Jesus-based research vs the Objectivists

The Objectivists over at the Ayn Rand Institute got their panties all bunched up over the study which found that prayer doesn't help bypass patients:

Every minute these doctors spend conducting this sort of faith-based study is one minute less spent on reality-based research--research that actually has hope of leading to real medical cures.

(link)

While that's true, there's also a place in science for debunking this kind of hoo-ha, because a lot of people believe it. (ref: "But prayer saved me" letter in yesterday's Metro, Boston edition) And I'm really not sure I would want the followers of Ayn Rand to be making decisions about the directions of science. They seem a little mean-spirited at times.

Still, I hope they've got a few more letters left in them, because an FSU prof named Doron Nof is trying to explain how Jesus walked on ice, not water:

The New Testament story describes Jesus walking on water in the Sea of Galilee, but according to a study led by Florida State University Professor of Oceanography Doron Nof, it's more likely that he walked on an isolated patch of floating ice.

The study points to a rare combination of optimal water and atmospheric conditions for development of a unique, localized freezing phenomenon that Nof and his co-authors call "springs ice."

When you get down to this bit, it's actually kind of interesting:

Using paleoceanographic records of the Mediterranean Sea's surface temperatures along with analytical ice and statistical models, Nof and his colleagues focused on the dynamics of a small section of Lake Kinneret comprising about 10,000 square feet near the salty springs that empty into it. Their analysis supports the likelihood that a brief blast of frigid air descended over the lake and dropped to 25 F (-4 C) for at least two days, coinciding with the chill that had already settled in for a century or more and quite possibly encompassed the decades in which Jesus lived.

Ok, sure, interesting phenomenon. A big 'what-if', though. Sounds a bit like the movie The Day After Tomorrow.

We want scientests to have some latitude in what they study -- pursue things they're interested in, etc -- and you don't people like me or the Randies to dictate what should or shouldn't be studied. But I'm still pretty flabbergasted that among all the problems an oceanographer could be studying today, someone chose this.

Of course, we probably shouldn't be talking about science here.

links via boingboing