Sadly this is a reflection of the reasons why most people act charitably - they respond to the sense of guilt rather than acting rationally. It's ultimately not about the charity they're engaged in and the good it will do, but a placation of their own anxiety over poverty. Much like a Christian acting out of a fear of hell rather than because of any real empathy for the poor.

I agree not much can be done while the message of 'procreate wildly' is reinforced by their culture.

The most a poll like this might be able to comment on would be the deistic nature of people who read and vote on such 'voting' sites. For that, it's kind of interesting (seems to be a bias towards atheism, which is what I would have guessed). For anything else, it's fairly useless.

One should also take care to see that it's not stipulating a belief in theism, religion or any dogma. A deist would be just as likely to answer 'yes'.

How will the number of news reports on 'DNA shows it's a hoax' compare with 'Bigfoot found'?

@ mkultra

'Carry on with your perfectly logical lives that leave no room for questions.'

Most 'logical' people here would be excited by giant squid autopsies and revelations of amazing new particles found in physics. They would be excited by the prospects of new discoveries on Mars, the possibilities of life on Titan, and the idea of extremophiles surviving where nothing should survive. Science is fascinating.

The fact that people are reduced to being fascinated over bigfoot claims and accusing 'logical' people of lacking the appreciation of questioning, I fear for humanity.

Athon

I know it's sensationalisation, but seriously, you'd think by now we'd learn to wait until such 'finds' were dealt with by an authority before the media went ape-shit over it all.

Wake me when the DNA evidence shows that this body is a new species of hominid. (which does not mean when DNA evidence says 'inconclusive' or 'matches no known animal'...and thing BF'ers try to pass off for 'BF match')

Athon

There are varying studies on the amount of reduction in HIV transfer with circumcised males. Even if it is significant, I'd be worried about potential misinformation creating false confidence in those who have undergone the procedure. If these people were to feel as if they could now have sex with reduced chances of getting HIV, how would that impact on potential spreading of the disease?

To think, the solution lies in education and providing protection, and yet we see circumcision, preaching of abstinence and pseudoscience being offered instead. *sigh*

Athon

Yeah, my BS detector is flashing 'extreme'. Sorry; growing up in Australia where surfers regularly get the chomp by anything from a bull shark to a great white, it seems a little far fetched. Add to that what Viola just said about the calm taking of the bait, the fact the shark didn't dive...too many conveniences add up to the smell of fantasy.

Still, funny clip...until some moron thinks it's possible goes out to try it for themself.

'We don't know what causes cancer' is a very, very different statement to 'We don't know what causes cancer in many individual cases'. Diagnosing exact causes in individual situations from what we know what is responsible for cancer in a broader sense is not the same thing - of course there are a number of environmental effects which can trigger oncogenes into functioning as cancer genes, and in some individual cases this can be tricky to pin down. However, in the majority of cases the cause is fairly blatant.

I think you're confusing my frustration at poor understanding of science with hostility. Essentially you've suggested what is an argument from ignorance - a fallacy which says if we are less than certain in a mechanism explaining something, then an alternative explanation has more weight, especially if the alternative is a magical explanation over a mechanistic one. 'Miracles' are indeed magical thinking.

It also doesn't surprise me that you measure the intellectual weight of an argument not by its content, but by how civil you perceive it to be. While I've hardly pulled my punches, I've also not regressed into insults or ad hom attacks.

The bottom line is that while we can't state precisely why this lady's cancer regressed, we a) know it happens with significant frequency, and b) it has biological mechanisms to explain it. Even if it didn't it would still not require a 'God did it' explanation.

'Magical thinking' = the epistemology that supports supernatural causes, such as 'miracles'. I retract my claim if you were using the word miracle in a way different to the traditional religious understanding, as used by the article.

I can't see how you could separate the cause of cancer from how it works. We have a broad understanding of what causes all cancers, and in many cases a specific understanding of the biology behind it, including causation. Your pathetic example of smoking was truly mind-blowing in its ignorance - something does not need to causes cancer in every case to be considered a contributory risk factor. Do you also deny that eating fat can causes weight gain because many people eat burgers without piling on the pounds? Maybe you think immunisation doesn't work because some people still get sick after they've had a shot?

As to your question, I wonder what value an answer has to somebody who struggles with the basics. I'll give you a bit of a hand up though - do a search for 'oncogenes' and 'carcinogens', and come back once you've got a grasp. We might be able to have an intelligent conversation then.

"What causes cancer (it’s not smoking because people who don’t smoke can get cancer)? Until we really know the answers to some of these mysteries we cannot really verify whether a miracle took place.. or what causes something to disappear… and reappear again."

Between this and the 'cancer doesn't just disappear and come back again years later' I can honestly see why people believe in magical thinking such as this. I can cope with people not knowing any better (science education and communication will always have its gaps), but the fact they seem to think they do is astounding.

Seriously, the things people say when they have no idea what they're talking about - and say it with full confidence - is embarrassing. All I can say in response to the comment is we do have a pretty good idea how cancer as a disease works, even if the biochemical details aren't as well defined as we'd like in a number of types.

"Lot of OT bashing going I notice.

For the record the OT was before Jesus, before Christianity (and Islam for that matter) that’s the Jewish religion of whose people committed those acts of ‘genocide’. It doesn’t matter that the people God ordered them to destroy were sacrificing their own children, rapists and such."

Sorry, this doesn't wash. There are plenty of Christians who feel the world was created as per Genesis, that a great flood wiped out a great deal of life on this planet and that Moses wandered the desert for 40 years. Sure, many don't, but OT ain't just a Jewish thing.

Atheists constantly deal with promises of eternal pain, anger and accusations of being amoral. Little wonder that many are now standing their ground and fighting back. Especially when they are met with asbolute tripe as Cameron's and Comfort's attempts to 'prove' Creationism.

I've got no problem with everybody having their own belief, yet as a science communicator it gets my goat when people abuse science in support of their views.

Well Rob, it would be nice if we could all invent our own realities to suit our desires. If only the universe didn't have these pesky, objective laws which kept getting in the way.

In a population of millions, where millions of things happen every day, it's to be expected that one-in-a-million events occur at least every now and then. However, I feel that this story has more to do with post-hoc reasoning and explanations than a straight-forward 'miracle'.

The very fact a person has voices in their head is a symptom enough of a neurological anomaly that needs to be investigated. Do we have figures on how many people seek medical attention on the advice of phantom voices, dreams or mysterious experiences every year, without the advice bearing fruit? I'd venture to say it's a significant number. When one happens to coincide with an actual medical case, people are quick to point it out as a miracle without considering the multiple 'non-events' which led nowhere.

Athon

I don't at all doubt that there could be a noticeable difference between the two, but science education is of a ridiculously poor standard if an unblinded, straight-forward comparison is called a 'scientific test'. I'd have been impressed if he had have asked a friend to assist in a single-blinded judgement, perhaps even with a couple of examples of free-range and battery egg.

It might seem nit-picky, but the very fact most people would think so is good evidence towards science literacy being so poor.

Autism is a spectrum of behaviours, so to insinuate is 'a condition' is misleading in the least. Levels of communication, interaction and socialisation vary considerably, going so far for many to associate a number of conditions under the umbrella term 'ASD' (autism spectrum disorder). Studies in recent decades have seen to this spectrum being formed, which led to changes in who might be described as autistic. This meant more people were diagnosed ASD, prompting many to think there was an epidemic.

Recent 'therapies' have included assisted communication techniques using computers, which are dubious and unsupported by any evidence. Always be skeptical when people suggest that scientists (whoever they might be) are amazed by something like this.

Athon