Our brain can alter the way we perceive our own body structure. The “Marble Hand Illusion” is worth a quick read. The full paper is a very good example of how Science works. The authors of the experiment offer up full disclosure of how it was conducted and how the results were deduced. It is also fully referenced and therefore open to being peer reviewed.
The new “Cosmos” series has irked a few Christians. This article from Answers in Genesis is worth a read as it explains the “Created Cosmos” concept and shows what is so wrong with their unscientific view of reality.
So when Scientists announce later this week that they have detected gravitational waves from the aftermath of the Big Bang we can trust that the Scientific Method will be applied. This will go a long way to validating Inflation Theory and Einstein’s General Theory.
What would the Council of Giants think of us on our little planet for discovering such about our origins? What if we could also explain how Life of Earth started before Evolution started its own Inflation and created millions of species? The gaps for gods to hide in have all but disappeared.
A foundation in practical science is not to be underestimated. It not only teaches critical teaching to young children but it also has benefits for the nations that embrace it on the global economic scale.
This legal battle could have serious implications on the legal battle of same sex marriages and makes it impossible to justify any anti-gay laws.
Who has not heard the daft line that “Atheism is a religion”? Jerry Coyne asks if Intelligent Design should be considered one after the Discovery Institute claims those that mock it are being “anti-religious”.
Sharia law demands that all the wives of a Muslin man should at least reach puberty before they consent to sex. Apparently anything else in the religion of peace is just un-Islamic. Can you be an atheist Muslim in Pakistan?
On the other hand could Atheism be irrational? An essay with a bull story.
In Atlanta another Ten Commandments monument is historical rather than religious.
No, to the Noah movie in parts of the Arab world.
With all the fuss (have you not noticed?) about Pope Cuddles first year in charge I almost forgot god does not exist. Apparently American society is anti-Catholicism, at least according to it’s not so cuddly Bill Donohue of the Catholic League for Something Religious. I suppose their faith is a mystery and not a problem that Templeton prize money can solve.
For those that can view British TV, be sure to check out Lap-of-the-Planet a live link up with the International Space Station tonight.
And finally a few kind words for Satan.
Coffee Break Videos:
Morality and the diversity of moral values between Liberals and Conservatives (19 minutes).
A discussion on Raising Freethinkers (48 minutes).
That is a nice collection Reg.
Thanks always for doing this.
I hope the IDiots will rest their claim they are doing science.
Thanks for you kind words. I included a bit more Science and Cosmology this week. The announcement, if it happens, about the discovery of gravitational waves for the instant after the Big Bang will be huge. It is as important, maybe even more so, than the discovery of the Higgs Boson.
Update on the press announcement.
The 'Answers in Genesis' read was hardly worthwhile. The feeble attempt to invalidate the Cosmos' central theme was not surprising. In deciding between a very old book of questionable origin and the modern scientific understanding of our present day universe the choice seems glaringly obvious.
I agree that there are no real scientific merits to the AIG article. It does however explain their viewpoint very well and the arguments they use. I included it as a contrast to the first linked article. The first one shows exactly how the Scientific Method is used to make and justify claims before they are peer reviewed and reach a consensus in the scientific community. Once that happens it can be called “scientific knowledge”.
The problem with Creationists is that they pick snippets from different scientific publications, often cited out of context and use them to “prove” their arguments. They invent as they go along. Consensus is only reached when they agree it fits in with the “facts” of the Koran or Bible. Those books are the claim and not the proof of anything.
"Morality and the diversity of moral values between Liberals and Conservatives" - I really enjoyed this TED talk by the moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt. I read his book recently "The Righteous Mind" and this talk gives the whole thing in 19 minutes. I am impressed by his practical approach. It is clear that what I'm up to covers only 2 or 3 of the 5 universal moral pillars that he has identified. However, that's not a terrible thing. People like Haidt get so much further than the atheist moral philosophers who I think don't have any idea what they're doing. Sam Harris seems to be hung up on finding a scientific measure of well-being and on proving that religious morality is rubbish. This is not morality. Not that I study Sam Harris too deeply, I admit. I study the ego, the emotions, long-term consequences and the Healing Principle, which I think are the elements of personal morality, and which coincides with the religious morality. These also coincide exactly with Freud's id, ego, super-ego, reality principle and pleasure principle.
"The problem with Creationists is that they pick snippets from different scientific publications, often cited out of context and use them to “prove” their arguments." - don't we tend to do this too, in the other direction?