Points of Interest

Last week, it was reported in this article that two Japanese researchers managed to take photos of a giant squid in it's natural habitat. That's the first time that has ever managed. Giant squid live so far down that the only things that we have to work with are dead bodies or their leftovers after they have been eaten by a sperm whale.

Previously, it was suggested that the giant squid lure prey or feel for prey with their amazingly long tentacles. Thanks to these new pictures, it looks like they actually attack like a python does, striking their prey and then wrapping them up and squeezing them.

There was an article last week about a new galaxy that astronomers have managed to find. It's extremely far away from us, so the light from it has travelled for a very long time and shows us a picture of that that galaxy was like back when that light was first sent on it's universal journey. The problem is that it's also very large, and that's confusing because light that has been travelling for so long should show a relatively small galaxy, not a giant one. I don't usually link to these kinds of articles because they come out every couple of weeks or so, showing research that confuses our ideas about how the universe was formed.

Speaking of which, Mike has had a few posts recently regarding whether "scientifically verified" is the same thing as "true fact." Don't bother reading those posts unless you find semi-scholarly discussion fun. He hasn't directly tackled the issue of Intelligent Design yet, but it ties in nicely with the above article about how we think the universe was formed.

Intelligent Design is one opponent of Evolution, stating that a universe this complex has to have been created on purpose instead of being created by chance. It doesn't identify who this "intelligent designer" is, but critics say that it's just a veiled attempt at introducing God to the classrooms.

The current "Intelligent Design" debate in the US courts (article) is drawing a line in the sand, somewhat outside of Mike's argument. Their dividing point is the difference between hypotheses and theory, positing that Intelligent Design is a hypotheses while Evolution is a theory. The purpose of the courts is to decide whether Intelligent Design is a valid idea to be taught in schools. As Mike has written in previous blogs, this isn't a new debate by any means but it's still a point of interest.