Chariots of Iron

A new PR campaign has been launched in the UK, “Science: So What? – So everything”.

It is my sincere hope that Obama and his new administration would strive to bring something akin to this campaign to the US. Ignorance, mistrust and misunderstanding best describe the general population of the United States’ attitudes toward science and scientific research.

With 2009 being the anniversary of a couple great scientific landmarks it is far beyond time that not only scientific research got the federal funding it deserves, but also an effort is made to educate the public in the value of such research. If the US is to keep a shred of it’s dignity a new generation of scientists and engineers is going to be absolutely vital, we need a new “inspired generation”.

Just as my generation was inspired by David Attenborough and Carl Sagan, new public faces will be needed. Unfortunately the over-saturation of media is a difficult obstacle to overcome. Cable came late to the small town I grew up in, and even then cable television was only tens of channels instead of the hundreds available to me now. How do we get children and adults to see the message when there’s a dozen christian broadcast channels and 24-hour Reality TV networks?

I don’ t know how to overcome these obstacles, but I feel it is necessary, perhaps entertaining and educational science videos sponsored by the National Academies mandatory in school science classes?

This fundig is just as important as the money going to directly fund research, in the long term it will pay back tenfold, ensuring a higher quality of life in prepetuity, not just for americans but around the world.

Over on my favorite blog (well besides my own) PZ Myers was kind enough to post some hate-mail he’d received over the recent Zoo/Creation museum controversy.  While Professor Myers does not respond to these directly, there was one comment I wanted to call out, and decided, since I’ve been lazy this week, that I’d do so here, as it is representative of a common claim from fundamentalist religious types.

Scientist thought the universe revolved around the earth about 1000 years ago,they thought the earth was flat 500 years ago and 200 years ago man couldn’t fly so as we progress we find science is very fallible.

What the author of this statement fails to realize is that the above three statements were believed by early “scientists” because the religious institutions at the head of most civilizations said that these things were so.  I also think the authors dates were a bit off… but all three are examples of dogmatic truth overthrown by scientific inquiry. While it is true that as more data is collected by scientists theories are revised, overthrown and corrected. But that is the strength of science not it’s weakness. The ones holding onto outdated beliefs are the religiously faithful. Here they chide scientists for being wrong in the past centuries yet somehow holding onto beliefs over 2000 years old is “correct”.

News flash, you were wrong 200 years ago, get over it, while scientists may have been wrong in the past, they’ve at least the intellectual honesty to change thier beliefs in concert with the facts rather than railing against the facts in order to hold onto thier beliefs (although there have been individual sceintists who have held onto overthrown theories, this is speaking of the scientific community in general, not individual scientists). Let’s also add that scientific methods and the introduction of peer-review and widely distributed (at least amongst the professionals) scientific journals have added much to the accuracy of the scientific method, no longer are authorities allowed to dismiss arguments when evidence is presented that all can see and experiments are easily replicated and predictions confirmed. The internet has made this process more efficient but has also caused some data to get out to the general public before the peer-review process is complete, hence my common detraction of popular science websites in favor of established scientifc journals.

In an article over on sciam, researchers have found that meteor-like impacts can also catalyze the formation of life’s chemical precursors.This could be in contradiction or in complement to asteroids and comets being the delivery vehicle for such molecules.

read more »

In a great example of how science corrects its own errors is this recent article in the New York Times showing that recent studies indicate that the early earth may have been more hospitable to life than originally thought. It’s a clear example of how, when backed by evidence long-held scientific “truths” can be overturned when one follows the proper process of evidence, study and review.

read more »

According to this article on ScienceNOW, a  molecule of glycolaldehyde (an essential molecule in the formation  of ribose, one of the constituents of RNA) has been discovered in a a massive star-forming region in the Milky Way.

read more »

One of Kent Hovind’s more ridiculous claims in his creationist videos is that Earth is the sole repository of water in the universe. Aside from just being patently false (water is the second most common molecule in the universe right after H-H), scientists now have compelling evidence that aside form Earth and Jupiter’s Moon Europa that one of Saturn’s Moons, Enceladus, may have liquid water near it’s surface (let’s not forget all the ice that’s floating around the solar system as well).

I personally cannot wait until we have the technonlogy to get an unmanned space vehicle that can not only go and look, but either grab-and-analyze or bring the samples back to earth for further study. If you keep up with science news at all, and realize that this is just a hint of the full wonder of the universe I don’t see how you can be satisfied with a few hundred pages of “scripture” to provide you with an explanation.

Oh wait, that’s James Ensor… damn you They Might be Giants!

Well Micheal Egnor is actually one of those intellectually vacant members of the Discovery Institute. He wrote a sour-grapes piece complaining why he wasn’t invited to some evolutionary symposium attended by noted biologist and blogger PZ Myers.  You can read his inanity here. Now PZ Myers has the good sense to point it out over on his blog, which is where I got my exposure to this ridiculous piece. One statement in Mr. Egnor’s rant stuck out to me.

“Darwin’s positive legacy to real medical science is non-existent.”

Really Mr. Egnor? I hope you haven’t taken any moden antibiotics, got a flu shot, and I hope that no one you know or love is ever infected by the AIDS virus. Why? because evolutionary biology has been integral to humanity’s triumph over such ills. Of course you’d not know this from scientific papers of the last eight years…

I was reading an article the other day and renowned physicist Dr. Stephen Hawking stated that the Large Hadron Collider was essential to the advancement and long-tern survival of mankind. He goes on to reassure folks that it will not end the world, but I’m about sick of the fear-mongers surrounding this thing, it’s merely and anti-science agenda wrapped in a self-righteous cloak.

This all got me thinking though about just why I feel having discussions about scientific advancements and discoveries is valuable in an atheist podcast. in going over this I may say some things that make my fellow atheists wince, I may sound harsh and reveal some opinions that the more “religious friendly” atheists may not share. So be it.

If one looks at the history of religious thought one realized that the development of gods was a “first attempt” at scientific thought. What causes thunder? Well, I can make a loud noise by banging these two rocks together, so someone bigger and more powerful banging something even bigger than these rocks together would make a louder sound. Or perhaps, the roar of the great lion is the loudest sound I know, so some bigger beast, perhaps the roar of a dragon is the sound I am hearing. As an early hypothesis for events it’s a workable idea, however it would fail today’s more modern scientific scrutiny as it would either fail the first test or be found untestable. It’s a small step from this level of thinking to entreating these powerful forces for boons, to using “revealed knowledge” from these powerful beings as a tool of control (for good or ill).

The truth is that advancing our knowledge is what is removing the “god question” from the public conciousness. Human knowledge has certainly eliminated the possibility of a “god” or “gods” as presented in nearly every ancient scripture currently known. This is why creationists creationists fight so fiercely against science eduction (trust me, it’s not just evolution they have a problem with), it’s not that they have some problems with the science as performed, it’s that this knowledge contradicts directly the untestable and privately revealed knowledge that religion bases all claims upon. Their case is hurt more by recent studies breaking apart those testable claims they’ve made.

The knowledge provided to mankind through scientific study is more valuable than anything religion has proposed, it has cured diseases, fed millions of people, and vastly increased our quality of life. Religious thought however has been an easy tool of exploitation to make people happy with thier miserable lot in life. As I’ve studied more and more religions I find that most of them add up to the following statement “Do what we say, don’t worry about being miserable, because when you die you’ll get rewarded”. Science on the other hand is about advancing human knowledge so that our lives, and the lives of future generations are better ones. As an atheist I believe that this life here is all you get so I want to make sure it’s the best possible for me and my descendants.

I am sure that some people will point to the disasters of science in an attempt to detract form this view, nuclear bombs, lab-created anthrax and the like. While some atheists would try to counter with the atrocities of religion I intend to go another route. The line of research that brought about the atomic bomb also gave us solid state electronics and MRI imaging, cancer treatments and a host of other medical diagnostic tools. Bioengineering has cured far more diseases than those who have been infected, from the cheap and rapid production of vaccines to new breakthroughs in fighting cancer and degenerative genetic conditions. Religion and science can both be used for benefit and destruction however it is only through scientific research that suffering is alleviated, diseases cured and the overall quality of life for everyone on the planet is improved. In contrast religious thought that attempts to supersede or suspend scientific advance only gets people to accept suffering, disease and be content with their current quality of life. It is, simply those who wish to maintain the status-quo against those who would like to see progress.

I am, in this tirade, addressing a certain type of religious thought, and it is one that even the late Pope John Paul II expressed. This thought is that there are some questions that should not be asked because they are the dominion of “god”. If you follow a religious mindset that allows for questioning all aspects of reality, for searching deep into the “hows and whys” of the way this universe we live in operates then, of course, this criticism does not apply to you.

A common creationist ploy (and one that angers me to no end) is to apply the trait of atheism to Adolph Hitler, and try to link this with the atrocities he committed. The eugenics programs implemented by some of Hitler’s underlings was more akin to horse or dog breeding than any true evolutionary process. In fact the idea of “evolution” in general had been around for hundreds of years prior to Charles Darwin’s theory which merely gave this evolution a natural mechanism. The extermination of the Jewish people at the hands of Hitler’s regime was turned into a acceptable practice through an appeal to religion. Weather or not Hitler really believed or not may be open to debate, however any reading of Mein Kampf would lend one to believe that he did in fact believe in god as described in the New Testament.

Science is important because it provides reliable and truthful answers to the questions we all have in a way that cannot be used as a tool of control. No one can tell you you should kill X group of people because a subatomic particle reacting according to the laws of quantum mechanics tells him so. Anyone who proposed such an idea would be laughed at (and probably locked up), as we should laugh at, and lock away, religious tyrants who suggest we kill infidels, homosexuals or any other such group.

You may notice I’ve not touched on ethics or morals much in this post. The naturalistic rise of moral behavior is a subject that I have great interest in and I’ll be devoting a future post to the topic in addition to my thoughts about how a positive atheistc view of the world can drive a very high moral standard.