Israeli Scientist Wins Nobel Prize for Chemistry

This isn't surprising, since despite its size, Israel is a leader in science and technology. From the New York Times,

An Israeli scientist won this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering quasicrystals, a material in which atoms were packed together in a well-defined pattern that never repeats. ... Dan Shechtman, 70, a professor of materials science at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Dr. Shechtman is also a professor at Iowa State University and a researcher at the United States Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory. ... Israeli leaders expressed delight and pride at the 10th Nobel Prize won by a citizen of Israel, which has a population of less than eight million. Two years ago, Ada E. Yonath of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, shared the award for chemistry as well.

It's useful to compare Israel's record of scientific achievement to that of its larger and more populous hostile neighbors and other states in the region. Their recent contributions to the world tend to be things like terrorism, Islamism, dictators, anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, theocracy and varieties of burkhas for women.

Wikipedia has a good rundown of science & technology in Israel.

Astronomers Discover Tatooine

What does this look like?

If you are a Star Wars fan it looks like Tatooine, a planet with two suns. But this is real. It's Kepler 16b, discovered by a NASA team using the Kepler space telescope.

Outstanding Article on Evolution and Why it Threatens Christianity

I saw that Richard Dawkins wrote a response to Rick Perry on evolution in the Washington Post. Unfortunately the good points are preceded by typical leftist nonsense, which will cause the entire column to be dismissed out of hand by anyone who needs to read it. But today there is a far better article in the same "On Faith" section by Paula Kirby. Here are a couple of excerpts.

Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education itself.

Remember that 'ignorance' is not an insult, but merely a term for 'lack of knowledge'. Many of the people who protest so vociferously against the teaching of evolution do not understand how overwhelmingly strong the evidence for it is; and many of those who proclaim “But it's only a theory” do not understand that the scientific and everyday usages of the word 'theory' are very different.

She zeros in on why evolution is such a problem for many Christians.

a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

I have heard similar explanations from Christians I've asked why it isn't possible to accommodate their beliefs to scientific reality. To them that reality destroys their beliefs, therefore it can't be real. Instead of rejecting their system of myths, they prefer to reject scientific reality. The whole article is well-worth reading.

The Anti-Science Canard

Whenever there is a Republican candidate who doesn't believe in evolution, is skeptical of global warming, or opposes things like embryonic stem cell research, political opponents label him/her as "anti-science." There's a prime example at the Bad Astronomy blog, where Phil Plait recently hyperventilated about Rick Perry.

To say I am not a fan of Rick Perry, Republican Presidential candidate, is to seriously underestimate my antipathy toward him. He is anti-science in almost every sense of the word, and his stance on nearly every issue on which I’ve heard him speak is the exact opposite of where I stand.

That's a good way to make people disregard anything you might have to say since you admit extreme bias. But back to the anti-science claim. Let's take the common case of disbelief in evolution.

Unfortunately a lack of belief in evolution is a mainstream position in the U.S. According to a Gallup poll in 2009, a majority of Americans reject evolution. Does this mean that more than half the country is "anti-science"? Of course not. Being ignorant of important areas of science makes you ignorant, not anti-science. Then there is the religious angle. The reason so many Christians (and Muslims) have a problem with evolution is because of religious belief. Most Christians readily accept science that doesn't directly conflict -- as they see it -- with their religion. (Obviously there are Christians that have accommodated their beliefs and accept evolution -- I'm not talking about them.) I believe that most scientists would agree that evolution is a complex scientific topic, and is not intuitive. Poor science education, general ignorance, and religious belief opposing evolution are also abetted by an entire industry of professional creationists. For those better educated religious people who reject evolution but might feel uncomfortable about it, there are a whole bunch of pseudo-scientists out there feeding them on the notion that evolution is bad science imposed by a rigid academic orthodoxy. In short, it is easy to reject evolution. And it is entirely possible to be "pro-science" overall, while rejecting those parts of science which conflict with your beliefs.

Ignorance regarding certain aspects of science makes you ignorant, not anti-science. Calling someone who rejects evolution or global warming anti-science, is about as stupid an overstatement as labeling abortion supporters as pro-death, or opponents as anti-women. No doubt the oil industry, which relies heavily on science and technology,would be amazed to learn that Rick Perry is anti-science. I'm pretty sure that someone as smart as Phil Plait knows the difference between being opposed to science, and being ignorant in major areas. Unfortunately extreme dislike of political opponents often results in intellectual dishonesty, or an inability to separate analysis from emotional responses such as name-calling.

Clergy Letters on Evolution

Back in 2004, Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor at Butler University started the Clergy Letter Project.

For too long, the misperception that science and religion are inevitably in conflict has created unnecessary division and confusion, especially concerning the teaching of evolution. I wanted to let the public know that numerous clergy from most denominations have tremendous respect for evolutionary theory and have embraced it as a core component of human knowledge, fully harmonious with religious faith.

He has letters supporting the teaching of evolution for different religions, which are then signed by clergy. For example, the Christian letter has 12,722 signatures. He's just started one for Muslim clergy. Here's an excerpt.

We, the undersigned Imams of the mosques, assert that the Qur’an is the primary source of spiritual inspiration and of values for us, though not for everyone, in our country. We believe that the timeless truths of the Qur’an may comfortably coexist with the discoveries of modern science. As Imams we urge public school boards to affirm their commitment to the teaching of the science of evolution. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

It will be interesting to see how many imams sign up.

h/t ContraRarian

Spiritual Atheists

As a follow-up to my post, Programmed for Faith, I would recommend reading Josh Rosenau's post, "Scientists and Spirituality." I found these parts especially interesting.

combining theistic belief and spiritual belief, there's a remarkable consistency, with spirituality seeming to compensate for declining theistic belief in many European nations. In famously nontheistic Denmark, spiritual belief is more common than atheism, agnosticism, or theism. ... This tends to support the idea that spirituality should be understood as an experimental sort of religiosity, rather than a stepping stone away from religion. This is further supported by the fact that even in nations like Denmark with high rates of atheism, many atheists describe themselves as religious.

Even if you disagree that the need to believe in God is hard-wired into most humans, it appears that there is substantial evidence that we have a need to believe in something beyond what is material. The fact that even many self-described atheists express a belief in something as nebulous as "spirituality," seems to indicate that the hardwired thesis is at least partially correct.

Positive Bias Test

Take this interesting psychological test.

h/t The Lessons of Evolution

Programmed for Faith

I came across an article called, "The Science of Faith," by atheist Dick "Godless" Gross. Rather than describe it, I'm going to excerpt some of the main points.

humanity has a predisposition, perhaps a need, to believe. This craving is not universal but it is global and infects the vast majority of the species. ... While this view has been around for a while, it has been brought to the fore by the publication of the first papers from the multinational ‘‘Explaining Religion’’ project, centred in Oxford. Early papers from the research indicate that religion has evolved to help humanity in the collaboration and selflessness that underpin social cohesion.

He goes on to point out the other key findings of this latest research, particularly that education alone is not going to remove the impulse to believe.

why would anyone believe in the weird and the wonderful faiths around the world? The cognitive scientists tell us the answer – because our minds are designed to believe and they get a good dose of training.

It is a mixture of hard wiring and programming – the hardware (the mind) and the software (the education). ...

If it is true that the need to believe is hardwired, then the impact of external factors such as education and indoctrination one way or another are not going to remove it. I tend to agree with Gross that atheism will probably always be a minority position, especially materialistic atheism. There does seem to be a need to believe in most people.

Lab-Created Meat

I know some on the right dislike NPR because of its liberal slant, but it has many excellent and interesting programs. While I was driving tonight, I happened to hear a fascinating segment on lab-created meat -- not artificial meat, but real meat grown from stem cells.

tissue scientists are taking stem cells from pigs and putting them in nutrient broth-filled petri dishes, where they rapidly grow. The biggest slab of meat grown so far is about the size of a contact lens and contains millions of cells. The next step, Specter says, is trying to take these cells and turn them into muscle tissue, using biodegradable scaffolding platforms.

There are all sorts of implications and possibilities for this research, which will no doubt occur to anyone else who reads a lot of science fiction. You can listen to the story at the link above.

The Fairy Tale of Heaven

Stephen Hawking was interviewed recently by the Guardian. He said that he views the concept of heaven, or an afterlife in general, as a fairy tale.

"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," he added.

He has other interesting comments as well, but this particular one appears to be getting the most attention. I agree with Hawking that heaven and the afterlife are fairy tales, but I disagree with the way he put it in that interview. First off, I don't like definitive statements about things which are unknown. No one, including Hawking, knows for sure what happens after death. Although I agree with his opinion, I'd like to see some sort of qualifier to his assertion. Then there is his remark about "people afraid of the dark."

Fear of the unknown -- and death is a great unknown -- seems to be part of the make-up of most human beings. Hawking has a different perspective because of his physical condition. As he says,

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death,

Just because he has overcome his own natural fears, doesn't justify dismissing others who haven't as some sort of children scared of the dark. There are also other reasons why people believe in an afterlife which are, in my opinion, stronger than mere fear of death. In particular there is the desire to be reunited with loved ones who have died before you. I have long thought that this hope, based on love not fear, is the single greatest reason why most people are not atheist materialists.

Why Many on the Right Distrust Scientists

There's a post up on the blog Why Evolution is True called, "At least 80% of Republicans are morons." A the blog name may indicate, the author, Jerry Coyne, is a scientist and prominent defender of evolution. What's his rationale for concluding that most Republicans are morons? A Gallup poll found that 80% have a favorable view of Palin. Here's Coyne,

I am unable to imagine, much less sympathize with, a mentality that sees Sarah Palin as a viable politician of any sort.

That must be because, despite your education and knowledge of science, you are a complete idiot when it comes to politics, totally out of touch in your own little echo chamber. I'm no fan of Palin, but it is quite obvious why she's a viable politician, and why she appeals to many people.

And how could one imagine that such a mercurial and unthinking creature could be an effective President?

What are the odds that this guy voted for our minimally qualified, incompetent current leader, Barack Obama? 

It’s impossible for me to say to the Palin-ites, “I disagree strongly with your views, but I respect you as a person.” People with such views deserve no respect.

Coyne is a living example of why many on the right distrust scientists. When certain scientists make political pronouncements and reveal themselves as arrogant, clueless leftists, it naturally fosters distrust among those with differing political views.  This distrust can carry over to science itself. Some people will ask, if this scientist is nothing more than a typical leftist, why should I believe anything he says? He obviously believes nonsense when it comes to politics, so I should also take his scientific arguments with a grain of salt.

Strange Argument About Teaching Evolution

Over at Secular Outpost there is an article by Taner Edis called, "Evolution as a liberal cultural weapon." Since that title looks like something you might find on a creationist site, or a hardcore religious conservative one, it got my attention. If you have time, read the article before you read the rest of this post, and see if you can spot the glaring absence of one basic argument that should be made by anyone supporting the teaching of evolution.

Edis is essentially arguing that he supports the teaching of evolution because it's good propaganda for liberals. Seriously. He starts out by debunking common arguments made in favor of teaching evolution, such as the need to maintain economic competitiveness. And he makes some reasonable points. But the rest of the article is off the rails. Here are some prime examples.

the people who deplore creationism need not have any professional involvement in science or education. They need not even be all that skeptical about supernatural beings. They just have to be, broadly speaking, liberal in their outlook.

Really? You have to have a politically liberal outlook to deplore creationism? This is complete nonsense. There are plenty of people on the right, such as myself, who have nothing but disdain for creationist pseudo-science.

The deeper reasons we liberals support evolution are, I think, specific to liberal cultural ideals. Most immediately, we want evolution in the classroom for purposes of the culture wars.

This is possibly one of the worst arguments I've ever seen for supporting evolution in the classroom, and one that actually gives ammunition to creationists. Evolution is just about advancing a liberal agenda. Yeah, that's a great message to put out there.

The main reason to support evolution in the classroom is the same for anyone who cares about teaching science in science classes. It's the same reason we support teaching chemistry and not alchemy, and astronomy not astrology. We support teaching evolution because we want science taught in the science classroom, not pseudo-science based on religious beliefs. I cringe anytime some religious ignoramus on my side of the political spectrum, with a ludicrous caricatured view of evolution attacks it, or advocates teaching creationism. It makes conservatives look like idiots, and causes people such as Taner Edis to actually believe that you have to be a liberal to care about teaching science.

Suspicious Sex Survey Results

A huge new sex study is out: the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (NSSHB). These things are always interesting, but one thing leaped out at me when I clicked the chart for the sexual behavior graph. This lists the percentages of males and females in each age group who say they've engaged in the listed sexual practices over the past year. Check out the top line, which reports solo masturbation. According to the study for males,  19% of 18-19 year-olds, 25% of 16-17 year-olds, and an amazing 38% of 14-15 year-olds did not masturbate over the past year! Yeah, right. Those numbers might be right for the past 24 hours -- maybe. If I were conducting this study I'd be embarrassed to even put up those numbers without some sort of qualifying explanation. Either they got a freakish group of teenage males, or the honesty of their survey participants is highly questionable. With those numbers in the top line, you have to wonder about the accuracy of the survey as a whole.

Chinese Space Exploration

The Chinese have major plans for space exploration.

China has said it will put a man in the moon by 2025, and begin exploring Mars and Venus in five years. It will have a space station within a decade.

I'm not sure if this is unsubstantiated bluster, or if China really will be able to develop that level of space capability. China conducted its first space walk only two years ago. But a major Chinese presence in space is a worrying prospect.

Don't expect China to worry about great steps for mankind. There's little doubt that Chinese space exploration will aim at benefiting China first & foremost. China is not our enemy, but it is a potential threat that has to be watched. Space is currently an area where the U.S. holds major strategic advantages. A surging Chinese space program could drastically change that calculus, especially if U.S. efforts remain relatively stagnant. It's something to keep an eye on over the next decade.

Bionic Cat

Oscar the cat lost a battle with a combine harvester that took off his back paws. But a new operational technique with implications for humans gave him working artificial implants.

His new kitten heels were designed with custom-made implants, which "peg" the ankle to the foot and mimic the way deer antler bone grows through skin. Oscar's transformation, which has left him resembling a feline Ahab, has been described as a case of science copying the natural world.

Here's how it works.

The artificial implants, which are attached to the bone at the amputation site, were coated with hydroxyapatite, which encourages bone cells to grow onto the metal. .. The skin then grows over a special "umbrella" at the end of the peg to form a seal against bacteria and potentially fatal infections. The peg protrudes through the bone and skin, allowing the custom-built artificial paws to then be securely attached.

According to the article,within four months the cat was basically back to normal function, and able to put equal weight on all four paws.

Beware of Alien Invaders

Stephen Hawking points out what has long been obvious to every fan of science fiction.

He suggests that aliens might simply raid Earth for its resources and then move on: “We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”

He concludes that trying to make contact with alien races is “a little too risky”. He said: “If aliens ever visit us, I think the outcome would be much as when Christopher Columbus first landed in America, which didn’t turn out very well for the Native Americans.”

That type of situation is probably far more likely than benevolent visitors who assist us by curing cancer and giving us all sorts of advanced technology. But we don't really need Stephen Hawking to tell us that. Just read science fiction, which has covered just about every permutation and outcome of first contact with aliens.

Do It For the Species

A new study of fruit flies in the UK has implications for all animals, including humans. Apparently females having sex with multiple partners benefits the species.

promiscuous females of a species may be the key to that species' survival. ... The reason is that when females partner with fewer mates, the likelihood that they'll have all-female broods rises.

So the next time someone starts to turn you down, remember to point out that the survival of the species may be at stake.

Science Quiz

The Pew Research Center has a twelve question science quiz. You can take it and see how you score relative to others. It's pretty simple, but many people did not score well -- no surprise.

h/t Phil Plait at Skepticblog

Children are Dangerous Biters

A new study from the University of Leeds in the UK finds that children as young as three "can bite with the same force as a dog." No mention about what kind of dog is the reference point. There's a big difference between the bite of a chihuahua and a pit bull. The research was mainly geared toward child safety, showing that kids can bite things into pieces creating a choking risk. But the article caught my attention because of my son.

When he was around two we had a significant problem with him biting. He'd be sitting on your lap, or next to you, and all the sudden he would lunge and bite. And he did bite pretty hard. Finally my wife got tired of it and started biting him back (gently, but enough to send a message). That brought the biting to a halt.

Paul Krugman: Environmentalist Nutcase

Paul Krugman has some credibility on economic issues, even if you disagree with him. But his attempts at analysis on other issues, especially anything political, are either generic leftist ravings, or outright lunacy. Case in point is his latest at the New York Times, "Betraying the Planet." The ridiculous title alone indicates that Krugman can't be taken seriously. He's horrified that a large number of congressmen actually had the intelligence to vote against the monstrosity that is the Waxman-Markey climate change bill.  According to Krugman, they are guilty of "treason against the planet." Yes, he's actually serious. 

Krugman, who clearly knows very little about climate change science, and cites only information that supports his preconceived notions, leaps to an amazing conclusion and runs with it. He thinks those who voted against the bill are "denialists," another made up term referring to those who don't accept consensus climate change science. But obviously, most of the people voting against it are not doing so because they reject science. Instead, they voted no because the provisions will do nothing about climate change, but will instead impose crippling new taxes, damage the economy, and vastly increase the reach of the federal government. Many also objected to the administration trying to ram through another massive big government bill without even having the provisions read and debated.

It should be clear that it isn't necessary to reject climate change science in order to disagree with possible remedies. But recognizing that fact would require intellectual honesty -- something that has never been associated with Paul Krugman. Krugman would be best served to stick to economics, rather than coming off like a fanatical member of a doomsday cult, screeching about people "betraying the planet."