1. God seekers go public

Comment #179361 by bugaboo on May 13, 2008 at 6:57 am

"scientists have been quietly and patiently working in the laboratory to test the predictions of intelligent design".

What predictions?

This is getting tiresome.

2. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172080 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 8:03 am

Comment #172069 by Steve Zara

Point taken.

Comment #172076 by irate_atheist

they are the ones who SHOULD know better but dont think about it and dont want to get involved. They work in universities corrupted by decades of relativism where they are afraid of offending the sensibilities of the students.

3. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172067 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 7:47 am

Comment #172042 by Steve Zara

I know quite a few "religious scientists" who profess belief in christianity, islam or whatever. But when debating very often retreat to a position of deism or pantheism and after the debate revert back to whatever. I guess they simply dont think that much about these issues since there are other pressing matters; getting papers published, writing grant proposals etc.

4. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #172046 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 7:21 am

seeker-of_truth

Since Darwin blew the argument from design out of the water there are no good reasons left to believe in gods. Many of the scientists you name were ignorant of his revolution. Sure, religious scientists will still do good science following the method but a complete understanding of the universe will only be hampered by religious thought. It is after all truth we seek.

5. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #172013 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 6:15 am

Comment #172003 by Szkeptik

"The enlightenment didn't happen in the blink of an eye."

Of course, but information these days travels in the blink of an eye. We have to use this to educate and, as you suggest, as a matter of urgency.

6. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171983 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 4:10 am

Comment #171968 by Szkeptik
"You can try to peal their religion off the culture, but I doubt you would succeed."

Dont see why not. its been happening in Europe and beyond since the enlightenment. What is it that we are trying to achieve?

"What we have now in most of the middle east is a lot of barbarians hiding behind the ruins of a once great civilisation."

No. what we have is a lot of human beings poisoned by religion

7. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171891 by bugaboo on April 29, 2008 at 1:40 am

Comment #171876 by Szkeptik
"All we have to do is destroy their culture and replace it with our own"

I find this deeply disturbing. Destroy their religion fine but culture? i live in the uk and love the many of aspects of culture that other people bring here when they arrive: food, art, music etc (yeah even maybe McFood). But when it comes to religion thats a different matter.

8. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168336 by bugaboo on April 25, 2008 at 3:30 am

i propose he becomes known as Darwins Spaniel

9. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167566 by bugaboo on April 24, 2008 at 7:04 am

Dennetts beard makes him look like Santa and Winstons moustache is rather Stalinesque!! Dinah :we guys get beyond a certain age (when testosterone levels decline it would appear) and it's a pain in the ass shaving everyday so... Is that right guys? (Ive got a beard and dont know how to do a wink with the keyboard)

10. Science 2.0 -- Is Open Access Science the Future?

Comment #167415 by bugaboo on April 24, 2008 at 2:33 am

Imagine that everyone had had access to the raw data pertaining to the efficacy,side effects of eg Prozac to name one example.

11. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #166228 by bugaboo on April 23, 2008 at 2:54 am

Really dissapointed in Winston. Thought he was simply a quiet believer in belief but now think he's dangerous. Pascals wager? WTF? The use of the courtiers reply. Taking the populist stance equating "brights" with intellegence. Answer this question truthfully Prof Winston Do you believe in God?

12. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162169 by bugaboo on April 16, 2008 at 9:08 am

Three cheers for Harold Kroto! Dont let the IDiots grind you down.

13. Science Debate 2008

Comment #162042 by bugaboo on April 16, 2008 at 3:46 am

Comment #161455 by RobDinsmore

your points are well taken.

14. Science Debate 2008

Comment #161292 by bugaboo on April 15, 2008 at 6:02 am

"America's seemingly inexorable decline" ? Look at any issue of Nature, Science, PNAS etc etc What percentage of papers are presented from American labs/researchers? It must be approaching 90%. I suspect also that to gain points in any debate candidates will have to pay lip service to alternative therapies etc. Would any of the candidates risk dismissing ID in a science debate? I do like the idea of such a debate however

15. British schools are falling for the pseudoscience of Brain Gym. Why fill kids' heads with nonsense?

Comment #160629 by bugaboo on April 14, 2008 at 8:44 am

Man the lifeboats. The idiots are winning. Today I read, open-mouthed, a piece in the Guardian on the spread of Dawkins and his secular army and how they must be stopped.

16. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158095 by bugaboo on April 10, 2008 at 4:17 am

The Nazis also incorporated the weird ideas of Ernst Haekel into their "science". This guy thought that in order to investigate the evolution of life you could stop digging for fossils and look at embryonic development-recapitulation as he called it. I seem to remember that he suggested that by looking at embryos one could prove that jews were further down the evolutionary scheme than dogs. He had read Darwin but had got it totally muddled. You can still see his drawings in fairly recent school text books (1980s at least).The same books that show that famous gradation whereby on the left hand side of the page there is something that looks like a lemur, towards the right a chimp, second from right is an african man and finally a fine specimin of a white european. This was under the evolution section at the end of the textbooks. Really fucked up.

17. Reviews of Expelled

Comment #158076 by bugaboo on April 10, 2008 at 3:48 am

"If Hitler's version of Evolution was bad science, why did the scientists in Nazi Germany go along with it? "

Fear?

18. 'Darwin chip' brings evolution into the classroom

Comment #158060 by bugaboo on April 10, 2008 at 3:17 am

"if it involves chips, it's sure to do well with british schoolkids."

Could be combined with Fluoresence in Situ Hybridization then they could have FISH 'n Chips. Might even work better with some sodium chloride and 1% acetic acid. Oh dear, sorry!

19. In His Name We Pray, Ramen

Comment #152005 by bugaboo on March 30, 2008 at 2:16 am

Penne from heaven?

20. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150102 by bugaboo on March 26, 2008 at 1:04 pm

Comment #150082 by bitbutter

Yes. i meant treat him like any other regular guy(which he did) Out of common courtesy and decency and not fear of reprisals.

21. Saudi Arabia Leader Calls for Interfaith Dialogue

Comment #150073 by bugaboo on March 26, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Rod The farmer. If it had been a vice versa transaction i suspect you may not have been sold the car- if he knew were an athiest. However i dont think you should behave as he would. Treat him as a human being. If you start denigrating religious people in the street you may be percieved as a raving loony. Does the cause no good. What do you think?

22. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149205 by bugaboo on March 25, 2008 at 9:03 am

Dougal.. I mean irate_atheist: Indeed: that's what i was alluding to.

23. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149183 by bugaboo on March 25, 2008 at 8:31 am

Meant to say: "My NUT/religion comparison is an even better fit.." and then "I have no desire to proselytise for atheism or to persuade people out of religions that may offer them comfort and companionship" Perhaps still half asleep?

24. Wicked untruths from the Church

Comment #149173 by bugaboo on March 25, 2008 at 8:18 am

Sounds like Aaronovitch has just awoken from a deep slumber.

25. Immune system differences found

Comment #145003 by bugaboo on March 17, 2008 at 6:57 am

We've known for years that there are differences in immune system genes (HLA eg)and that susceptibilty to infectious agents can vary among different groups of people eg HIV infection in certain areas in West Africa. This is evolution in action ( the fact that there are differences in these genes-selected for by the pressures of various regional infections)Pharmacogenetics will play a key role in tailoring to the specific medical needs of people in the future.

26. They prayed to cast Satan from my body

Comment #144995 by bugaboo on March 17, 2008 at 6:43 am

The dark ages.

27. Discovery Challenges Finding of a Separate Human Species

Comment #142694 by bugaboo on March 13, 2008 at 3:12 am

Thanks for the comments Teratornis: I understand that scientists are human and express emotions in exactly the same way as any other human beings. My comments were pertaining (in my my mind and i should have clarified this)to the way these ideas are published or explained to the general population. Seems to me that a lot of people love it ( I meet them!)when there is this sort of in-fighting among scientists esp. on evolutionary topics.

28. Discovery Challenges Finding of a Separate Human Species

Comment #142110 by bugaboo on March 12, 2008 at 2:52 am

Ive been reading about this on and off for a couple of years. What strikes me is the emotion displayed by the scientists in the various camps. Perhaps the samples from Flores are a distinct species, perhaps not. As i understand it the evidence points to the former being most likely. Why dont they just investigate the evidence in the cold light of day and favour the simplest hypothesis until new data comes along. Why so emotive? I could understand it if the religous conotations were playing a role in the decision making process but that's not the case, is it?

29. Evolving Mistakes

Comment #134094 by bugaboo on February 27, 2008 at 8:35 am

I remember reading an article on the evolution of the dog published in PNAS a couple of years ago. The diversity we see today in dogs was accomplished very rapidly. The authors hypothesised that this rapid evolution was brought about not by single point mutations but variations in the number of tandem repeats in homeobox genes, which regulate body shape/size etc. A large number of genes expressed in the brain have the potential to undergo this type of change(Huntingtons eg)Could this go part of the way to explaining the great encephalisation seen in humans? I havent seen anything written on it. Anyway good article.

30. The Encyclopedia of Life, No Bookshelf Required

Comment #133982 by bugaboo on February 27, 2008 at 5:45 am

Ive just had a look at the demonstration pages and looks amazing. Was wondering if viruses will be included.

31. Cal scientist reflects on Darwin's genius

Comment #126726 by bugaboo on February 14, 2008 at 3:38 am

Thanks Rod the farmer. I was under the impression that they accepted evolution on a large scale but had tried to slip creationism in by rejecting the evolution of eg molecular motors or biosynthetic pathways or the whole cell, since they see this kind of machinery as "irreducibly complex" This is what I understood as Behe's "Darwins black box".( I havnt read it!)An attempt to present certain biological systems as unexplainable by natural selection (therefore god did it)

32. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126329 by bugaboo on February 13, 2008 at 2:00 am

Armageddon outta here!!

33. Cal scientist reflects on Darwin's genius

Comment #126323 by bugaboo on February 13, 2008 at 1:38 am

"Believers in intelligent design insist that the tenets of evolutionary theory are deeply flawed and that humans and other animals could never have evolved from more primitive species". Is this really what they beleive. Have i totally misunderstood what Behe et al have been saying? ID is deeply flawed but i'm not sure its proponents would deny evolution has actually occurred.

34. U.S.: 'Demonic' militants sent women to bomb markets in Iraq

Comment #120558 by bugaboo on February 2, 2008 at 1:56 am

The British press are reporting that the suicide bombers had Down syndrome. How do the Iraqi authorities/press know this?

35. 'Telepathic' Genes Recognize Similarities In Each Other

Comment #117010 by bugaboo on January 28, 2008 at 3:35 am

Have'nt read the article.A double helix is a not a rigid structure but "breaths", and so perhaps the phenomenon could be explained by intermittant base pairing.

36. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23821 by bugaboo on March 3, 2007 at 2:15 am

This is off the main track but the idea that Al Jazeera "practically tell Bin laden and his followers Bravo" is utter nonsense. Visit the site for news in the middle east or anywhere else and you'll find nothing but well balanced reporting. Its just so far removed from the western media that it does have the ability to throw you off balance.

37. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19483 by bugaboo on January 27, 2007 at 3:08 pm

mango, regarding NYC and Fargo I think its largley social. When explaining human behaviour however i dont think you can discount the effects of genes. In the UK we have similar demographics: people in rural areas tend to be conservative and people in cities tend to be liberal. Perhaps people with certain dispositions are attracted to living in certain areas. (that will sound naive i know since poverty etc will play a large role in peoples choices) I dont know -just a thought. No one will ever find the "libertarian gene" or whatever. But having particular versions of genes will increase the statistical probability of a particular behaviour manifesting. Of course the "correct" environment will have to be present for the expression of traits.

38. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19475 by bugaboo on January 27, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Mango.. i was simply responding to your comment regarding politics/criminality. In response to your question (that relates to the topic)about the children of criminals i sited Pinker,Daly and Wilson since therein lies the evidence that( eg )violent behaviour is indeed partially heritable. I used the example of violent males as the most obvious role of genetics.

39. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19469 by bugaboo on January 27, 2007 at 1:22 pm

Responding to Mango..Genes certainly do contribute to "criminality". The most obvious example being that males are more violent than females. I agree that our upbringings are extemely important however genes do play a role as evidenced in the many studies sited in Pinker(The Blank Slate) Daly & Wilson etc.

40. Are politics in your DNA?

Comment #19462 by bugaboo on January 27, 2007 at 11:49 am

Certainly you can't be born a communist, fascist etc but genes will contribute to personality temperament etc and people with certain varietes of these traits will tend to support different political parties.

41. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19024 by bugaboo on January 24, 2007 at 12:14 pm

"Brights are bright. they know a thing or two" This is exactly the problem with the term. Any time its used believers will accuse us of arrogance. We can't convert people by suggesting they are dim-they simply wont listen to any rational argument after that.

42. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17614 by bugaboo on January 15, 2007 at 5:43 am

denoir "Any selfish behaviour is linked to the selfish genes and any altruistic behaviour is linked to a hypothetical early social environment"? Perhaps that the most selfish thing a gene can do is to make its host altruistic. i m paraphrasing here it may have been RD who said it.

43. For Human Eyes Only

Comment #17590 by bugaboo on January 15, 2007 at 3:54 am

"But such an advantage would apply to other primates as well" or the relevant mutations leading to that trait did not occur in other primate lineages.