I learned from BBC today, that CERN has invited philosophers and theologians to debate the origins of the universe, following the discovery of the Higgs boson (or something of the sorts). Now, I can see how some philosophers can potentially contribute to certain questions regarding the origins of the universe, humanity, consciousness, morality etc. No problems there. They can ask some good questions and pave the way for science to find the answers. They may even provide some quasi-answers as well I guess.
You may or may not have already heard about the recent study published in the “Food and Chemical Toxicology” journal, linking genetically modified (GM) maize with aggressive tumour formation and premature death.
No, it’s not actually the case as it was reported in such influential and accurate media as the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. However, a new study showed increased levels of polyunsaturated fatty acids, linked to benefits in human health, pushing the balance slightly (only slightly as we will see) towards consuming organic milk with some tangible excuses behind.
Amongst a very large number of apparent “designs” in nature that certainly won’t compete for any efficiency awards, the laryngeal nerve of many mammals is a magnificent piece of bad engineering. The extreme case of a giraffe is discussed in this video by Richard Dawkins -and would make a great souvenir for Michael Behe‘s living room.
I spotted this in a BBC Horizon episode, and it is a very common “error” based on a poor understanding of the concepts involved.
The Guardian, has an online column called “Comment is Free” where The Guardian, The Observer, and about 600 writers contribute with posts on religion, current affairs, politics, science, and health. Unavoidably, along with thought provoking “comments” you also get “bullshit” -as Penn and Teller would so vividly say.
Last night I was watching a debate between Christopher Hitchens and Frank Turek, on the question: “What best explains reality: theism or atheism?“. I could not help but notice that the same arguments were presented yet again by some religious apologist. Nevertheless, some of them I found interesting not in their argumentative prowess, but in that while they seem intuitively wrong, sometimes I am hard pressed to express my opinion on the subject. Therefore, I am writing this post mostly to document my thoughts, and hope to generate some discussion or provoke some thinking in my numerous (three to be precise) audience.
Following the recent case of the British Chiropractic Association against Simon Singh, a lawsuit which was eventually dropped leading BCA to implode under its own absurdity, there is now yet another libel lawsuit against a critic of pseudosciences and dubious practises: Doctor’s Data Inc. against Stephen Barrett, MD