Cheerio

Right, I'm off down south in a few minutes but here are some links to keep you busy..

- Lincoln has a rather nice video of a new train concept from Japan on his blog. I can see so many ways it could go wrong but it could also be really good.

- Some interesting thoughts on religious belief in the States.

- Interview with Anne Foerst on robots, ethics and theology.

- Interview with Francisco J. Ayala on science and religion.

Post Drought

I am off away to London for work later this week so I won't be posting much until next week.

Hoping to grab a bit of time tomorrow to announce some news on a project I have alluded to on this blog before, if not I'll try to post up some links with some reading for people to have a look through while I'm away.

Third Way Magazine

I picked up a recent edition of this magazine up in a local bookshop and was very pleased with it and would like to recommend it to readers of my blog. The magazine is basically looking at and investigating the relationship between Christianity and culture in a broad sense and is surprisingly interesting and engaging.

It was a revamped website online now that seems to include a nice selection (most in fact) of articles from recent issues for free.

There's a good article in the latest issue on the rise of Creationism in the second half of the 20th Century, the relationship between evolution and creation and possible ways of thinking about Adam and Eve in the early chapters of the book of Genesis.

The quote below is from the article:

"Once we accept the full validity of both types of narrative, then we can begin the important task of seeing how the accounts resonate, for they are complementary accounts about the same reality. There are some genuinely challenging questions to address at this juncture: Why does God use such a long process, involving so much animal pain and death, to fulfil his purposes? Who were Adam and Eve? How do we understand the Fall in the light of evolution? We don't decide that these are difficult questions, awkward apologetically, and so conclude that the science must be mistaken (the ostrich approach with its head in the sand). Likewise creationists are wrong in thinking that if you accept evolution, then somehow basic Christian doctrines will be watered down or even jettisoned. That is not my experience, nor do I observe that happening in the lives of my many Christian colleagues who are evolutionary biologists. But Christians do need to pay serious attention to the way that the scientific and theological accounts relate to each other: we cannot take the intellectually lazy route of keeping the narratives in watertight compartments." - Dr Denis Alexander

The Products of Research

A bang up to date grass-roots insight into the (electronic) conversations in a modern (unnamed) research establishment...

"Q was fictional? There go my dreams...

It's a no-win situation for scientists, they get stick for being locked in their ivory towers messing with the fabric of the universe, but when they try and communicate with people a la the article they get stick for wasting money and being weird whoopee cushion obsessed freaks.

To be fair though I don't think the media picks solely on science... you can't win if you're in politics, policing, even teaching. Maybe the bin-man idea isn't so crazy... I blame the media, the sooner we go to a communist Big-Brother style state controlled media the better.

Also... giant whoopee cushion or tiny man. You decide."

- A man who sits close to the heart of readers of a certain blog that may or may not be famous in certain institutional magazines)

Your taxes at work for good or procrastination? You decide...

Powering the Planet

I've just left the talk as featured on the left, where Daniel Nocera, a chemistry professor from MIT was speaking. I've not heard of the speaker before and had somewhat expected it to be a usual run of the mill climate change talk, but have actually for once left with some sense of hope for the future and our energy supplies.

I can see why, as he reminded us often, people might be upset with a lot of the facts and figures he was giving out as they had some very tough messages in them even for 'traditional' fossil fuel alternatives such as biocrops or wind, but they seemed very firm and were sourced well so I have little reason to doubt them. While the messages were tough they were never negative and in fact he encouraged the use of these other energy sources. Unlike a lot of the usual doom and gloom talks in this area he however also offered something completely different that was frankly very exciting.

The main thrust of his talk was regarding energy sustainability and use at current and predicted levels globally. He showed us figures and calculations on a number of different sources (except solar power, or even social power as the lecture's host somewhat amusingly introduced it as) and how they would have to be pushed to their physical practical limits and still barely stack up to be sufficient.

He then talked about solar power and various forms and methods it can take. I felt he was a little down on inorganic semiconductor methods as yes, although they are limited in the amount of rare metals the Earth contains there are still other places in the solar system that they can be obtained from in substantially richer amounts than on Earth. While this might seem somewhat extravagant at present if you were running a planet on a solar economy it need not be. Plastic photovoltiacs also I reckon have more near-term potential than he was giving them credit for.

As I said he seemed to be a good speaker and certainly knew how to please his audience leaving the best till last when he unveiled what was to me a complete surprise - a working (being patented this week) form of artificial photosynthesis based not on plants but on a catalyst formed from a common metal (exact nature under wraps!) coated with a thin film of another material. The way this has been set up and its chemistry was directly inspired by structures observed in some of the first images of the actual photosynthetic energy factories in plants.

We were talked through the various stages of splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen and reminded that work was still needed to be done, but that this was a huge step and it certainly seems like it is. Basically if this works like it looks like it will every household in the UK could provide for its own energy needs by simply catalysing 4-8 litres of water a day into its component hydrogen and oxygen which can then be stored and used as a fuel. The resulting energy produced can be used from anything from heating and cooking to entertainment and electric cars - basically anything that can be plugged into an electrical circuit.

Right at the end he played a video showing oxygen streaming of the catalyst while emerged in water and exposed to light. The proof, as it were, was certainly there in the pudding.

Left Behind

I found this website linked from a post over on this blog.

Frankly I don't know whether it is meant to be genuine or a scam but it concerns me either way.

Somewhat worryingly it also creates the situation where a subscriber to the site could run the risk of receiving an email from the site (maybe due to a simple random (!) glitch in the controlling system) and thus apparently be rendered part of the unraptured masses.

If I was someone in a mindset who would subscribe to such a site in genuine hope and expectation and then got one of the emails myself it could actually be quite destructive both to myself and to those around me that my subsequent actions could effect.

Reflecting on the events around the HFE Bill

I've been somewhat quiet over this (at least online) given that it was a major item of legislation going through Parliament recently with clear implications for scientific research in the UK and how it also touched on a lot of 'life' issues which I believe theology can speak into.

My reasons for staying quiet were mainly that I was still forming my own opinions on the Bill and topics that came from it. This post isn't going to be so much about what my opinion on the Bill or related issues (that will come in time in my Science and Religion series), but rather how successfully the Christian community here in the UK has engaged with this matter.

Or failed to as the case more is.

For the record though I was against some aspects of the Bill and supported others.

Throughout the Bill's reading and since after I've been reading a lot of documents, press releases, statement of position, news articles etc from various organisations both Christian and secular to try and see if there are any overall patterns that emerge to how this issue was engaged.

Although I still have a large pile to finish working through I have already noticed some trends that I find frustrating.

1. Parliament proposes bill tabling several new ideas for possible legislation (i.e animal-human hybrids, saviour siblings, change of abortion lawm etc).
2. Organisations with interests in bioethics etc. rightly respond.
3. A limited number of Christian organisations highlight hybrids as an especial concern and oppose their creation. Their concerns are (in general) not based on hybrids themselves (although some concerns are raised) but rather a relabelling of previous arguments against the use of embryos in research generally. Worryingly these organisations proclaim they have 'the' Christian viewpoint on these matters when actually there is a spectrum of viewpoints.
   
4. The press latches on to another case of 'science vs. religion' and raises awareness of these organisations viewpoints and highlights this way of looking at the artificially spawned conflict. This results in further polarisation.
5. Scientists seek to explain and have to defend their research proposals and make a case for the use of hybrids, but they fail to realise the issue is now more than just about hybrids and or the science involved.
   
6. Not wanting to be left by the wayside or look 'un-Christian' more and more Christian organisations make proclamations on this issue. More often than not by simply quoting earlier Christian organisation's work rather than investigating and drawing their own conclusions. Sometimes even just by cutting and pasting sections of text from the original organisations texts.
   
7. The Bill goes through Parliament. The creation of hybrids is approved.
8. Christian organisations complain they have been stereotyped as anti-science reactionary fundamentalists.
9. Well, duh.
   

And meanwhile more important on other topics in the Bill don't get the airtime or discussion they deserve.

So where did it all go wrong? Why was there no actual dialogue between parties involved?

I would suggest about the stage 3 and 4 area but also at 6 things could've been better. After that there is not much hope of having a real conversation about these issues. Unnecessary lines have been drawn and sides chosen.

Although the media have fuelled this to a certain extent they cannot be totally blamed for this. Scientists as well could also have been more upfront and made more of an effort to engage with people's genuine concerns. Hard to do so when you have been put on the defensive when you are actually trying to do something for societies benefit.

But I put a lot of the blame for what has essentially been a(nother) disaster for relations between the Church and the scientific community at the door of:

1. The Christian organisations who originally proclaimed their viewpoints as the only legitimate Christian viewpoint to take and tried to make the discussion about something it was not. There is very little sense of humbleness or respect for other parties here.
   
2. All the band wagon organisations who jumped onboard and spoke without thinking worsening an already difficult situation.
   

It is an increasingly distressing concern to me that these sort of topics and questions are on the one hand of legitimate interest and concern to many individuals in the Church, but the apathetic attitudes and even anti-science viewpoints present in many Christian organisations leads to a total lack of engagement on these issues. Rather old viewpoints are simply restated on issues that are actually very new and don't apply 100% to those viewpoints, which should indicate a requirement to think about things again - even if you come to the same conclusions.

The Church should be mature enough in its understandings, confident enough in God and sufficiently orientated missionally to a wider society in order to actively seek out and practically engage with these sort of issues.

Instead, once again we have given out a set of knee jerk reactions that plant much egg on our collective face and make us particular unattractive models of Christ to the wider world.

If we genuinely have reason to disagree with the world let us at least show them the love Christ would by disagreeing with them (and sometimes each other) respectfully and in a legitimate way.

Fame and Glory

What a delight it was today to find out that my friend 'Dr B' and his blog on attempting to only eat British-grown food for a year has made it into mass circulation by being featured in a related article in Readers Digest this month of June.

'Dr B' is as shocked by this as me. Bless his beard.

Unfortunately the University does not have a subscription to this prestigious and note-worthy journal so I will be unable to preserve this moment.

For the record I would just like to state I have long been a (the only) online supporter of my good friend's journal. If it appears that I am incredibly jealous by his new-found fame with Reader's Digest's demographic audience this is completely not the case as they could only have found his blog through mine...

And his Technorati rating is still way behind mine. Small pleasure.

Well done to 'Dr. B' though!

Holiday Messages

I have just got another holiday/I'm away email message... Why is everyone else on holiday when mine had to be put off?!!

I feel mocked. *shakes fists*

Two views on the fuel 'crisis'?

Found these on Facebook today.

GM Crops

Some good thoughts from Sir Brian Heap on this topic here.