When in a slump, it is nice to compile a list of things that make the light at the end of the tunnel. Here’s a few things I’m looking forward to:

The finale of Battlestar Galactica. With mixed emotions, of course - finale means no more. But I think it’ll be worth it.

Watchmen, the movie. I’m not one of those crazy fanatics who cry whenever there’s been a plot change when adapting a novel or graphic novel to the screen. Looking at the trailers, I doubt I’ll be disappointed.

Mass Effect 2. Because it will be awesome.

Spring. I want to know how many of our beehives survived the winter and start planning for the season’s beekeeping.

March 17. Just because.

Finally, with a hat tip to Steph at Almost Diamonds, have some nerdcore hiphop:

entertainment

Eluana Englaro, the comatose woman whom Italian prime minister Berlusconi declared “in the condition to have babies“, died a couple of hours ago. My immediate reaction was a sigh of relief and muttering, ironically, “thank god”.

Regardless of whether one agrees that she should have been taken off life support or not, the political circus surrounding the case was absolutely tasteless. Berlusconi is a pig both for getting involved in a bereaved family’s private life and for suggesting that a woman’s primary function is to have babies, and don’t even get me started on the Vatican (who has magnanimously announced that god will forgive Mr Englaro for wanting to let his daughter go).

My condolences to the Mr Englaro and any other members of the family. I hope they can finally get some closure.

eluana englaro, berlusconi, vatican, euthanasia

Sorry about the lack of posting lately, I’m in a bit of a slump. I got a couple of nice topics to blog from people who completed the tree quiz, so expect that up sometime … soonish.

In the meantime, if you happen to be a Stockholmer or visiting for whatever reason, I can recommend a visit to the old Observatory, where you for the measly sum of 50kr (bring cash!) can get a guided tour of the building - and of the history of Swedish astronomy. Their opening hours are a bit limited - a few hours on sundays, and during the darker months, tuesday and thursday evenings (with stargazing!).

It’s a nice building with a fascinating history, filled with peculiar old instruments and topped with a telescope. What’s not to like?

astronomy, stockholm, observatory, museum

The latest Carnival of Evolution is out (and would you believe I just almost spelled that “evilution”?)! It’s in two parts and full of great posts on many different aspects of evolution.

Go check it out!

Part #1, Part #2

evolution, biology, blog carnival

Here’s me grudgingly getting on the bandwagon and helping in the dissemination of the Tree of Life video with David Attenborough.

It’s very pretty. And all the facts are correct, so far as I’m aware. But this video still makes my skin crawl a bit. Why? Because it’s pretty much a perfect illustration of one of the problems I discussed in my post on tree thinking. Here’s evolution depicted as a linear process, with a clear line of progression from the simplest forms of life towards … well, humans, of course. What else?

They do mention insects invading land long before vertebrates did, which is nice. And there’s a short digression into dinosaur territory. But still - the video essentially supports a view of life where evolution inexorably works towards its goal, which is apparently primates with large brains. A tiny group of animals on an earth veritably crawling with other much more abundant forms of life. A self-centered, egotistical species, who cannot for a moment let go of the idea that we’re the pinnacle of creation, whether that creation was effected by a god or physical processes.

Also the video fails to point out that mammals came from the very same lineage Attenborough claims is ancestral to today’s tortoises, snakes, lizards, crocodiles and dinosaurs (including birds). It’s like mammals simply turn up by magic and start taking over the earth once the dinosaurs are gone.

And of course, there’s the glaring omission of the huge part of the tree of life that’s not animal. Plants and fungi are pretty much entirely ignored, bacteria are mentioned briefly and archaea not at all. This is ok, of course - the study of animals is obviously bound to be extra interesting to animals capable of appreciating said study - but I find it disingenious to call it a study of the tree of life when in fact we’re just looking at one of the several main branches.

But. It feels wrong to be critical of Attenborough. He has probably done more to popularise biology than anyone, and although he’s not a scientist he usually gets his facts straight (which, lately, feels more like a boon than it should) - so who am I to complain? Here’s a couple of things I really like about the video:

Firstly, Attenborough states that life began 3000 million years ago, rather than 3 billion. This is a very nice rhetorical trick to make people start realising just how vast a span of time we’re talking about. Graphically, the fact that the tips of the branches are all at the same level somewhat counteracts the idea that any living species is at the “top” of the tree. All living species are! Finally, the video does end with Attenborough pointing out that we mammals actually share the world with many other lineages.

So, Sir Attenborough, should you by any chance read this - I still love you. Just don’t do it again, ok? Now go to your room.

attenborough, tree of life, biology, evolution

Dear Britain: What the fuck?

Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey.

My first reaction upon reading this was: Kudos to the British public! Evolution does NOT explain how the world came about. Creationism actually does that better, since evolution doesn’t even attempt it. If the survey actually asked them if evolution explains “how the world came about”, no wonder the results were abysmal.

Now, the question is, was the survey really as stupid as the Guardian makes it out to be? This press release from Theos Think Tank seems to dispel that notion. It’s simply the case that the journalists and editors at the Guardian has gotten their heads stuck up their asses. Unfortunately, so do the people at Svenska Dagbladet, a Swedish newspaper that picked up the item and pretty much translated the article from the Guardian.

Why, journalists? Why must you make my job so difficult before I’ve even got one? I’m very nearly contemplating giving up my career plans as a biologist to become a science journalist intstead. At least I’d be halfway competent.

(And no, I’m not even touching the fact that the British public is in sore need of some good science education. With newspapers like the Guardian around to confuse people, I’d say the figures cited are pretty good.)

Hat tip to Terra Incognita and commenters.

ETA: Bob Churchill sets things right. Dear gods, the whole thing’s a mess when you think about it.

evolution, uk, science, journalism, science journalism

I know, I know. It’s the oldest trick in the blogger’s manual - can’t think of anything to write about? Have a look at what people have been searching for when they stumbled over your blog, and then make fun of them!

But it’s just too much fun. So here we go again:

are koalas unicellular or multicellular
…oh dear. This question is so confused about basic biology that I daren’t answer it.

arguments against sarah palin
As much as I’d like to believe Sarah Palin was really just Tina Fey in disguise pulling a huge prank on the American public, unfortunately I actually believe she exists. Now if you ask me about arguments against God…

brain activity before death
All of it, I’d say. This is a common theme among keywords that lead to my site.

ex-christian guilt free
Probably moreso than before they became ex-, yes!

feed bees sugar cubes
Well, you could, but I’m not sure why you’d want to. We occasionally feed our bees table sugar when there’s been a dry spell or constant raining and they don’t have much food left. But in cube form? That seems unnecessarily expensive.

gay life in sweden
Yep, it’s not like we ever suffer from SAD or anything. Oh, wait, you were talking about homosexuals? Damn. I’ve no idea, then.

house md proves god doesn’t exist
Damn, that’d be the day. Actually, I hope it won’t happen. I’d pretty much be forced to marry Hugh Laurie then and I don’t think my boyfriend would appreciate that.

how hot can you heat honey
Presumably there’s no upper limit, although of course, after a while the molecular structures will fall apart and then it’s debatable whether it can really be called “honey” anymore. (The actual answer to the question is 40 centigrade. Heat it more than that for more than a few seconds and the healthy enzymes break apart and you’re left with just sugar.)

i worked in a bank, was this where i caught hepatitis
…yes, yes it was. No one should work in a bank, ever.

identifying my personal guardian angel using my date of birth
What, wait, is there some sort of directory of guardian angels where you can look them up or something? That’s so awesome!

if not a combover then what
ANYTHING! ANYTHING ELSE! ANYTHING BUT A COMBOVER! (I get a surprising number of hits from people looking for something to do with combovers. Hopefully, I have averted one or two disasters speaking out against them!)

is virgin beeswax ok on the face
Yes. Can’t have any of that slutty beeswax though. In fact, make sure it’s wearing a purity ring or at least has made a serious committment to not having sex before marriage. Saddlebacking is ok though.

losing virginity before and after pictures
This makes me wonder about the motives of the person googling. I think there’s three possibilities: Either it’s someone looking for virgin-fetish porn. Or, it’s a girl who doesn’t know what a vagina’s “supposed” to look like, and is worried something has gone wrong. Or, it’s a girl who’s done it but wants to claim to be a virgin and wonders if anyone would be able to tell. Both the latter options make me a little sad. A little sex ed goes a long way to help in cases like this!

what does the saying “life before death” mean?
That I don’t believe in an afterlife and want to focus on the life I have here and now instead.

why do bees leave hive in winter
… because they’re dead. Really. If you have no bees in your hive at the end of winter, that’s because they’ve died.

keywords, bees, sex, combovers, religion

Aw crap. I waited too long and now Greta Christina already did what I was planning on doing - answering the questions recently posted on Friendly Atheist, questions purportedly intended to instill doubt in us atheists. Now obviously she’s not the only person to have done so but I bet if I were to read her post I’d feel it’s pointless to write my own. So I better hurry and finish this one! Here we go:

Historian Gary Habermas: “Utilizing each of the historical facts conceded by virtually all contemporary scholars, please produce a comprehensive natural explanation of Jesus’ resurrection that makes better sense than the event itself.”

These historical facts are: (1) Jesus was killed by crucifixion; (2) Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; (3) The conversion of the church persecutor Saul, who became the Apostle Paul; (4) the conversion of the skeptic James, Jesus’ half-brother; (5) The empty tomb of Jesus. These “minimal facts” are strongly evidenced and are regarded as historical by the vast majority of scholars, including skeptics, who have written about the resurrection in French, German, and English since 1975. While the fifth fact doesn’t have quite the same virtual universal consensus, it nevertheless is conceded by 75 percent of the scholars and is well supported by the historical data if assessed without preconceptions.

I was under the impression that there’s very little evidence beyond the bible that Jesus even existed. But ok, I’m not a bible scholar, or a historian. So, for the sake of argument, let’s grant these “minimal facts”. First of all, facts 2, 3 and 4 are entirely incidental. What people believe makes no difference to reality. As for a tomb mysteriously emptying… Is that really so hard to imagine? I honestly don’t see how this would be compelling evidence for anything at all. Especially not the christian god. All we’re saying here is that a guy was executed, and then his corpse disappeared. So … uh … so what?

Philosopher Paul Copan: “Given the commonly recognized and scientifically supported belief that the universe (all matter, energy, space, time) began to exist a finite time ago and that the universe is remarkably finely tuned for life, does this not (strongly) suggest that the universe is ontologically haunted and that this fact should require further exploration, given the metaphysically staggering implications?

“And, second, granted that the major objection to belief in God is the problem of evil, does the concept of evil itself not suggest a standard of goodness or a design plan from which things deviate, so that if things ought to be a certain way (rather than just happening to be the way they are in nature), don’t such ‘injustices’ or ‘evils’ seem to suggest a moral/design plan independent of nature?”

1. No. Why should it? The puddle is shaped to the ground it lies on, not the other way around. If the ground was shaped differently the puddle would look different or not exist at all. Let’s just appreciate the fact that if the universe didn’t happen to be “finely tuned”, we wouldn’t be here.

2. No. We’re social animals and thus have a system of morals. We’re not the only ones but ours are arguably the most “advanced”, whatever that means. We’re the ones who have decided what is good or bad. And the problem of evil only arises because the christian god is supposed to have made us in his own image, which presumably means that what we think is “good”, he thinks is “good”. Which makes us wonder why he didn’t make the world “good”. Now if the christian god was just a general being, not affiliated with any particular species, I might be more inclined to believe… or not.

Talk show host Frank Pastore: “Please explain how something can come from nothing, how life can come from non-life, how mind can come from brain, and how our moral senses developed from an amoral source.”

Uh… how about … no? Because even if I had no idea how to answer any of those questions, I still really wouldn’t feel the need to have an invisible friend take care of them. See, I’m not worried about not having answers to everything. As it happens, I do have some clues as to how answer how life can come from non-life and the origin of morals. That this talk show host doesn’t just means he hasn’t looked for the answers.

Historian Mike Licona: “Irrespective of one’s worldview, many experience periods of doubt. Do you ever doubt your atheism and, if so, what is it about theism or Christianity that is most troubling to your atheism?”

That’s cheating, you were the one supposed to induce doubt in me, not ask what you might say to induce doubt! But to answer the question: No. There is absolutely nothing troubling in christianity or any theistic belief. It’s all crazy. Sorry! But it is!

Author Greg Koukl: “Why is something here rather than nothing here? Clearly, the physical universe is not eternal (Second Law of Thermodynamics, Big Bang cosmology). Either everything came from something outside the material universe, or everything came from nothing (Law of Excluded Middle). Which of those two is the most reasonable alternative? As an atheist, you seem to have opted for the latter. Why?”

Because there is as yet no evidence for the former.

I didn’t email Alvin Plantinga, considered by many to be among the greatest philosophers of modern times. But based on his assertion that naturalism is self-defeating, we could formulate this question (thanks to William Lane Craig for some of the concise wording): If our cognitive faculties were selected for survival, not for truth, then how can we have any confidence, for example, that our beliefs about the reality of physical objects are true or that naturalism itself is true? (By contrast, theism says God has designed our cognitive faculties in such a way that, when functioning properly in an appropriate environment, they deliver true beliefs about the world.)

Finally something interesting. You’re right - we can’t prove anything. That’s why science doesn’t deal with Truth. Only religions deal with Truth. We’re just trying to make models that seem to fit how the world works. Of course, everything we experience is filtered through our own senses and cognitive faculties, and those senses are very limited indeed. But by the same argument - they were selected for survival - I think it’s safe to say that what we experience is at least somewhat correlated with the “real world”. Otherwise, those experiences would be useless to us.

Either way, Plantinga’s argument is stupid. He’s essentially saying that since we can’t prove naturalism, we should default to the other idea. Why? Because it feels better to believe there’s Truth out there? Sorry, but that really doesn’t cut it. As long as there’s no evidence for the existence of any god, I’m going to default to naturalism. That I can’t even prove my own existence is philosophical nitpickery and really doesn’t bother me in the least.

So to wrap up. The interesting thing about these questions is that they pretty much confirm something most atheists already know: That we’re not the ones who need all the answers. Atheists are fine with unanswered questions. In fact, we thrive on them, at least those of us who are scientists. That several of these religious people thought that asking questions about the universe to which they knew or thought there were no answers only goes to show that that’s what they think we should fear.

I pity them, and I’m also vaguely embarrassed that this is the best they could come up with. I mean, come on. I could’ve answered these questions equally well ten years ago! When I was 15 years old!

Now to compare notes with Greta Christina…

religion, god, atheism, doubt, theism

Since a few years back, Sveriges Ornitologiska Förening (Swedish ornithological association) has been involving the public in a great bird-counting exercise every January. Between dawn on a friday and dusk the monday after, we’re encouraged to keep track of what birds visit our bird feeders. More specifically we’re supposed to report the greatest number of each species observed at once. The resulting data is used to track fluctuations in bird populations all over Sweden.

It’s a fantastic way to involve the general public in scientific endeavours. The only thing I could wish for is that they’d push that side of things a little more - make people aware that that’s what they’re doing. Sure, the data is perhaps not as rigorous as would be required to publish in a scientific journal, but it’s definitely good enough for tracking changes and getting some idea of what’s going on.

Anyway, naturally me and my parents were keeping unusually close tabs on our own little feeding station over the weekend. This year our count was:

Great tit: >20. Probably at least 25. It’s very difficult to count when there’s that many!
Blue tit: 6. For a long time we spotted no more than two or three at the same time. Then we supplied an extra ball of fat (I have yet to find out what this might be called in English - it might be a scandinavian phenomenon. Looks like this.) and that brought them out of hiding.
Coal tit: 3. There might have been one or two more but we rarely see many of these at the same time.
Marsh tit: 2. Conspicuously absent most of the time. Marsh tit are normally regulars.
Yellowhammer: 2. And only for a brief time. We don’t supply oats so we’re probably not their favourite feeder.
Great spotted woodpecker: 1. Liked the peanuts but avoided the pig fat, oddly enough.
Nuthatch: 2.
Blackbird: 6. Mostly active at the crack of dawn when the other birds are barely awake. Likes apples.
Long-tailed tit: 6. Was so stoked to see a group of these absolutely adorable little tits on sunday. You know how some people go all gaga over cute puppies? That’s me with long-tailed tits. I start squeaking baby-talk for a few minutes.

These are pretty low figures and above all there’s several species missing. Where’s our friend the crested tit? Where are the jays? And what about the greenfinches and chaffinches? And my personal favourite the treecreeper? Part of the explanation is probably that weather has been pretty abysmal - above all it’s been too warm. When there’s no snow on the ground, the birds don’t particularly need the feeder. Many of them still show up, but nowhere near the great variety we see when it’s cold and snowy.

birds, bird feeding, ornithology

Last friday I attended a seminar on beekeeping, organised by Biodynamiska Föreningen (the Swedish biodynamic association) together with the Swedish Board of Agriculture. I wouldn’t have gone if the latter hadn’t been involved, given what I already know about biodynamics.

In case you’re not familiar with the term “biodynamic”, or belong to the majority of people who think it’s a synonym for “ecological” (or possibly “holistic”), let me disillusion you. Biodynamics has ecological/organic agriculture as its foundation, but adds an absolutely insane mess of superstitious nonsense gathered from the hallucinations of Rudolf Steiner.

The practitioners are extremely tacit about this, however, which is probably because biodynamics was invented as part of anthroposophy, and anthroposophers are notoriously good at hiding their religious agenda. Just like no one seems to be aware that waldorf schools are actually religious indoctrination-centres, people are equally unaware that when practicing biodynamics, you’re supposed to take the position of the planets into account when sowing. Oh, and did you know that filling the skull of a pet with pieces of oak bark and burying it in the autumn somewhere where a lot of rainwater flows past will produce a compost additive that adds calcium to the earth in ideal form?

Now, thankfully, you can’t convert anyone to anthroposophy by making sure to always plant the crops on a fruit-day (as opposed to a root-day) - there will be no essence of Steiner in the resultant bread to slowly turn people’s minds - so I’m not nearly as opposed to biodynamics as I am to waldorf schools, at least so long as no animals are involved. Treating sick animals with homeopathic remedies is arguably worse than treating humans, as it’s not voluntary and the placebo effect is out of play. What I really dislike, however, is the dishonesty in their advertising: Omitting the truth is also a kind of lie. (Illustrative of how good they are at hiding the truth is a recent article in Dagens Nyheter about ecological food, where the above mentioned biodynamic association is mentioned without so much as a hint that they’re something other than just “ecological”.)

Workers clearly not paying attention to astrology.

The beekeeping seminar wasn’t much different. There were some good talks presumably organised by the Board of Agriculture - on chemicals in agriculture, the problems associated with honeybee breeding, and on allowing bees to organise their hive the way they want - but there were also a couple of people invited to talk about “Demeter beekeeping”. Demeter is the chosen brand name for all kinds of biodynamic products.

Their talk was actually quite alright, although I can’t say they said anything particularly revolutionary. It was mostly just common sense. For instance: Bees want to swarm, so producing artificial swarms is a good way to keep them happy without losing the swarm.

The only times I could detect the biodynamic approach was some talk about how bees are the only animals that build “from heaven to earth” (which isn’t true, as bees may build from the ground up as well - and off the top of my head I can name wasps and swallows as other animals that build “downwards”), how they smell “heavenly”, and how fresh wax is “immaterial”. Also, at one point there was a rant about how “the scientists” don’t “want” to research for instance formic acid’s effect on bees because they don’t “want” to know the truth. This was immediately followed by lamenting the lack of money to research homeopathic remedies against bee diseases. It is of course unthinkable that “the scientists” might have the same monetary problems as the homeopathers…

Although at the time I was quite relieved to realise they were pretty much keeping quiet about the weirder aspects of their beekeeping, in retrospect, it annoys me. I suspect a lot of people - including the woman from the Board of Agriculture - got a very good impression of these Demeter beekeepers and the methods they represent. No one seemed to react to their mention of homeopathy, indicative of how people simply cannot get their heads around the fact that it’s been shown, over and over again, that it doesn’t work. Perhaps it’s the case that beekeepers are so distressed about the varroa invasion that at this point we’re ready to try anything.

Still, in the end me and my father came out of the seminar feeling pretty inspired, so it can’t have been all bad. Inspired to do what, exactly, I’ll come back to in future posts!

beekeeping, biodynamics, anthroposophy