Comments by Drew

1. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #211540 by Drew on July 16, 2008 at 5:58 am

Comment #210957 by Teratornis on July 15, 2008 at 9:45 am
Comment #210640 by Drew:

Teratornis your line of reasoning suggests that behaviour is predetermined, but we know it is influenced by far more than genetic makeup.

Brain scans don't measure genetics; they measure neural activity. Neural activity results from every factor that influences the brain; these may include genetics and the environment.

Do they? I think you'll find brain scans measure a great deal of things. Are we talking about MRI, EEG, PET scans or CT scans? Different types of scans measure different types of activity, topography etc. and it's not just activity but structure that may play a role in behaviour. For example, recent studies show that frontal lobe abnormalities are associated with violent behaviour. However not everyone who is violent has these frontal lobe abnormalities, nor does everyone with these abnormalities display violent behaviour. A correlation does not imply causality.

The predictive value of brain scans on children depends on one factor only: to what extent the detectable neural activity by some particular age predicts adult behavior.

You're changing tack here. Earlier you stated that it would be good if we could use scans on children to predict who will grow up to be a repeat violent offender. Now you're talking about the extent to which these predictions might be accurate. A meteorologist can predict it will rain, but that doesn't mean it will rain. No experiments that I am aware of reliably link neural activity with future adult behaviour. If you know of any please don't keep us in the dark.

I don't believe we'll ever be able to use scans to know that people will grow up to be repeat violent offenders because the brain doesn't work that way.

Your anti-science stance rests on an argument from ignorance. Nobody knows how the brain works; therefore, you assert that the brain cannot work in some way that makes you uncomfortable to think about. You have already made up your mind before seeing the results of experiments to test the hypothesis that brain scans of children might predict adult behavior.

Anti-science? Ignorance? You don't know where my argument comes from and you would do well not to make assumptions. As for knowing how the brain works, we know quite a lot about how the brain works and we are learning more all the time. So far we know decision making is influenced by environment, genetics, culture, experience, learned behaviour, the application of heuristics and more. Although we have a long way to go I'm unaware of any studies that link scans to reliable behaviour prediction.

If you knew how the brain works, you would be able to predict which children will grow up to be repeat violent offenders. Nobody can do that, so nobody knows how the brain works. Therefore you cannot say "the brain doesn't work that way."

Nice non sequitur argument, but I'll play along. If we knew how the brain works we would be able to predict which children will grow up to become repeat violent offenders? This is pure conjecture. Are you suggesting that the 'scan" of a child could reveal their predetermined future behaviour regardless of future development and experiences? This is the realm of Hollywood not science.

What we can do and will get better at is understanding the genetic factors that contribute to behavioural tendencies. Regardless, labelling people based on behaviour that hasn't occurred is dangerous territory indeed.

If "we" "get better at" "understanding the genetic factors that contribute to behavioral tendencies," then we will be labelling people more accurately.

In the future we might be able to label people more accurately than we do now but that doesn't mean it will actually be accurate. Just out of curiosity at what hypothetical predicted percentage would you be comfortable with labelling someone?

I'm sorry but you lost me with the emotional rape analogy. I'm happy to discuss the science but pull your heartstrings elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a science journal and copying and pasting sections from it do not advance your case but since you're so fond of it have a look at the definition of Labelling, note the use of past tense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labelling
Labelling or Labeling (US) is defining or describing a person in terms of his or her behavior. For example, describing someone who has broken a law as a criminal.

2. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #210640 by Drew on July 14, 2008 at 11:23 pm

Teratornis your line of reasoning suggests that behaviour is predetermined, but we know it is influenced by far more than genetic makeup. I don't believe we'll ever be able to use scans to know that people will grow up to be repeat violent offenders because the brain doesn't work that way. What we can do and will get better at is understanding the genetic factors that contribute to behavioural tendencies. Regardless, labelling people based on behaviour that hasn't occurred is dangerous territory indeed.

3. Children Are Naturally Prone To Be Empathic And Moral

Comment #210110 by Drew on July 14, 2008 at 12:27 am

Comment #209580 by Teratornis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

For example, it would be useful if researchers could use brain scans on children to predict which ones will grow up to become repeat violent offenders.

While there is a correlation between psychopathy and violent behaviour it's not high enough to be predictive in the general population. Your average psychopath is more likely to be a CEO than a serial killer.

4. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208250 by Drew on July 10, 2008 at 6:57 pm

"It is hard to think of anything more vile than to intentionally desecrate the Body of Christ. We look to those who have oversight responsibility to act quickly and decisively."

Just because you think it's the body of christ doesn't mean it's true. This argument is wafer thin.

5. Atheist soldier sues Army for 'unconstitutional' discrimination

Comment #207402 by Drew on July 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm

From http://ocf.gospelcom.net/

Mission Statement -
Christian officers exercising biblical leadership to raise up a godly military.

That sent a chill up my spine. Holy war anyone?

6. The Boundaries of Belief

Comment #205158 by Drew on July 6, 2008 at 5:19 pm

Among 35,556 people, Pew seems to have found 40 especially confused God-fearing men and women who think they are "atheists."

Is it possible Pew found 40 people who ticked the wrong box?

7. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #202170 by Drew on July 1, 2008 at 1:54 am

Hush Malcolm Jones, you had me at "as Aquarians, they should both be stubborn..."

(how do I do the sexy block quote on this forum?)

8. An Interview with Prof. Richard Dawkins

Comment #200128 by Drew on June 27, 2008 at 12:21 am

If you're looking for children's books with an evolutionary message, check it the Flanimals series by Ricky Gervais. My son loves them.

http://www.rickygervais.com/flanimals.php

9. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198391 by Drew on June 23, 2008 at 6:05 pm

Evolutionary Psychology is often misrepresented. Rather than suggesting that sarcasm is an evolutionary adaptation it's more likely that the researchers looked at it from the following viewpoint "If sarcasm is an evolutionary adaptation, how might it have evolved?"

10. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197000 by Drew on June 20, 2008 at 11:21 pm

"God did it" is not a scientific argument against Darwin.

11. Scientists confirm that parts of earliest genetic material may have come from the stars

Comment #192856 by Drew on June 14, 2008 at 4:27 am

Edit: Deleted the abstract because Palmer_Eldritch beat me to it.

12. Group wants Wi-Fi banned from public buildings

Comment #186168 by Drew on May 29, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Sounds like phobic or anxiety related symptoms to me. Yes the symptoms are real, but the cause is not what they think. It would be akin to agorophobics asking for public places to be banned.

13. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181936 by Drew on May 18, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I'd forgotten the meter-long ruler. I truly wonder where they got these 6-ply stitched leather straps from. They seem to be ubiquitous in the catholic school culture of that time.

In year 8 we had a 'christian brother' who kept what we referred to as the gestapo file. It was a thick black leather-bound book in which he would dutifully inscribe the name, punishment and imagined transgression of each boy he assaulted. It went back years. The more I think about it the creepier it becomes.

This same man gave me '6 of the best' for being struck by an orange thrown by another boy.

14. Surviving an unholy school war

Comment #181769 by Drew on May 18, 2008 at 7:45 am

I went to Catholic schools during the 70's and 80's in Australia and this is exactly my experience. Use of a thick leather strap stitched together was an almost everyday occurrence. It was only eclipsed by a Year 6 (10-11 year-old's) teacher who used the edge of a metal ruler rapped across across the knuckles.

15. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179950 by Drew on May 14, 2008 at 3:01 am

Without original sin? How would they reproduce without females?

16. Vatican: It's OK to believe in aliens

Comment #179842 by Drew on May 13, 2008 at 9:23 pm

Has the Vatican simply decided to climb into bed with the scientologists. Pope Tom anyone?

17. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10968 by Drew on December 2, 2006 at 3:44 am

Brian, in Comment #10903 you suggest that believing in the theory of evolution is analogous to a murder investigation where all the evidence points to the murderer without the murder itself being observed on video (although you do suggest "multiple witnesses").

In a murder investigation, some forms of evidence will carry more weight than others. I would argue that the "evidence" for the evolution of the eye is not comparable to the evidence you suggest in your murder investigation.

As I stated previously, the evidence for eye evolution by darwinian mechanisms does not exist, even circumstantially. Those who do not believe in God have to make the evidence fit their own (non) belief system, but it is clear from the published evidence that this is all about how things "might" have happened. There is not a single scientific paper which provides 100% proof that a complex eye developed even from a simple eye.

Atheists believe that all living things formed by darwinian mechanisms. However, whilst you argue that there are over-riding principles (eg natural selection, genetic mutation), there are multiple theories as to how these principles are applied in practical terms. These theories change and adapt with time, to fit in with the available evidence (as a medical doctor, I see on a pretty regular basis things which are good for us, bad for us, and then good for us again! Opinions change to fit the evidence, but then the evidence "changes", and so do the opinions).

Many (although I agree, a minority) of scientists agree with my opinion, and I suspect that few of us will change those opinions. Ultimately, what I believe is between me and God, and that influences how I live my life, and how I will stand before Christ when he returns to establish God's kingdom.

18. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10897 by Drew on December 1, 2006 at 7:43 am

Comment #10799 by Joad

Unfortunately, as Bible believers, we are continually bombarded with comments like this.

Why does my face looking different from my father's face prove evolution?

I, nor any other Christians contributing to this thread, deny that change occurs � what has not occurred is the development of single-celled organisms into the diversity of life we see around us today. I agree that natural selection "chooses" the fittest � again, this is clearly seen in the world around us. But I do not believe the evidence is there to show, for example, that a complex eye developed from (presumably) a single photosensitive cell. I agree that Chapter 5 of "Climbing Mount Improbable" makes very entertaining reading, but it provides no proof whatsoever to the evolution of the eye (Nilsson and Pelger's designed computer programme does not provide this proof). Nor does it consider the complexity of the biochemistry behind sight. I have read numerous explanations for the evolution of sight, but they can only be theories, as no one has observed this process occurring in nature.

And just because I believe that God created it, doesn't mean that I believe science should stop investigating the intricacies of the eye, or the mechanisms behind the generation of sight.

It seems a theist had this user name before me, how confusing. I can even edit his posts.

19. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #10218 by Drew on November 27, 2006 at 1:38 pm

Oh no, another of those Christadelphians! (me, that is)

I believe the Bible - the whole Bible - is the Word of God.

I've also read a great deal of scientific and evolutionary material (including "The Blind Watchmaker" and "Climbing Mount Improbable" - see comment #9675), but still believe that the evidence for a designer is not disproved by this evidence.

I believe God created the world, and He created mankind with free will to accept or reject Him. I respect the point of view of those who disagree with me - can you respect my point of view?