was also a reading of some of Darwin's letters he wrote at about the same time his abstract was to be presented to the Linnean society.

Watch Nova Science Now June 25th

Check out the summer schedule for Nova Science Now here.

The June 25 broadcast will talk about dark matter and cute mice with Alzheimer's.

You can watch these segments online as well.

This show is hosted by one of my favorite scientists, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson. Hope you all enjoy it!

Book Review: Galileo's Daughter

As embarrassed as I am to admit it, my knowledge of Galileo's life before reading Galileo's Daughter could be written in a few sentences. I knew he was a great scientist. I knew he did something with telescopes and was an astronomer. But that was about it. I knew he lived part of his life under house arrest but I couldn't tell you why.

But after reading Dava Sobel's biography of Galileo Galilei called "Galileo's Daughter" I feel I have followed his life the way we follow that of some insightful blogger. To put it that way seems to cheapen the experience, because in today's world we don't have eloquent hand written letters like the one's presented in this book. Sometimes when you follow the writings of bloggers you wonder why you must endure painful discourses on their most mundane happenings. In the case of Galileo's Daughter you welcome those trivial details as it casts a vision of the great philosopher that you don't get in a dry science textbook.

I picked up Ms. Sobel's book a few weeks ago while perusing the science section of Borders. I wanted something scientific but also something lighthearted. Upon seeing another book by the author of Longitude I snatched it up and quickly drove home to read it. If you haven't read Longitude or seen A&E's movie, I suggest you stop here and pick up either. You won't be disappointed. I saw the movie first then read the book later and Dava Sobel does an excellent job of turning a biographical story into a page-turning journey without sacrificing historical accuracy.

Galileo's Daughter continues the precedent set by Longitude and places the biography of Galileo against the backdrop of letters written to him by his daughter, Virginia, who adopted the name Maria Celeste when she became a nun. Only the letters from her survive as the letters from him were destroyed after her death. But Sobel gleans much from letters sent by the scientist to his peers.

Applying the morals of a 2008 humanist to the life of Maria Celeste I found myself angered to see her locked inside a convent. Of his three children she seemed the most adept at understanding his thoughts and his theories but she was limited by the norms of society in the 1600's. If you weren't married by age 16 then you became a nun and being an illegitimate daughter she couldn't be married. But this did not stop her from becoming literate in Italian and Latin.

I became so entranced by Sobel's account of their live's that by the end of the book I found myself distraught at how their lives ended. The best dramas could not ask for a better ending to it's character's lives as that of Galileo and his daughter Virginia. Any father who has a daughter should read this together with her. I can only imagine the discourse that will follow between them after reading Ms. Sobel's eloquent account of two loving and intelligent people.