Really Bill? No explanation for the sun and the moon? Really?

This gem from Bill O'Reilly (via Andrew Sullivan) speaking about the complexity of the universe and the human body as if he's the first guy to EVER ask these questions in relation to the existence of a god or controlling entity or first cause or creator or whatever is just mind-boggling.

Okay, I understand people of faith really earnestly believe in creation. They're the ones who look at William Paley's argument from design and say, "Exactly! How do you explain the complexity?"

There's little reason to get into forming a cogent rebuttal of O'Reilly's self-satisfied rant. First of all, it was pretty well taken care of by this guy.

What bugs me is the way O'Reilly frames his argument as if no one has ever thought to ask his questions before: "Okay, the moon controls the tides, but how'd the moon get there? How'd the sun get there?" And as if no philosopher or scientist has ever successfully responded to these questions.

He's also dead wrong about the meaning of faith. He claims it takes more faith to believe that it was just luck that put us here than it does to believe in a deity. Wrong, Bill. There is absolutely no leap of faith whatsoever in believing in only what is observable and demonstrable. Faith is believing in something that no one has ever seen or proven to exist, but that they feel.

Don't Talk to Aliens (No, this isn't about Arizona)

Stephen Hawking warns that humanity shouldn't be so keen on making contact with extra-terrestrials. Mathematically speaking, it is highly likely there are other planets in the universe that have life and some of those with intelligent life. His argument is basically that there is a possibility that any intelligent life out there may not have benevolent intentions toward us. And if they have the capability to reach us, they most certainly have the capability to destroy or enslave us.

He points to Columbus's discovery of the Americas (which is only one such example) as evidence of what happens when an advanced civilization makes contact with a more primitive one - almost complete annihilation of its people, reaping the benefits of the abundant natural resources available. It's a somewhat reasonable assumption to make, except in thinking about how we would treat a planet of sentient beings after traveling there. It's hard to imagine humanity getting away with the wholesale slaughter and destruction of an alien civilization on the order of the European destruction of American Indians.

We have evolved beyond those kinds of attitudes, most people would agree. Although, those primitive cultures (and the prejudice is evident in the use of that word 'primitive') in the history of our planet were largely considered inferior and perhaps even less than human thus alleviating the people of guilt. Suppose we traveled to a distant planet that had life, but only in the form of microbes and small animals. Would we have any misgivings about strip mining such a planet for resources? Doubtful. Oh, the hippies and environmentalists would be loudly outspoken about it, to be sure, but in the end common sense would win.

Up the ante a bit. Suppose we discovered a planet populated by animals with an intelligence roughly on the order of the great apes, but still nothing approaching the intelligence and ingenuity of homo-sapiens. I'd still be willing to bet we'd have little problem taking what we wanted from such a planet.

Upon finding living beings capable of some form of clear communication, use of tools and possibly technological developments, I find it hard to believe we would act as the Europeans did toward the Indians. It seems logical to assume that any society that has achieved the ability to travel to distant planets (namely ours) has also evolved a higher sense of moral order and would not be coming here for nefarious purposes.

But then we come back to how we would treat a hypothetical planet populated by nothing more intelligent than the average chimp. What if the alien life that makes contact with us, travels to our planet, is advanced so far beyond what we are capable not only of doing, but of understanding? What if, to them, we are nothing more than chimps? Would they not have few reservations about kidnapping us and using us as test subjects and then taking what they want from our planet?

Yeah, Hawking may be right. Let's just sit quietly in our little corner of the universe and hope no one notices us.

Michael Specter at TED: Why is the Scientific Method so Difficult to Understand?

This TED talk exemplifies at a fundamental level some of the problems I have with so many opinions in the world. "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion...but you know what you're not entitled to? You're not entitled to your own facts," he says just before launching into a rant against denialism. He covers the loons who champion the elimination of newborn vaccinations and growing number of people (for the most part of both privilege and wealth, I have to say) who campaign against GM foods.



What's most troubling to me, however, is reading the comments below the video. I know, that's always a bad idea for thinking people. But there's a startling number of people who've written comments basically assailing his talk because they're skeptical of the science. Specter is giving a talk about how the scientific method as a process for finding facts, truth and answers is the best way to understand things in the world.

He says people like Jenny McCarthy, who campaign against disease vaccinations because of a ridiculously mistaken belief that they cause autism, are responding to anecdotal evidence rather than scientific evidence. Specter even comes out and says, "I understand why people think that," in addition to saying that we should ask questions and ask for evidence and proof. But once the proof has been provided, it's necessary to accept it. We can't deny science when it comes to policy and broad solutions.

Then people watch this talk and say, "I'm skeptical of science." Making a statement like that is a complete misunderstanding of how science works. The vaccine/autism link wasn't disproved by one scientist in a single lab. This was years of research done in several countries, each of which found no evidence of a causal link. That's how science works - through extensive research and experimentation, peer review, follow-up experiments.

What Michael Specter says in this video seems so self-evident to me. It saddens me to realize how many people will carry on without deference to facts.

If you're interested in more, Specter has a book on this very topic.

UPDATE: The doctor who made the connection between infant vaccinations and autism has been revealed as a fraud.