Science is a big tent. It includes such topics as orgasms. Mary Roach is the presenter in this fora.tv video. A psychologist and sex researcher, Mary is the author of several books, including her latest, Bonk: The Curious History of Science and Sex (2008). She takes this topic almost seriously, dishing out memorable stories along the way.
I recently had the opportunity to view Bill Moyers' 2007 interview of British intellectual Jonathan Miller, who produced the PBS series, "A Brief History of Disbelief." It’s a lively and thoughtful interview (it lasts about 20 minutes). Here are some excerpts, but it is well worth watching the entire thing:
For a very long time, atheism was not an affirmation; it was accusation. I mean, it was talked about, that there were atheists, in those same ways that there were Communists under the bed. You know, there were they were they were around, but no one knew where they were or what they looked like, or and so forth. For me, I am only a disbeliever by virtue of the fact that I'm surrounded by people who make assertions to which I cannot lend my assent. -- BILL MOYERS: When you hear the word "God," what goes off in your head? How do your brain cells fire? JONATHAN MILLER: Well, I mostly, I haven't the faintest idea what people are talking about. -- I hate the word, "spiritual," anyway because it's been hijacked by this ghastly sort of new age lot, who talk about "spirituality." What I would say is, I have moments of - I suppose you might call them transcendent feelings; feelings which rise above what is immediately in front of me. -- I'm reluctant to use the word 'atheist' to describe my own unshakeable disbelief and that's not because I'm ashamed, afraid or even embarrassed, but simply because it seems so self evidently true to me that there is no God that giving that conviction a special title, somehow dignifies what it denies.
Kenneth Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University. He is also a widely published author (co-author of high school and college biology textbooks used by millions of students). He is also a practicing Roman Catholic who has served as an expert in several court cases concerning creationist school boards that have tried to muzzle classroom science. In his most recent book, Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, Miller makes an unrelentingly strong case against creationists of all stripes, including those who advocate "intelligent design." I did not realize the strength of the scientific case based upon the analysis of the genomes of human beings and other animals. How strong is it? It is at least as strong as the fossil record, arguably much stronger. I already knew a few things about the arguments based on genome analyses. For instance, I had often read that the genomes of chimpanzees and humans were 99% the same (or, at least, 96% the same). I also knew that all animals possessed Hox genes, essentially "toolkits for generating body form." Miller reminds us that "it is the same kit whether that animal is a honey bee, a fish or an elephant." The Hox genes prove "deep connections between animal groups." Miller points out that these similarities are even much more striking than Haeckel's (admittedly exaggerated) embryonic drawings. In fact, Haeckel "actually understated the evolutionary case each of these embryos possesses the same developmental toolkit, revealing both are common ancestry and the similarity of form and function produced by the workings of the evolutionary process." These profound Evo-Devo findings (the combination of development and the study of evolution) show that we "no longer need to make a distinction between the two types of change known as macro evolution and micro evolution. We don't need to attribute special mechanisms for large-scale changes. Evo-devo "reveals that macro evolution is the product of microevolution writ large." According to Miller, these should be "chilling words" to the ID crowd.
Have you ever been to a petting zoo like this? It's in Argentina, and it's called the Zoo Lujan. I wondered whether this was a legit story, but I've seen confirmation at other blogs like this. This reminded me of an advertisement for a snake amusement park which I spotted when I was in China ten years ago. The ad indicated that for an admission fee, children get to enter a swimming pool full of snakes. The ad even included a photo of children in a big pool full of snakes. I'm such a coward . . .
I had never actually wondered this question until I spotted this video. Let's simply say that not all of the qualities of little balls scale up well. I'm going to categorize this post, very loosely, as a "science."