BLOG

Paleontology: Scientists have been studying the fossil of a snake-like creature with hind limbs. To cross-reference another discipline, some scholars think the wording of the curse on the serpent in Genesis indicates the creature was limbed before it was doomed to "eat dust" and crawl on its belly.

Human biology: Meanwhile, here's a video of an Asian Indian baby girl who through a strange congenital defect was born with two faces. Doctors say the deformity is a unusual case of conjoined twins. Sadly, local Indian villagers are worshiping the baby as the reincarnation of a many-faced goddess, and the family has declined to allow doctors to CT-scan the child for internal abnormalities. Whatever the villagers and family think about the girl's divinity, she may not live long if they offer her incense instead of good medical care.

Preparing for the big one: Intel has publicly recognized the threat that the sun's coronal mass ejections (CME's) pose to the earth's computer systems, and is studying how to build a cosmic ray-proof computer.

And finally, here we go again: For 2008 climatologists predict yet another severe hurricane season. Never mind that the last two seasons were flops. 'Course I don't blame forecasters, who are undoubtedly doing the very best they can. But we could do without any shoreline scaremongering. After all, we know that whether hurricanes come or go, it's really global warming that's to blame.

In most species, faithfulness is a fantasy? So former NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer can hardly be blamed? Well, such a conclusion isn't surprising when you view man as just another genus in the great tree of life, bearing no other privileges or responsibilities beyond that granted by his advanced intellect, superiority, and knack for expressing deep feelings for others, even if those feelings are themselves a fantasy. Only a pure-blooded Darwinist would draw conclusions about human ethics by observing the lifestyles of fish, termites, and primates; and unfortunately there are enough of them out there (Darwinists, I mean) to raise the question of whether Spitzer is being judged unfairly--whether, in fact, it's some of those New York laws that aren't quite in step with what Mother Nature intended.

 There's absolutely no indication that God ever intended animals to remain monogamous. But that was his intention for humans, as Jesus said, "from the beginning."

Darwinists are still a bit mad over The March of the Penguins, I'm certain.

For the past few decades, concerned analysts have been complaining about overpopulation around the globe. Though some complain the U.S. is overpopulated, many point especially to undeveloped and developing nations as culprits in the "plight" of overpopulation. They blame babies for widespread poverty instead of implicating government corruption or the weaknesses of particular cultures.

These kinds of worries have ushered legal and convenient abortion services to countries where overpopulation is feared--including China, where couples who bear more than one child are forced to pay a fine or abort the baby.

Now the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, one of the world's most influential groups for reproductive science, has begun a program to provide fertility treatment for women in developing nations. The Society has already opened two IVF services in Africa.

What should we make of this? Is the Society truly interested in seeing more children born in developing and/or undeveloped countries? I'd call that a welcome change, but somehow I'm skeptical that the motives here are so pure.

But according to a Nigerian professor quoted in the news release linked above:

"In poor resource areas the need for infertility treatment in general, and IVF in particular, is great. The inability to have children can create enormous problems, particularly for the woman. She might be disinherited, ostracised, accused of witchcraft, abused by local healers, separated from her spouse, or abandoned to a second-class life in a polygamous marriage."

 Sounds like an altruistic venture, but what happened to the previous worries about overpopulation? And will these fertility clinics also provide abortions?

Annie Murphy Paul writes in NYT about the research on fetal pain, which is surrounded in ongoing controversy--and not just by pro-lifers, says Paul. Years ago, doctors never bothered to give fetuses anesthesia because they assumed the nervous system was too undeveloped to register pain. More recent research may suggest otherwise, though some argue that babies don't feel adult-like pain until up to a year after birth. Drastically far-fetched, I'd say. Newborn boys cry during circumcision, don't they?

The issue of fetal pain is, of course, an argument often used against abortion. Anyone who's convinced themselves that a fetus being aborted doesn't feel any pain needs to know that from a medical standpoint, they don't have much proof to sit on.

And how about this: I grew up with The Picture Bible, but what do you think of Genesis to Revelation in manga? An evangelistic opportunity or a liberty too far taken?

One of the biggest stories over the weekend was the discovery of a baby wooly mammoth found frozen in Siberia. Dug up by an unlikely paleontologist--a reindeer herder--the mammoth is on display in Japan and is being tested for clues as to how it died. By sampling tiny air bubbles in its lungs, Japanese scientists hope to discover what the atmosphere composition was like when the mammoth froze--which would offer insight into climate change over historic time.

Speaking of Japan, a tiny island (actually a tuft of rock) off the coast of Hiroshima seems to be literally going to pieces. The cause? Small crustaceans locally known as nanatsuba-kotsubumushi are boring by the millions into the rock. As the oval invertebrates carve out nests in the island, the rock succumbs easily to wind and erosion. Although the island, named Hoboro, was recorded to be 72 feet high in 1928, it now stands pitiably at 20 feet.

In Central America three new salamander species have been discovered, and you can view photos here.

"A cheerful heart is good medicine," and research continues to support Solomon's conclusion. A study in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that people in happy moods had lower average levels of cortisol--a hormone thought to contribute to high blood pressure and suppress the immune system. Among happy women, the study found lower levels of two proteins that accompany inflammation throughout the body. So, as Jesus said, "Don't worry." Keep a cheerful heart and it may just improve your health.

A couple appendix news links. In spite of the novel bacteria "holding place" theory outlined in the stories, some scientists are still insisting the appendix is vestigial from some earlier, more primitive function. We just can't win. . .

A study of an African tribe revealed that deep-voiced men had more kids on average than their higher-pitched brothers. Since both the divorce and infidelity rates were high in the particular group observed, researchers concluded that a rich baritone is simply more attractive to women than a sensitive tenor. Must explain why us small-chested guys have such a hard time finding a date. . .

An artificial reef? With real coral? Why didn't someone think of that before? 

The Times is doing a series on space exploration, from Sputnick and beyond, remembering the successes and disappointments of the "space age."

If space travel hasn't taken off like some thought it would, Dave's Daily Dose of Science wonders if science journalism is ready to come in for a crash landing. He argues that journalists aren't aware of all the assumptions scientists make when developing models and theories (which is often true), so they can't normally report on science in a fashion that is balanced and reliable. But Dave also says scientists wouldn't be able to report in a balanced and reliable way either, since their personal interests and prejudices would undoubtedly bias the story (probably also true). So the public is left with science journalism that is sensationalized and quickly outdated.

True again.

It's the journalist's job, however, to investigate as deeply as within his power to discover where biases and assumption's lie, to get second opinions, and to report what the scientist is reporting, not simply what the public wants to hear. As much as the journalist tries to do these things, it's impossible for him (or her) to forget his audience. The audience, after all, is his paycheck.

But let's not forget that the audience is ultimately also the scientist's paycheck: Provocative research projects mean grant money for the researcher, and the more attractive he can make his press release, the better for him and his organization. Understandable of course, but journalists shouldn't take all the blame.

This was expected to happen sooner or later.  Once you begin to view human life at the embryo stage as simply a speck of tissue, with no inherent value, anything is possible. British regulators have approved "in principle" the creation of hybrids--involving taking a fertilized animal egg (a cow, for instance) and substituting human DNA--with the goal of (gasp!) stem cell research. These biological creations have been labeled chimeras, as the Acton Institute blog clarifies in their criticism of the regulators' decision. The Institute also has posted a biblical case against chimeras.

I understand many doctors must think Christians' dogmatic stance against embryonic stem cell research is strange, but there is a very clear line here that must not be crossed: the killing of a human life. I'm very glad doctors are trying to better understand how to combat and cure diseases of sundry sorts, but killing the weak to save the strong is both the road to and the destination of totalitarianism and evil. It represents a form of hatred--the antithesis of the sacrificial love all of us who have lived to adulthood have experienced. Sorry doc, but please don't go there.

Since we've brought the subject up, here's an interesting moral question for my Christian friends: Does it really make an embryo a chimera if the animal DNA has been completely replaced by human DNA? Is it still wrong in a Christian ethic to create such an organism, even if only the initial egg (the framework for the DNA, if you will) is animal? If so, is it also wrong to transplant animal tissue or organs into humans (called xenotransplantation)? Your thoughts please.

Meanwhile: ID the Future has done an audio interview with The Spiritual Brain co-author Denyse O'Leary, whom I interviewed myself for an article on the book, along with the other co-author, Mario Beauregard. Go listen. It's fun.

The Pandas' Thumb people (Mike Dunford, in this case) are having a blast criticizing a Bob Jones textbook as it relates to the recent lawsuit filed against the University of California by several Christian Schools. Knowing that BJU material is Bible-based (which I am for), you can imagine what kind of things are being said. Although I haven't yet looked into the details of the case (it involves whether Christian school students are up to snuff in the area of biological science), I'll venture to say that from a secular standpoint it should make little difference whether students are taught the Bible in biology class, as long as they learn the necessary biological science as well. Dunford seems to think that teens who learn about Adam, Eve, and creation are somehow violated and aren't fit to understand biology science. Why not? Aren't they as capable as anyone else of learning whatever the University of California has to offer? If these Christian school students can pass the same biology tests that public school students take (and I'll bet they can), the University's stance does amount to "viewpoint discrimination," as the Christian schools charge.