Conway's Game of Life, God, Science, and "The Lawgiver".

This is not going to be a rigorous scientific post. (Sorry about that) But it is in response to my fellow scientists who keep trying to prove to me things like Dr. Conway's Game of Life implies God isn't needed.   Or the line of reasoning of Sean Carroll which states that if the laws of the universe are able to explain everything we observe, the intelligent thing to do is to get rid of God.  My conclusion is that such scientists are falling victim to issues discussed here plus more I discuss below.

Now, I'm not going to try and prove God is exists, but only show that Conway's Game of Life may actually demonstrate the opposite of what atheists are hoping for.

Watch the video above.  Dr. Conway decided to see if diverse complexity can arise from simple rules.  He decides to program a computer game with simple rules and see what pops out.  Interestingly, he gets exactly what he was hoping for: complex creatures that appear lifelike.  (Watch the video).

To the game: So let's assume it took Dr. Conway ~6 days to come up with his simple set of laws, and on the seventh he rested from his rule making labors and decided to now let the game run and do it's thing.  :)   This is what would happen:

1. As more and more time goes by, more and more complex creatures would form.
2. Some creatures may become so complex they exhibit intelligence.
3. Some of these intelligent creatures may be so intelligent they realize that through science they can uncover what all the laws of the universe must be.
4. Some creatures may develop further hubris and claim: "Through science we can discover all the laws, and from these laws the universe and all its complexity we observe can be sufficiently explained by the laws alone.  And therefore, it is pointless to think an external sentient being was needed because the laws are good enough, and the only creatures that think an external sentient being is needed are deluded, brainwashed weak-minded creatures.  I mean, we can measure the laws, and know they are real, and they can explain everything we observe so a belief in an external sentient being is both unneeded and absurd!"
5. And yet others may conclude that the elegance and rationality of the laws may hint at a sentient source.  They might say: "I admit science is awesome and has helped us uncover all the laws one by one and the laws are really magnificent and can form galaxies, create complexity, etc... on their own.  True.  But shouldn't the existence of such rational and magnificent laws imply a rational and magnificent lawgiver?"
6.  I'm sure there are other conclusions to be drawn but I will stick to #4 and #5. (You can come up with your own conclusions in the comments.)

In this case, #5 would have to base their belief solely on faith and aesthetics but the interesting thing is (in this case) #5 are the creatures that are correct!

Conclusion: None of this proves God exists!  That's not my intent. But I hope this shows two things:

1. Just because the laws we uncover with science can explain everything observed, and therefore are "good enough" in this sense, does not imply a sentient lawgiver is an unintelligent thing to believe in.  In fact, in the very example the atheists use when discussing Conway's Game of Life, a sentient lawgiver is the correct conclusion.
2. The fact that there are such laws in our own universe: rational, elegant and having the richness to create all of the magnificent complexity we see should allow us to wonder (without too much ridicule): Could such laws really exist without a Lawgiver with similar qualities: rationality, elegance Who through small and simple means (simple laws) bring about great things (complexity)?  Do the laws really just coincidentally exist this way (end of story) or are we allowed to think that perhaps there is more?  

Anyways, I am not going to sit here and say atheists are obviously wrong.   I admit living in such a Dr. Conway world, #4 may seem like a very tempting conclusion.  However, I also think that people who ridicule the #5 creatures walking the earth today are very pre-mature and presumptuous in their ridicule.  (In Dr. Conway's world, the #5 creature are right!)

So, I think there are intelligent reasons to believe the elegant and rational nature of the laws, that I and my scientist colleagues uncover each day, in fact hint at a very elegant and rational source.  

There Really Are Religious Scientists

When scientists make the news for something they say about religion, it often comes across as if all scientists are atheists or at least committed agnostics.  Stephen Hawking made waves when he stated that God isn't needed to explain the universe, and Richard Dawkins seems to constantly be in the news spouting off about the evils of religion and the glories of atheistic science.  From my department's roughly 50 graduate students I have heard maybe a dozen  disdainful tirades against religion but only two people (one of which was myself) openly profess any sort of religious affiliation.  It can seem, at times, that serious research science is a religion-free zone.

That's why I was fascinated to learn about a fellow named Eric Priest (holding the sun to the right).  Dr. Priest is an emeritus professor of mathematics at St. Andrews University in Scotland, a solar physicist, a winner of prizes from the American Astronomical Society and the Institute of Physics, a fellow of the Royal Society, and an honorary lecturer at Harvard, the University of Oslo, and a number of other places around the globe.  He's a serious scientist who has had a long and productive career at the forefront of his field.  He's also quite religious.

From a sermon he delivered at University Chapel at St. Andrews:

So should we trust science or God?  My answer is clearly both – but in different ways.  Science & Religion are much closer in approach than perhaps you realised.  We all need Science to learn more of nature God’s universe and to tackle problems of 21st century.  we are each on a journey of discovery in this life, in company of the communities of which we are part and with the guidance & support right at core of reality of  a God whose Holy Spirit cares for each one of us. 

So let us pray: 
Lord Jesus, we pray that you will continue to guide and inspire us, as we learn more of the nature of your incredible universe, and as we seek to follow you in our journeying all the days of our lives.  Amen

It warmed my heart to read that, not only for the sentiments but for the source.

How Much Should Scientists Extrapolate The Known To The Unknown?

We know an awful lot about the observable universe in the "low-energy" regime and a question that bugs my mind is: how much should we extrapolate what we know about the universe to regions we technically don't know much about? Three recent events have made me think about this:

1. Dr. Kolb and Turner, who probably gave the most enjoyable talks at the AAS Meeting, bristled at the idea that many cosmologists are convinced we live in a multiverse from extrapolating what we know about the observable universe and went into outright mockery of string theorists who have dreamed up branes, landscapes, etc... by doing the same thing.
2. Sean Carrol, who recently polled readers of how likely inflation was, suggested one of the reasons he only gives inflation a 75% chance of being real is that it involves energy scales that we know nothing about. (But in fairness to inflation, this leads to predictions that are verified so you can't put in in the same category as something like string theory. :))
3. Jonathan recently asked if it was fair to say the universe is flat globally if we only have data showing flatness "locally".  

Now, first of all I think there is one very good reason to extrapolate: It's the best we can do given what we know now!

But I guess one question that bothers me is: How much confidence should we put in our extrapolation of known physics to the unknown?

I will give you an overly simplistic example just to make sure we are on the same page.  What if we were living in a one dimensional world and this was our observable universe:

Now, what would we, living at that red dot, conclude about the whole universe from extrapolation?  Probably that we live on a sine wave.  And from x between -6 and 6 that assumption would seem to work very well.

But what if it turns out this was our universe:

As we see here, our assumptions based on extrapolation would be wrong.

Now many of you will think this is childish, but is it?

For example: there was a day when humans had good reasons to believe the earth was flat.  They extrapolated... and they were wrong.  There were others who had good evidence that the sun and stars orbited around the earth.  They extrapolated... and they were wrong.  There were others who had experimental reasons to think gravity can effect all other matter instantaneously. (Action at a distance)  They extrapolated... and they were wrong. Etc...

And so I wonder how likely we are to be falling into the same trap as our ancestors?  On one hand extrapolation is all, and is the most honest thing, we can do.  But on the other, history has had a way of punishing the extrapolaters.  

One should be said though: once new data does come demonstrating our cherished "extrapolated" theories are wrong, eventually the mainstream science community drops them and moves on.  History has shown that eventually mainstream science will lead toward the right answer as more data comes in on the matter.

So what do you think?  How much confidence should we scientists put in our "theories from extrapolation"?

How Scientists See The World.

My family, including much of my extended family, enjoys going to national parks such as Yellowstone. However, I sometimes get the feeling that they wish I would spend a little less time explaining the science behind what we are seeing because frankly... I think it ruins it for some of them.

The comic, from Abstruse Goose, below helps me better understand why.

(However, I am also reposting Feynman's video on the same subject above in my defense as he shares the same sentiment about the issue I do.)

Enjoy!

Should Being Religious Deny You A Job As A Scientist?

A very interesting article appeared in the Journal Science recently where a scientist, Martin Gaskell, was denied a job at the University of Kentucky (UK) "because he is an evangelical Christian".

From the Science article:

During the search process, a UK committee member discovered an article on Gaskell's personal Web site titled “Modern Astronomy, the Bible, and Creation.” The article, based on talks Gaskell had given, “appeared to blend science and religion,” according to a brief filed by the university.

And further:

In an e-mail to Science, Gaskell called himself an “old earth theistic evolutionist,” a label that deems evolution a tool God used to develop life. In his deposition and his e-mail, Gaskell says he is not a creationist or a subscriber to intelligent design, both of which, to varying degrees, discount natural selection. However, his lecture notes cite work by astronomer Hugh Ross, who embraces an old Earth, as geologists do, but rejects evolution as the guiding principle for life.

Now, all this has been taken to court so we will yet see how this plays out:

“It's a rather intriguing case,” says Ehrich Koch, an attorney in Minneapolis... “It appears as though what the court is saying is both sides have arguments, and they may be able to prove their case.”

The trial is scheduled to begin on 8 February. On 1 March, Gaskell begins work as a professor at the University of Valparaiso in Chile.

Now what are my views?  First of all, I do think someone who is unable/unwilling to teach, defend and research mainstream science is someone who universities should avoid hiring.  That said, it would be unfortunate if you were denied a scientific job purely because you happen to be associated with a religion.

This story hits home, not because I share fanatical religious views about science with fundamentalist Christians, but because I would never want to be denied a job because it was discovered... brace yourself...  I was LDS.   I have always defended (and believe!!!) good mainstream science from evolution to the big bang to, etc...  In fact, I have now over a dozen journal articles as a graduate student, or soon to be journal articles, on physics related to the big bang and believe and advocate every word of it.  Furthermore, on this blog I have always tried to defend good, mainstream science.  But, there is always the worry that some committee won't care and will just tag me as some "crazy Mormon" whom they would like to not have as a new hire.

And: from Newton who "wrote more on religion than he did on natural science" to today with prestigious members of the National Academy like Francisco Ayala or the human genome's Francis Collins, one thing history has shown is: religious people can make some darn good scientists!

And I for one intend to be a darn good scientist myself.

So what are your thoughts, both on this specific case, and in general on whether being religious should be grounds to not hire a scientist?

Feynman On Legitimate Scientific Theories.

In the short video above, Feynman hits the nail on the head describing how a scientist goes about formulating a new theory. (As he so often does.)

I hear people tell me, ever so often, things like: "My theory is that the universe is really a giant black hole" or "my theory is that the reason the universe is expanding is there is yet undetected matter heating up and causing expansion like when bread rises in the oven."

There isn't anything wrong with musing over such ideas but, if you want to be a real scientist you now need to go further and work out the consequences of your theory in a way that we can test it.  And your test must be one where your theory has a chance of being falsified otherwise it is not good science.

Now I'm not saying that all non-scientific ideas are foolish! Some supposed friends of science take this concept way too far.  For example, I'm not so sure you can classify the statement that a man should "not be judged by the color of [his] skin but by the content of [his] character" as a scientific statement.  But I sure believe it as much as Dr. King hoped I would.

But what I am saying is that if you want to feel you have a legitimate scientific theory you need to have one where consequences have been worked out so that we can practically verify or falsify the theory.

Funny XKCD On Labeling Axes!

I know a lot of scientists will love this.  My experience is, even if I think my plot is crystal clear given the context and title, if the axes aren't labeled someone is gong to complain! :)

NASA's Global Ice Viewer.

I'll spare everyone another research article today and will point you to NASA's Global Ice Viewer.  It's an interesting resource to see visually what has happened to ice levels on different parts of the world over time.  I discoverd this from Hanks's blog:

To get a handy view of what is happening in the big areas, Greenland, the Arctic and the Antarctic, NASA have put together a Global Ice Viewer.

You can zoom in on Ilulissat Glacier, which is is depositing icebergs in cubic kilometer denominations equivalent to 9.3 trillion gallons per year - if that sounds like 14 million Olympic-sized swimming pools every 365 days, it is. Or Antarctica, where ice shelves the size of small U.S. states have collapsed in recent years.

It's handy stuff if you want to show time-lapsed examples of change in the ice levels.

Enjoy! :) 

Looks Like The Ozone layer Is No Longer Disappearing.

I'm not that old, but I am old enough to remember when there was a major scare that the Ozone was disappearing.  In fact, the scare was bad enough that I remember having special time set aside in school where we could talk about what we could do to prevent the Ozone depletion from getting worse. (Basically we needed to stop hair spraying our hair among other things.)  We also got the full scare tactic treatment might I add. :)

Well, I'm happy to report that it appears the Ozone is no longer disappearing and may return to full strength by 2048.  From Daily Mail:

The ozone layer is no longer disappearing and could be back to full strength by the middle of this century, UN scientists have confirmed... 

The phasing out of nearly 100 substances once used in products like refrigerators and aerosols has stopped the ozone layer being depleted further, although it is not yet increasing, according to a new United Nations report released last week... 

The ozone layer outside the polar regions is projected to recover to pre-1980 levels by 2048, although the annual springtime ozone hole over the Antarctic is not expected to recover until 2073.

The plot at the top of the post is what the Ozone looks like today and the image below shows what it looked like before 1980.  As you can see there is still a noticeable difference but all indications are that this issue will go away.

I can find two take away messages that you are free to debate:

1. The scare tactics may have been over done. (At least at my school.)
2. The world coming together to work on problems together can actually accomplish a lot of good.

Any thoughts?

Should We Redefine The Kilogram?

What is a kilogram?  For those who don't know, it is the mass of a certain cylinder of platinum sitting in France. (Seriously.)

However, surely the mass of that cylinder is changing.  What about the atoms that fall off every time it is picked up?  Do we really want the definition of something as important as the SI unit for mass to be something that changes ever so slightly with time?

Therefore, I found this article to be interesting from the Physics Arxiv Blog:

Why not make the kilogram equal to the mass of a certain number of carbon-12 atoms, specifically 2250× 28148963^3 of them?

Then a kilogram would be a cube of carbon 8.11cm on each side (8.11cm is roughly the length of 368,855,762 carbon atoms laid side by side).

With that definition, almost anybody could make a kilogram in their own kitchen given some carbon and a knife.

I think this would be a good idea.  Then the definition of the kilogram would remain fixed forever and would be something anyone could compare to with relative ease. (That is, easier that comparing with a cylinder in France hardly anyone is ever allowed to touch.)

Thoughts?

Despite Hawking, Universe Existence/Origin Is Still A Mystery.

As you may have heard, Stephen Hawking says universe is not created by God because, in a nutshell, gravity exists:  "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing".  Moreover, he believes M-Theory can fully explain our universe and therefore God is no longer needed.

At first I was going to stay out of this discussion since, as I said before, I believe the argument over science versus religion is often unfruitful.  But after reading some interesting comments by fellow cosmologist Peter Coles, whom also has written some good books on cosmology shown above, I decided to comment.  First, from Coles: (by the way, I've coauthored 4 papers with this guy.  Small world!)

It’s interesting that such a fatuous statement managed to become a lead item on the radio news and a headline in all the national newspapers despite being so obviously devoid of any meaning whatsoever. How can the Universe be “a consequence” of the theories that we invented to describe it? To me that’s just like saying that the Lake District is a consequence of an Ordnance Survey map. And where did the Laws of Physics come from, if not from God?

Stephen Hawking is undoubtedly a very brilliant theoretical physicist. However, something I’ve noticed about theoretical physicists over the years is that if you get them talking on subjects outside physics they are generally likely to say things just as daft as some drunk bloke down the pub. I’m afraid this is a case in point.

I agree.  Moreover, I find it funny that when Hawking and others find physical theories that can completely describe our universe, they seem to forget that certain questions about the universe still remain a mystery such that, as far as I can tell, can only be solved using tools beyond science.  For example, I am interested if science can ever understand these basic questions about the universe:

1. Why does the universe obey laws at all?  I've read several papers and textbooks written by physicists where they admit it seems unexplainable to know why the universe obeys laws.  Science may demonstrate which laws are being explained and how, but can science ever explain why? Furthermore, why do these laws happen to be mathematical in nature?

2. Why, of all possible physical theories, has the universe chosen to follow string theory?  First off, I must say my first reaction to Hawking's claim was: "So he feels comfortable replacing God with a highly speculative  theory. :)"  But given I believe string theory has a good chance of being the true "theory of everything", and for sake of argument I will assume that it is.  Fine, but can science ever show that it is impossible for a universe to exist without string theory being true?  If so, why did our universe select string theory of all theories to follow?  People will say: "It has to because it is composed of strings."  Fine, but then why is it, of all things, composed of strings?

3.  Why does the universe even exist in the first place? So that we can exist?  So that ...?  Hawkings says it is natural because gravity exists.  Fine, but that just kicks the can down the road.  Why does gravity exist in the first place? Etc...

4.  If the answers to these questions are always philosophical in nature, why bash religion? I admit that I have heard potential answers to these questions but they all have one thing in common: they are philosophical answers!  Or they say such questions are pointless which is again just a subjective belief.  But that's just it!  On one hand scientists have their own philosophical answers/subjective beliefs concerning these types of questions that bring confort to their minds but then go on to attack religion as being unscientific.  It's as if their unprovable philosophical beliefs concerning deep mysteries of the universe are okay but religious explanations for such questions are not to be tolerated.

So in a nutshell:  First, I do believe something like string theory is probably a true physical theory.  Second, I know from experience such theories can explain the existence of the universe "naturally".   But, why the universe happens to obey laws at all and why of all theories string theory was selected is, and I am sure will always be, a mystery to me.  As far as I can tell, such why mysteries will always be beyond the scope of science and can only be explained philosophically.  So if you are going to answer such deep questions about the universe with unscientific philosophy, why be so intolerant of "unscientific" religious explanations to the same questions?

Could The Planck Satellite Discover A New Species Of Neutrino?

It has been known for some time that the WMAP data is more consistant with the existence of four neutrino species than three. Nevertheless, most cosmologists shrug this off as three is by no means ruled out. However, Hamann et al. 2010 demonstrate that such a dismissal may be a mistake.

It turns out, when WMAP 7 year data is combined with Sloan data, the three neutrino species model is ruled out by nearly two sigma. The best fit number of neutrino species becomes 4.78 +/- 1.79 at 95% confidence. Furthermore, big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) data involving Heluim abundances seems to confirm that such an excess better fits the data.

With this in mind, Hamann et al. 2010 decides to test just how many extra neutrinos are needed to fit the combined data of "the WMAP 7-year data release, small-scale CMB observations from ACBAR, BICEP and QuAD, the 7th data release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, and measurement of the Hubble parameter from Hubble Space Telescope observations".  Their findings are plotted above.  They confirm that when all data is added together, the existence of one or two extra neutrinos provides a much better fit than only the standar three.

If this is real it would be major news! On one hand such a "4th" or even "5th" neutrino would have to exist at low energies as it has clearly affected both BBN and CMB physics.  However, extra neutrinos at such low energies have alluded modern particle accelerators.  Therefore, such much neutrinos must be "sterile" in that they do not couple to the rest of the standard model the way normal neutrinos do.  Furthermore, they must not have a lepton partner the same way other neutrinos do. (Example: like the electron neutrino does with the electron.)

Interestingly, if there are an extra one or two of such neutrinos in nature, the Planck satellite has a good chance of making a 5-sigma discovery!  (See plot below).  If this happens, the discovery of such interesting low energy neutrinos could well go down as one of Planck's greatest contributions to science.

Jan Hamann, Steen Hannestad, Georg G. Raffelt, Irene Tamborra, & Yvonne Y. Y. Wong (2010). Cosmology seeking friendship with sterile neutrinos Eprint arXiv: 1006.5276v1

Carl Sagan And The Cosmos.

The Interestion posted this video with Sagan's accompanying first words for his TV series The Cosmos.  I would like to add the similar first three paragraphs of the his book, Cosmos, as I feel they do convey a healthy sense of wonder for the universe in which we live with a reminder that to understand such a majestic structure we need both imagination and skepticism.  

The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be. Our feeblest contemplations of the Cosmos stir us - there is a tingling in the spine, a catch in the voice, a faint sensation, as if a distant memory, of falling from a height. We know we are approaching the greatest of mysteries.

The size and age of the Cosmos are beyond ordinary human understanding. Lost somewhere between immensity and eternity is our tiny planetary home. In a cosmic perspective, most human concerns seem insignificant, even petty. And yet our species is young and curious and brave and shows much promise. In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival. I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.

Those explorations required skepticism and imagination both. Imagination will often carry us to worlds that never were. But without it, we go nowhere. Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. The Cosmos is rich beyond measure - in elegant facts, in exquisite interrelationships, in the subtle machinery of awe.

Very few people can say it like Sagan could.

Massive Early Stars And Molecular Hydrogen Cooling

The big bang produced only Hydrogen and Helium with trace amounts of Lithium. (For the most part.)  This is a problem for star formation because stars need to be "cool" to form and typically you need heavier elements to help the star cool off.  This is why:

Gravity pulls mass together.  However, as matter gets pulled together it heats up and this heat causes the matter to want to expend again.  (See the image above.)  In order to form something like a star you need a way to keep the matter cool so that gravity can pull the matter into a dense ball without pressure ripping it apart.  In modern stars, heavy elements do this by releasing energy through photons.

To first order, photons can only be reabsorbed by elements/molecules "like" the element/molecule that released the photon.  Since modern stars contain some but not many heavier elements, the photons that get released by heavier elements never get reabsorbed and exit the star cooling it off.

However, the first stars only had Hydrogen and Helium and lots of it.  By the above argument, any photons being released by a Hydrogen or Helium atom would quickly get absorbed by another as they are so plentiful in stars.  For this reason, the early stars must have been very large and massive as they had no way of cooling into the types of stars we had today.

The Results:

Kreckel et al. has published an article in Science discussing advances in this area.   It turns out, that molecular hydrogen appears to have cooled off these early stars better than anything else.  The problem is there is a lot of uncertainty over how much molecular hydrogen there was in early stars.

Kreckel et al. preform experiments in a lab and put tight constraints on the amount of molecular hydrogen, H₂, that must have existed in the early stars.  These constraints tighten the uncertainty in the mass of early stars from a factor of 20 times the jeans mas to a factor of two.  Ie... there error bars on the mass of the first stars has dropped by a factor of ten with the new constraints on the molecular hydrogen abundance!  It is amazing how much influence cooling channels have on a star's mass.

Now we can be excited for the James Webb Space Telescope that may allow us to study these first stars in detail.

Kreckel, H., Bruhns, H., Cizek, M., Glover, S., Miller, K., Urbain, X., & Savin, D. (2010). Experimental Results for H2 Formation from H- and H and Implications for First Star Formation Science, 329 (5987), 69-71 DOI: 10.1126/science.1187191

Creating a Love of Science

As many people in our country have, I have become increasingly concerned with the state of science and mathematics in our educational system, as well as the stigma attached to those who enjoy those subjects. As a result I find myself convinced of the need to inculcate a healthy love for math and science amongst my own children. My wife and I are often on the lookout for good educational games, museums, and opportunities to help our kids in that regard. Additionally, although I surmise that my kids probably don't fully understand my responses, I try to answer their questions as carefully, accurately, and as simply as possible as they relate to the world around us.

Recently, we stumbled across the Hands-On Museum in Ann Arbor, MI. It had been recommended to us by several and we decided to give it a try. In short, it was brilliant! It had many exhibits, each touching on various aspects of "how things work." It had a half-built house showing framing structure, plumbing, heating and air conditioning. It had a biology section showing bone structure, as well as fun cardiovascular and strength exhibits. It had a full-size ambulance available for examination. It had exhibits on sound waves, an optics and light room, a forces and torques section, a pullies exhibit, an automobile section, electricity, and so on. We liked it so much, in fact, that we bought a season pass. Ultimately I'm not sure who liked it more - me or the kids!!

I think it's vitally important to create a sense of wonder and awe for science and nature. There is so much to learn, so many puzzles yet to solve, and so many amazing phenomena, it's hard for me to imagine why anyone wouldn't be interested! So my question, readers, is how do you create this sense of wonderment in your children? Do you have similar museums where you live? Do you spend time with your children talking about nature and how things work?

The Awakening Sun Might Keep 2012 Theorists Happy.

I find it interesting that NASA is warning there may be "unprecedented levels of magnetic energy from solar flares after the Sun wakes “from a deep slumber” sometime around 2013" and that furthermore

Scientists believe it could damage everything from emergency services’ systems, hospital equipment, banking systems and air traffic control devices, through to “everyday” items such as home computers, iPods and Sat Navs.

Due to humans’ heavy reliance on electronic devices, which are sensitive to magnetic energy, the storm could leave a multi-billion pound damage bill and “potentially devastating” problems for governments.

 This should keep people concerned about December 23, 2012 (eerily close to 2013) happy.

So Nick, should we be scared?  Is the sun going to awaken and destroy human civilization?  Do we quickly need to make another Inconvenient Truth movie now about how if we all own too many electronic devices the sun might destroy society?

Thoughts On New Atheism. (Yet More Pet Peeves.)

Time for another post for my pet peeves series. I would like to address this new atheism that seems to be promoted by more and more.

I will not be blogging much about this as I think promoting the literacy and the love for science is helpful, whereas the science vs. religion debate is fruitless. Those who spend all their time engaging it completely have their priorities mixed up. (Like any extremist-minded person does.) People: spend some time promoting good science and not always attacking things science says nothing about!

Seriously!

1. Firstly, I Don't Take Issue With Them Being Atheist.

Let me start out with saying I do not take offense that they are atheist. I actually understand where many are coming from. They see that many traditional claims made by religious people seem untrue (like the world being only 7000 years old) and see many religious people rejecting basic science like evolution. Furthermore, they think a world with no God fits the data better than one that does. They just don't see evidence for God in nature so they have a hard time believing God is there.

Fine. I'm not going to discuss this here. In am not attacking atheists in general but these new atheists who not only oppose religion but for whatever reason seem obsessed with it.

*Also, I apologize in advance if I appear to be stereotyping all atheists.* They are not all like this... but some are.

2. They're Being Hypocritical When They Make Claims Without Applying Basic Scientific Rigor.

A quote:

They trot out tired, half-truthful stereotypes, and they cherry-pick historical examples of religious wrongdoing while ignoring the innumerable instances in which the faithful have performed great acts of decency and charity.

I will make this simple for them to understand: They can't get their claims published in established, reputable, peer reviewed journals.

They will claim how important it is to use evidence, good intellectual rigor and tout how believable claims should be strong enough to stand the peer review process. And yet their new atheist claims usually are not! (And they hope we accept their unpublished claims!)

Where has Dawkins published a paper in a reputable journal demonstrating religion is more harmful than good? (As he claims.) Where are the articles showing religious people fall into the stereotypes they glean from cherry picking history? (As any good scientist knows not to do.) They reality is, when it comes to scientific rigor, new atheist are hypocrites. (Or show me their own peer reviewed journal articles backing such claims!)

Seriously!

3. Many Have Become Fundamentalists Themselves. (Often Belittling Scientists Who Are Better Scientists Then They Could Ever Dream Of.)

Some new atheists have become as fundamentalist minded as the very people they deride. They live in a world where everything is black and white with no grey. I personally know of many who can't stand someone is a great scientist... if they happen to even be understanding of religious people.

Even if I won a Nobel Prize for physics (which won't happen by the way) all they would see is the fact that I am LDS and wrote a post like this. For example, take the Templeton Prize winners. Many of these people are better scientists than the vast majority of all these new atheists will ever be and yet they are often derided and treated with ridicule.

Once you have crossed the line to demeaning scientists who are 10 times the scientist you will ever be because they find meaning in something beyond the realm of science... you have officially become an extremist.

Seriously!

4. Many Hide Behind Science To Promote Their Pet Agendas.

New atheists are no different than than politicians who use the the politicization of science to promote their pet agenda! The fact is: science neither confirms nor denies the existence of God and these people try to hide behind pseudo-scientific arguments to do just that. Anyone who tries to to use science to prove God does or does not exist is wasting everybody's time and is being just as disingenuous as the above politicians.

Science cannot prove the existence of God, the Easter Bunny or for that matter the existence of good, love, beauty, morality, etc... And yet they are so quick to write volumes on how foolish people are for finding meaning in the former entities and yet not the later ones. There is definitely a biased agenda at play here.

Seriously!

5. What They Should Do.

If you are an atheist who is concerned with the horrible level of science literacy in the world, fine. I'm not attacking that. What I am attacking is a hypocritical, non-rigorous, fundamentalist agenda some have taken up pretending it is somehow backed by good science!

What these people need to do is get their priorities in order:

1. Demonstrate the wonders and benefits from accepting good science.
2. Demonstrate how much progress has been achieved from humans using science at their disposal.
3. Stick to claims that can be backed by the peer reviewed literature and avoid pet agendas that have nothing to do with science.

Edit:

Since I wrote the above I wanted to add this for reference:

6.  Atheism Causes You To Be Unproductive And Unsuccessful In Life.

Look at the above two images.  This study clearly shows that while atheists have a higher IQ on average, they also end up with less money than other people on average.  Obviously atheism causes you to be unproductive, unsuccessful and live largely below your potential.  How many politicians, generals, famous actors and actresses or successful businessmen are atheist?  Basically if you are smart but don't want to amount to much in life, studies that you should take up atheism.

Obviously this is a joke, but one made to prove a point.  There are probably 100 reasons besides atheism to explain why atheists have above average IQs and yet cannot figure out how to make as much money as the average person or hold political office, etc...  I recognize this.  It would be dumb of me to jump to such conclusions from such a non-rigorous interpretation of data such as.

I just wish some atheists would give religious people the same courtesy.   I wish they would pause and ask themselves if they have sufficiently gone through the 100 reasons, other than religion, to explain the data they like to flaunt?  For a people with such high IQs, I must say it seems like such an intellectually stupid thing to do.

Please just stick to promoting good science!  Blanket lumping together and attacking religion in general is often done unscientifically, is unproductive and a waste of time. (It is as unproductive and intellectually disingenuous as me writing books on how atheists are just unsuccessful eggheads.) But then perhaps people prone to atheism are naturally good at being inefficient and unproductive and so I just have to realize that trying to tell such people to do something helpful with their lives won't work. Again, joke. :)

Science Only Adds To Beauty, Not Takes Away.

A recent comment on this blog inspired me to post this video. This is the famous physicist Richard Feynman who is spot on describing how a scientific understanding of nature enhances your ability to see the beauty in it.

The video is less than two minutes long and you really should watch Feynman say it as he does such a good job.  But for those who feel they have no time, here is the main point: (But again, watch how Feynman says it.)

I have a friend who's an artist, and he sometimes takes a view which I don't agree with. He'll hold up a flower and say, "Look how beautiful it is," and I'll agree. But then he'll say, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull." I think he's kind of nutty... There are all kinds of interesting questions that come from a knowledge of science, which only adds to the excitement and mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds. I don't understand how it subtracts.

How Important Is Science Literacy In Society?

Everyone should take six minutes out of their day and watch this video of Neil DeGrasse Tyson speaking on the importance of science literacy at the World Science Festival. (I was pointed to this by Uncertain Principles.)

Here are some highlights I found interesting:

First: Avoiding Self Delusion.

Science literacy empowers you to know when someone is basically full of it...If you understand how the world works, and what the limitations are, then you can judge if someone is trying to exploit your... ignorance.

He gives an example of someone trying to sell you crystals with amazing healing powers.  He argues if you have good science literacy you will know you need to have answered questions such as: "How do they work?  What kinds of ailments do they cure?... How have you tested them?" etc...

Unfortunately, poor scientific literacy may lead to a society that is easily duped and/or will form opinons based on bad ideas.  Those with good science literacy realize the importance for backing up claims, an incredibly important trait as "we as a species are particularly susceptible to self-delusion".

Furthermore, knowing how to test claims should be absolutely crucial for wall street, governments, manufactures and society itself to make correct decisions.

Second: Scientists Understand Liberal Arts, But Often Liberal Artists Don't Understand Science.

Scientists by and large are often quite knowledgeable in areas outside of science.  If you go to the home of most scientists there will be Bach and Beethoven and Shakespeare on the selves...   

One thing I think that as a nation we should be embarrassed by is that the scientists-- you can do this experiment yourself, I've done the experiment-- the scientists, by and large, know more liberal arts than the science that is known by liberal artists."

He then discusses how at a cocktail party of scientists you will never hear them laugh how they never understood how to read Shakespeare or couldn't understand basic nouns and verbs.  However, if you go to a party full of people interested in liberal arts, they have no problem laughing about how they never understood the first thing about math.  Tyson wonders why this causes no embarrasement.

Or as said on Uncertain Princpiles linked above:

It should be exactly as embarrassing in educated company to say "I'm no good at math" as it would be to say "I'm no good at reading."

I'm biased but I think there is a point to be made here.

Thoughts?

snArXiv.org, And Fun With Abstracts For Theoretical Physics

If you've ever seen a title and abstract for a theoretical physics paper, you are going to love this.  It's called snArXiv.org, and hosts titles and abstracts for fake theory papers.  The above title and abstract is one example.  It's completely fake and randomly generated by the site's author David Simmons-Duffin using trends from the real ArXiv.org.

I must say it is pretty clever.  Honestly, many of these titles and abstracts look pretty similar to what is actually posted on the real physics pre-print site. (Though obviously wouldn't pass peer review.)  It just goes to show how crazy the theory literature can be.   This article is even co-authored by Feynman, Heisenberg and Higgs! Obviously the fake ones of course. :)