Tag: science

Posted on

Score one for the Catholics…

So, Tony sent me this link from FOX News…ironically… Apparently, an astronomer from the Vatican has said that Intelligent Design has no place alongside evolution in the science classroom. He’s the highest-ranking Catholic to make such a statement.

a). FOX News finally put out some useful information that isn’t conservative in nature.
b). The Catholics apparently aren’t completely incompetent in leadership as previously believed…
c). Now, we just need to get the Catholics to admit that open communion and women in the clergy are alright and we’ll be making some progress…

Hey, it’s a step in the right direction, right?

Posted on

Of principles and $$$…

So yeah, I got to thinking today… I use Linux and various other open-source programs instead of Windows for a variety of reasons, but one of those is that the information contained within is freely available to anyone who wants it. What does that mean? Well, it means that if you download the “source code” of the Linux kernel and other “open-source” programs, you can edit it and tweak it to your heart’s content. If you decide you don’t like the way a certain function of the program works, you can (assuming you know some programming…) change it to fit your purpose. The reason why this is cool is that it allows knowledge to travel freely between different groups; what one person starts with a program can be learned from and transferred to another application, allowing for the programming itself to improve over time.

Now, switch gears into science. My plan has been to get my Ph.D. and then work in industry for awhile, making some cash, and then maybe switch back into academia and teach for a few years to alleviate boredom around retirement time. The correlation is that academia is like “open-source,” where information is published and freely available for other scientists to learn from and take a step further, while industry is like “closed-source” where you work toward patents that can allow you to make money and prevent y our opponents from coming up with a solution to a given problem that’s better than yours.

So, the question remains: am I hypocritical in using open-source software, believing in what it stands for, and then getting a job and making a career in industry where I will work in a “closed-source” environment? I mean, I have relatively expensive hobbies (computers/electronics, etc.) and I’d like to be able to finance them, and to do so, I need a job in industry so I can afford that 1969 Shelby Mustang…but is it right to compromise principles in doing so?

I dunno…I guess there’s no simple answer to the question…but I’ve got 5 years to figure it out…

Posted on

Good vs Evil

You know, I tend to try avoiding preaching when I post on here…as in, trying to talk about Christianity as a religion in any way, shape or form…yet, the subject does enter into my opinions on things like teaching Intelligent Design in our public (non-Christian) schools. Therefore, let me digress from “the norm” a bit…and in light of that, let me quickly propose my definition of a “good Christian:”

One who believes not only that Jesus Christ is the son of God and that He gave His life for us, but also that this person lives their life as an example of what God envisions for His people.

If you have an addendum to that statement, please post a comment. Personally, I think it’s the latter part of that definition that gives people some contention, since many of us tend to disagree as to what “God envisions for His people.”

I, therefore, wish to put forth a statement from someone I consider to be a “bad Christian:”

“I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover (Pennsylvania): if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don’t wonder why He hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for His help because he might not be there.”

This statement is not an example of what a “good Christian” would say, for obvious reasons. A good Christian does not wish ill will upon others. As the Bible dictates, Jesus was all about living his life and being an example of what we should be doing, even though that may be difficult. At no point in my recollection of the Bible (and I could be wrong…and I’ll correct this if proved otherwise…) does Jesus ever wish God’s wrath upon anyone. Note: the statement written above does not explicitly express “ill-will,” but I think it’s implied…again, perhaps I’m wrong on that…

Pat Robertson, you are indeed a terrible Christian and a very bad example of what Christians are taught and seeking to accomplish. You are, however, doing an incredible job of putting lies in the heads of non-Christians who now, due to your innate stupidity, have no good reason to change their minds about the religion. Good job, you worthless, lying, bastard.

Posted on

Links and more…

The Kansas Board of Education has, again, voted in favor of Intelligent Design instead of Evolution in high school classrooms. Two-page article…don’t forget to click “next” at the bottom… A few good quotes from that article:

?This is a sad day. We?re becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that.??? said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

…and…

In 1999, the board eliminated most references to evolution. Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that was akin to teaching ?American history without Lincoln.??? Bill Nye, the ?Science Guy??? of children?s television, called it ?harebrained??? and ?nutty.??? And a Washington Post columnist imagined God saying to the Kansas board members: ?Man, I gave you a brain. Use it, OK????

Also, Jerry shot me this e-mail with a note passed on by Dr. Lockhart at Truman, a Biology professor, essentially outlining “not-so-intelligent design” in humans…kinda amusing, really… Things like high blood pressure, colon cancer, etc…if we were so well designed, wouldn’t we have better defenses against such things? Who knows…not I…

Apparently, the Dover, Pa. school board members that were up for re-election have all been booted…and there were 8 of them… This is where the infamous Scope’s Monkey Trial took place many a year ago, and the site of a new trial where the board was trying to force ID on high school students…w00t!

And finally, there’s an essay in TIME Magazine this week written by a Nobel Prize-winning physicist that discusses his opinion on the issue…and I whole-heartedly agree… It tells us how ID does nothing really to forward scientific thinking and really hampers it by placing all of current knowledge in a box (with everything outside this box being in “God’s realm”).

You all know my opinion(s) on the matter, so I won’t rehash them… Actually, that last link is probably the best descriptor of my views on the subject that I’ve read yet, so if anything, check that one out… And if you go to school in Kansas, my apologies…start voting so that you don’t remain the laughing stock of the world, yo…

More on this later, I’m sure…this issue isn’t going away anytime soon…

Posted on

Oh, cholesterol…

So, Dr. Stephenson was talking to us in class today about something he read in the Journal of Clinical Cardiology recently, saying that they believe we should all strive for the lowest total-body cholesterol count possible. Basically, we shouldn’t try to have a count of “below 200” or “around 150″…we should just go and go until it’s as low as it can go.

Anyway, he then mentioned some studies that show up years ago on the same subject… These studies said that people who had low cholesterol were less likely to die of cardiovascular diseases. However, keep in mind, this data only reflected death by cardiovascular problems, not by other factors.

Essentially, it came out that, yes, people with cholesterol counts around 130 or a little higher did well…but people lower than that started to die off. Why’d they die off? Suicides and murders. Apparently, people who had extremely low cholesterol counts died because cholesterol is a relatively key component of cell membranes, especially those in your brain…so people would start getting either really depressed and would kill themselves, or they would get psychotic enough that someone would kill them…

Take home message: eat a lot of fatty stuff and die happy, rather than depressed or crazy.

Posted on

Oh, Kansas…

Excerpt from the November 2005 issue of Popular Science, where they reported their annual “Worst Jobs in Science” article:

#3. Kansas Biology Teacher
On the front lines of science’s devolution.

“The evolution debate is consuming almost everything we do,” says Brad Williamson, a 30-year science veteran at suburban Olathe East High School and a past president of the National Association of Biology Teachers. “It’s politicized the classroom. Parents will say their child can’t be in class during any discussion of evolution, and students will say things like ‘My grandfather wasn’t a monkey!'”

First, a history lesson. In 1999 a group of religious fundamentalists won election to the Kansas State Board of Education and tried to introduce creationism into the state’s classrooms. They wanted to delete references to radiocarbon dating, continental drift and the fossil record from the education standards. In 2001 more-temperate forces prevailed in elections, but the anti-evolutionists garnered a 6-4 majority again last November. This year Intelligent Design (ID) theory is their anti-evolution tool of choice.

At the heart of ID is the idea that certain elements of the natural world?the human eye, say?are “irreducibly complex” and have not and cannot be explained by evolutionary theory. Therefore, IDers say, they must be the work of an intelligent designer (that is, God).

The problem for teachers is that ID can’t be tested using the scientific method, the system of making, testing and retesting hypotheses that is the bedrock of science. That’s because underpinning ID is religious belief. In science class, Williamson says, “students have to trust that I’m just dealing with science.”

Alas, for Kansas’s educational reputation, the damage may be done. “We’ve heard anecdotally that our students are getting much more scrutiny at places like medical schools. I get calls from teachers in other states who say things like ‘You rubes!'” Williamson says. “But this is happening across the country. It’s not just Kansas anymore.”

Posted on

Random thought…

So, sitting in class today learning about the biochemical machinery that leads to transcription via RNA Polymerase…I wondered the following: What if the world were populated by robots instead of humans? Now, these are robots with robot humanoids, robotic animals, robotic plants, etc… I mean, we know practically nothing about how or why things work in our bodies…but when we think of machines, we designed them, so we know how they work and why. So if these machines did not have knowledge of their creator, or if they simply arose on their own somehow, would they find it just as difficult to figure out how and why they work? …even though, inherently (since we designed them), they “work” on a less sophisticated level than our organic bodies? Would these robots have the same questions about their origin as we do? Would they have to learn about how they function, or would they care?

…I gotta get out of here…

Posted on

…oh, Pastafarianism…

So, Dr. Zassenhaus is teaching right now in my lecture class about basic Mendelian genetics. He told us earlier this week that he was making a presentation today in reference to Intelligent Design and Evolution, so I’ve been looking forward to this all week because I haven’t heard much discussion amongst Ph.D. scientists that I know and the sources I’ve read through discussing the subject rarely consult pure molecular biologists and biochemists…and I came away from the presentation with a few interesting points…

First of all, Zassenhaus began the discussion talking about the Kreb’s Cycle. For those who don’t remember, this is a pathway in mitochondria (an organelle in our cells) that converts relatively simple carbon chains into other forms, generating ATP, which is the “currency” that creates energy in our bodies. Since it is a cycle, the products begin in one state, are converted to another state, and are then returned to their original state to start the cycle once again. One of the classic Intelligent Design arguments is that this process is not reducible; one cannot remove a part of this cycle and still have it function, leading them to suppose that an intelligent creator must have created this pathway. The process couldn’t have simply “appeared” on its own, already functioning.

The problem with this assumption, as Zassenhaus further enumerated, is in the fundamental argument for Intelligent Design: that life is too complex to have just happened. The argument, as he states, is the classic “Watchmaker Analogy,” such that if you are walking in a field and see a watch, you know that it didn’t simply appear, but that someone had to make it. The problem is that all of Intelligent Design arguments stem from that one analogy. There is no evidence besides it. The one scientific study he could find that tried finding true evidence was carried out by a mathmetician (Dembski) who said that the chances of such a thing appearing is something like 10^-170 (that’s one time in 1,000,000[continue to 169 “0”s…]), which is unbelievably small…bordering on impossible…

As Zassenhaus concluded, these probabilities outline a huge flaw in the thinking: where Intelligent Design advocates believe such a pathway just sprung into existence, and was created by someone else, biologists for years have viewed the formation of proteins/enzymes/etc. differently, as individual subunits that are added on and removed to provide a different function that wasn’t there originally. Therefore, those statistics don’t apply to the way we know biology to work. Sure, it says that such a thing as the Kreb’s Cycle appearing out of a soup of random amino acids is really small…but the chances of a different protein forming out of that soup is very possible, and then that protein adding on other parts of different proteins is also possible…slowly adding together to form the pathway we know as the Kreb’s Cycle.

In short (’cause I wasn’t, overall…), the moral is: Intelligent Design advocates have yet to produce true, testable, scientific evidence beyond the flawed probability studies. Is Intelligent Design still possible? Of course it is! But, as Zassenhaus said, teaching it alongside Evolution on equal footing as a viable scientific theory is, quite simply, nuts. In that room of 20+ Ph.Ds., there were none that defended Intelligent Design in the way it has been portrayed as a science. They all believe it should be relegated to a philosophy class, not the science classroom. Unfortunately, the “powers that be” refuse to listen to the scientific community on what should be taught and what shouldn’t be.

Figures…

So, in that vein, can anyone give me evidence to the contrary that isn’t based on “evidence by analogy?” I know that Andy S. already gave me information on another theory…hehehehe…

Posted on

Well played…

step up on soap box

From an article at ABC News regarding the most recent “Intelligent Design” trials in Dover, TN (which you all should be paying attention to…since the U.S. Constitution itself is being undermined and trivialized…), the following was quoted. “Miller” refers to Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University; “the statement” refers to a reading that the faculty at Dover’s public schools have to read prior to discussions on evolution in science classes, also offering an “alternative” textbook that was referred to by me in a previous posting…:

The statement read to Dover students states in part, “Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered.” Miller said the words are “tremendously damaging,” falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.

“What that tells students is that science can’t be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into,” he said. “There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory,” he added. On the other hand, Miller said, “intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community.”

During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin’s theory.

“Would you agree that Darwin’s theory is not the absolute truth?” Muise said.

“We don’t regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth,” Miller responded.

Well played, Miller…well played… Indeed, the beauty of science is that things can be proven and disproven, including Newton’s Laws (and in some instances, they’ve been proven wrong…quantum physics, for example…). Intelligent design advocates, however, are unwilling to allow for proof/disproof (because what they advocate cannot be proven or disproven). Therefore, by definition, what they advocate is not science at all and has no place within the science classroom (except for mention that theories alternative to evolution exist…I have no problem with that…it’s just treating theories other than evolution as “just as plausible”…’cause there aren’t any…).

…I just love how the Constitution is being tossed around like it’s nothing by folks…it was written for a reason, protecting civil liberties and separating church and state. It was done for a reason. That’s the way it should stay, or we may as well rename our country as “Saddam’s Iraq: where you have to believe what I tell you or I kill you.”

step down from soap box

Posted on

How chemists do it…

Per my grand-little’s away message (Sarah Hobbs…in AXE @ Truman…):

How chemists do it…

Chemists do it reactively.

Chemists do it in test tubes.

Chemists do it in equilibrium.

Chemists do it in the fume hood.

Chemsits do it in an excited state.

Chemists do in periodically on the table.

Chemists do in organically and inorganically.

Electrochemists do it with greater potential.

Polymer chemists do it in chains.

Pharmaceutical chemists do it with drugs.

Analytical chemists to it with precision and accuracy.

…so true on so many levels…

…stoopid grad skool and studying for tests…grrrrrrrrrrrr…