Oh, it's that time of year again. School is beginning, new students are arriving, and for me the overcommitment begins. As part of my overcommitment to life, learning, and science, I'm co-chair of the Graduate Student Symposium committee. I'm also appointing myself to the marketing/advertising subcommittee.
As such, I've been working with my good buddy, Josh Lacsina. His ideas and acting together with my cinematography and production/editing skills, we've managed to put together a cool video. It also commemorates the 150th anniversary of the publication of 'On the Origin of Species' and the upcoming 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. This year's keynote address will be made by Dr. Robert Hazen, researcher at the Carnegie Institute who contributes to our understanding of origins research and early inorganic life.
Now, without further hubbub, the video. Be sure to comment and/or rate. Enjoy!
Friday, August 15, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Happy Birthday, IVF!
It's a little belated, but July 25th was Louise Brown's 30th birthday! It is quite a milestone considering that she was the first 'test tube' baby to be born.
Since her birth, more then three million other babies have been conceived through in vitro fertilization, or IVF. It's so wonderful to see her doing so well. It actually is a bit of a worry, especially after seeing how poorly the early mammals did after first attempts at cloning. It turns out, epigenetics has as much to do with proper development as does classical genetics.
Chock another one up to science: Superstition - 0; Science - too many to count.
Since her birth, more then three million other babies have been conceived through in vitro fertilization, or IVF. It's so wonderful to see her doing so well. It actually is a bit of a worry, especially after seeing how poorly the early mammals did after first attempts at cloning. It turns out, epigenetics has as much to do with proper development as does classical genetics.
Chock another one up to science: Superstition - 0; Science - too many to count.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The Holy Realm of Crackerdom
I can't believe it's been this long since last I posted. The plan is to make this a much more regular ordeal. Now, on to the hubbub.
Two days ago, one of my favorite bloggers, PZ Myers, posted an entry about the final desecration of a cracker. Not just any cracker though; one taken from a church, blessed by a priest, and intended for human consumption - some of you might know this as the eucharist (I hate capitalizing letters for religious words - don't want to give undue respect to imaginary beings).
To explain why this took place, you would need to know the first party of the story. A student named Webster Cook (no relation to me) received the eucharist from the priest at the church, but refused to chew, and walked out with the cracker in his mouth to show his friends. After which point, the catholic church and many of its followers became furious. To the point that Mr. Cook received death threats, might face suspension/expulsion, and that catholics believe this is a hate crime, I can only hang my head in shame. Professor Myers did a great job relaying his sentiment, which I share, on his blog which you can read here. What seemed to cause an uproar was a challenge that PZ offered:
Fortunately a reasonable man with stature in the blogging community stood up for Mr. Cook ... and he paid for it dearly. For the following 16 days after bringing attention to the story and calling the situation as he saw it, PZ Meyers was on the receiving end of hate mail himself. Not just ugly emails, but death threatening emails and others that threatened his family. Throughout the shenanigans, some emailed him to pray for him or his conversion to catholicism. Still others hurled insults, calling him a Jew, or making comparisons to how muslims would react if he were to desecrate a copy of the Koran. Emails went back and forth, people got fired from their jobs for sending hate emails, and then ... duh-duh-DUH! ... Bill Donahue got involved.
Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League, is masterfully deluded by The Woo. He called for Dr. Meyers' resignation as professor from the University of Minnesota. Of course, the main reason is simply that PZ is clearly evil.
The notion that catholics believe in the cracker and wine BECOMING physically the body and blood of Jesus is called transubstantiation. Growing up methodist, the official doctrine is that we believed in consubstantiation. Then lastly we have those who think it's simply symbolic. Since you've probably heard of the first and the third, let me tell you how the apologetic methodists make it work.
John Wesley (founder of methodism) clearly was no ignoramus. He could easily reason that, upon receiving communion, the bread and wine remained just that: bread and wine. Clearly this was in conflict with the catholic view of transubstantiation. As such, consubstantiation keeps the hocus pocus of the materials without all that cognitive dissonance of the bread and wine still appearing to be bread and wine after the blessing. Quick and simple fix, no? So instead of the magic being that there is a material alteration in the space-time continuum, the bread and wine just become magical, granting whoever consumes, well, salvation.
OK - back to the story. After much attention, PZ Myers finally committed the act of cracker abuse. After a short history lesson of when and how the catholics decided to make transubstantiation the standard and demonize the Jews (read his entry here), he revealed his work.
Because we live in a world that believes a cracker is actually another human being, and even a god, if you only believe it into being so, he felt it appropriate to dispel this myth and put forth his personal view (that it's just a cracker) with fervent force. He actually 'desecrated' three items: he put a nail through the cracker, tore pages out of the Koran, and tore pages out of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and threw all of it in the trashcan. Under the image of his work, he reminds us that these are just items, things. To quote him, "Nothing must be held sacred."
Any belief structure that undermines reality and reason, is a poison waiting to destroy the minds of those willing to inbibe its sometimes convenient rhetoric. A cracker remains a cracker, no matter how many words you utter in front of it. The world is still a sphere, no matter how many times you say that it is flat. You cannot wish something into being - it is or it isn't.
The question is, will you let your curiosity question the world and discover the truth of reality?
Two days ago, one of my favorite bloggers, PZ Myers, posted an entry about the final desecration of a cracker. Not just any cracker though; one taken from a church, blessed by a priest, and intended for human consumption - some of you might know this as the eucharist (I hate capitalizing letters for religious words - don't want to give undue respect to imaginary beings).
To explain why this took place, you would need to know the first party of the story. A student named Webster Cook (no relation to me) received the eucharist from the priest at the church, but refused to chew, and walked out with the cracker in his mouth to show his friends. After which point, the catholic church and many of its followers became furious. To the point that Mr. Cook received death threats, might face suspension/expulsion, and that catholics believe this is a hate crime, I can only hang my head in shame. Professor Myers did a great job relaying his sentiment, which I share, on his blog which you can read here. What seemed to cause an uproar was a challenge that PZ offered:
So, what to do. I have an idea. Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers? There's no way I can personally get them — my local churches have stakes prepared for me, I'm sure — but if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I'll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won't be tempted to hold it hostage (no, not even if I have a choice between returning the Eucharist and watching Bill Donohue kick the pope in the balls, which would apparently be a more humane act than desecrating a goddamned cracker), but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web. I shall do so joyfully and with laughter in my heart.
Fortunately a reasonable man with stature in the blogging community stood up for Mr. Cook ... and he paid for it dearly. For the following 16 days after bringing attention to the story and calling the situation as he saw it, PZ Meyers was on the receiving end of hate mail himself. Not just ugly emails, but death threatening emails and others that threatened his family. Throughout the shenanigans, some emailed him to pray for him or his conversion to catholicism. Still others hurled insults, calling him a Jew, or making comparisons to how muslims would react if he were to desecrate a copy of the Koran. Emails went back and forth, people got fired from their jobs for sending hate emails, and then ... duh-duh-DUH! ... Bill Donahue got involved.
Bill Donahue, head of the Catholic League, is masterfully deluded by The Woo. He called for Dr. Meyers' resignation as professor from the University of Minnesota. Of course, the main reason is simply that PZ is clearly evil.
The notion that catholics believe in the cracker and wine BECOMING physically the body and blood of Jesus is called transubstantiation. Growing up methodist, the official doctrine is that we believed in consubstantiation. Then lastly we have those who think it's simply symbolic. Since you've probably heard of the first and the third, let me tell you how the apologetic methodists make it work.
John Wesley (founder of methodism) clearly was no ignoramus. He could easily reason that, upon receiving communion, the bread and wine remained just that: bread and wine. Clearly this was in conflict with the catholic view of transubstantiation. As such, consubstantiation keeps the hocus pocus of the materials without all that cognitive dissonance of the bread and wine still appearing to be bread and wine after the blessing. Quick and simple fix, no? So instead of the magic being that there is a material alteration in the space-time continuum, the bread and wine just become magical, granting whoever consumes, well, salvation.
OK - back to the story. After much attention, PZ Myers finally committed the act of cracker abuse. After a short history lesson of when and how the catholics decided to make transubstantiation the standard and demonize the Jews (read his entry here), he revealed his work.
Because we live in a world that believes a cracker is actually another human being, and even a god, if you only believe it into being so, he felt it appropriate to dispel this myth and put forth his personal view (that it's just a cracker) with fervent force. He actually 'desecrated' three items: he put a nail through the cracker, tore pages out of the Koran, and tore pages out of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion and threw all of it in the trashcan. Under the image of his work, he reminds us that these are just items, things. To quote him, "Nothing must be held sacred."
Any belief structure that undermines reality and reason, is a poison waiting to destroy the minds of those willing to inbibe its sometimes convenient rhetoric. A cracker remains a cracker, no matter how many words you utter in front of it. The world is still a sphere, no matter how many times you say that it is flat. You cannot wish something into being - it is or it isn't.
The question is, will you let your curiosity question the world and discover the truth of reality?
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Transition This!
I'm currently working in the lonely confocal microscope room, trying to keep my sanity after a few hours of work in a warm, smelly, dark room. I figure, hey, why not check out the answersingenesis.org site? They always have crazy stuff being posted there by that crazy australian, Ken Ham. Indeed, I have not been let down.
I decided to read Ken's blog - can't go wrong there - and see what new evidence he has to show me that creationism, not evolution, explains life as we know it, both functionally and philosophically. Here's a link to his entry: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/03/04/semantics-and-evolution/
My apologies if his link has been removed due to the grotesqueness of its innaccuracies. :)
Ken has taken it upon himself to explain how, because of the profundity and cleverness of the intelligent design arguments, scientists are now panicking that someone has finally come along to punch holes in their quicksand 'theory' about how life essentially functions on this planet. According to Ham, scientists are now playing word games to 'reclaim' the word 'design' and to clear up ambiguities concerning transitional fossils. Ken Ham is so convinced by the obviousness of the scientific stupor that he doesn't clarify his point much - he simply quotes prominent scientists explaining how to combat the logos of intelligent design.
Not only is he arrogant, but he seems to be quite intellectually dishonest to boot. If anyone is playing semantics, it is Ken Ham. The constant bickering, that creationists aren't treated fairly because they are ignored by mainstream science, is incredibly exhausting, especially in light of this drivvel. How is it that he doesn't understand how the human mind works through an understanding of causality. Should we see something moving in the air in a particular direction, we assume that there was a 'cause' in the opposite direction to which the object is traveling. Many more scientists, including Richarrd Dawkins, have made the eloquent arguments better than I, indicating the amazing-ness of life's SEEMING design. We have a habit of looking at things from a designed perspective, and when they don't look designed, insist that they must somehow be. This is truly an incredibly weak argument that Ham is trying to make. Scientists have been awed at the complexity of biology by poetically admiting the superficial cleverness of the system as if it were 'designed.' Unfortunately certain sects have exploited the use of this term to mean something entirely different. I'm ready to have a discussion any day with someone who thinks that my near legally blind eyesight or herniated disc in my lower back were products of 'design.' But that's right - Ham concedes those biological flaws in the system are due to the fall of man because of original sin; perfectly reasonable, right?
The second point that Ham wants to make is just ludicrous. This is the same camp that supported the evolution challenge: show evidence of a transitional fossil (i.e. a cat headed dog being born from a cat, and giving birth to a dog) to prove evolution and win a monetary prize. I'm not lying - here, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvydM
Understanding what a transitional fossil is should be key to knowing how intellectually dishonest these creationists are being. First off, let's do a thought experiment I once heard Richard Dawkins suggest on a podcast. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Because evolution is a bushy process in general, there have been other species besides just the two of us; however we're the only most related extant species in 2008. But if we were to consider alll of the other species that have gone extinct: Homo habilus, Homo erectus, etc. and line them up side by side; we should be able to have intercourse with the most related group, and they could then mate with their next most related group, and so forth down the line, until we realize that we're n degrees of separation from having screwed a chimp. I think it's quite sobering to realize that if all of these other species were alive with us today, this experiment would be possible.
The notion that we need a cat-headed dog to prove evolution is patently absurd. Anyone taking a cursory glance at an evolution text book realizes that cats and dogs didn't come from each other, they each come from a common ancestor! This goes hand in hand with the frequently repeated misconception that humans descended from chimps ... NO! Chimps AND humans descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Each time that a creationist rhetorically questions or states that "I didn't come from no monkey!" They're either ignorant or intellectually dishonest ... and judging from his age and intellect, something tells me that for Ken Ham, it's the latter.
I decided to read Ken's blog - can't go wrong there - and see what new evidence he has to show me that creationism, not evolution, explains life as we know it, both functionally and philosophically. Here's a link to his entry: http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2008/03/04/semantics-and-evolution/
My apologies if his link has been removed due to the grotesqueness of its innaccuracies. :)
Ken has taken it upon himself to explain how, because of the profundity and cleverness of the intelligent design arguments, scientists are now panicking that someone has finally come along to punch holes in their quicksand 'theory' about how life essentially functions on this planet. According to Ham, scientists are now playing word games to 'reclaim' the word 'design' and to clear up ambiguities concerning transitional fossils. Ken Ham is so convinced by the obviousness of the scientific stupor that he doesn't clarify his point much - he simply quotes prominent scientists explaining how to combat the logos of intelligent design.
Not only is he arrogant, but he seems to be quite intellectually dishonest to boot. If anyone is playing semantics, it is Ken Ham. The constant bickering, that creationists aren't treated fairly because they are ignored by mainstream science, is incredibly exhausting, especially in light of this drivvel. How is it that he doesn't understand how the human mind works through an understanding of causality. Should we see something moving in the air in a particular direction, we assume that there was a 'cause' in the opposite direction to which the object is traveling. Many more scientists, including Richarrd Dawkins, have made the eloquent arguments better than I, indicating the amazing-ness of life's SEEMING design. We have a habit of looking at things from a designed perspective, and when they don't look designed, insist that they must somehow be. This is truly an incredibly weak argument that Ham is trying to make. Scientists have been awed at the complexity of biology by poetically admiting the superficial cleverness of the system as if it were 'designed.' Unfortunately certain sects have exploited the use of this term to mean something entirely different. I'm ready to have a discussion any day with someone who thinks that my near legally blind eyesight or herniated disc in my lower back were products of 'design.' But that's right - Ham concedes those biological flaws in the system are due to the fall of man because of original sin; perfectly reasonable, right?
The second point that Ham wants to make is just ludicrous. This is the same camp that supported the evolution challenge: show evidence of a transitional fossil (i.e. a cat headed dog being born from a cat, and giving birth to a dog) to prove evolution and win a monetary prize. I'm not lying - here, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NkO6fQvydM
Understanding what a transitional fossil is should be key to knowing how intellectually dishonest these creationists are being. First off, let's do a thought experiment I once heard Richard Dawkins suggest on a podcast. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives. Because evolution is a bushy process in general, there have been other species besides just the two of us; however we're the only most related extant species in 2008. But if we were to consider alll of the other species that have gone extinct: Homo habilus, Homo erectus, etc. and line them up side by side; we should be able to have intercourse with the most related group, and they could then mate with their next most related group, and so forth down the line, until we realize that we're n degrees of separation from having screwed a chimp. I think it's quite sobering to realize that if all of these other species were alive with us today, this experiment would be possible.
The notion that we need a cat-headed dog to prove evolution is patently absurd. Anyone taking a cursory glance at an evolution text book realizes that cats and dogs didn't come from each other, they each come from a common ancestor! This goes hand in hand with the frequently repeated misconception that humans descended from chimps ... NO! Chimps AND humans descended from a COMMON ANCESTOR. Each time that a creationist rhetorically questions or states that "I didn't come from no monkey!" They're either ignorant or intellectually dishonest ... and judging from his age and intellect, something tells me that for Ken Ham, it's the latter.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
The God Hypothesis ...
I'm totally exhausted from a weekend trip to DC and currently doped up on pain meds from the slipped disc in my back. Fortunately sleep will come shortly and a short operation on my back is scheduled for wednesday ... Halloween!
Contributing to my mental and physical exhaustion was today's return trip by bus, where there was quite an invigorating debate between myself and another fellow choral member on the subject of war, religion, and morality. Whereas science is my area of expertise, his skill is with history and politics. Several other people joined in from time to time to voice their opinion, but the argument stemmed heavily from the two of us. I was shocked to see his unwillingness to accept a gray world. There are many points I could describe for the sake of making my case, but I'll only select one at the moment - dealing with divorce.
Let's say, for example, that a woman and a man decide to get married. They go to the church to get marriage counseling before tying the knot, at which point their wedding is blessed in the eyes of God. Life is good for quite sometime, until the children come along, jobs don't work out well, and the husband begins to cope by drinking. In his inebriated state he begins to become physically abusive with his wife. Over time, this leads to more verbal, physical and mental abuse even during sober moments. The wife is terribly unhappy and sometimes fears for the well-being of herself as well as her children when her husband reacts during a particular rage. She finally decides that she wants to be separate from him as he shows no signs of change and lacks the willingness to hear her wishes. However it turns out that divorce is illegal, thus preventing the woman from escaping the tyranny of her husband and trying to start a new life as a single mother or with a second chance with another marriage. This doesn't sound much different than the political and legal issues abounding in southern Ireland in the mid- to late-1980s. Despite the woman being persecuted, she has no legal right to start anew, because divorce is seen by the Catholic faith as immoral and the Vatican does not endorse such practices.
As I was relaying this story to my friend, as a hypothetical, I wanted to know if he thought that the woman should be allowed to divorce her husband. His simple answer was "no" although to his credit (however little that may be) he seemed hesitant to say that. In his mind, since divorce and remarriage meant that the woman would end up with another man, that was clearly adultery as defined in the Bible and that is a sin in the eyes of God. As a result he felt it appropriate that she obey God's commands and stay married, even if she was being abused by her husband.
As if this isn't bad enough, the conversation moved to HIV in Africa. The Vatican does not approve of the use of condoms. It is a popular Catholic belief that condoms are (1) evil, (2) interrupt a holy process, and (3) actually promote sexual immorality. As for the first point, I can only say that tools in and of themselves are neutral. They can only be used by humans for good or evil. As for the second point, I hardly see how the production of gametes and their fusion to conceive another organism is hardly so precious - I'm positive that my friend has killed many flies before, which subsequently destroyed the sperm and eggs that would give rise to many future generations. The process isn't holy ... it's just natural. And finally for the third point, it's just simply not true. I've read from many credible sources that condom use does not increase or decrease sexual promiscuity among young people. My friend believes that the Pope is well within his right to denounce the use of condoms, despite the fact that should the Pope actually endorse the use of condoms, lay people who obey the word of the Vatican as law (which include many people in Africa) could be saved from the HIV epidemic. The case has been made that the Vatican has the opportunity to prevent these infections from occurring, but chooses not to endorse the method because the method is itself immoral - why is it immoral? ... because God said so.
Well, I guess that just says it all, doesn't it?
Contributing to my mental and physical exhaustion was today's return trip by bus, where there was quite an invigorating debate between myself and another fellow choral member on the subject of war, religion, and morality. Whereas science is my area of expertise, his skill is with history and politics. Several other people joined in from time to time to voice their opinion, but the argument stemmed heavily from the two of us. I was shocked to see his unwillingness to accept a gray world. There are many points I could describe for the sake of making my case, but I'll only select one at the moment - dealing with divorce.
Let's say, for example, that a woman and a man decide to get married. They go to the church to get marriage counseling before tying the knot, at which point their wedding is blessed in the eyes of God. Life is good for quite sometime, until the children come along, jobs don't work out well, and the husband begins to cope by drinking. In his inebriated state he begins to become physically abusive with his wife. Over time, this leads to more verbal, physical and mental abuse even during sober moments. The wife is terribly unhappy and sometimes fears for the well-being of herself as well as her children when her husband reacts during a particular rage. She finally decides that she wants to be separate from him as he shows no signs of change and lacks the willingness to hear her wishes. However it turns out that divorce is illegal, thus preventing the woman from escaping the tyranny of her husband and trying to start a new life as a single mother or with a second chance with another marriage. This doesn't sound much different than the political and legal issues abounding in southern Ireland in the mid- to late-1980s. Despite the woman being persecuted, she has no legal right to start anew, because divorce is seen by the Catholic faith as immoral and the Vatican does not endorse such practices.
As I was relaying this story to my friend, as a hypothetical, I wanted to know if he thought that the woman should be allowed to divorce her husband. His simple answer was "no" although to his credit (however little that may be) he seemed hesitant to say that. In his mind, since divorce and remarriage meant that the woman would end up with another man, that was clearly adultery as defined in the Bible and that is a sin in the eyes of God. As a result he felt it appropriate that she obey God's commands and stay married, even if she was being abused by her husband.
As if this isn't bad enough, the conversation moved to HIV in Africa. The Vatican does not approve of the use of condoms. It is a popular Catholic belief that condoms are (1) evil, (2) interrupt a holy process, and (3) actually promote sexual immorality. As for the first point, I can only say that tools in and of themselves are neutral. They can only be used by humans for good or evil. As for the second point, I hardly see how the production of gametes and their fusion to conceive another organism is hardly so precious - I'm positive that my friend has killed many flies before, which subsequently destroyed the sperm and eggs that would give rise to many future generations. The process isn't holy ... it's just natural. And finally for the third point, it's just simply not true. I've read from many credible sources that condom use does not increase or decrease sexual promiscuity among young people. My friend believes that the Pope is well within his right to denounce the use of condoms, despite the fact that should the Pope actually endorse the use of condoms, lay people who obey the word of the Vatican as law (which include many people in Africa) could be saved from the HIV epidemic. The case has been made that the Vatican has the opportunity to prevent these infections from occurring, but chooses not to endorse the method because the method is itself immoral - why is it immoral? ... because God said so.
Well, I guess that just says it all, doesn't it?
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Ahhh for the Dark Ages
I don't have time to submit a full posting on any topic in particular, but I couldn't help but share this bit of news with anyone who might read. 'The View' on ABC has finally let Rosie O'Donnell go (thank Zeus!) and have replaced her with a black woman named Sherri Shepherd ... a creationist.
Yes, that's right ... a creationist. After all we must tolerate ALL view points, right? I've posted the link to the clip on youtube so that you can enjoy the sadness with me. You see, Whoopi Goldberg, by chance or sheer calculated cunning (I'm going with luck on this one), was trying to get Sherri to describe her view point and was attempting to toss her some softball questions. Along the way, she begins to lead with the question, "Do you believe that the world is flat?" Simple question - I suppose it deserves a simple answer. Response is .... "I don't know ... I've never thought about it before."
What?
That's right, she continues to reiterate the point that she 'doesn't know' and then proceeds to say that she doesn't worry about such things - she's busy worrying about how to feed her son. Apparently it's too much to have to go to work to earn a living AND be smarter than a 2nd grader. But there you have it in the link to the left, in all its glory. Someone who isn't sure if the world is flat, and we're supposed to accept her belief in creationism as based on any sound or credible logic?
On that note of 'tolerance' - I find it interesting that people think science should be tolerant of creationism. When pollsters ask citizens whether or not they think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, the majority say yes. Why? Because we've hyped up the idea of DEMOCRACY so much, that people think Science is democratic ... nothing could be farther from the truth! Science rules with an iron fist - the reason it's wrong to 'teach the controversy' in the science classroom between creationism and evolution is because the very act is intellectually dishonest - THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. On some later posts, I will undoubtedly tease this out into many individual arguments, but for now it should suffice to reason that Science is NOT tolerant of all view points. It eternally rejects those that are ignorant and stupid. As such, let's keep creationism out of school and leave it where it belongs ... on The View.
Yes, that's right ... a creationist. After all we must tolerate ALL view points, right? I've posted the link to the clip on youtube so that you can enjoy the sadness with me. You see, Whoopi Goldberg, by chance or sheer calculated cunning (I'm going with luck on this one), was trying to get Sherri to describe her view point and was attempting to toss her some softball questions. Along the way, she begins to lead with the question, "Do you believe that the world is flat?" Simple question - I suppose it deserves a simple answer. Response is .... "I don't know ... I've never thought about it before."
What?
That's right, she continues to reiterate the point that she 'doesn't know' and then proceeds to say that she doesn't worry about such things - she's busy worrying about how to feed her son. Apparently it's too much to have to go to work to earn a living AND be smarter than a 2nd grader. But there you have it in the link to the left, in all its glory. Someone who isn't sure if the world is flat, and we're supposed to accept her belief in creationism as based on any sound or credible logic?
On that note of 'tolerance' - I find it interesting that people think science should be tolerant of creationism. When pollsters ask citizens whether or not they think creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the science classroom, the majority say yes. Why? Because we've hyped up the idea of DEMOCRACY so much, that people think Science is democratic ... nothing could be farther from the truth! Science rules with an iron fist - the reason it's wrong to 'teach the controversy' in the science classroom between creationism and evolution is because the very act is intellectually dishonest - THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. On some later posts, I will undoubtedly tease this out into many individual arguments, but for now it should suffice to reason that Science is NOT tolerant of all view points. It eternally rejects those that are ignorant and stupid. As such, let's keep creationism out of school and leave it where it belongs ... on The View.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Life, Death, and Se(cts) in Between
I finally did it ... I created a blog. And it's about damn time.
It's a crazy world here, and trying to make sense of it is often times more than difficult. Perhaps documenting the crazy times will help me remember what I've learned and clarify things that still seem quite ambiguous.
It's only appropriate to mention that one of the driving factors in me starting this blog is the podcast 'The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.' I highly recommend it to open-minded people who want to be challenged and remain grounded when they seem to be surrounded by crazy people. I credit Leo DiNapoli for directing my fingers to the download on iTunes; I've finally managed to catch up on all 114 episodes, and I can't wait for each week's show to come!
I'm a grad student in the Cell Biology Department at Duke University. Tomorrow I'm supposed to present a paper on the molecular 'twisting' of the protein Dynamin that actually facilitates membrane pinching and subsequent endocytosis - I'm supposed to be working on it at this very moment, as I haven't even begun the presentation aspect yet. Instead, I've been sitting at my lab bench distracted by a friend's email concerning homeopathy.
Yes, that's right - you read correctly. Someone decided to email me the merits of homeopathy, as a legitimate cure for modern ailments - the FDA's official stance on it to be precise. He sent me this link: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/096_home.html
He actually sent it as an endorsement for homeopathy when, in fact, it is an indictment! The only reason the FDA doesn't call it quackery is because it would offend the many people of the world that practice it, and it wouldn't be very PC to do that, now would it?
Homeopathy functions on the founding 'law of infinitesimals' - it is just as counter-intuitive as it sounds. Diluting something down to mathematically NOTHING, claiming that the water retains an imprint of the substance, and then administering it to an ailing patient in hopes of 'stimulating' the body to respond. It involves a lot of what I like to call, 'woo woo magic.' Last night during a conversation (he's originally from India) my friend informed me that my close-minded nature was preventative to understanding the true merits of this sort of treatment - after all, back home in India there are numerous medical schools of homeopathy, millions of people who take homeopathic drugs, and his grandmother's arthritis got better after practicing homeopathy - clearly this is undeniable evidence that homeopathy works ... right?
There's a crucial logical fallacy that so many people commit because it can be very subtle - generally speaking it's a good rule of thumb, but you can never rely on it to tell the truth. The concept is so old, that there's a Latin phrase epitomizing the thought: 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc.' This essentially means that because something happened after an event took place, then that event must have caused what happened. When made explicit like this, it seems obvious that it's a mistake to think in such a way. But we commit this fallacy all the time. Especially when drugs are concerned - take aspirin for example: when you take 2 aspirin for a headache, and then your headache goes away, you initially think, "Hey! My headache is gone - the aspirin must have stopped it!" Not a bad thought, but by itself, this doesn't prove anything. Fortunately we've done many, MANY clinical studies, as well as medical research showing different receptors that aspirin can bind, and the physiological effects that taking aspirin can elicit. Not to mention that in double blind control tests, patients receiving aspirin fare much better than those taking a placebo. It's clear that aspirin works in very specific ways to manipulate your body and relieve pain, as well as perform a whole host of other reactions.
When it comes to homeopathy, we initially hear the same story - someone took a homeopathic drug and their headache stopped - they thought "Hey! There's something to this - it must have stopped my headache!" Unfortunately, the clinical trials have been done, and the medical research is in - there's no effect more than the placebo effect. People think that they're doing something to treat their problem, and the subjective symptoms begin to subside. But this NEVER holds up in group studies. Let's face it, based on the principle of dilutions, there's nothing in the potion to even cause harm. But based on the belief of a molecular 'imprint' in the water, by that definition alone, there should be imprints in the bottled water that you buy at the store that should cure you of all sorts of ailments - and cause lots of harm. This belief doesn't stand up to even a cursory glance - yet somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are made every year on drugs labelled 'homeopathic' ..... ohhhhhh - now I get it; the practice may not work, but if it doesn't cause harm, no one's going to stop you from making money.
Hooray for capitalism ... I think.
It's a crazy world here, and trying to make sense of it is often times more than difficult. Perhaps documenting the crazy times will help me remember what I've learned and clarify things that still seem quite ambiguous.
It's only appropriate to mention that one of the driving factors in me starting this blog is the podcast 'The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.' I highly recommend it to open-minded people who want to be challenged and remain grounded when they seem to be surrounded by crazy people. I credit Leo DiNapoli for directing my fingers to the download on iTunes; I've finally managed to catch up on all 114 episodes, and I can't wait for each week's show to come!
I'm a grad student in the Cell Biology Department at Duke University. Tomorrow I'm supposed to present a paper on the molecular 'twisting' of the protein Dynamin that actually facilitates membrane pinching and subsequent endocytosis - I'm supposed to be working on it at this very moment, as I haven't even begun the presentation aspect yet. Instead, I've been sitting at my lab bench distracted by a friend's email concerning homeopathy.
Yes, that's right - you read correctly. Someone decided to email me the merits of homeopathy, as a legitimate cure for modern ailments - the FDA's official stance on it to be precise. He sent me this link: http://www.fda.gov/fdac
He actually sent it as an endorsement for homeopathy when, in fact, it is an indictment! The only reason the FDA doesn't call it quackery is because it would offend the many people of the world that practice it, and it wouldn't be very PC to do that, now would it?
Homeopathy functions on the founding 'law of infinitesimals' - it is just as counter-intuitive as it sounds. Diluting something down to mathematically NOTHING, claiming that the water retains an imprint of the substance, and then administering it to an ailing patient in hopes of 'stimulating' the body to respond. It involves a lot of what I like to call, 'woo woo magic.' Last night during a conversation (he's originally from India) my friend informed me that my close-minded nature was preventative to understanding the true merits of this sort of treatment - after all, back home in India there are numerous medical schools of homeopathy, millions of people who take homeopathic drugs, and his grandmother's arthritis got better after practicing homeopathy - clearly this is undeniable evidence that homeopathy works ... right?
There's a crucial logical fallacy that so many people commit because it can be very subtle - generally speaking it's a good rule of thumb, but you can never rely on it to tell the truth. The concept is so old, that there's a Latin phrase epitomizing the thought: 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc.' This essentially means that because something happened after an event took place, then that event must have caused what happened. When made explicit like this, it seems obvious that it's a mistake to think in such a way. But we commit this fallacy all the time. Especially when drugs are concerned - take aspirin for example: when you take 2 aspirin for a headache, and then your headache goes away, you initially think, "Hey! My headache is gone - the aspirin must have stopped it!" Not a bad thought, but by itself, this doesn't prove anything. Fortunately we've done many, MANY clinical studies, as well as medical research showing different receptors that aspirin can bind, and the physiological effects that taking aspirin can elicit. Not to mention that in double blind control tests, patients receiving aspirin fare much better than those taking a placebo. It's clear that aspirin works in very specific ways to manipulate your body and relieve pain, as well as perform a whole host of other reactions.
When it comes to homeopathy, we initially hear the same story - someone took a homeopathic drug and their headache stopped - they thought "Hey! There's something to this - it must have stopped my headache!" Unfortunately, the clinical trials have been done, and the medical research is in - there's no effect more than the placebo effect. People think that they're doing something to treat their problem, and the subjective symptoms begin to subside. But this NEVER holds up in group studies. Let's face it, based on the principle of dilutions, there's nothing in the potion to even cause harm. But based on the belief of a molecular 'imprint' in the water, by that definition alone, there should be imprints in the bottled water that you buy at the store that should cure you of all sorts of ailments - and cause lots of harm. This belief doesn't stand up to even a cursory glance - yet somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are made every year on drugs labelled 'homeopathic' ..... ohhhhhh - now I get it; the practice may not work, but if it doesn't cause harm, no one's going to stop you from making money.
Hooray for capitalism ... I think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)