Law versus theory

Posted on August 27, 2011 by Michael

PZ has a couple of posts going right now where he takes down some common creationist canards. One post absolutely wrecks Ann Coulter (who, incidentally, has some real kiddie rhetoric going on – it’s just awful), and the other takes on Bryan Fischer. Each post is excellent, but PZ skims over something I would like to address in the latter link. Here are some excerpts from Fischer’s writing:

First Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a scientific law) teaches us that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed…

Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law (note: not a theory but a law) teaches us that in every chemical or heat reaction, there is a loss of energy that never again is available for another heat reaction…

There are two kinds of people who have confusion over what a scientific law is versus what a scientific theory is. The first kind includes much of the general public. These people will have a basic misunderstanding, but they don’t tend to go about basing arguments upon it. The second kind, however, is an ugly little bunch. They include the likes of Fischer who also share the general lay public’s misunderstanding, but they then go about premising a bunch of bullshit on it.

A scientific theory and a scientific law are effectively the same thing. The latter term tends to be used more in physics than anywhere else, but that is a matter of history and convention more than anything. There is no magic property that makes the theory of gravity any different from the law of gravity. Both terms describe the same thing. We’re merely talking about banners and titles here, nothing of scientific value. Any person interested in science ought to learn this pretty quickly.

I recall sitting in an introductory biology course many a year ago when one student asked the professor the difference between a theory and a law. It is rare (though not absent) for “law” to be used in biology, so I’m not sure what spurred the question, but the professor answered it exactly right: There is no significant difference. I had a good deal of respect for the student at that moment. He was ignorant of something, so he got an answer. Creationists like Fischer, however, don’t do that. They understand the way we conventionally use terms and assume they can aptly apply that understanding to science. They cannot. They are wrong and scientifically irresponsible to do so.

But who’s willing to bet Fischer keeps pretending there is a difference even after being told there isn’t one? I am.

Filed under: Science | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Science and religion conflict

Posted on August 14, 2011 by Michael

It’s popular amongst theists to claim that science and religion do not conflict. They recognize the basic validity of science, so for religion to be in conflict with it would undermine their most cherished beliefs. This is why we get these inane rationalizations from places like the Catholic Church which say that evolution is true yet it somehow can work with theology. It obviously can do no such thing, but that isn’t about to stop the Pope from pretending like the Bible supports the theory. That’s really the way they all do it: get the facts from science and then change the theology to match it. I understand the hands of believers are being forced, but their ruse is just too transparent.

But with things like evolution, it isn’t that hard to twist the theology to fit the facts. There is no method whatsoever within theology that can show any holy writ to be accurate or not, so changing it around on a whim is not that difficult. But what about more fundamental issues? If there is some fact which contradicts something that believers absolutely cannot do without, then we really could stop with these silly claims that science and religion do not conflict. Fortunately for you, dear reader, I have just the example:

Science says the laws of Nature cannot be broken. Ever. Never ever. Go on, ask any physicist or cosmologist or astronomer. Or just look at the evidence yourself. The physical laws are the physical laws and they change for no one. But what do religions say? They say God intervenes. Whether he does it by answering prayers or by directing evolution, he takes the known laws of physics and causes them to go on a path, according to all religions, in a way they otherwise would not have gone. That is not possible according to science. And, yes, every religion with a god has some fundamental dogma within it which says that its god has interacted with the Universe in a way that alters its physical laws on some level.

Filed under: Religions, Science | Tagged: , | 10 Comments »

Even more abuse of science

Posted on August 6, 2011 by Michael

Roxeanne de Luca is an annoying little creature. Without even being a creationist or a Christian she manages to engage in their style of argumentation: Make a positive claim, but pretend like the burden of proof is on the opposition. Even more annoying, she attempts to claim the mantle of science (in fields in which she has no significant experience), even though the specific topic will be a subjective one that cannot be defined scientifically. I’ve written about her antics in the past.

What I’ve also written about in the past is the abuse of science. People will commonly read a study which supports something they believe, but then they will inappropriately extrapolate the evidence. For instance, Christian and other far right bigots will find studies which show that it is categorically better for children to have two parents rather than just one parent. They will then extrapolate that gay parents aren’t good for children. That is wildly inappropriate and an obvious abuse of the far more limited evidence.

But this post is about another favorite topic of the far right: abstinence. They have this cockamamie idea that teenagers can be widely prevented from having sex with each other, therefore it’s okay to keep them ignorant about birth control. We’ve been seeing the deadly effects of this thinking in Africa and to a lesser extent South America thanks to the Catholic Church concerning condoms. Unfortunately, Roxeanne reflects this sort of backward thinking. Responding to a CNN article about the worth of casual sex, she says this:

Later in the CNN article, we are told – brace yourselves, conservatives, this is a shocker – that ‘protection’ is not all its is said to be: “[T]he rate of increased use of a condom does not seem great enough to offset the higher risks of infection.”

The above quote actually has nothing to do with the effectiveness of condoms. What it is saying, just after the article points out that increased sexual partners means increased STD risk, is that more people are using condoms, but they are not using them at a high enough rate in order to combat the frequency of infection. Roxeanne not only got this one dead wrong, but she did some very minor quote-mining. Here is the full excerpt:

“The more partners an individual has,” according to “Sex in America,” “the more likely he or she is to have sex with people who themselves have many partners, the more likely he or she is to have sex with virtual strangers, the more likely she or he is to have been under the influence of drugs or alcohol during some sexual encounters, and while it is more likely that a condom was used, the rate of increased use of a condom does not seem great enough to offset the higher risks of infection.”

The obvious solution here is to encourage greater condom use while educating teens and others about their effectiveness. Abstinence is not the answer, nor has it ever been effective on a large social scale.

As I’ve mentioned in the past, I work with troubled teens. It isn’t uncommon that some of them will have kids of their own – sometimes multiple kids – even though they may only be Freshmen or Sophomores in high school. One of the reasons for this is their ignorance about condom usage. During an educational group not too long ago they were being told about the need for such protection and their reactions were along the lines of, “Oh, I never knew that. I’ll start using condoms more often now.” I actually doubt many of them will unless forced by their partner, but the fact that they genuinely didn’t have this basic knowledge is indicative of the need for broad-based educational programs and protection promotion. No one can stop kids from having sex, but we can stop them from being ignorant.

But back to Roxeanne’s inappropriate and embarrassing extrapolation. The article clearly states that the increased rate of condom use is not high enough to combat the higher risks of infection. In other words, while condoms are effective when used properly, they are not being used frequently enough. More common usage can dramatically cut down on the rates of infection, but this will only be achieved through education and safe-sex promotion. At no point is it said that condom protection “is not all its (sic) is said to be”. No one doubts the effectiveness of condoms. The problem is with the effectiveness of educational campaigns and the spread of needed knowledge. People like Roxeanne who, in a willing abuse of science, put out misleading and false information are part of the problem; their promotion of ignorance contributes to increased rates of infection and even death.

Filed under: Politics and Social, Science | Tagged: , , , , | 22 Comments »

PZ moves

Posted on August 1, 2011 by Michael

It looks like PZ has moved his blog to freethoughtblogs.com, which probably spells a (more certain) slow death for scienceblogs.com. It’s a shame if only because the latter site clearly has a better name than the former. But at any rate, Pharyngula is still quite active and available.

It looks like PZ is still making most of his posts are both websites due to technical issues with the ability for the new host to handle traffic, but his new site is available right now. Check it out here.

Update: Two points of note. First, there are more creationist ads than usual on the side. I hope they have to pay per page view. Second, Comrade Major Meltdown has a blog there. This is unfortunate because 1) he writes so poorly, 2) he’s little more than a troll who doesn’t care about making any arguments, 3) he inevitably freaks out when someone refuses to stoop to his level, 4) he’s a Yankees fan, and 5) he really is a Yankees fan. And probably a bandwagon Yankees fan at that (as if there is any other kind).

Filed under: Science | Tagged: , , | 14 Comments »

Renowned academics talk about God

Posted on July 27, 2011 by Michael

This is fantastic.

via PZ

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Philosophy, Science | Tagged: | 3 Comments »

Mosquito genocide

Posted on July 8, 2011 by Michael

Whenever I find myself under attack by mosquitoes, I will tend to remark to another person how much I would enjoy a mosquito genocide. Sure, a midge and/or horsefly genocide would be lovely as well – not to mention a whole host of other insect holocausts – but it’s the mosquito I really hate. I mean hate. I would eat raw onions and celery for the rest of my life if I could do away with the little bastards.

The natural response I get from people when I express my desire for mosquito eradication is, “Wouldn’t that really mess up the food chain?” I respond, half-jokingly, that I’m willing to make that sacrifice. Of course, along with most other people, I have always believed that the death of all mosquitoes, or at least the ones that bite humans, would have long-reaching ecological ramifications. And, again, along with most other people, I naturally don’t want to see that happen. But as it turns out, maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing after all:

Most mosquito-eating birds would probably switch to other insects that, post-mosquitoes, might emerge in large numbers to take their place. Other insectivores might not miss them at all: bats feed mostly on moths, and less than 2% of their gut content is mosquitoes. “If you’re expending energy,” says medical entomologist Janet McAllister of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Fort Collins, Colorado, “are you going to eat the 22-ounce filet-mignon moth or the 6-ounce hamburger mosquito?”

With many options on the menu, it seems that most insect-eaters would not go hungry in a mosquito-free world. There is not enough evidence of ecosystem disruption here to give the eradicators pause for thought.

At this point in the evolution of life, any significant hole left open by one species will quickly be filled by another. Even when the world has seen mass extinctions, life has been quick to fill in the gaps. And that’s with broad gaps. The loss of mosquitoes would be a very narrow niche to cover.

But there are other mosquito-reliant organisms. The question, however, is, how reliant are they? Mosquitoes make up a lot of the biomass in both aquatic and summer arctic environments. In aquatic environments it’s their larvae that contribute to the ecosystem, bringing about greater variation in other organisms while also producing nutrients for plants. In the arctic, they are food for migratory birds. But in both cases other organisms could easily take their place. Though mosquitoes have co-evolved with so many other species, so have so many other insects and microorganisms. They aren’t unique except in their high level of annoyance.

Attempts at Genocide

When the French attempted to build a canal in Panama, one of their major setbacks was disease carried by mosquitoes. It wasn’t until shortly after they started construction that it was even known that mosquitoes were vectors for diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. And even then, it wouldn’t be for some time – about when the French gave up – that it was known just how much mosquitoes could spread disease.

Enter the Americans.

When the U.S. set to construct the canal, measures were taken to drastically cut down on the mosquito population in the area. Standing pools and ponds of water were drained near construction and living areas. High grasses were cut down to create fields mosquitoes were less likely to cross. Oils were added to difficult to drain ponds. Acids and caustic sodas were even spread in great quantity. And what effect did this have on the ecology of the surrounding area? Apparently none. (At least none as a result of the loss of the mosquito.) Of course, this wasn’t an eradication, and it didn’t impact all areas, but it was a massive effort and the mosquito population was reduced significantly.

So could we do something like that, but for all mosquitoes, in all areas? Probably not. Many places in the South have programs where standing buckets of water and other common mosquito breeding grounds are destroyed. Other places spread sprays which kill mosquito larvae. These methods help, but they aren’t enough to fix the problem. And in all likelihood, there are no practical methods available that could bring about the Great Mosquito Genocide. Really, I trust that if humans could get rid of this pest, we would have long, long, long ago.

But don’t let our inability to destroy these little bastards take anything away from the dream of mass mosquito murder:

“They don’t occupy an unassailable niche in the environment,” says entomologist Joe Conlon, of the American Mosquito Control Association in Jacksonville, Florida. “If we eradicated them tomorrow, the ecosystems where they are active will hiccup and then get on with life. Something better or worse would take over.”

Filed under: Evolution, Science | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

Religion and the fear of death

Posted on May 26, 2011 by Michael

One of the motivators for religious belief is the comfort it provides. For many people it provides an immediate comfort because it allows one to be a part of a bigger group, and people like to belong. For others, it provides a comfort of ‘knowing’. For instance, we all want to know the answer to a lot of basic questions like “How old is the Earth” and “How did humanity begin”. Religion – while it has either always been wrong or been forced to defer to science in order to be correct (and even then it usually mangles things) – makes strong claims that it has the answers. But for so many others, religion provides comfort against the fear of death. Many of us want to believe we keep on existing, that all we’ve done in our lives has some unending meaning, and maybe ultimately, that we are never alone. It is this final sort of comfort that indirectly forms the basis of some new research:

Researchers at the University of British Columbia and Union College (Schenectady, N.Y.) have found that people’s ‘death anxiety’ can influence them to support theories of intelligent design and reject evolutionary theory…

The researchers carried out five studies with 1,674 U.S. and Canadian participants of different ages and a broad range of educational, socioeconomic and religious backgrounds.

In each study, participants were asked to imagine their own death and write about their subsequent thoughts and feelings, or they were assigned to a control condition: imagining dental pain and writing about that.

The participants were then asked to read two similarly styled, 174-word excerpts from the writings of Behe and Dawkins, which make no mention of religion or belief, but describe the scientific and empirical support for their respective positions.

After going through these steps, participants who imagined their own death showed greater support for intelligent design and greater liking for [Michael] Behe, or a rejection of evolution theory coupled with disliking for [Richard] Dawkins, compared to participants in the control condition.

However, the research team saw reversed effects during the fourth study which had a new condition. Along with writings by Behe and Dawkins, there was an additional passage by Carl Sagan. A cosmologist and science writer, Sagan argues that naturalism — the scientific approach that underlies evolution, but not intelligent design — can also provide a sense of meaning. In response, these participants showed reduced belief in intelligent design after being reminded of their own mortality.

While it was creationism intelligent design that was chosen for this experiment, I see this study as representative of religion at large. When shown two different arguments, a sizable portion of the participants clearly chose to reject evolution on the basis that it provided them with no sense of meaning. It isn’t particularly relevant that the alternative was specifically creationism intelligent design since there is no science to be found within any religious idea anyway – nor is there any science supporting any religious claim of significance. Any relatively mainstream religious idea could have been presented in science-y terms – just as creationism intelligent design is – and then used as a tool for comparison.

This isn’t all to say that the primary motivator for religious belief is the fear of death. I suspect it’s actually culture and upbringing – the biggest indicator of what one’s religion will be is what his or her parent’s religion is. But the fear of death – the fear of the unknown – frightens people and makes them uncomfortable. Religion helps to ease that discomfort with its made-up stories and fairy tales, and so it acts as a tightly woven net that catches people before they can fall into reason or even momentary consideration of their beliefs.

While the results of this study are obvious (and while they will be distorted by believers), I think there is another interesting point here, albeit an obvious one. There are a lot of accomodationists (Collins, Giberson, Miller, etc) out there who will argue that religion and science are compatible. While their position is one that is in some ways a small improvement over the current situation, there is comfort in the fact that they aren’t winning over too many adherents. People still recognize that evolution does largely eliminate their particular, cultural god. The fact that we know humans were not inevitable (or any other animal, for that matter) means that most of the gods in which people believe are untenable. That is, the sort of gods people praise are almost always the ones that deemed the inevitably of humanity. That inevitably takes away the random components of life and gives credence to why a god would care about us at all. I think the recognition that evolution takes this all away is ultimately good because it shows that while these people do not understand evolution in its details, they do understand its implications. That is a good thing – even if they falsely associate those implications with a lack of meaning in life.

Source

Filed under: Science | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments »

Hawking says afterlife is a fairy story

Posted on May 17, 2011 by Michael

I think he’s being too generous:

I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I’m not afraid of death, but I’m in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.

I’m glad Hawking has made it abundantly clear that he is an atheist. Now only the most dishonest of Christians can attempt to claim him for their own.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Science | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Tonight’s lesson

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Michael

Tonight’s lesson for my privilege of conveying science…

I’m just glad I like science. If I was creationist, I wouldn’t be able to tell these kids a damn thing that was true.

Filed under: Science | Tagged: , , | 8 Comments »

Neil Shubin inducted into NAS

Posted on May 3, 2011 by Michael

This is satisfying:

The National Academy of Sciences today announced the election of 72 new members and 18 foreign associates from 15 countries in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research…

Shubin, Neil H.; Robert R. Bensley Professor and associate dean, department of organismal biology and anatomy, University of Chicago, Chicago

Shubin is most famous for his evolution-utilizing research into Tiktaalik. I’m glad to see him inducted.

And congratulations to everyone else who was deemed worthy to be a member of such a prestigious institute.

Filed under: Evidence, Evolution, News, Science | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »