Signs of the Times

Darwin OK But Overrated?

Salvo editor James Kushiner over at Mere Comments:

The St. Darwin Lobby will not be happy with this Time interview with British political journalist Dennis Sewell on the 150th Anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species (November 24, 1859). Asked about whether he was concerned that his ideas "will be trumpeted by the creationist movement." Sewell replied: "Science is a big enough interest group. It can look after itself." He doesn't dispute Darwin's biggest idea, but notes his errors and also how bad people have used (and continue to use) Darwin.

Salvo 11 Sneak Peek

The winter 09 Salvo is now being printed for a scheduled mail date of December 8th. Three or four articles from the issue will be made available online at that time. Check out the table of contents to see what's in store! I'll be posting more on this issue in days to come. Thanks!

Neuroscience: My latest MercatorNet story: Brain scans and neurotrash

 It's the ultimate branding strategy. Just slap "neuro" before a word and the goofiest speculation becomes respectable science." Here:

Unfortunately, neurotrash may not always be harmless nonsense in marketing departments about what color of car people choose. Increasingly, in the form of neurolaw, it is catching on in the legal profession, in the same way that lie detector tests did decades ago. What happened there was that some people learned to fake results - people who may well have committed serious crimes. Who knows how many others were damaged by false results when they were innocent?

A serious ethical question also erupts as to why the accused's brain should be scanned anyway. It is not a crime to think about a crime, only to act outside the law.

Even if a brain scan showed the accused was thinking about it, that would never prove he did it. Lots of employees hate their boss and wish the boss would just drop dead. If you scanned their brains... well, let's say it's better not to go there.

Very few employees actually commit a violent crime against the boss, so the brain scan evidence - even if reliable, which it probably isn't - is not worth gathering.

Also, we must consider traditional principles of law. Under English common law, if a person cannot be convicted on the external evidence of their intent and actions, that person cannot be convicted. Period. It is too bad if the prosecution team loses, even when morally certain that the accused is guilty. But that is an incentive to improve their procedures in normal ways.

Yes, it matters. Your family doctor should be reading this. Go here for more.

 Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

Mean Peace

Should you add Satan to your Board of Directors?

Belief in hell spurs economic growth?

In "Satan, the great motivator: The curious economic effects of religion," Michael Fitzgerald (Boston Globe, November 15, 2009), advises,

A pair of Harvard researchers recently examined 40 years of data from dozens of countries, trying to sort out the economic impact of religious beliefs or practices. They found that religion has a measurable effect on developing economies - and the most powerful influence relates to how strongly people believe in hell.

Of course, these researchers either have it all wrong or else they are gravely misreported.

Belief in hell is a function of the belief that what we do matters and that the death of the body does not end everything for us. On a mundane level, if what we do matters, we can improve our economic lot by focusing on useful actions rather than useless or harmful ones. Of course, when it comes to matters of eternity, well ... consult whatever responsible religious authorities you think can help you.

We also learn,

Barro and McCleary, for their part, think religion and policy are difficult to mix. McCleary says the lesson of their results isn't that governments should boost religion, but simply that they should recognize it has some value, and avoid regulating it too heavily.

Well, government had - in my view - better avoid regulating religion "too heavily" (?!). Recent Canadian experience suggests that government should get out of the area entirely. "Human rights" commissions here have caused nothing but trouble in recent years when they meddle in matters of eternity, not time. But good citizens are now fighting back and slowly forcing the government back to its proper - and much needed - sphere of influence.

Some of us - even though we are not Americans - sometimes Google the US First Amendment, for comfort:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As one of the Canadian free speech journalists, (of whom there are now many, glad to say), I am grateful for the good citizens worldwide who wish us well in dealing with the current "social engineering of religion" menace* - and we will help you too, when you are attacked.

* A big problem has been the right of Christian churches to teach their members that the gay lifestyle is not acceptable for their members of good faith. Just so you know, the big gay rights group, Egale, is not backing this agenda. The people who launch persecutions tend to be disgruntled individuals. Canada has freedom of religion. People who do not agree with their denomination's position are free to join a denomination that thinks otherwise, and there are several here.

If you are interested in this problem, see Shakedown or Lights Out or Tyranny of Nice.

Also just up at Just up at The Mindful Hack, my blog on neuroscience and spirituality, which supports The Spiritual Brain:

Polar Bear Plummet

Every time you emit carbon, Al Gore kicks a polar bear out of an airplane.

Catching the criminal before the crime

In the Shrapnel section of Salvo's last issue, there was a fascinating section titled "Pre-Crime control", about the British policy of retaining DNA samples of innocent children in an attempt to prevent crime.

Echoing those comments, the UK's Immigration Minister, Damian Green, warned last week that the UK's child database is attempting to predict crime before it happens.

The project, known as ‘Contact Point’, contains personal information on each of the 11m children living in England. According to Mr. Green, one of the functions of the computerized system is to identify those who are more likely to commit crimes than others.

“It seems ridiculous but the Minority Report-style concept of a ‘pre-crime’ is alive and well,”, said Mr. Green, referring to Stephen Steven Spielberg’s 2002 science fiction thriller in which a special police unit discovered how to predict crimes and arrest the criminals before the crimes actually occurred.

Mr. Green’s comments were made on November 17 in a speech to students at the University of York. The Immigration Minister criticized police data collection methods, urging everyone in Britain to become a freedom fighter.

Government ministers have claimed that the ContactPoint database, which includes "information as to the existence of any cause for concern in relation to them", will make England’s children safer. However, critics of the plan have argued that it could put children at risk if the information were to fall into the wrong hands. They have also expressed concerns that it could lead to a functional reversal of the ancient British principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The surveillance of children began with Tony Blair, who announced in September 2006 that by analysing family circumstances, it will be possible to spot children who might grow up to be a ‘menace to society’ even before they are born. Mr. Blair’s scheme called for certain children to have social workers assigned to them even before they were born.

Coffee!! Cosmology: We have now identified the evil universe. Stand by to open fire.

And just when I thought cosmology could not get any sillier, ... Stuart Fox of PopSci (10.16.2009) assures us that "Physicists Calculate Exact Number of Alternate Universes There are 10^10^16 of them (but #1,000,443,163,313,125,343,132 is the evil one)"

For some time, physicists have theorized about the existence of alternate universes. In fact, some models of physics require multiple universes, to explain some rarely observed phenomena. But, other than obvious ones like The Man In The High Castle Universe where the Nazis won WWII, the Earth-295 Age of Apocalypse Universe, and the Terran Empire "Mirror Mirror" Universe, just how many alternate universes are there? Well, some Stanford University physicists have answered that question, and the magic number is: 10^10^16 other realities.

Glad someone else has a sense of humour about all this nonsense.

Also just up at Colliding Universes, my blog on theories about our universe:

Uncommon Descent Question 12 winner announced: Can Darwinism beat the odds?

For Uncommon Descent Question 12: Can Darwinism beat the odds?, we have declared a winner, and it is Philip W at 11. Philip W must provide me with a valid postal address* via oleary@sympatico.ca, in order to receive the prize, a free copy of the Privileged Planet DVD. Philip W tells me that he is a pilot, and I liked his analysis of issues around flight:

Darwinian evolution can not possibly explain the life which we find on this planet. Let’s explore one of these methods by asking the question “How, and why, did flight originate?” Before any creature took to the air there was nothing there to eat and so why would any creature, even an intelligent creature, want to fly. There could have been no powerful survival benefit in flight beyond perhaps escaping a predator to recommend it. Also, there are many other and far simpler ways to escape a predator. Flight is perhaps the most complicated and sophisticated activity that any creature possesses which means that it would have taken an extraordinary number of attempts by random evolutionary methods to make it a reality. There is another and even more fundamental question which underlies biological flight. Did nature, completely unguided by intelligence, just somehow know that flight was even possible or achievable? Humans, with their intelligence, were able to make gliders and toy airplanes long ago but they had an objective and they also had the model of the birds to follow. Even at that it took a long time to achieve human flight despite the huge cost in time, effort, and treasure which they were willing to expend. No amount of tinkering, especially without a conscious objective, could possibly account for biological flight. There are simply too many things which would have had to happen all at once for that to be possible. Remember that nature had no way of knowing that flight was possible and it certainly had no previous conception of flight. Without having an objective how can random tinkering achieve anything?

Go here for more. Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.

Uncommon Descent Question 11 - can biotechnology bring back extinct animals - winners announced

For Uncommon Descent Question 11: Can biotechnology bring back extinct animals?, we have declared a winner, and it is binary! Twins!

 Aussie ID and Nakashima.

I loved Aussie ID's information about the specifics of attempts to restore the thylacine - he calls it a Tasmanian tiger.

Possibly due to culture issues, I am more familiar with hearing the animal called a Tasmanian wolf. But anyone interested should review his information.

 I'd love to know what a staked out* sled pack in northern Canada would make of the marsupial Tasmanian. He doesn't look to me like he has three coats of hair, so he might need to work in the office.

I also appreciated Nakashima's thoughtful reflections on the question of how behaviour might not follow the physical recreation of an animal. I suspect he's right; it's an open question indeed. Each of you must provide me with a valid postal address** in order to receive the prize, a free copy of Steven Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009).

If you go here, you will get a bit of background on the contest, and read many interesting contributions, but for now, here is the skinny:

This one's a bit of fun, but there is a serious purpose behind it. In "A Life of Its Own: Where will synthetic biology lead us?" (September 28, 2009 New Yorker mag), Michael Specter reports, "If the science truly succeeds, it will make it possible to supplant the world created by Darwinian evolution with one created by us." Jurassic Park, anyone?

Additional notes on interesting posts as well. Go here for more.

Denyse O'Leary is co-author of The Spiritual Brain.