The purpose of this assignment is to check that you are gaining a familiarity with some of the main themes of the course. This "check" is done through how well you communicate, through writing, both basic concepts and your own interpretations on course themes. It is due Tuesday, February 19.

You will be graded according to the usual standards: a D or C for demonstrating a minimal or basic understanding, respectively, of a theme; a B ("Good") for demonstrating understanding and writing about it articulately; and an A ("Superior") for injecting some "wow" factor into your answer (biting humor, spot-on references to related material, technical justifications or explanations, etc.) Spelling, grammar, structure, and clarity all contribute to your grade. So, too, does beautiful and consistent typesetting.

Please work in pairs and turn in only one hard copy, with both students' names, with your numbered solutions to the following:

1. What is the evidence for what we call the "Big Bang?"
2.  MATH TIME!  At noon on May 20th, 2013, a friend of yours leaves on a trip at a speed of 0.9995c which to her lasts precisely 2 years (let's call it exactly 730 days, or 63072000 seconds). What day is it on Earth when she returns? (Assume we are talking about the same time zone. And yes, leap years do matter for this problem.)
3. What is dark matter and who is associated with its "discovery"? What is dark energy and who is associated with its "discovery"?
4. Why is it said that quantum mechanics and general relativity are in conflict? Why can't they "both be true?" In what sense are they both true?
5. Give a one-sentence biography for each of three people who were members of a religious order (or professed to be deeply religious and not just because of the era in which they lived) that made highly significant scientific discoveries.
6. Provide a one paragraph criticism of Alain de Botton's TED Talk on Atheism 2.0 for being "too condescending" to religion. Among the complaints you may wish to consider (I'm not saying these are necessarily good objections, nor that you should limited to only these): many religious "rituals" are harmful and demeaning (find examples); we don't need religions to structure our calendars; lectures can be valuable whereas many "sermons" on how to live your life are given by hucksters that want to indoctrinate you and take your money; culture has actually not failed to replace religion; sacred histories are no different than other works of fiction; universities do impart guidance and even consolation through supporting research (e.g. medical) that does improve people's lives. If you enjoy writing things like this, read some Hitchens for inspiration. If you loved de Botton's talk, then consider this problem an exercise in "arguing the other side."
7. Who is Robert Charles Zaehner? What is he best known for? How are his works related to our discussions on science, religion, and mysticism as sources for answers to questions about the universe and of life?
8. What is teleology? In what ways is it (if at all) consistent with what we currently know about biology and astrophysics? In what ways is it (if at all) in opposition with what we currently know about biology and astrophysics?
9. Darwin's development of the theory of evolution by natural selection is sometimes used as an example of abductive reasoning (inference to the best, simplest, and most economical explanation). But if the best inference is the simplest and most economical one, then what should be said about the alternative explanation that "Species were separately created." That is only 4 words long. Is the alternative explanation simpler, shorter, more economical? If so, why is it generally rejected by biologists? If not, why not?
10.  MORE MATH!  There is a test for a rare disease that affects 0.015% of the population. The test is 98% accurate, meaning that it gives the correct result (positive or negative) 98 times out of 100. You've just tested positive.
    1. Give a carefully worded argument, either for or against you having the disease, based on the above information. State whether your argument is inductive or abductive and explain why it is so.
    2. What is the actual probability you have the disease? (Bayes' Theorem will be helpful here. Don't know Bayes' Theorem? Google it.)
11. Read Jonathan Haidt's Edge essay Why People Vote Republican and the Reality Club reviews of it. Contrast, in a single paragraph, the responses of Michael Shermer and Roger Schank. What two seemingly different conclusions do they come up with? To what extent are these conclusions "scientific"?
12. In Haidt's 2012 TED Talk on self-transcendence, he discusses group selection. What, in one or two sentences, is group selection? Haidt mentions that group selection is a controversial idea but is "about to make a major comeback" with E. O. Wilson's The Social Conquest of Earth. Wilson is a highly respected scientist, but his book and his advocacy of group selection have been criticized pretty hard. What are the major criticisms of his work? (Hint: Read Steven Pinker's essay in Edge about the false allure of group selection.) To what extent are the claims for and against group selection "scientific"?