The Skeptic Express

The Skeptic Express is the UK’s latest skeptical site bringing you the latest news, views, articles and opinions on the issues that matter.

Who are we?

The Skeptic Express is made up of an informal group of like-minded people who are united in their search for the truth in all manner of claims and their desire to fight misinformation, ignorance and untruths wherever they are found.

Our aims are quite simple:

• To complement and contribute to the work of other skeptic organizations;
• To encourage a rational and logical approach to fringe claims and magical thinking;
• To provide a source of information and explanation on everyday issues;
• To promote the teaching and application of critical thinking skills;
• To provide a forum for debate, discussion and rational argument on a range of relevant topics;
• To encourage the active involvement of people from a wide range of backgrounds;
• To publish a range of articles for information and comment.

Skepticism - an approach to life.

What is Skepticism?

For many skepticism conjures up cynical closed-minded attitudes spouted by terse, crusty old curmudgeons intent on spoiling everyone’s fun – but that negative image couldn’t be further from reality.

Skeptical not Cynical.

Put very simply, a skeptic is someone who is committed to logic, reason and critical thinking when making assessments or decisions. In short, skepticism is a method of inquiry not a position. Despite the image as nay saying killjoys a real skeptic will always approach any claim with the same positive rational and enquiring manner. If we say we’re skeptical of a claim, we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe. It’s as simple as that.

Why is Skepticism Important?

In a society where we are expected to accept much at face value, thinking critically about the barrage of claims presented before us is a demanding but valuable skill to master bringing real and positive rewards. Only by being unafraid to ask hard questions can we ever hope to sift fact from fiction, sort good ideas from bad amongst the myriad of claims made in the name of science, culture, religion and politics by manufacturers, scam artists, fraudsters, modern day myth makers, hoaxers and cheats.

Our Areas of Interest:

• The Paranormal – Can mediums really communicate with the dead? Can psychics predict the future or look back into your past? What about psychic surgeons, psychic detectives, faith healers, tarot, astrology and ghosts?
  
  
• Pseudoscience – What are we to make of Intelligent Design and creationist theory, alternative medicine and therapies, conspiracy theories, current fads and diets, inflated manufacturer’s claims for their products, modern myths and legends packaged as science based fact?
  
  
• Spin and Misinformation – political fluff and flannel, bogus and misleading claims in advertising, schemes and scams, cults, religion, nittwittery and nonsense wherever it occurs.

An Open Mind.

Skeptics are open minded to the possibility that an idea may be true or false and will seek to objectively discover which it is rather than be so open minded as to be credulous. Similarly, close mindedness reflects the position wherein someone cannot accept the possibility that an idea may be false. The role of the skeptic is to critically examine all ideas but to reject if there is no evidence to believe them either true or false. There is a balance to be achieved between being ‘so open minded that your brains fall out’ and rejecting potentially useful ideas. The key is evidence.

reposted from: http://theskepticexpress.com/
my highlights / emphasis / comments

Royal Society Aventis Prize for Science Books

The Aventis Prize for Science Books is an annual list of popular science books for adults and children. The Royal Society manages the prize and Aventis Foundation have sponsored the prize since 2004. A new sponsor is sought for the 2007 prize.

Simon Singh.com favourite Science Books

simon singh.net
an author, journalist and TV producer, specialising in science and mathematics, the only two subjects I have the faintest clue about.

Interesting Science Books choice.

Boffin Productions - provide greetings cards for academics, sceptics and free-thinkers

Boffin Productions was established in order to provide greetings cards for academics, sceptics and free-thinkers.

We would also like to challenge the weird, primitive and/or absurd beliefs which have not been, or cannot be, scientifically tested but appear to be on the rise in modern society. Absurd and irrational ideas spread through society if scientists, mathematicians, sceptics and free-thinkers do nothing.

Examples:
Wanted, Absurdity of Homeopathy, Epicurus, the Citric Acid Cycle

What is the The Skeptics Society & Skepticism?

reposted from: http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/discover_skepticism.html

my highlights in blue

Skeptic - Extraordinary claims, Revolutionary ideas and the promotion of science.

The Skeptics Society (wikipedia) is a scientific and educational organization of scholars, scientists, historians, magicians, professors and teachers, and anyone curious about controversial ideas, extraordinary claims, revolutionary ideas, and the promotion of science. Our mission is to serve as an educational tool for those seeking clarification and viewpoints on those controversial ideas and claims.

Under the direction of Dr. Michael Shermer, the Society engages in scientific investigation and journalistic research to investigate claims made by scientists, historians, and controversial figures on a wide range of subjects. The Society also engages in discussions with leading experts in our areas of exploration. It is our hope that our efforts go a long way in promoting critical thinking and lifelong inquisitiveness in all individuals.

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.

—Baruch Spinoza

Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.

Skepticism has a long historical tradition dating back to ancient Greece, when Socrates observed: “All I know is that I know nothing.” But this pure position is sterile and unproductive and held by virtually no one. If you were skeptical about everything, you would have to be skeptical of your own skepticism. Like the decaying subatomic particle, pure skepticism uncoils and spins off the viewing screen of our intellectual cloud chamber.

Modern skepticism is embodied in the scientific method, which involves gathering data to formulate and test naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena. A claim becomes factual when it is confirmed to such an extent it would be reasonable to offer temporary agreement. But all facts in science are provisional and subject to challenge, and therefore skepticism is a method leading to provisional conclusions. Some claims, such as water dowsing, ESP, and creationism, have been tested (and failed the tests) often enough that we can provisionally conclude that they are not valid. Other claims, such as hypnosis, the origins of language, and black holes, have been tested but results are inconclusive so we must continue formulating and testing hypotheses and theories until we can reach a provisional conclusion.

The key to skepticism is to continuously and vigorously apply the methods of science to navigate the treacherous straits between “know nothing” skepticism and “anything goes” credulity. Over three centuries ago the French philosopher and skeptic, René Descartes, after one of the most thorough skeptical purges in intellectual history, concluded that he knew one thing for certain: Cogito ergo sum — I think therefore I am. But evolution may have designed us in the other direction. Humans evolved to be pattern-seeking, cause-inferring animals, shaped by nature to find meaningful relationships in the world. Those who were best at doing this left behind the most offspring. We are their descendents. In other words, to be human is to think:

Sum Ergo Cogito —
I Am Therefore I Think

Richard Dawkins - interview by Laurie Taylor - The God Delusion

Gentle Rottweiler by Laurie Taylor, New Humanist

Richard Dawkins' attack on religion has been hailed, revered and derided. He talks to LAURIE TAYLOR about the mixed reception of The God Delusion.

reposted from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,511,n,n
Read comments. Read the full interview (pdf)

Richard Dawkins says:

• "my book "The God Delusion" is an invitation to atheists to come out of the closet and publicly declare their disbelief."
  
• "As a scientist I am only interested in the simple scientific question is there a God?" If someone wants to say that God started off evolution then that seems to be a total denial of everything we have learnt."
• in Terry Eagleton's review of "The God Delusion" (wikipedia) Eagleton wondered what Dawkins view was on the epistimological differences between Aquinas and Duns Scotus. Dawkins says "somebody who thinks the way I do doesn't think theology is a subject at all. So to me it is like someone saying they don't believe in fairies and then being asked how they know if they haven't studied fairy-ology. I think it is as simple as that. I'm all for professors of theology who write about little known religious texts and study biblical history, but when theology turns to the study of the trinity, then I think its a non-subject"
• "I'm happy to be governed by feelings and I suppose, in a sense, by faith. But that doesn't mean that I ultimately believe there is something other than the material world that is causing these feelings. Life would be intolerable if you wrote down detailed reasons for everything. So I don't have a problem with faith in that sense. But that is so different from going on from there to declare that there must be something supernatural about it."

^^^^^ Selected comments from: http://richarddawkins.net/article,511,n,n

4. Comment #17278 by Steven Mading on January 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm

Thalesian said in the first comment:
"After America's experiences in Iraq, perhaps ethnic identity is as dangerous as religion (if they don't already both stem from the same vice)."

Actually, the big problem is the world's tendancy to mix ethnic identity with religion as being one in the same. Consider the Sunni/Shia thing: They are religions, and yet they can also be treated as ethnicities because people mis-label children as being the religion of their parents long before the children have any idea what that's really all about - and so people tend to view their religion as a definitional integral part of who they are. That prevents intelligent discourse on the subject because they don't treat it as just yet another idea that can be freely accepted into or freely rejected. They view it as being a permanent thing just as much as, say, one's race is.

16. Comment #17322 by John Phillips on January 12, 2007 at 10:58 pm

Let's get real here, with regard to theology that is. It takes the a priori assumption that god exist without any objective evidence for it. It then twists itself into philosophical knots rationalising the irrational. But sophisticated irrationality is still irrationality only it may have a seeming gloss. Need one know any more than that. Or to put it in another more simplistic, or Walt Disneyish way, as one poster put it, I can only argue how many angels fit on a pin if I start from the premise that angels exist. If I don't, after all there is again no objective evidence for angels either, then what point the argument.

17. Comment #17324 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on January 12, 2007 at 11:06 pm

The trouble here is twofold. First, it's not ultra-sophisticated religious intellectuals like Eagleton's mates who are in charge of the US military and wield vast social and political power in many parts of the world.

Great post, Russell, articulates my thoughts so clearly. I think this is the bottom line John, esoteric, ephemeral and academic constructs are fine, potentially interesting in their own right, but they have no bearing on the real world. No data, no tests, no results. What could be more pointless?

Besides, the people burning embassies, rioting over comics and killing abortion clinic staff would be the first to call Eagleton and his rarified cohorts heretics and aspostates.

So in my view, Eagletons wordy critique is fatuous because it misses the point so completely.

Finally, Dawkins and Harris are right to dismiss theology, and the comparison to fairology is a nice soundbite, that resonates with the majority of people. Theologians are considered the "brains" of the religious movement, descredit theology as a subject and you remove what little intellectual credibility religion has. I actually don't think it can be said often enough that theology is to cosmology/philosophy, what astrology is to astronomy, or alchemy to chemistry.

Theology is bunkum, but it will be very hard for Eagleton and Co. to admit it.

18. Comment #17330 by JohnC on January 13, 2007 at 12:26 am

Russell and Brian, this New Humanist piece was particularly interesting because it gave Richard the opportunity to respond to a number of Eagleton's main points in the context of a sympathetic interview. And there is no Eagleton & Co., since I cannot imagine such a critique coming from any other public intellectual, combining as it does his own ultimate skepticism about theism - "now it may well be that all this is no more plausible than the tooth fairy. Most reasoning people these days will see excellent grounds to reject it" - attached to a masterfully concise summary of a non-dogmatic Christian theology with a series of well-targeted political criticisms.

The real problem is that Eagleton misunderstands the project that TGD represents. It is not an intellectual new synthesis for religious skepticism in the 21st century; it is a popular rallying cry to do battle against actually existing religious insanity around the world. TGD was not intended as a scholarly engagement with theological discourse, but as a tonic for unbelievers and a lifeline for the waverers. And in these goals it has succeeded admirably.

Now on the specific question of theology. In the interview Dawkins' position is circular; in TGD it is not, as he does actually deal with the "main proofs" theology has provided. I made both points in my earlier post. But the latter operation depends entirely on defining belief in God as a hypothesis equivalent to any other empirical proposition. And this is entirely the point at issue.

So Eagleton's complaint remains, and needs to be understood. Why? Because time and again we have seen people at this site express incomprehension at the fact that intensely intelligent scientists (Ken Miller comes to mind) who are nonetheless religious. Understand what Eagleton is saying, and you start to understand how that is possible. These people are not suffering from a mental disorder, they are not stupid, and they are deserving of our respect.

We are not dealing with Jerry Falwell here, and this is not a debate with two sides. It is entirely possible that both Richard and Terry - two of the best known British intellectuals - are both "right" but are on different trajectories launched from different starting points with their paths nonetheless intersecting. It is these points of intersection that provide the opportunity for us to enrich our own understanding.

Creationism can be taught in RE but not science lessons

The Sunday Times December 31, 2006 Creationism gains foothold in schoolsreposted from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2524442_2,00.html Christopher Morgan and Abul Taher

THE government has cleared the way for a form of creationism to be taught in Britain’s schools as part of the religious syllabus. Lord Adonis, an education minister, is to issue guidelines within two months for the teaching of “intelligent design” (ID), a theory being promoted by the religious right in America. NI_MPU('middle'); Until now the government has not approved the teaching of the controversial theory, which contradicts Darwinian evolutionary theory, the basis of modern biology. Adonis said in a parliamentary answer: “Intelligent design can be explored in religious education as part of developing an understanding of different beliefs.” He announced that the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is to hold discussions with the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, the assessment regulator, and said local advisory councils would decide whether particular schools should teach the theory. Creationists believe in the literal truth of the Biblical account of the creation by God in six days. Intelligent design argues that life and the universe are guided by a “designer”, rather than an undirected process as illustrated by Darwin’s natural selection. The theory has gained a foothold in the American state school system, sparking legal challenges from secular groups seeking to oust it from science teaching. Although Adonis stopped short of permitting the teaching of intelligent design in science lessons, one of the key lobby groups behind the theory, Truth in Science, hailed his statement as a significant breakthrough. So far no schools in Britain teach the theory as part of its religious education syllabus. But Truth in Science believes that the new government guidelines will give the green light to dozens of schools to incorporate ID in the syllabus. Andrew McIntosh, a professor of engineering at Leeds university who heads Truth in Science, said: “We believe that evolutionary theory should be taught in a critical manner, and some space must be given to credible alternative theories, such as intelligent design.” The lobby group says its ultimate aim is to pressure schools to teach ID in science lessons as a challenge to Darwinism. It says it has the support of about 70 heads of science across Britain, who want ID to be introduced in the national curriculum as part of science. Opponents in the Church of England dismiss it as fantasy. Colin Slee, the Dean of Southwark, said: “Everything needs to be explored, so that children can ask sensible questions. Though I see no huge difficulty with exploring intelligent design or creationism or flat Earth, they happen to be misguided, foolish and flying in the face of all evidence. I see no problem with Darwinian theory and Christian faith going hand in hand.” Canon Jeremy Davies, Precentor of Salisbury cathedral, said: “I don’t see why religious education should be a dumping ground for fantasies. If it is claimed that this is a scientific theory, why isn’t it explored in science classes? Its validity or otherwise should be tested against the usual criteria.” Others regard it as religious dogma masquerading as science. Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, said ID was not a science. Dawkins, who holds the chair in the public understanding of science at Oxford, added: “It is creationism by another name. It’s a rebranding exercise to get into schools. I personally think it should not be taught.” In America ID has come under legal attack. There have been more than six recent cases in which local education bodies were sued by groups such as Americans United for Separation of Church and State for teaching intelligent design as science. NI_MPU('middle'); Robert Boston, a spokesman for the group, warned against the teaching of ID in Britain. He said it “could possibly leave an entire generation of people not capable of meeting the scientific challenges of this century”. Boston also said ID was being pushed by certain religious groups, “to undermine the separation of church and state in schools. It’s an effort by them to subvert Darwin’s theory. And unfortunately, trends in America seem to go to Britain”. It has emerged that 12 prominent academics wrote to Tony Blair and Alan Johnson, the education secretary, last month arguing that ID should be taught as part of science on the national curriculum. They included Antony Flew, formerly professor of philosophy at Reading University; Terry Hamblin, professor of immunohaemotology at Southampton University; and John Walton, professor of chemistry at St Andrews University. In October Truth in Science was criticised for sending education packs to hundreds of schools across Britain explaining ID. The packs — which included books and DVDs — were used by some unwary science teachers as teaching aids. But Truth in Science in turn accuses Dawkins of pressuring ministers into promoting atheism through schools. McIntosh said: “People like Dawkins are pushing atheism through schools, which is a religious view, and not a scientific one. Atheism is not the natural state of a scientist, since there have been scientists who have been theists both before and after Darwin.” Lord Pearson, a Tory peer and supporter of ID, who asked the question that prompted Adonis’s statement, said: “Advances in DNA science show that the DNA molecule is so complicated that it could not have happened by accident. It shows there is a design behind it.”

South Park Takes On Richard Dawkins

reposted from: http://www.therevealer.org/archives/timeless_002719.php

South Park Takes On Richard Dawkins

20 November 2006

By Daniel Sorrell

The recent publication of Richard Dawkins’ book The God Delusion has provided fodder for reviewers to discuss and debate a number of interrelated issues: atheism, evolution, the role of religion in public life, and scientific rationality, to name only a few. A common refrain in even the most sympathetic appraisals of the book was voiced in the New York Times review. “There is lots of good, hard-hitting stuff about the imbecilities of religious fanatics and frauds of all stripes, but the tone is smug and the logic occasionally sloppy.” Dawkins’ strident, aggressive brand of atheism and his haughty poise undercut an argument that would be more persuasive if made in a cooler, more judicious tone.

Given a public figure on a high horse with a pompous, in-your-face manner, sooner or later South Park will point its satirical barbs in their direction. In a recent two-part episode, Dawkins came under heavy fire for his belligerent atheism and hyper-rational tirades against religion (A dead giveaway that Dawkins was in for it came early in the first episode: a graphic sex scene between him and Mrs. -- formerly Mr. -- Garrison, the town’s proverbial pervert).

In a convoluted plotline (Episode one and Episode two) involving teaching evolution in the classroom, Nintendo’s soon-to-be-released game system Wii, and the botched cryogenic freezing of Eric Cartman that leads him to be revived 500 years too late, it is revealed that the society of the future is based on godlike worship of Dawkins -- along with his eventual wife Mrs. Garrison -- as the founder of worldwide atheism. In a situation that recalls the Judean People’s Front and People’s Front of Judea in Monty Python’s Life of Brian, the atheists of the future are split into three warring sects: the United Atheist Alliance (UAA), United Atheist League (UAL), and the Allied Atheist Allegiance (AAA), who also happen to be sea otters. Their core grievance with one another is the answer to the “great question,” namely what to call their respective groups.

The key criticism South Park seems to be pursuing is that extremist enthusiasm for any belief system -- in this case Dawkins’ vaunted atheism and scientific rationality -- can lead to sectarian group-think, absolutism, and even schismatic violence. Replacing religious dogma with atheistic dogma still leaves us with the problems of dogmatism. In the future, people -- and otters -- say “Science damn it” and “Oh my science” and adhere as rigidly and inflexibly to their own brand of Dawkinsism as they did before to whatever religion that subscribed to.

This is an important insight to be sure, yet it probably has as much to do with Dawkins’ public persona as it does with the actual ideas of the belief system being scrutinized. Being an offensive jerk with an unswerving belief in one’s own ideas while condescendingly dismissing opposing views -- or in the words of Mrs. Garrison, “being a dick to those who don’t agree with you” -- is never going to be popular. That’s a caricature of Dawkins, but it certainly squares with a popular perception of some other vocal atheists (Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris come to mind).

The sectarian conflict between the UAA, UAL, and AAA is a consequence of irrationally held passions -- even, in this case, for rationality -- that do not allow for debate, co-existence, or reasoned consensus. The dangers of tribalistic group identification, not atheism as such, are the target of criticism. This is borne out when, near the end of the second episode, the future timeline is altered and the citizens of the future are found to be at war with the French-Chinese.

It is telling that South Park did not take on the core ideas of its target. Other than the scene of Dawkins and Garrison’s first date, where he introduces the infamous Flying Spaghetti Monster argument (really a hyperbolic and colorful demonstration of the idea that you can’t prove a negative), only to have it misinterpreted by Garrison, the episodes are short on a conceptual critique of atheism or scientific rationality. It is the shrill tone and obnoxious zeal -- and the extremism they engender -- not the intellectual consistency or evidentiary basis of Dawkins’ arguments, that the episode condemns.

This oversight is a little puzzling given South Park’s long history in satirizing matters of doctrine. Its send-up of Scientology’s cosmology and the founding myth of Xenu in “Trapped in the Closet,” which precipitated the departure of Isaac Hayes from the show, is a notable example. The Islamic prohibition against depicting the Prophet Muhammad is satirized in “Cartoon Wars” and the Catholic belief in miracles is rather vulgarly ridiculed in “Bloody Mary.”

All of which is to say, South Park’s ecumenical contempt for religion doesn’t necessarily translate well into a critique of the substance of atheism or scientism. Rather, it is the slavish thinking and rigid dogmatism that go into any –ism or orthodoxy that South Park is best at lampooning. Dawkins’ abrasive public demeanor and penchant for rhetorical excess is interpreted in South Park’s blunt satire as just as inflexible and uncompromising as any of the religions it targets. This should be a lesson to Dawkins and fellow-travelers to tone down the noise and antagonism of their message if they are going to be persuasive. Yet it also indicates that, unlike Scientology, Islam, or Catholicism, atheism’s ideas, as opposed to its style, proved off limits for even South Park’s religious critique.

Daniel Sorrell is a graduate student in NYU’s Department of Journalism.

Why Do Today What You Can Put Off Till Tomorrow - The Procrastination Equation

my highlights in blue

reposted from Sciam January 12, 2007

Why Do Today What You Can Put Off Till Tomorrow

A 10-year study of procrastination provides insights into--and a formula for--human motivation

by David Biello PUTTING IT OFF: The fine art of procrastination has been summed up in a mathematical equation.

I am a moderate procrastinator. Even when I believe that I would be bestserved by finishing a task (say, filing this story), I will occasionally put it off in favor of some short-term reward (like a much needed caffeine fix). This tendency on my part to delay what is in my long-term interest can now be explained by a simple mathematical equation, according to industrial psychologist Piers Steel of the University of Calgary.

Steel developed the equation--Desire to Complete Task (U) = Expectation of Success (E) x Value of Completion (V) / Immediacy of Task (I) x Personal Sensitivity to Delay (D), or U=ExV/IxD--as a way of mathematically mapping a given individual's procrastination response.

So, for example, my desire to finish this article is influenced by my relative confidence in writing it well and the prospect of a paycheck as well as a looming deadline and my inherent desire to go home at the end of the day. "You're more likely to put something off if you're a very impulsive individual," Steel says. But, "if you only work at the last minute, time on task tells."

Of course, this does not explain why humans would procrastinate in the first place, but it is certainly not a new problem. The Greek poet Hesiod writing in 800 BC averred "a man who puts off work is always at hand grips with ruin" and the divine incarnation Krishna singled procrastinators out for special scorn in the Bhagvad Ghita. Nor does it explain why procrastination seems to be on the rise--afflicting as many as 95 percent of students and at least 15 percent of adults, according to two recent surveys. Perhaps the answer lies in the cornucopia of distractions that surround us, ranging from YouTube on our computers to finally getting around to decluttering our desks just when we should be writing that article. "We have a workplace that is motivationally toxic," Steel says. "Convenient access to inferior choices is decidedly inconvenient." But the problem of procrastination, which Steel came to by suffering from a particularly acute case of it in his own schooling, may have broader applications. The equation to describe it, dubbed temporal motivational theory, may be applicable to the entire field of human motivation. "You can use it to predict stock prices and other theories of motivation, such as goalsetting, can be derived from it," Steel notes. "Even the behavior of nations and groups can be better described by using this theory."

Insights into our procrastinating ways may help explain why humans struggle with long-term problems that require immediate solutions such as climate change and mounting public debt. And by reducing human motivation to a formula, powerful computer models can be put to work to predict our choices (and perhaps create avatars that will successfully mimic us in online worlds). "Modeling complex systems is something that we've done. We do it with the weather," Steel says. "This gives us the initial foundation to do it with people's personalities."

For my part, I hope that game designers and other modelers procrastinate on taking up this challenge, perhaps distracted by things like this news item or by the motivational tests Steel has devised. Already, one of his tests (linked below) labeled me as a moderate procrastinator and delayed this story by a good 15 minutes. "Millions of people hours are spent making [distractions] as succulent as possible," he adds. "There are so many ways we could do something else."

RELATED LINKS:
Steel's Procrastination Central Up the Lazy Creek Psyching Out Evolutionary Psychology: Interview with David J. Buller

Senate is expected to follow suit, but President Bush has threatened a veto

reposted from: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=136DF302-E7F2-99DF-3BF5B9305033A069&ref=rss
House Okays Federal Funding for Stem Cell Research Senate is expected to follow suit, but President Bush has threatened a veto By Lisa Stein
Culminating an emotional debate in Washington D.C. on January 11, the new Democratic-controlled House of Representatives approved legislation that would provide federal funding for more embryonic stem cell research by a margin of 253 to 174. The Senate is expected to okay the measure, but President Bush has vowed to veto it--and it is questionable whether congressional advocates can muster the two thirds majority required to override a veto.

The legislation would free up federal funds to conduct research on cells taken from human embryos, which are considered by scientists to be the most promising source of potential new treatments for spinal cord injuries and degenerative diseases including Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and cancer

Bush last year vetoed a similar bill and limited federally funded research to 21 lines of embryonic cells created before 2001, some of which scientists say have been compromised or corrupted.

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act would pay for research on stem cells extracted only from embryos slated to be discarded by in vitro fertility clinics annually and only with the consent of the donors of those embryos. It sets up ethical and reporting guidelines.

"Diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and cancer wreak havoc on lives of millions of Americans. We can free our loved ones from this pain, but only if we free science to find the keys," Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said during the debate. "Embryonic stem cell research is the flickering candle of medical promise that gives hope for the treatment and cure of these devastating diseases. Please do not condemn the afflicted to another generation of darkness."

Opponents charge that it is immoral and unethical to fund research that involves destroying embryos.

In threatening a renewed veto, Bush says that the bill "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research."

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a major backer of the measure, says he believes supporters have the 67 votes needed in the Senate to override a presidential veto.

RELATED LINKS: Mother of All Cells The Stem Cell Challenge New Source of Stem Cells: Amniotic Fluid Viable Skin Cells Prove Difficult to Derive from Embryonic Stem Cells New Stem Cell Lines Spare Embryo Genes Governing Embryonic Stem Cell "Immortality" Discovered

US House backs stem cell research - Bush threatens to veto

reposted from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6254039.stm

US House backs stem cell research

Opponents refuse to condone the destruction of any embryo

The US House of Representatives has passed a bill backing embryonic stem cell research, marking a major challenge to President George W Bush.

The stem cell bill was among the top priorities for the Democrats, who took control of Congress last week, but Mr Bush has vowed to veto it.

Advocates of stem cell research say it could lead to cures for diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.

Mr Bush says the research would destroy human life in the name of science.

The bill was passed by 253 to 174, but fell short of a two-thirds majority needed to overcome the veto.

"Today, by passing legislation to expand stem cell research, the House gave voice to the hopes of more than 100 million Americans and their families," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"With today's strong bipartisan vote, we now challenge President Bush to join members from both sides of the aisle in supporting the hope of stem cell research."

Presidential veto

Mr Bush used his presidential veto to overturn a similar judgement by the Republican-controlled Congress last year.

It was the first time in his presidency that Mr Bush refused to sign into law a bill approved by Congress.

Polls suggest most Americans back the research.

Opponents of the bill say their taxes should not fund research which involves the destruction of embryos.

Its supporters maintain that the embryos used for research, that come from multiple embryos generated by couples trying to produce a pregnancy using in vitro fertilisation, would otherwise be discarded.

Since I'm overweight my life expectancy is reduced by 1-3 years

Being a non smoker but overweight (not obese) most of my adult life how much have I reduced my life expectancy? I am 5'7.5". In Feb 1987 age 31 I was 12st 1lb and I dieted to 9st 13lbs in 5 months. Over the last 20 years my weight has drifted up to 13st 10lbs at age 50. Since September 2006 I've dieted and today I'm 12st 9lbs.

Peeters & Barendregt et al (2003) found adults who were overweight (BMI, 25 to 29.9 kg/m²) and did not smoke lived about 3 years less than normal-weight nonsmokers.

Redden and Wang et al (2003) found that optimal BMI associated with greatest longevity was 23-25. Years of life lost (YLL) is defined as the difference between the number of years a person would be expected to live if he/she was not obese (BMI 24) and the number of years expected to live if the person were obese. At a BMI 30 YLL for a 50 year old male was ONE year. At a BMI 28 YLL for a 50 year old female was ONE year.

Calle & Thun et al (1999) - In healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for body-mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to 24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women.

Schatzkin & Adams et al (2006) and dave.md Review stated " during midlife (50 years) for non smokers the risk of death increased by 20% among overweight persons." BMI 21 to 26.4 was optimal longevity (see Table 3 below).

Journal Watch suggest that being overweight increases mortality rates among nonsmokers; in part, the effect is mediated by conditions such as diabetes and hypertension.

How Calories Work?

What is a Calorie?

reposted from: http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie1.htm

A calorie is a unit of energy. We tend to associate calories with food, but they apply to anything containing energy. For example, a gallon (about 4 liters) of gasoline contains about 31,000,000 calories.

Specifically, a calorie is the amount of energy, or heat, it takes to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit). One calorie is equal to 4.184 joules, a common unit of energy used in the physical sciences.

Most of us think of calories in relation to food, as in "This can of soda has 200 calories." It turns out that the calories on a food package are actually kilocalories (1,000 calories = 1 kilocalorie). The word is sometimes capitalized to show the difference, but usually not. A food calorie contains 4,184 joules. A can of soda containing 200 food calories contains 200,000 regular calories, or 200 kilocalories. A gallon of gasoline contains 31,000 kilocalories.

The same applies to exercise -- when a fitness chart says you burn about 100 calories for every mile you jog, it means 100 kilocalories. For the duration of this article, when we say "calorie," we mean "kilocalorie."

What Calories Do

reposted from: http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie2.htm

Human beings need energy to survive -- to breathe, move, pump blood -- and they acquire this energy from food.

Caloric Breakdown 1 g Carbohydrates: 4 calories 1 g Protein: 4 calories 1 g Fat: 9 calories

The number of calories in a food is a measure of how much potential energy that food possesses. A gram of carbohydrates has 4 calories, a gram of protein has 4 calories, and a gram of fat has 9 calories. Foods are a compilation of these three building blocks. So if you know how many carbohydrates, fats and proteins are in any given food, you know how many calories, or how much energy, that food contains.

If we look at the nutritional label on the back of a packet of maple-and-brown-sugar oatmeal, we find that it has 160 calories. This means that if we were to pour this oatmeal into a dish, set the oatmeal on fire and get it to burn completely (which is actually pretty tricky), the reaction would produce 160 kilocalories (remember: food calories are kilocalories) -- enough energy to raise the temperature of 160 kilograms of water 1 degree Celsius. If we look closer at the nutritional label, we see that our oatmeal has 2 grams of fat, 4 grams of protein and 32 grams of carbohydrates, producing a total of 162 calories (apparently, food manufacturers like to round down). Of these 162 calories, 18 come from fat (9 cal x 2 g), 16 come from protein (4 cal x 4 g) and 128 come from carbohydrates (4 cal x 32 g).

Our bodies "burn" the calories in the oatmeal through metabolic processes, by which enzymes break the carbohydrates into glucose and other sugars, the fats into glycerol and fatty acids and the proteins into amino acids (see How Food Works for details). These molecules are then transported through the bloodstream to the cells, where they are either absorbed for immediate use or sent on to the final stage of metabolism in which they are reacted with oxygen to release their stored energy.

Click here for a simplified diagram of these metabolic processes

BMR

reposted from: http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie3.htm

Just how many calories do our cells need to function well? The number is different for every person. You may notice on the nutritional labels of the foods you buy that the "percent daily values" are based on a 2,000 calorie diet -- 2,000 calories is a rough average of what a person needs to eat in a day, but your body might need more or less than 2,000 calories. Height, weight, gender, age and activity level all affect your caloric needs. There are three main factors involved in calculating how many calories your body needs per day:

• Basal metabolic rate
• Physical activity
• Thermic effect of food

Your basal metabolic rate (BMR) is the amount of energy your body needs to function at rest. This accounts for about 60 to 70 percent of calories burned in a day and includes the energy required to keep the heart beating, the lungs breathing, the kidneys functioning and the body temperature stabilized. In general, men have a higher BMR than women. One of the most accurate methods of estimating your basal metabolic rate is the Harris-Benedict formula:

• Adult male: 66 + (6.3 x body weight in lbs.) + (12.9 x height in inches) - (6.8 x age in years)

• Adult female: 655 + (4.3 x weight in lbs.) + (4.7 x height in inches) - (4.7 x age in years)

(Note: The first number in the equation for females is, in fact, 655. Strange but true.)

Your Caloric Needs

reposted from: http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie4.htm

As you now know, there are three main factors involved in calculating how many calories your body needs per day: your BMR, physical activity and the thermic effect of food.

The second factor in the equation, physical activity, consumes the next highest number of calories. Physical activity includes everything from making your bed to jogging. Walking, lifting, bending, and just generally moving around burns calories, but the number of calories you burn in any given activity depends on your body weight. Click here for a great table listing the calories expended in various physical activities and for various weights.

The thermic effect of food is the final addition to the number of calories your body burns. This is the amount of energy your body uses to digest the food you eat -- it takes energy to break food down to its basic elements in order to be used by the body. To calculate the number of calories you expend in this process, multiply the total number of calories you eat in a day by 0.10, or 10 percent. If you need some help determining how many calories you eat in a day, check out these sites:

• USDA National Nutrient Database
• Food Data
• Mike's Calorie And Fat Gram Chart

The total number of calories a body needs in a day is the sum of these three calculations. If you only want a rough estimate of your daily caloric needs, you can skip the calculations and click here.

Calories, Fat and Exercise

reposted from: http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie5.htm

So what happens if you take in more or fewer calories than your body burns? You either gain or lose fat, respectively. An accumulation of 3,500 extra calories is stored by your body as 1 pound of fat -- fat is the body's way of saving energy for a rainy day. If, on the other hand, you burn 3,500 more calories than you eat, whether by exercising more or eating less, your body converts 1 pound of its stored fat into energy to make up for the deficit.

One thing about exercise is that it raises your metabolic rate not only while you're huffing and puffing on the treadmill. Your metabolism takes a while to return to its normal pace. It continues to function at a higher level; your body burns an increased number of calories for about two hours after you've stopped exercising.

Lots of people wonder if it matters where their calories come from. At its most basic, if we eat exactly the number of calories that we burn and if we're only talking about weight, the answer is no -- a calorie is a calorie. A protein calorie is no different from a fat calorie -- they are simply units of energy. As long as you burn what you eat, you will maintain your weight; and as long as you burn more than you eat, you'll lose weight.

But if we're talking nutrition, it definitely matters where those calories originate. Carbohydrates and proteins are healthier sources of calories than fats. Although our bodies do need a certain amount of fat to function properly -- an adequate supply of fat allows your body to absorb the vitamins you ingest -- an excess of fat can have serious health consequences. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends that a maximum of 30 percent of our daily calories come from fat. So, if you eat 2,000 calories a day, that's a maximum of 600 calories from fat, or 67 grams of fat, per day. However, many doctors and nutritionists now set the maximum number of fat calories at 25 percent of our daily caloric intake. That's 56 grams of fat per day for a 2,000 calorie diet.

Here are some calorie and fat contents that may surprise you:

Food	Serving Size	Calories	Fat Grams
Canola oil	1 cup	1,674	218
Peanut butter	1 cup	1,520	129
Cheddar cheese	1 cup	531	44
Granola	1 cup	270	8
Chocolate syrup	1 cup	837	3
Sugar	1 cup	774	0
Coca-Cola	1 can	140	0

For more information on calories, dieting, nutrition and related topics, check out the links on the next page!

Lots More Information

reposted from: http://health.howstuffworks.com/calorie6.htm

Related HowStuffWorks Articles

• How Food Works
• How Fats Work
• How Fat Cells Work
• How Exercise Works
• How Dieting Works
• Does drinking ice water burn calories?
• How many calories does a person need daily?
• Tips For Using A Slow Cooker
• 6 Suggestions for the Treatment of Gout

More Great Links

• Nutrition Calculators
• CaloriesPerHour.com
• Food For Thought: An Interview with Nutrition Scientist Dr. Paul Saltman
• What a Set of Batteries!: A Commentary on the Origin and Use of Our Body's Energy
• Experiment: Measuring the Number of Calories in Sunlight - PDF

Supernova Destroys "Pillars of Creation"

reposted from: nationalgeographic.com

January 10, 2007—In a thousand years, astronomers predict, people on Earth will see the iconic "Pillars of Creation" get toppled by a supernova, the explosive death of a giant star.

The pillars are dense clouds of gas in the Eagle Nebula, a star nursery in the constellation Serpens, near Sagittarius. They were made famous by a dramatic 1995 Hubble Space Telescope image (inset).

The tricky part is that the forecast is based on evidence that the pillars were demolished by the supernova's shockwave about 6,000 years ago.

"[They] have been destroyed. I use the past tense because the nebula is 7,000 light-years away," said Nicholas Flagey, a French doctoral student working for NASA.

In other words, light from the nebula has taken 7,000 years to reach Earth, and everything we see is that much out of date.

This recent infrared image of the Eagle Nebula shows a bubble of hot, rapidly expanding material directly behind the pillars, Flagey reported on January 8 at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Seattle, Washington.

In the image, taken by NASA's Spitzer Space Telescope, a red mass of hot dust warmed by the supernova can be seen behind the ghostly green of the nebula. The pillars are directly in the shockwave's path.

"The pillars are not dense enough to resist" the blast, Flagey said.

The red ball can't simply be gas heated by nearby stars, he added, because only a supernova could generate that much energy.

But the blast isn't entirely bad news. Supernova shockwaves, astronomers believe, help to ignite new stars in the dust clouds that they reach.

—Richard A. Lovett

Will the Standard Model of physics be verified sooner?

reposted from: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/01/the_god_particl.html

Tuesday, 9 January 2007

The God Particle Maybe Loses Some Weight
Topic: physics

Fascinating story today over at Nature's web site (here) on a new calculation for the mass of the W particle, the particle that carries the weak nuclear force—the one that does radioactive decay.

See, you're yawning. But author Jenny Hogan does a fantastic job of putting the W's lighter weight into context.

If the W is lighter, then so must be the much-sought-after Higgs boson, the theoretical particle that is responsible for mass—everything weighs something, and the Higgs is thought to explain why. It's so important that physicists have nicknamed it "the God particle."

And if the Higgs is lighter than physicists thought, then we might not have to wait for the Large Hadron Collider, a brand new, massive particle smasher, to come online at CERN, the European particle physics lab. The LHC is scheduled to start smacking stuff into each other this year. Instead, the folks who run the Tevatron, the big collider at Fermilab in Illinois, might be able to nab the Higgs first.

On 8 January, the estimate was tightened when the CDF [Collider Detector at Fermilab] announced it had pinned down the mass of the W boson, which mediates the weak nuclear force involved in processes such as radioactive decay. The new measurement is in agreement with previous estimates, but towards the upper end of the range. This, along with the added precision in the measurement, brings the upper limit for the Higgs' mass down to 153 giga electronvolts from 166 GeV. Previous experiments have shown that the Higgs must be heavier than 114 GeV.

A lighter Higgs suits the Tevatron, which is only capable of finding the particle if its mass is less than around 170 GeV. The closer a particle's mass is to this upper limit, the harder it would be to find.

Anything heavier than 170 GeV would certainly have to wait for the LHC, which will smash protons together harder to probe higher energies.

So I suppose you might ask, why would anyone believe the Fermilab guys on the new weight for the W when it clearly favors them in the race for the Higgs. And the answer is...um...physics? And the folks at Fermilab readily admit their desire to get there first. But author Hogan rightly points out that finding the Higgs is going to take years of data collection and analysis at both labs (see this Wired story if you want to know more about the LHC's number-crunching plans). She further points out that if the Standard Model of physics, the one that lists all the known and theoretical particles, is wrong, then there might not be a Higgs boson.

That, my friends, is context.

The not-so-simple truth about the divisiveness of religion

by Soumaya Ghannoushi

reposted from & add your comments here: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2007/01/is_religion_really_to_blame.html

The popular belief that religion is a divisive force results from a tendency to simplify both religion and socio-political phenomena.

If I got a penny for every time I was told that religion is the cause of all trouble, I'd be a rich woman by now. If only we had John Lennon's religionless world, there would be no war, or conflict and everyone would love their neighbour. If only the theologians, clergymen, mullahs and priests could get on, the world's problems would be resolved at a stroke.

I was, therefore, not surprised to read that the majority of respondents to the recent Guardian ICM poll say that religion is a divisive force. The result was the predictable outcome of a predominant tendency to simplify both religion and socio-political phenomena. No doubt, religion does play a part in many of the crises and conflicts raging around us. But more often than not, these problems take on a religious name and speak through the medium of religion, while having their roots in socio-political factors.

Examples are found in the Northern Ireland dispute as in the Middle East conflict. Though those at loggerheads happen to belong to divergent confessional communities, Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Muslims/Christians, they did not come to blows because of their religious affiliations. Their grievances are fundamentally political, even if they hide themselves in the guise of religion and communicate in its language. Religion is often the mirror that reflects worldly tensions. To say that religion is divisive is to attempt no analysis of the problems at hand. It is to stop at the surface making no effort to dig deeper for the underlying problems seething underneath.

Take the orgy of sectarian bloodshed currently raging in Iraq, for instance. Sunnis and Shia are killing each other by the tens on a daily basis. Do not venture into a Sunni dominated area if your name happens to be Hassan, and you have more chance of ending up with a slit throat on some street corner if you suddenly lost your way and found yourself in Sadr city and you were called Omar.

But let us not stop there, let us ask the difficult questions others would rather we left undisturbed. Why do Iraq's Sunni and Shia kill each other today when they didn't a few years back? Why were they able to coexist before, but find that impossible to do today? Every Iraqi tribe and family numbers both Sunni and Shia. They intermingled, intermarried, lived not only side by side but under the same roof, often sharing the same bed. This was the case even under Saddam's despotic rule. Then and before, for centuries Iraq was one of the world's most diverse places, a veritable mosaic of religions, ethnicities, sects and denominations, Muslims, Christians, Sabians, Yazdis, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Turkmen all peacefully shared the same space.

This was Iraq before. It isn't Iraq today, after the American/British invasion and Bremer's transitional authority, which destroyed Iraq's political order, substituting it for one grounded in sectarianism and ethnic factionalism. National identity was broken asunder, the common torn apart, only narrow group affiliations remained. In the chaos that followed, every splinter group wanted to seize all, leaving the rest with nothing. Forming the security and police forces in the new Iraq along sectarian lines poured oil over fire, equipping one faction with the tools it would later use in its quest to exterminate its rivals.

That the Americans handed Saddam over to their thuggish Shia sectarian clients to execute him on the eve of Islam's holiest festival was no coincidence. It was just another sinister move carefully designed to fan the flames of sectarian strife, and turn all against all in a rapidly disintegrating Iraq.

Shiism and Sunnism are not to blame. Bush, Blair and Bremer are.

Neither are Judaism, Christianity, or Islam responsible for the Middle East conflict. Palestinians and Israelis invoke religious symbols and references in their rationalisation of the dispute, in a space laden with sacred meanings for both sides. But the truth is that this is not a conflict over a mosque, church, or temple, though it has come to be symbolised by such monuments. Primarily, and above all, it is over land, dispossession, settlement, occupation and will to liberation. The relationship is more between occupier and occupied than between Jew and Muslim/Christian. More than the Quran or the Old Testament, it is the Balfour Declaration and the great powers' strategies in the region that have spawned and dictated the course of this long and painful drama.

Many more examples could be cited for the superficiality of explanations of socio-political movements and phenomena in exclusively religious terms, from the Reformation in 16th century Europe, to Islamic radicalism in the 20th. Religion is neither the root of all virtue, nor the cause of all evil. Good conditions spawn good religion, bad conditions bad religion. The evils of reality have a habit of metamorphosing into evil religion.

Humans and societies are not blank pages, but the carriers of a profound cultural, symbolic, and historic heritage, through which they communicate and make sense of reality. This imbedded repository of values, images and references, is inevitably invoked in peace as in war, and more so in war and times of turmoil. Amidst tension, cultural, religious, and national identities are awakened, activated, and intensified. This is not to say, as Marx had done, that religion is a superfluous illusion. It is an integral part of the collective memory and consciousness of groups and individuals. Through it they ascribe meaning to their experiences and justification to their actions. It functions silently unnoticed amidst stability and calm and becomes more vocal, more visible and sometimes more explosive through crisis and turbulence. There is no inherently peaceful religion, and no inherently aggressive religion. Take Christianity, for instance, it inspired asceticism and otherworldliness, just as it ignited the flames of conflict and schism, in the 16th century, wars of religion as in the Crusades. There is no religion per se.

In short, we would do well to avoid peering at reality through the prism of ideas and doctrines. Humans, you see, walk on their feet, not their heads.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Some Comments

Mac105

Comment No. 372629

January 10 9:31

GBR

Quote by Mark Twain: "Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven."

Irrational beliefs are the root of all human evil!

afcone

Comment No. 372630

January 10 9:32

GBR

"Shiism and Sunnism are not to blame. Bush, Blair and Bremer are."

I've never thought we should be in Iraq but this is a load of old hokum. It's all a little bit "white man's burden" if you ask me, in which Iraqis are bit-players, subject to the whim of the West - after all, we can't expect the natives to behave well can we?

tomper2

Comment No. 372652

January 10 9:46

GBR

Rarely is a bad situation not made worse by religion.

130allout

Comment No. 372666

January 10 9:55

GBR

"Why do Iraq's Sunni and Shia kill each other today when they didn't a few years back"

Because Saddam was brutal enough to suppress them and impose a secular authority. Perhaps the 'Allies' should follow his example.

InAbsentia

Comment No. 372678

January 10 10:01

GBR

The majority of atheists are secularists; we don't aspire to a religionless world per se, but one in which religion is relieved of its special status that trumps other considerations. I see no reason why religious ideas should be protected when political or scientific ideas are not. Indeed, it is the lifeblood of rational debate (and hence free democratic society) that ideas are challengeable, as a means of sanity-checking.

Secularists will uphold your right to believe whatever crazy stuff you want, as well as your right to use the democratic process to change things as you see fit. But these changes should be based on merit, and not any special status, regardless of how passionately you may indulge your irrational beliefs.

tarxien

Comment No. 372710

January 10 10:17

Ms Ghannoushi:

You shoe a remarkable ignorance of the recent history of Iraq.

Granted the invasion by US/Britain has made the sectarian situation worse as we all predicted it would.

But I seem to remember that Saddam and his Sunni Ba'athist party have been slaughtering Shia muslims for decades. And what about the 5,000 Kurds he massacred in 1988.

There may have been some political as well as religious reasons for these killings, but the underlying divisions in Iraqi society (as in may places) ARE religious and pre-date Blair and Bush by many centuries.

Waltz

Comment No. 372734

January 10 10:29

GBR

"But more often than not, these problems take on a religious name and speak through the medium of religion, while having their roots in socio-political factors."

Religion isn't *alternative* to socio-political factors. Religions are themselves "socio-political" phenomena. They are human constructs, just like all other ideologies and value systems, and some religions have proved extremely effective as means of creating and policing group identities entirely predicated upon notions of difference to and superiority over other groups. Hence the proselytising, missionary imperatives inherent to the two big desert god monotheisms - Christianity and Islam - and the doctrinal and historical viciousness both display towards dissent (be it in the forms of blasphemy, heresy, apostasy, or simply non-belief).

One fundamental difference between believers and atheists is that believers imagine that their religion comes from god and is subsequently distorted by human beings, while atheists grasp that religions are invented by human beings and therefore contain all the flaws and failings, as well as perhaps some of the better qualities, of humanity itself.

thetrashheap

Comment No. 372809

January 10 10:58

USA

To claim that religion is the route of all evil is undeniably false, and why Dawkins was ever stupid enough to ever agree to call his program "The route of all evil" I'll never know.

But while people will kill over land, power, wealth, race etc, religion is also a huge factor to deny this would be to completely ignore history. I'm from Northern Ireland and while the arguement was primarily about power and land, the dehumanising element was down to religion. The same with Iraq. While they are fighting for power they have dehumanised the enemy by faith.

My experience religion is devisive in that religious people generally socialise within their own groups and the stronger your faith the more segregated the social group.

Rather than attacking the war in Iraq can you give examples of how religion encourages integration?

From my experience it promotes people to marry within their faith, vote according to their faith, school within their faith, socialise within there faith, etc

These are all incrediably devisive. A few joint prayer meetings or joint school trips hardly cancel these policies.

Somniac

Comment No. 372850

January 10 11:16

GBR

It's very naive to think religions are to blame for any conflict. Religions are a tool in some people's hands.
The human race fights about land, resources, sex, money, food, survival, but beliefs??? Never!

doesnotexist

Comment No. 372869

January 10 11:32

AUS

OK, so religion is not the the only divisive force - there are nationalistic and ethnic loyalties and prejudices, socio-political and economic factors and so on.

But it is *a* divisive force, and a bloody big one at that. And it is noteworthy how often religious conflicts flare up when nations and empires are under stress - the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia to add to others mentioned above.

A single religion can be a divisive force within its own domain too, as with the Hindu caste system or the Baptist churches of southern U.S. slave society. Here in Australia a little sect called the Exclusive Brethren has been getting some press for being a divisive force within families - and of course they can cite scripture to support their behaviour.

Frankly, if 82% of Brits have worked out that "religion is a divisive force" there may be hope for the old country yet...

godlovesatheists

Comment No. 372907

January 10 11:50

IRL

What is atheistic survivalism when it's at home? It sounds like something of a straw man to me.

ShatterFace

Comment No. 372946

January 10 12:07

GBR

I've never actually met a 'religious thinker'.

I've met religious people who could mimic the act of thinking but not to the extent that they would pass the Turing test.

I could cobble together a fairly convincing simulation of a religious person in about 3 minutes.

I'd simply programme it to regurgitate the same old crap about how intollerant atheists are.

Funny how few atheists there were preaching hatred of homosexuals outside the House of Lords yesterday.

Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

by Richard Buggs, Guardian

This article is refuted by the many comments here:
Reposted from & add your comments here: http://richarddawkins.net/article,505,n,n
and here:
originally Reposted from & add your comments here: http://www.guardian.co.uk

If Darwinists distinguished between science and their religious beliefs, we'd all be wiser, says Richard Buggs

'It is true that complex things in nature look as if they have been designed. Darwin knew this. But the sublime truth about his theory is that it explains how complex things can come about without design." That was James Randerson arguing that Darwin refuted intelligent design - which, he says, has no place in school science (Here endeth the lesson, December 13).

Darwin made a massive contribution to science, and his ideas still suggest hypotheses today. These provide the starting point for my own research, published in journals of evolution. But despite the brilliance of Darwin's work, it is overoptimistic to claim that his theory explains the origin of all living things.

If Darwin had known what we now know about molecular biology - gigabytes of coded information in DNA, cells rife with tiny machines, the highly specific structures of certain proteins - would he have found his own theory convincing? Randerson thinks that natural selection works fine to explain the origin of molecular machines. But the fact is that we are still unable even to guess Darwinian pathways for the origin of most complex biological structures.

Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory. Who, on Darwinian premises, would have expected that the patterns of distribution and abundance of species in tropical rainforests could be modelled without taking local adaptation into account? Or that whenever we sequence a new genome we find unique genes, unlike any found in other species? Or that bacteria gain pathogenicity (the ability to cause disease) by losing genes?

But, whatever the limitations of Darwinism, isn't the intelligent design alternative an "intellectual dead end"? No. If true, ID is a profound insight into the natural world and a motivator to scientific inquiry. The pioneers of modern science, who were convinced that nature is designed, consequently held that it could be understood by human intellects. This confidence helped to drive the scientific revolution. More recently, proponents of ID predicted that some "junk" DNA must have a function well before this view became mainstream among Darwinists.

But, according to Randerson, ID is not a science because "there is no evidence that could in principle disprove ID". Remind me, what is claimed of Darwinism? If, as an explanation for organised complexity, Darwinism had a more convincing evidential basis, then many of us would give up on ID.

Finally, Randerson claims that ID is "pure religion". In fact, ID is a logical inference, based on data gathered from the natural world, and hence it is firmly in the realm of science. It does not rely upon the Bible, the Qur'an, or any religious authority or tradition - only on scientific evidence. When a religious person advocates teaching ID in science without identification of the designer, there is no dishonesty or "Trojan horse", just realism about the limitations of the scientific method. If certain Darwinists also had the intellectual honesty to distinguish between science and their religious beliefs, the public understanding of science would be much enhanced.

· Richard Buggs sits on the scientific panel of Truth in Science richard.buggs@cantab.net