Northstate Science

Northstate Science Moving - Grand Opening February 6!

2008-02-01T20:47:00.000-08:00

After a significant absence from blogging (which I will explain later) Northstate Science will be coming back. Visit the new location of Northstate Science at Wordpress on February 6

Atheists For The Second Amendment?

2007-11-27T20:03:00.000-08:00

There has been much rancor, as is usually the case, over the Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments regarding the Second Amendment. I have a confession to make to all my liberal activist buddies out there in the blogosphere:

I am a lifetime member of of the National Rifle Association. (There...I said it....I feel so much better!)...

Now, in all honesty, I have not received any material from them (including the monthly issue of the American Rifleman) for more than a decade now. (I got really annoyed with the NRA when they started referring to ATF agents as "jack-booted thugs" during the whole David Koresh thing at Waco in the early 1990s and quit sending in "change of address" notifications whenever we would move. I had just joined the federal service at that time and was not amused with the whole anti-government crowd - they always struck me as bunch of cry babies who thought the rules of a civilized society didn't apply to them. By the way, and for the record: David Koresh was a coward and that bastard should have burned - the full extent of his cowardice was revealed when he took innocents along with him).

My general indifference to being a member of the NRA not withstanding, I still support the concept of the Second Amendment. I believe there is social value in a citizenry that remains mostly armed - it does give governments pause; and I believe it is one of the few things that keeps our form of government uniquely different from others around the world. I think most of the objections to personal ownership of firearms stem from unfamiliarity with dangerous weapons. I grew up with firearms of all kinds and am as comfortable with them as I am with a knife and fork around my Thanksgiving turkey. I made the Expert rating in rifle competition and just missed the Distinguished Expert medal (my college career interrupted my competitive rifle shooting). (So, in reference to my correctional officer debating partner: I have all those skills plus a doctorate...think about that for a moment!). In effect, I am generally in favor of the armed citizen (note: not just the hunting citizen) and am hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of a personal right to own and bear arms (yes, I am also in favor of concealed weapons permits).

Of course, what this means is that I buy into the argument that armed citizens are a deterrent to all kinds of tyranny. The problem is that most members of the NRA probably consider tyranny in the context of "liberal" efforts to regulate the population. Personally, I am more concerned with the potential for tyranny of conservative ideas....more specifically, theological based tyranny. We already seem to have an infestation of Christian soldiers in the military whose allegiance is to mythological beings and not the US constitution. I would suggest that such people might ultimately pose a threat to civil liberties.

I certainly understand the arguments in favor of gun control, but as I have always proposed, let's not limit someone else's freedoms simply because we don't personally agree with it. Instead, use that freedom to your own benefit. Imagine the response if atheists suddenly joined the NRA in droves. Imagine if Muslims, Buddhists and Wiccans joined shooting clubs. And for something really scary:

Imagine if PZ were not just eloquent, educated, atheistic, and outspoken....but also armed!

Of course it will probably never happen, but gee, wouldn't that get the NRA's panties in a twist? Of course I can hear the arguments now: "The Second Amendment was never intended to apply to atheists"....

Moral Objections To Medical Treatment

2007-11-27T19:40:00.000-08:00

CNN has been reporting on doctors who refuse treatments based on moral grounds. This is theocracy, pure and simple. A doctor who refuses a secularly legal treatment has placed his religious beliefs above those of the patent. In doing so, he/she has determined that religious belief trumps secular law. What are the limits of such an attitude? And what happens when Christian religious belief runs counter to another religious (or non-religious) moral imperative? If society accepts the principle that a doctor may refuse treatment on the basis of a religious belief, a personal, mental concept that cannot be verified by any accepted standard of inquiry, then does that society not take a large step in the direction of theocracy? It is very easy, and very simplistic, to consider this issue solely in terms of certain Christian sects who see contraception or abortion as moral issues, but consider every other medical procedure around the world associated with religious views. We chose not to have our child circumcised - I suppose that I should count my blessings that we did not have a fundamentalist Jewish doctor as our physician. After all, if a Catholic doctor can refuse to provide contraception based on a moral objection, why should a Jewish doctor not insist that his patioent's male children be circumcised, based on a moral imperative? Shall we talk about female circumcision? Should a "gay" gene ultimately be discovered will Christians start accepting (perhaps insist upon) abortion under "special religious circumstances"? Where does this lunacy end?

It ends with strict adherence to secular laws. If it is legal, you have an obligation to perform that action for someone else who insists upon it and your personal religious views be damned. If you can't stomach it, then get another job, you coward! If your religious viewpoint means that much to you then take a cut in pay and do something more menial and less lucrative, and quit protecting your outrageously inflated salary under the guise of a moral objection!

Exploring Our Matrix - And Why Intelligent Design Forced Me To Leave The Church

2007-11-15T17:30:00.000-08:00

Dr. James F. McGrath left a comment on my previous post regarding the recent PBS series Judgement Day. Be sure to read several posts McGrath has on the series. But more importantly...

...visit Exploring Our Matrix and read Dr. McGrath's insightful posts on things scientific and theological.

Consider, for example, the questions he poses to the ID Advertising Team (Denyse O'Leary, Philip Johnson and Casey Luskin):

In the same way, people like you cause more people to lose their faith (or to not come to faith) than any Darwinian biologist ever could. You tell people evolution is nonsense and present it as incompatible with faith, and some people who don't know any better actually believe you. Then when eventually the mountain of evidence finally gets their attention, they lose their faith, because people like you told them that was the only other option.

Do you fear God? If so, do you think you will not be held accountable for putting unnecessary stumbling blocks in the way of the faithful and those who could believe if it weren't for people like you driving them away from God? [emphasis added].

Dr. McGrath's point is well taken - largely because I am a perfect example of what he is discussing. I remember the day the nuns at St. Thomas More Catholic School in Paradise, California allowed a number of us 6th graders to develop a class lesson on any subject of interest to us and were given time to "teach" the rest of the class. My lesson was on paleontology (using Romer's Vertebrate Paleontology as a main source, if I remember correctly) and made no apologies for liberally invoking evolution. The kids, and the nuns, loved it. The concept of evolution was never a problem for Catholics during my childhood - the pursuit of science was actively encouraged by the nuns and during high school, my biology teacher and mentor (and agnostic) used to comment that his best science students came from the Catholic school. Fast forward 30 some years and we have Catholics Behe and O'Leary spreading misinformation about science and telling students they can't accept evolution and have faith; Cardinal Schonborn telling lies about evolutionary theory; most of my fellow Knights of Columbus couldn't give you a single fact about evolutionary biology but are convinced intelligent design is science; even a significant number of my relatives have been fed enough false information through the church that they now ask me if it's true that all animals appeared suddenly during the Cambrian or that scientists have abandoned radiocarbon dating.

The propaganda from the church and the gullibility of the flock got to be too much. If I have to go against the evidence and believe that Darwin was completely wrong or abandon the Catholic faith, well....the faith just became meaningless. And this didn't end with me....the Catholic church asked my wife and my kids to sacrifice too much in intellectual integrity to make it worthwhile to remain.

So we all left.

O'Leary, Luskin, Johnson and Behe are so interested in protecting their own version of faith that they cannot even comprehend the impact they're having on the church. It's no wonder young people have developed such a negative view of Christianity.

O'Reilly Needs Holiday Cheer

2007-11-14T06:50:00.000-08:00

Ok, we all know that Bill O'Reilly is resurrecting the War on Christmas issue again, and we can be assured of more false alarms and spin on the examples he will be presenting on his TV and radio shows.

So.....I suggest we all take note of his efforst and send Darwin Christmas Cards to Bill, wishing him a Happy Holiday season of his choosing...nothing provocative in the written messages, just warm wishes to him and everyone else at FOX.

PBS Special Follow-Up

2007-11-14T05:58:00.000-08:00

I caught the late night showing of PBS's NOVA special, Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial in my hotel room last night. Both PZ and Greg Laden have "liveblogging" comments on the special that are worth looking through.

Lassen County teachers will find lots of good source material on evolution and the fallacies behind intelligent design at the PBS/NOVA website. If you haven't had a chance to see it, Judgement Day will be shown online on November 16. Lassen County school board member should watch this special as well - it's a good lesson on overstepping bounds in science education.

I thought the special provided a great perspective on the strong explanatory power that evolution has as a scientific idea, the clear weakness of intelligent design at explaining anything, and more importantly, just how fallacious both the school board and the ID "scientists" were at presenting ID as an appropriate challenge to evolution.

I was somewhat disappointed in the recreation of Scott Minnich's testimony and cross-examination. It ended with him apparently making a sound point on testing ID versus evolutionary theory that could seemed to have stumped the plaintiffs. The original transcripts of the cross examination are quite different, and suggest a man doing some serious backpeddaling when confronted with the question of whether ID is actually testable.

I found board member Buckingham's response to Judge Jones' decision infuriating. This is a man who came a breadth's hair away from being tried for perjury during the trial and yet he as the hutzpah to lay into the judge for being an "activist". Buckingham should thank his lucky stars that Judge Jones exhibited a far greater show of Christian restraint than the original Dover school board could.

Lassen County Educators: PBS Special Tonight

2007-11-13T16:28:00.000-08:00

Lassen County science educators should not miss PBS's NOVA special tonight, Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, which documents (as a recent review in Nature put it) the "feebleness of the intelligent design case" during the Dover trial. The Nature review further suggests,

Judgment Day gracefully avoids ridiculing intelligent design for the pseudo-intellectual fundamentalist fig-leaf that it is, by simply showing how the protagonists shot themselves in the foot.

I only now got around to reading the review, however, that last statement was particularly telling in light of the current misinformation floating around at the pro-ID website Evolution News and Views. A recent post by Robert Crowther suggests that the PBS special is engaged in some myth-making, but as usual, when EN&V says the sun is shining, you had better glance out the window (you'll usually discover it is actually night). In reference to Crowther's Myth #2, citing Scott Minnich as having conducted tests to show the bacterial flagellum was irreducibly complex, I went to the original transcripts of Minnich's testimony and cross examination at the Dover trial via the Talkorigins.org Dover files. Needless to say, Crowther's cocky assertions about the nature of Minnich's research demonstrating intelligent design were shredded at the Dover trial when Minnich was forced to admit that no actual tests of irreducible complexity had ever been conducted by either himself or Behe. Neither is there any actual mythology behind the other supposed "myths" that EN&V accuses PBS of fronting. It's all just good old fashioned data gathering and presentation - something the ID crowd can't seem to accomplish. Crowther, in good advertising fashion, is repeating old arguments from ID advocates that have been shown to be the smoke and mirrors they are in the hopes of getting the public to be suspicious of the PBS special tonight.

Hopefully, Lassen County educators will ignore the pro-ID advertising at the EN&V and watch the PBS special. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this issue in the area after the first of the year. In February, the pro-ID movie Expelled will hit theatres, including no doubt, our own here in Susanville. I am sure the Lassen County Times will weigh in on this issue then as well.

Never fear...Northstate Science will be prepared....

Yeah, Baby! Come To Papa!

2007-11-09T13:05:00.000-08:00

Yes, my providers of that morning salvation in a paper cup, Susanville Starbucks, has re-opened its doors after re-modeling (which, on the face of it, didn't seem to change things all that much). But man, what a difference a Venti brewed coffe makes in the morning. I expect my blogging to pick back up now....

Some Good News For The Hadzabe...Hopefully

2007-11-09T03:42:00.000-08:00

I had a head's-up on this a couple of days ago via friends in Tanzania but I couldn't confirm the story. However, it now appears that Survival International is reporting that the UAE has withdrawn a deal with the Tanzanian government to secure hunting rights in Hadzabe lands. The original deal would have effectively kicked the Hadzabe out of their lands and forcefully ended their traditional way of life. From the Survival International piece:

The withdrawal is a great victory for the Hadza, a small tribe of hunter-gatherers who live in northwest Tanzania. A Hadza representative said today, ‘If it is true that the Arabs are leaving our land then I am very, very happy.’

I know many indigenous rights organizations and several organizations and individuals in Europe who contacted me on this issue were deeply involved and were able to bring world opinion to bear on this injustice. However, there can be no doubt that those of you in the blogosphere who frequently reported on the plight of the Hadza gave this the steam necessary to be noticed by the larger organizations. You should all pat yourself on the back for your efforts!!

This is indeed a great day for the Hadza...however, I have to remain just "optimistic" rather than downright overjoyed (sorry, I've been working too long in federal government where overly optimistic publicity often precedes an actual decision). If my unconfirmed email statement from the UAE safari company is correct, they are none too pleased:

The Eshkesh Safari Company has surrendered the rights it had secured in 2006 to manage and sustainably utilise the Yaeda Chini/ Lake Eyasha region for hunting...a commercially motivated misrepresentation of the company's intentions and activities has been continuously perpetuated by certain interest groups. This has regretfully caused us to review the long term sutsainability of our planned program in the entire region resulting in our reluctant withdrawal.

Of course, they use all the appropriate buzzwords regarding their operation ("sustainable", "manage") and accusingly invoke some kind of "special interest" conspiracy on the part of those who stood up for Hadzabe rights. And there's the usual hand-wringing over how the poor people of the area are now going to suffer because the company can't bring hunters into the area:

This decision was taken with great reluctance as the withdrawal meant ending numerous human welfare, and wildlife sustainability programs that had been created and initiated following extensive and ongoing consultation with all villages - including Hadzabe representatives - in the region. The Eshkesh Safari Company had commenced extensive regeneration and wildlife protection programs in order to revive the areas wildlife that has been heavily depleted by poachers. The intention was not to initiate hunting trips in the region for several years in order to return animal stocks to sustainable levels.

Their efforts at restoring game populations may indeed be the case but I find it exceedingly disingenuous that these arguments are coming out now...they certainly weren't being discussed when all this first came to light. Further, given a friend's inside perspective on how the UAE operates in general, I remain highly doubtful that the original intent of the deal was anything more than what it seemed to all of us: a safari "playground" for rich UAE princes.

Again, I have not confirmed the source of this email but I suspect it to be a valid statement from the company. There is one further issue still outstanding that tempers my joy at the news. Apparently several of the Hadzabe are still under arrest for daring to protest the original deal. I am hoping to provide positive news on that front sometime soon, but we'll still have to wait and see...

Four Stone Hearth Newest Edition

2007-11-09T03:37:00.000-08:00

The newest edition of Four Stone Hearth is up at Sorting Out Science. Check out this month's great collection of anthropology blog posts.

Lassen County Times in Review Oct 30 Edition

2007-11-04T07:37:00.000-08:00

It has been some time since I have felt compelled to respond to anything printed in the Lassen County Times. The news has largely stuck with, well, news and the editorials have, at most, remained….quaint. There are times when I miss the conservative elitism sometimes expressed by the paper’s staff – public argument is always a good thing, and I certainly enjoy engaging in it. But the nature of fundamentalist approaches to life is to take them underground when they are challenged consistently, so I suspect it may be some time before the editorial staff sticks too much of a foot in their collective mouths again.

In the meantime, however, we have the usual cast of local letter writers. Bill Ashmore continues the tired and data-less hypothesis that God is responsible for everything significant that happens or does not happen – this time in regards to global warming. (Yes, this is the same Ashmore whose pontification about gays, abortions and the frequency of earthquakes failed every empirical test you could throw at it…and then failed some more). Ashmore of course, gets the details wrong and like all good creationists, penalizes science for its past mistakes (without acknowledging that science is self-correcting); he uses the poor predictions of science 100 years ago as a proxy for the standards of scientific inquiry today; and he conflates media stories with what the scientists themselves actually say. Pretty much standard fare for a fundamentalist.

So the straw man has been constructed and knocked down: according to Ashmore, scientists can provide no data on global warming. The alternative for all of us?....wait for it….God controls the weather! Yep, forget all this debate about science, just trust in the religious intuitions of a handful of men like Ashmore and we’ll all be just fine. No need to actually work at understanding the world around us; no need to derive any conclusions from any physical pattern we see (they are all wrong anyway)…from Ashmore’s viewpoint there’s probably no need for any education. We’ll just sit around the fire with Bill telling us what we need to know and teaching us how to read goat entrails to prophesize the Second Coming.

Men (and women) like Bill Ashmore prove Harris and Hitchens correct every time they open their mouths or set their primitive thoughts to pen: religion poses an inherent threat to human survival and ultimately, “spoils everything”. He simply does not understand that religious approaches to physical world suffer horribly from inconsistency and have not advanced our knowledge of the world around us for more than 30,000 years – ever since anatomically modern humans started to acknowledge their ideological thinking by painting on cave walls. Every advancement of modern society has been made despite religious views, not because of them.

Sorry…but Jesus has nothing to do with it.

Vote For Duane!

2007-11-04T07:34:00.001-08:00

I just noticed that Duane at Abnormal Interests was nominated for a Weblog Award. Make sure you vote for Duane!

VOTE EARLY, VOTE OFTEN!!

Where Was Jesus?

2007-10-28T22:47:00.001-07:00

The World Series is over...and Jesus's team lost decisively. So, for all of you out there who are so quick to invoke the divine's name every time something significant happens - please explain to me why the Rockies lost? Could it be that Jesus really doesn't have anything to do with our personal successes or failures?

More Divine Intervention

2007-10-24T13:52:00.000-07:00

Yeah, you knew this was coming....

San Diego is actually on fire because of gays. It would appear that any dumbass with an catastrophic event, near-miss, or victory to explain can now invoke the Almighty with no fear of being shunned by society. It pains me to say this, but give me back the biblical version when God limited communication to burning bushes.

Look, people...this is why I cannot take a personal god seriously. If he/she/it isn't busy managing baseball teams to victory, then it's causing earthquakes in the U.S. because we allow both gays and abortions in this country.

Proponents of this kind of "God's wrath" nonsense can't answer the obvious questions that follow from such post hoc justifications: What if Boston wins the World Series? Why can't God summon anything bigger than a 5.5 magnitude earthquake on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade? If God is really upset with gays in San Diego, then why the hell did he fry a Presbyterian church?

The "Number One on Google" Meme

2007-10-24T13:36:00.001-07:00

I couldn't resist this one....

Via PZ (yes, I can't spell "pharyngula" either!) I see that World's Fair has proposed an interesting blog meme to see which words/phrases you plug into Google that result in your blog being the number one hit. The rules:

I'd like to suggest a meme, where the premise is that you will attempt to find 5 statements, which if you were to type into google (preferably google.com, but we'll take the other country specific ones if need be), you'll find that you are returned with your blog as the number one hit.

This takes a bit of effort since finding these statements takes a little trial and error, but I'm going to guess that this meme might yield some interesting insight on the blog in question.

To make it easier, we'll let you use a search statement enclosed in quotations - this is just to increase your chances of turning up as number one, but if you happen to have a website with the awesome traffic to command the same statement without quotations, then flaunt it baby! Of course, nnce you find your 5 statements, pass the meme on to others.

So, here are the results for Northstate Science:

1) Northstate Science (no need for quotes, but I was disappointed that for "Northstate" alone (even in quotes) I come up third;

The next three are probably too easy because of my local connections:

2) Susanville creationism

3) Lassen science

4) Lassen County archaeology

But my favorite has to be...

5) "meat for sex" (has to be in quotes, however (Google also asks me if I really mean "meet for sex"); I think I have Bora's femiphobia beat on this one....).

Further Thoughts On Cline and "Biblical" Archaeology

2007-10-24T05:42:00.000-07:00

I have been posting individual chapter reviews of Eric Cline’s book, From Eden to Exile, albeit at a snail’s pace. I have actually finished reading the book, enjoying Eric’s call to rescue the serious science of archaeology from the faux archaeologists claiming to have discovered Noah’s Ark and other bible mysteries. I am relieved that a professional archaeologist is finally arguing that much of what we hear of “biblical” archaeology in the media is driven by people with no professional standing in the field and that those with professional backgrounds must no longer sit on the sidelines. I will return to my ongoing review of Eric’s book in the days to come.

In the meantime, I want to address Eric’s recent article in the Boston Globe. Eric was kind enough to send me a heads-up that it was coming and I eagerly read through the piece when it appeared. Although the article reiterated many of the central themes of his book, for some reason the Boston Globe piece highlighted an issue of concern I have regarding the nature of “biblical” archaeology that I think Eric is overlooking. Certainly the big media names like Cornuke and Jacobovici reach a large audience with their misleading (and frequently false) characterizations of the method, theory and data of archaeology. But move past the more popular purveyors of archaeological myth and we are left with a professional archaeology in the Middle East (at least that connected with biblical studies) that still flirts with an issue of credibility. This is not derived from the work conducted by professionals in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology – their academic publications and research still stand the test of peer review, so important to maintaining the scientific integrity of a field (by the way, something intelligent design advocates want to bypass). The professional credibility problem comes from other groups who frequently co-opt the professional archaeologist in disseminating public information on archaeology: the fundamentalist Christian organizations, ministers, pastors, and individuals who seem to descend on the Holy Land every year to participate in archaeological projects, only to return to the United States to inform an ill-educated audience how archaeology “proves the Bible”. Eric has mentioned concern with “overzealous biblical maximalists” and their tendency to invoke archaeological conclusions where there are no archaeological data for support. Unfortunately, I remain of the belief that 1) this is a significant problem adversely affecting the public perception of Syro-Palestinian archaeology; 2) it is a problem unique to Syro-Palestinian archaeology (as opposed to archaeological research conducted elsewhere) and is largely the result of this area’s historic ties to major religious texts; 3) professionals in the field of Syro-Palestinian archaeology are at least partially culpable; and 4) it is an issue largely ignored by professionals in the field.

This is a subject I have discussed before, specifically with regard to creationist Carl Baugh’s visit to Lassen County and his false claim of professional credentials in the field. Individuals with a theological agenda, like Baugh, are using their experiences working on archaeological sites in the Middle East to legitimize their faux credentials in archaeology. Carl Baugh is not as famous as Bob Cornuke (and Eric was unfamiliar with the name when I relayed part of the story to him) but he gives hundreds of lectures each year and reaches a large audience. And there are many others who do the same. These individuals pose as much of a threat to the integrity of archaeology as Cornuke and Jacobovici.

This would not be an issue were professionals in Syro-Palestinian archaeology taking an active role in distancing themselves professionally from such pseudo-archaeologists as Baugh and others. But such distancing does not seem to be occurring. One gets the distinct feeling that many Syro-Palestinian archaeologists are comfortable with fundamentalist Christians misrepresenting archaeological research to further the populist notion here in the U.S. that “archaeology proves the bible”. Eric is certainly an exception in this regard, but I wonder if even he understands the extent to which faux archaeology being presented at the local level. My local paper editorial corrections to the contrary, many people in Lassen County are still under the impression that the Israeli Antiquity Authority recognizes Carl Baugh as a legitimate archaeologist, and that he (not Ronny Reich) directed excavations at the Pool of Siloam.

There were a number of blog reactions to Eric’s article, all of which rightly praised Eric for raising issues regarding the faux archaeology often presented by self-anointed “archaeologists” such as Cornuke. Only one post, however, raised the possibility that there may be other issues remaining beneath the professional veneer of “biblical” archaeology even after the more popular sensationalists are stripped away. Duane at Abnormal Interests writes:

But I am afraid that underlying the last of these reasons, "scientific findings may challenge religious dogma," is more than the issue of concerns for religious sensitivities. Much of the funding, at least in the US, for legitimate archaeological research in the southern Levant, comes from those whose religious dogma might be challenged.

So let me ask the hanging questions: To what extent are the results of “biblical” archaeology dictated by fundamentalist Christian funding sources? Is there an adverse effect on the integrity of “biblical” archaeology when so many of those who have a theological stake in the outcome are both participating in and funding the excavations? And where is the IAA in reprimanding those who misrepresent their experiences (and credentials) in archaeology elsewhere?

Duane also raises the issue of using archaeology in the “propaganda wars” between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Archaeology’s use as a political weapon has a long history, but it has always been tempered by professionals in the field who countered such illegitimate use of science to further political goals. Unfortunately, “biblical” archaeology is so laced with faux archaeologists, political propaganda and theological apologetics that it is difficult to separate the science from the advocacy. Eric has started the ball rolling….but it has a ways to travel.

Four Stone Hearth, First Edition, Second Year

2007-10-24T05:34:00.001-07:00

The First Edition for the second year (has it been a year already?) of Four Stone Hearth is up at The Primate Diaries. Eric has done a great job of pulling together a selection of anthropology blog posts. I would like to point out that Eric is a graduate of California State University, Chico, and is currently working on his doctorate at Duke...another northeastern California success story!

Rockies Don't Actually Have Talent...It Was All Jesus' Doing

2007-10-23T08:12:00.000-07:00

From PZ....

This is the kind of religious sophistry that just gets me frothing at the mouth...and why I don't (and can't) believe in a personal god. The implications of such statements are clearly beyond the intellectual capacity of your average baseball player - the general manager just admitted that the Rockies could not have won without divine intervention - so they must not be very good.

By contrast, Kathy Griffin's Emmy Award is based on pure human talent (and therefore actually deserved!).

Road Trip Through Northeastern California

2007-10-23T08:03:00.000-07:00

My apologies for not posting of late....

I just returned from a trip along California's Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway. I am serving as part of team of agency representatives (Forest Service, National Parks, Fish and Wildlife, etc) and community organizations who are exploring interpretive opportunities along the byway. We're looking at the recreation and educational opportunities along the system, what needs to be improved, and what can be added. I can tell you there are a lot of undiscovered "gems" out there - the museum in Tulelake as an example - and a lot of potential additions. We are helping local communities make this area a destination for a wide variety of tourism.

And of course, I'll be helping to make sure the historical and natural history interpretations follow the best science available...

Want To Win A Prize?

2007-10-16T06:36:00.000-07:00

I'm following Eric's lead here....

Be one of the first five people to comment here and by the end of the calendar year I will send you a gift - a real, physical gift that you will receive in the mail (and I don't mean email).

The catch? You must make the same offer on your blog...

The contest begins now....

Why Atheists Are Angry

2007-10-16T05:53:00.000-07:00

Wow....Great post on why atheists are angry. I would only add that many people who do not consider themselves strict atheists - a significant number who maintain some kind of spirituality but do not accept the current manifestations of religion - are angry about the very same things. I am not surprised that atheist/agnostic/non-religious attitudes are gaining significant ground among the younger generations.

In Mourning....Temporarily Anyway

2007-10-14T04:09:00.000-07:00

Often we humans are forced to endure tragic events and most of the time we get through them in some way. Many would suggest that such events build character. If such is the case, my character is currently going through withdrawals....

The Susanville Starbucks has closed its doors...

What travesty the likes of which Shakespeare could not imagine! Starbucks has been my bastion of communal recognition; my retreat from the rigors of the every day world. Of late it has also been my source of inspiration - my daily routine has been to grab my Venti Coffee of the Day around 5:00 AM, find my usual corner table, set up my laptop and start blogging away. It was working pretty well, too - until my beloved coffee house closed last week (notice the lack of blog posts?).

Alas, it is only temporary - they are simply re-modeling and will open again on October 27...three weeks without a Venti coffee may seem like eons, however.

First Anniversary Edition of Four Stone Hearth Up at Remote Central

2007-10-13T08:20:00.000-07:00

Tim at Remote Central has the First Anniversary Edition of Four Stone Hearth up. I am glad this blog carnival is continuing, thanks to the efforts of a lot of good anthropologists out there.

Bad Analogies At Evolution News and Views

2007-10-02T18:11:00.001-07:00

How many times will Evolution News and Views writers re-cycle a poor analogy before everyone realizes they are not actually making the point they think they’re making? Michael Egnor again incorrectly uses archaeological science as an analogue with intelligent design. He just doesn’t get it.

Archaeology is not, as Egnor mischaracterizes, a science about determining design:

All of us discern design as a matter of daily life. It’s an essential expertise. For scientists — all scientists — it’s a particular expertise. For some scientists — forensic scientists, cryptographers, archaeologists — discernment of design is their science.

What Egnor and other ID advocates fail to recognize is that archaeology does not assume design. This is a difficult concept to explain. In my archaeology class I show the students an “arrowhead” (better described as projectile points – most “arrowheads” are actually atlatl points – the bow and arrow was a relatively late development). Most students will recognize a projectile point as such, as would most ID advocates, and most will clearly infer a human designer. But then I ask, “How do you know that’s a projectile point?” In other words, how do we know what we know? Most students will say that they have seen similar items, read about such things in books or articles, or even tried to make one themselves. As we walk through this exercise, students begin to realize that their assumption of human design is correct, but what on the surface seems obvious is in fact built on a large body of previous knowledge. When I point out that artifacts of such “obvious design” today were once thought to be the products of thunder and lightning and not the result human manufacture, they are somewhat surprised. The knowledge of an “arrowhead” as the result of an intelligent design is dependent upon a history of research in archaeology, geology, ethnography and several other disciplines. It is also based on research specifically directed at the nature of the designer, and only secondarily the design itself (this is another area glossed over by ID advocates using archaeology as an analogy to intelligent design). It took a long time (and a significant amount of written argument) before such design could be attributed to human intelligence.

Egnor and others perceive design without comprehending the research behind that assumption. They suggest an analogous design in nature without offering the same kind of solid research in support. Perhaps another analogy may work better than Egnor's:

In the 1970s Erik van Daniken proposed that much of the monumental architecture we see in archaeological sites around the world (Giza, Titicaca, Palenque, etc.) could not have been constructed by indigenous groups in the area but must have resulted from extraterrestrial knowledge. Such buildings and monuments were so intricate and complex that some thought they could not possibly be constructed by humans but must have been engineered by visitors from other planets possessing far greater technological abilities. In other words, van Daniken argued that a significant portion of the world’s archaeology was the result of design by a higher intelligence. He was arguing, on the basis of his perception of complexity, that current proposed sources of such engineered feats were insufficient to account for that complexity and required intervention by beings with superior capabilities. His ideas were popular among the general public, which largely lacked the understanding of archaeological history, method and theory necessary to see through the faulty logic. Archaeologists of course immediately dismissed van Daniken’s ideas. And they did so with good reason. Archaeologists were familiar with a century’s worth of data from a wide variety of disciplines (not just archaeology, but geology, paleontology, zoology, chemistry, physics, ethnography, ecology, botany, geomorphology, and others) that in total provided significant confirmation that yes, indeed, it was really earthly humans who were responsible for such feats of complexity and there was no reason (and more importantly, no data) to invoke extraterrestrials. Van Daniken, like Egnor and the ID advocates, needed an “intelligent design” because he could not personally perceive that such relatively simple processes would produce such complexity. His “data” were limited to simple analogies with isolated cases and exclamations of incredulity, not basic research showing that extraterrestrials were a better explanation for what was seen on the ground. The current intelligent design movement is highly analogous to van Daniken’s proposals for an extraterrestrial “intelligent design” (I am sure he probably even complained that those “Darwinian archaeologists” were picking on him!).

Archaeological principles, like those in evolutionary biology, are backed by volumes of data from diverse disciplines. They are not analogous to intelligent design, unless taken out of context. Intelligent design has much more in common with Chariots of the Gods? than it does with Stone Age Spear and Arrow Points of California and the Great Basin.

Losing Your Academic Job For Challenging Religion?

2007-10-02T18:11:00.000-07:00

There seems to be a lot of this going around lately....

While I originally noted the story of Professor Steve Bitterman from Iowa’s Southwestern Community College at Dispatches From The Culture Wars, Chris Heard has been following developments closely and provides some academic perspective on the situation. For those who are not familiar with the situation, the short story is that Bitterman was fired from his teaching position for stating in a Western Civilization class that portions of the Old Testament were not to be taken literally. The longer story is, as you might suspect, somewhat more complicated.

Heard has reviewed the details to date, including a current news item in the Des Moines Register. The scenario appears to be one in which some students became upset after Bitterman challenged their long-held belief systems, complained to the administration (using the word “lawyer”) and the administration promptly fired the professor. Heard suggests there are two parallel issues here and I agree with that assessment. The first is whether Bitterman was insulting to the student during the course of the disagreement. I wholly agree with Heard that professors should take extraordinary efforts not to fall into the trap of engaging students uncivilly. (I also agree with Heard that more than once I have found it difficult not to bring the verbal hammer down on a disruptive student who has no idea what he or she is talking about). A reader responded to Heard’s take on the situation and had this to say:

But I have noted that in other classes where the atmosphere was more laissez-faire, when fundamentalist students heard statements of fact that contradicted their beliefs, they became immediately belligerent, and even threatening. Not once, but every single time, without exception — to the point that I had to steer any such conversation away from class.

While I agree with you that perhaps Bitterman should not have such an abrasive style, my own personal experience in these situations leads me to take the students’ complaints with a huge amount of skepticism.

I agree with Heard that there are not enough details of the situation available to draw a confident conclusion regarding either the chain of events or the details of what actually transpired. However, Heard’s commenter touched on bit of familiarity for me regarding trying to teach fundamentalist Christian students about the real world. So I am going to do what I probably shouldn’t do at this point and draw some tentative conclusions:

- Steve Bitterman was fired unfairly and the Southwestern Community College administration is expressing the same cowardly stance as that maintained by Olivet Nazarene University regarding Richard Colling. College and university administrations need to be very careful about “mucking” with what is being taught in the classroom. They are supposed to be hiring people on the basis of their professional background and expertise within a given field – once that’s done the administration should be exceedingly reluctant to interfere with or comment on information being taught in class;

- The students complaining are probably not very bright. Or, at least they have no concept of what education is truly about and refuse to entertain anything that might contradict their personal cherished beliefs. They probably have fundamentalist Christian backgrounds; their education to this point had probably been dominated by local pastors/ministers, possibly home or private schooling, and/or by public school teachers unwilling to challenge them due to a domineering social/political atmosphere in the community; these students were probably very rude – their expectation, like that of Christians interrupting Buddhist prayer in the Senate (or a fundamentalist Muslim Imam) is that the world (including the professor and all other students in their classes) should conform to and uphold their own beliefs, without any consideration for the fact that a) there may be other ways to look at the world or b) their beliefs are in error;

- Bitterman may or may not have been rude to students, but if he was, my bet is that the students’ own disrespect for alternative views forced the issue. Although a professor should make all efforts to react with civil discourse, knowing the fundamentalist Christian student penchant for obstinately making their views the center of attention, Bitterman was probably pushed to the breaking point. Most of us in the teaching profession have been taken to or over that boundary at some time in our careers;

The second issue Heard raises is in regard to the nature of religious criticism. One student, clearly under the impression that anyone challenging her views was acting criminally, consulted a lawyer over the issue. Incredibly, the lawyer affirmed the student’s viewpoint, suggesting it had been illegal for Bitterman to criticize her religion. Heard’s reaction is completely on target:

Wait … did I read that right? A lawyer told her it was illegal for someone to insult her because of her religious beliefs, and moreover that it was actionable? When did that happen? It’s almost as if this were scripted to prove Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris right about the silliness of religious people thinking that religious views somehow get a “pass,” that one’s religious views are exempt from critical scrutiny or from the ridicule of others. No such legal protection exists. U.S. law protects its citizens from the imposition of a governmentally-chosen, governmentally-sponsored religion, and it protects its citizens from governmental restraint on the free exercise of religion. It does not grant religious citizens some sort of shield against criticism, even harshly insulting criticism. There are many things wrong with a professor insulting a student, but as far as I know, it isn’t a criminal offense.

When I first read the media account of the incident my thoughts were exactly as Heard anticipated: this is precisely why Harris, Dawkins and Hitchens are so popular…and why I believe Harris’s particular argument (that faith is actually dangerous) has some validity. Here is a student (and her lawyer) who honestly believes that her personal belief system is superior to all others, that it should not be subject to criticism, and more to the point, that the government should not only uphold and advance her religious view, but should act to criminally prosecute anyone who would criticize those views. If that ever actually happens in this country, the guns are going to come out (that is what the Second Amendment is for, isn’t it? – guarding against tyranny?)….

Finally, allow me to offer some perspective on Bitterman’s situation from my own position as adjunct teaching faculty at a small community college in a rural, conservative community (Lassen Community College). I also have plenty of opportunity to upset conservative Christian students in my courses – I teach human evolution (not a great subject to win friends in the fundamentalist community) plus I have a component on “biblical archaeology” in my world prehistory class. While I have had belligerent Christian students in classes over the years, the fact is that I have had very few of them and really none at the confrontational level Bitterman may have experienced. One reason may be that, although my blog would seem to indicate otherwise, I maintain a respect for student’s religious viewpoints in the classroom. This doesn’t mean I allow them to dominate the discussion or don’t challenge their views with alternatives – only that I explain the difficulty of their perspectives from the standpoint of science. I also try to turn their arguments into a lesson for the entire class: “Jenny has an interesting argument, however, if you all recall our discussion on geology, here’s why the flood argument doesn’t really work as an explanation…”. It also doesn’t hurt to point out or demonstrate (as I occasionally do) that I understand the creationist and intelligent design “arguments” better than they do. Most fundamentalists don’t like a public display of their faulty thinking (even if done with respect) – so I rarely get openly challenged. I am also somewhat of public figure locally – I’ve taught the human evolution course at Lassen College for about 10 years now, I’ve written editorials and letters to the local paper, and of course many in the community read Northstate Science – most students have a pretty good idea of what kind of perspective they’re going to get when they take one of my courses. Those that are likely to have heartburn with the subject matter don’t tend to take the course.

Bitterman is also apparently dealing with a meddling administration and I note with some interest that the Des Moines Register article referred to the situation of adjunct community college faculty as “adjunct hell”. I can’t say I’ve had the same experiences at Lassen College – I certainly would not describe it as “adjunct hell”. Are adjunct faculty underpaid? Yeah, probably – but then I don’t know a single teacher (K through college) who actually does the job for the pay. If we get a raise, that’s great, but I’m teaching for reasons other than pay. The administration has been supportive on all levels. I know of only one student complaint about me (and it apparently happened years ago – I only just heard about it through the campus grapevine). Of course it was a fundamentalist Christian student complaining that I was teaching human evolution! The fact that I never heard about this tells me the administration basically told this person (presumably politely) that this was a legitimate course, O’Brien is a legitimate professional in the field, and if you don’t like it you should look for another class. I would say that’s pretty supportive. Of course, administrations change (ours has recently) and you ultimately never know…but I have no reason not to expect support here at Lassen College.

Of course if anything does happen, I’m sure you will all be reading about it here….

UPDATE: I actually wrote this several days ago and in the meantime Chris Heard has another update and links to a newer Des Moines Register editorial on the subject. As Heard notes in the byline of his post, there are additional opinions but no new facts. After reading the editorial (and especially the reader comments at the end) I certainly have no reason to adjust my thinking on this subject.

Richard Colling Saga Update

2007-10-01T20:37:00.000-07:00

John Hay, Jr. (Bikehiker) has posted a well-written letter to the Board of Trustees at his alma mater, Olivet Nazarene University, requesting that they "...immediately and fully restore Department of Biological Sciences Chair Richard Colling, Ph.D., to teach General Biology and to rescind the Presidential ban on Colling’s book Random Designer".

Please go to John's site and read the letter. Those of you not familiar with Richard Colling's experiences at Olivet Nazarene University can look at my previous post on the topic. I would also suggest you read some of the comments left by some students at ONU...there was also quite a discussion group engaged in conversation on this topic on Facebook.

Review of From Eden to Exile, Chapter 1: The Garden of Eden

2007-09-25T21:40:00.000-07:00

Here I would like to continue my review of Eric Cline’s book, From Eden to Exile, Unraveling the Mysteries of the Bible (2007), The National Geographic Society. My thoughts regarding the Introduction can be found here.

In the first chapter of From Eden to Exile, Eric Cline addresses the archaeological and textual evidence for the biblical “Garden of Eden”. Of all the bible “mysteries” to be addressed in upcoming chapters, Cline identifies this as the most difficult to evaluate scientifically…and with some justification: outside of the biblical narrative there is almost no additional textual or archaeological evidence to corroborate the story.

Unfortunately, as we noted in the introduction, most ancient historians and archaeologists generally want several separate sources of evidence before they will believe something to be factually substantiated, and that is simply not possible in the case of the Garden of Eden (p. 1).

The first problem in attempting to assess any real-world historical correspondence between the biblical Garden of Eden and the current geography of that region of the world today is that of the rivers. The biblical texts refer to four rivers within Eden[1]. As Cline notes, two of the four rivers are well known: the Tigris and Euphrates and we must make of these descriptions “…what we will” (p.2). Their biblical names were not as we know them today; however, there is apparently sufficient concordance with other biblical texts to be relatively confident that these are the two rivers being discussed. The other two rivers are the Pishon (which flowed around the land of Havilah) and the Gihon (surrounding the land of Cush). It is not known to what flowing bodies of water these two place names refer, although there has been much speculation. Cline cites Scafi (Mapping Paradise: A History of Heaven and Earth) who suggests that there was wide agreement among scholars from the 1st century A.D. Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus (who first brought the idea forward) through the Renaissance, that the Gihon and the Pishon were the Nile and the Ganges, respectively. Later biblical references refer to the land of Cush as being in Africa, but Cline notes that the Genesis texts seem to nonetheless link its location with Mesopotamia. In effect, the biblical texts are ambiguous with reference to geographic location and (more importantly in my mind) scale.

Cline next discusses mention of Eden in Sumerian texts that pre-date Genesis and which may themselves have been borrowed from an earlier culture, the Ubaidians (approximately 7500 – 5500 BP). He also notes the existence of additional creation stories from the region that have “striking similarities” to the story found in Genesis. All of these pre-date the biblical account:
Scholars generally agree that the Hebrew Bible as we have it today was compiled from various sources, which were written down as early as the tenth or ninth century B.C. and as late as the sixth or fifth century B.C. Even the earliest parts of the Bible, such as the source called J by biblical scholars, do not date earlier than the tenth or ninth century B.C., hundreds of years after Enuma Elish was written.

Cline argues that these stories are “transmitted narratives” – oral history handed down from generation to generation and culture to culture, and eventually captured in a written language. Such narratives provide the best explanation for both the similarities and the differences between the biblical narratives and other stories from the region. This is an idea that makes good anthropological sense and is supported by anthropological, archaeological, ethnographic and historical data worldwide. We know that prior to written language (or in absence of such a language) oral transmissions of cultural knowledge were vital to maintaining cultural cohesiveness. Cline suggests that such oral traditions in the Near East were probably transmitted between cultures at a time scale on the order of centuries if not longer. I would suggest that oral traditions may in fact be passed for thousands of years. And of course, their content and concepts changed over time. It is also important to realize a primary function of such transmitted narratives: to “explain” the world around them in terms that were culturally meaningful, given their level of scientific and historic knowledge at the time. Of course, by today’s standards, this was not very much. As a result, while their explanations for world origins were culturally meaningful to them, they were not necessarily historically or scientifically accurate.

I have digressed from Cline’s theme for a moment to make a point. This is, again, an area where I perceive a primary difference of approach between the so-called “minimalists” and “maximalists”. As I have mentioned elsewhere, and as most scholars are aware, these terms get bantered around with little or no explanation or definition. But here, I think the distinction explains itself in the way in which biblical texts are used. Perhaps because of my personal theological biases, it is easy for me to set aside theological interpretations and recognize bible narratives solely in the context of cultural transmission. They are important historic texts, not because of their accuracy in identifying historical phenomena, but because they give us insight into first millennium B.C. culture. Treating the biblical narratives solely in terms of their cultural origins and evolution (including assessing cultural, societal and political motivations for constructing such narratives) makes one a “minimalist” in the eyes of most. This is especially true for those who believe the biblical accounts must be referring not just to historically accurate information, but information that is historically correct by 21st century standards. Yet this approach has nothing to do with demonstrating the “accuracy” of the bible as its primary goal. Like Gould’s spandrels at San Marcos, biblical “accuracy” is but a by-product of cultural motivations and perspective. I can fully appreciate that biblical texts may, in some cases, contain accurate historical information – but the degree of accuracy is going to be highly variable, and clearly relative to the cultural level of knowledge (or political influence) at the time of writing. And in this approach, biblical texts are no more accurate than any other ancient text, precisely because they are all share the same broad cultural characteristics: they are written by newly emergent societies, with limited knowledge of the world, that have only recently invented the ability to translate oral history into the written word. I would not expect such texts to be historically, and consistently, accurate in all details. This does not mean they are not important.

Cline hints at a potentially important link between the early Garden of Eden narratives, the paleoenvironmental conditions of the Middle East at the close of the Pleistocene, and the rise of agricultural systems and complex societies. This general time period (the post-Pleistocene, roughly 7-10,000 years BP) witnessed the origin of many economically prominent domesticates (although not nearly all, as we now know domestication of many plant and animal species occurred independently among societies around the world). Cline suggests, as many have, that emerging agricultural systems provided a bounty of plant and animal species, particularly after the introduction of irrigation methods, which must have appeared as something of a “Garden of Eden” to those engaged in this pursuit.

There is something, however, that nags at me regarding “Garden of Eden” stories stemming from emergent agricultural societies – contrary to popular perception, the switch from hunting-gathering economies to agricultural ones was not necessarily a natural transformation – it most likely was forced by deteriorating environmental conditions through the Holocene. Agriculture, relative to hunting-gathering, is labor-intensive, less nutritional, entails greater risk, and produces significant societal “hurdles”: although most foraging societies are aware of agricultural (or at least horticultural) practices, almost none choose that route unless forced by other circumstances. If early agricultural societies thought of their systems as a “Garden of Eden” they probably did so grudgingly. I wonder if a better Garden of Eden may have actually been delta regions to which some societies retreated during the drying Holocene. These would have been true areas of bounty, where emergent agricultural could be sustained, but also where game abounded (unglulates, waterfowl, fish) and hunting could easily supplement the economy. Deltaic regions can also be quite extensive and from the perspective of smaller human groups could easily appear in oral tradition as “one river branching into four”.

Regardless, it is probably true that such stories find their origin in the cultures of those earliest societies, be they dependent on agriculture, foraging, or some combination. Cline continues the chapter by reflecting on the archaeological and historical strengths and weaknesses of various scholarly proposals for the actual location of the Garden of Eden: Juris Zarin’s hypothesis of coastline inundation of a potential location; James Sauer’s suggestion that it was located on the Arabian Peninsula; David Rohl’s claims that it is located in Iran; Gary Greenberg’s identification of it in Egypt; and Michael S. Sanders’ location of the Garden of Eden in Turkey. Cline evaluates each of these in turn, finding the Greenberg and Sanders hypotheses the least backed by proper archaeological and historical method, and the Sauer and Rohl hypotheses plausible, but less likely. Cline clearly favors the Zarin view (originally conceived by Ephraim Speiser) that posits an area off the Persian Gulf coast, now under water. This view makes sense on several levels, not the least of which is the fact that the Persian Gulf coastline would have risen dramatically as Pleistocene glaciers melted over the course of the early Holocene. This view makes further sense for me in that such an area would have been an extensive delta – the kind of environment constituting a Garden of Eden from a forager’s perspective in the early Holocene.

This view also considers the cultural perspective of cultures ultimately responsible for the oral traditions eventually captured in early texts. Differing origin perspectives are not typically considered with current biblical “interpretations” – at least those more popularly perceived. One of the problems is making sense of the relatively different views of scale. The Jewish historian Flavius Joseph may have agreed with other learned scholars at the time that the biblical description encompassed large river systems such as the Ganges and the Nile. From the perspective of a much larger world known from the 5th century, the economic importance of such large river systems would have focused attention on these as the source of the rivers in the biblical narrative. But late Pleistocene hunter-gatherers and the early Holocene farmers were often constrained by areas of economic exploitation. Their “catchment” areas were more on the scale of single rivers or, more likely, resource rich delta systems with single rivers making multiple branches at their mouth.

Ultimately, however, Cline concludes that, although there may be a kernel of historical truth to the Garden of Eden stories (the writer was, after all, referring to some kind of geographical reality, although at what scale remains debatable), the final historical “truth” will probably remain elusive:

It is hard to put the Garden of Eden into historical context, for it belongs to the realm of prehistory, if not myth or legend (p. 13).

From my perspective as an archaeologists and researcher, Cline also offers a much-welcomed assessment of current views: any future evidence announced will have to be backed by legitimate scholars following proper archaeological and historical methodology. Cline raises this important problem, too often ignored by the media and professionals in the field, in greater detail in later chapters of the book.

[1] Technically the text refers to a single river flowing out of Eden to “…water the garden”; from here the single river divides into four branches – geomorphologically speaking, this description is quite different from four separate rivers.

Bosnian Pyramid Update

2007-09-18T19:05:00.000-07:00

I am sorry I missed this earlier, but Hot Cup of Joe has a great piece on psuedo-archaeology of the "Bosnian Pyramid". Check it out...

Being Blunt

2007-09-18T18:55:00.000-07:00

I can appreciate bluntness. (I work for a federal agency where we avoid being blunt like the plague - otherwise it might be interepreted as a "hostile work environment"). So I really enjoy it when someone quits beating around the bush and tells it like it is:

There is this old myth about a god who has sex with his human mother to give birth to himself, who grows up to be killed (but not really), and this depreciated sacrifice somehow means everyone else gets to go to heaven when they die. If they believe it, that is; otherwise they go to hell and suffer for eternity.

Now I'm supposed to…

…believe in this fairy tale myself;

…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better human beings;

…believe that accepting this fairy tale helps people be better scientists;

…regard people who swallow this fairy tale with the same respect I do those who see through the nonsense;

…refrain from criticizing this fairy tale; and/or

…pretend this fairy tale isn't a load of ridiculous bullshit.

No, it's never going to happen. I will never accept or even respect your fairy tale.

Sorry.

Are the Critics of Evolution Just Maintaining Cultural Boundaries?

2007-09-16T15:59:00.000-07:00

Both Abnormal Interests and Afarensis picked up on my previous posts regarding Richard Colling and I notice that Professor Colling also left a message at Chris Heard's blog, Higgaion. (By the way - I noticed that every comment, email, etc. written by Rick Colling and posted online somewhere was mostly original in content. In other words, he is not simply "cutting and pasting" the same message at numerous locations to get the word out. I think there can be no criticism of Professor Colling's professional integrity - he just wants to continue to educate students in the best science possible; a science, furthermore, that Colling has personally found supportive of his faith).

Afarensis draws an important anthropological consideration regarding all the furor over Colling teaching evolution at an evangelical university. Afarensis writes:

In essence, those "...few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals..." have decided that Dr. Colling is no longer christian enough to teach biology at the university. This is a good example of why framing won't work. Dr. Colling comes across as an intelligent individual with a sophisticated grasp of christian theology, yet he has run afoul of fundamentalist members of his community.

I am afraid I have not kept up with all the commentary on "framing" going through the science blogs of late, so I cannot really comment on whether this incident runs counter to the idea of framing. However, I fully agree with Afarensis' assertion that this is an example of groups maintaining their cultural boundaries:

It all gets back to boundary maintenance (a mechanism to prevent ideas from eeping across porous cultural boundaries - in effect boundary maintenance mechanisms serve to separate culture groups and provide a rigid, well defined marker between "us" and "them") and Dr. Colling strayed too far across the boundary. For his local community Dr. Colling has become one of "them".

Afarensis cites Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann's book, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Again, I have not read the book, but the idea of a sort of "cultural immune system" is talked about with some frequency in anthropological circles. I would argue from my own currently limited understanding of boundary maintenance in anthropological theory (including its archaeological applications) that political motivations are often underwritten (or masked) by other aspects of culture, including religion. I can easily see much of the creationist movement (particularly "intelligent design") being fueled more by political and economic considerations than by sincere belief. As an example, I sometimes wonder if Ken Ham's creationist position has more to do with the ability to talk donors out of $28 million dollars for a museum (plus, no doubt, a healthy lifestyle for himself) than a sincere commitment to the idea that the earth is only 6,000 years old and tyrannosaurs were vegetarians prior to The Fall. Ken Ham, Rick Warren, Bill Donahue and others have far more to lose (in terms of economic and political power) than a scientific argument. And I find it interesting that those opposed to Rick Colling seem to be wielding financial threats (read: economic power) in a way that is more suggestive of a concern to maintain a cultural boundary where they are in control on one side. Put another way, I am very suspicious of those with power (economic or political) espousing religious or other cultural "values" - one has to constantly wonder whether they do it out of a sincere belief, or simply to maintain their economic "base".

I've rambled here, but I think Afarensis has hit on an idea that deserves further reflection and comment.

More News on Richard Colling...And A Good Idea

2007-09-16T07:54:00.000-07:00

Richard Colling has also been exchanging comments on Henry Neufeld's blog, Threads From Henry's Web. I would recommend adding Henry's blog to your blogroll lists, particularly if you are at all interested in thoughts on the intersection of science and theology. Colling's comment to Neufeld is another straight-from-the-heart account of the current situation at Olivet Nazarene University, where his book has been banned from classroom use and he is no longer allowed to teach the biology class - simply because he has a theistic view of evolution. Colling has also been posting at The Panda's Thumb...with some encouraging news:

Actually, the feedback I have received in the past few days has been overwhelmingly positive and supportive. Only one hate mail this morning. I thanked her for taking the time to communicate her views to me.

The students and alums who know me are really beginning to mobilize. I heard that the president’s office is receiving many very upset phone calls and emails from people supporting me and my work. Remember, I have been here for 26 years loving and caring and investing my life in the lives of my students. Calculate ~25 major graduating each year for 26 years. This translates into a large number of alumni who know that these accusations of eroding the faith of students with my book or teaching is a complete fundamentalist fabrication.

(Anyone surprised that fundamentalists are fabricating issues and evidence?). The good news is that Colling seems to now be getting support from students, faculty and parents who actually know something about the subject of his courses rather than his critics who are largely making it up as they go. An anonymous reader on my previous post suggested another good strategy that Colling's supporters might want to try:

If I were a student on Dr. Colling's campus, I'd try to organize a peaceful gathering on the quad or under the flagpole, where his book would be read aloud, paragraph by paragraph, to anyone who would listen.

An absolutely fantastic idea! We have enough prayer-around-the-flagpole events anyway...why not one is support of an earthly cause for a change?

There is another theme running through all these emails, posts and comments regarding Colling's situation - his teaching is not at odds in the least with Church of the Nazarene theology. Another anonymous reader indicated the following:

THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR DOCTRINE OR MANUAL OF BELIEF THAT CONTRADICTS EVOLUTIONARY THEORY! We believe that God created the Earth, but we have never had the small-minded, rather stupid view that He could not use evolution to do that. And no one I know, at least in our local church, holds to a 'young earth' viewpoint. Nor is that view an accepted one in our doctrine. That is one of the saddest things about Dr. Colling's plight--that he is being pilloried for teaching biology in a way that does not even contradict our doctrine.

Professor Colling said as much again in his comment on Threads From Henry's Web:

They can’t stand the apparent public endorsement of evolution in spite of the fact that our denomination and university statements are fully accepting of verifiable scientific discoveries - including evolution. I teach all my biology courses with accuracy and integrity, and then encourage those students who come from the more conservative homes to keep an open mind. I try to help them explore ways in which these remarkable evolutionary mechanisms might actually be considered compatible (or at least not inconsistent with) with belief in God. This approach to teaching is shared by all the biology faculty here.

This is really the crux of the problem. Whether or not you believe in a deity, the fact is that MOST theologies do not have an issue with evolutionary theory, or the fossil record, or the fact that Lucy may have been one of our ancestors. The problem starts when an ignorant few suddenly decide they are going to re-interpret standard theology to make it appear that churches have an issue with evolution. I know a lot of people often cite my former, Catholic Church as a light of evolutionary acceptance, but I can no longer accept that description. Despite Pius (who was lukewarm toward evolution, I grant you), despite John Paul, despite Benedict's recent proclamations, there are many(mostly American) Catholic writers who seem to still insist that, "No, that's not what they meant....the only science Catholic doctrine really supports is intelligent design". And these writers are gaining more ground within the Catholic pews than all three popes put together. They are, in effect, attempting to re-package theology so that it is more accepting of their personal views.

And Colling and others are right to worry about the long-term effect this theological insistence on anti-science will ultimately have on the long-term survival of Christianity. Many of us were pushed toward atheism (or at least, out of organized religion) largely because the loudest voices in the church still promote faulty science (be it creationism, erroneous "biblical" archaeology, or something else). If church leaders (and supporters) can fabricate science, then what other aspects of doctrine (historical, theological, or otherwise) are they also fabricating?

Richard Colling: Scientist, Christian...and Martyr

2007-09-13T19:36:00.000-07:00

Some of you will remember that I previously posted on Dr. Richard Colling, a professor at Olivet Nazarene University in Illinois, who defended evolution as God's process, contrary to the strict literal interpretation of Genesis preferred by the Church of the Nazarene, the denomination in control of ONU. Colling is a man of faith who also clearly recognizes that the real world tells a story that may ultimately be closer to God's truth than that portrayed in primitive biblical texts. In a 2004 article, Colling describes his perspective:

Colling is one of a small number of conservative Christian scholars who are trying to convince biblical literalists that Darwin's theory of evolution is no more the work of the devil than is physicist Isaac Newton's theory of gravity....

Usually, the defense of evolution comes from scientists. But Colling has another motivation.
"People should not feel they have to deny reality in order to experience their faith," he says.

Since that time, however, the forces of darkness and ignorance influencing the administration at ONU have decided that Richard Colling should not be allowed to teach science when it contradicts stubbornly held myth. Colling's personal struggle to bring peace between science and religion has come to a head, and now Professor Colling faces a situation more reminiscent of conditions in Iran than America. A pre-release Newsweek on Colling and other scientists of faith shows how these courageous individuals are being persecuted for their ideas, much in the same fashion as Galileo was persecuted for his. Because of his attempts to reconcile faith with the facts of science, ONU, under pressure from some "irate parents, pastors, and others" has brought the inquisition to Professor Colling:

Colling is prohibited from teaching the general biology class, a version of which he had taught since 1991, and college president John Bowling has banned professors from assigning his book. At least one local Nazarene church called for Colling to be fired and threatened to withhold financial support from the college...

...Yet with the new term, Bowling banned "Random Designer" [Colling's book] from all courses; it had been used in at least one history class, an advanced biology course and the general biology course.

The science blogosphere has picked up on Colling's current plight. Although Richard Colling is a lifelong member of the Church of the Nazarene, a graduate of Olivet Nazarene University and believes in a God that is "...bigger, far more profound and vastly more creative than you may have known", the reaction from Church of the Nazarene despots would lead you to believe he is another Christopher Hitchens. As PZ notes at Pharyngula:

He must have done something truly horrible! Why, he sounds like some kind of godless atheist who is trying to pry his students away from the loving embrace of the church.

At EvolutionBlog, Jason comments:

You would think that even at a Christian university a person's religious views are not really relevant to what gets taught in science class. And I wouldn't have thought that theistic evolution was such an outre position among Christians that Colling would come in for this kind of flak for writing a book about it.

Panda's Thumb comments on the expected (and so far, attained) Discovery Institute hypocrisy over "teaching the controversy":

ID proponents are quick to argue ‘viewpoint discrimination’ whenever their attempts to introduce their scientifically vacuous ideas fail....
So when can we expect a cry of outrage from the Discovery Institute, demanding that Colling will be allowed to teach his usual classes?
Has Hell frozen over? Oh the irony…

Yes, where is Casey Luskin? Anika Smith? Michael Egnor? Denyse O'Leary?

Henry Neufeld, however, cuts right through to the main issue in a post entitled "Where Teaching the Controversy is Prohibited". The "Teach the Controversy" argument is nothing but pure propoganda - there is no expectation on the part of its advocates that any sort of "controversy" be taught. It is only the first step in getting control of the curriculum and weeding out evolutionary science altogether. As Neufeld argues:

I have suggested many times before that before one believes what IDC (intelligent design creationism) advocates say about their goals, one should look at the way they handle the matter where they are in control....

This action shows some of the destructive potential of ignorance, but it also removes any fig-leaf of respectability from the “teach the controversy” argument. The advocates of creationism generally do not want the controversy taught. They want to win. If they were to win a court case allowing their materials into the public school classrooms, their next move would be to prevent critical examination of those ideas, and then to prevent the teaching of evolutionary theory itself....

I believe that the Olivet example is what theistic evolutionists such as myself can expect from the ID movement. They want to shut us out. They certainly don’t want to “teach the controversy” about ID, a controversy that is very much alive amongst Christians.

You see, “teaching the controversy” is good when you want to wedge your way into the public schools, or force your way into universities. It’s not so good when someone wants to fairly examine the controversy inside a Christian school. They want a “heads we win, tails you lose” situation.

Other good discussions of Colling's situation can be found at Metacatholic and Higgaion. And while I'm sure other bloggers have also commented, we all can do no better than to let Richard Colling speak for himself. I have been privileged to have exchanged emails with Richard Colling over the past few days and he has written eloquently on his perspective, his plight and his desire to do nothing more than to teach students that they do not have to fear science in order to maintain personal faith. With Professor Colling's permission, I post the entire message I received this morning:

Hello Chris,

This article tells only the tip of the iceberg, but will give you a flavor...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20657204/site/newsweek/page/0/

Here is the actual truth. All I have ever wanted to do is to communicate and then cultivate a message of peace and harmony between Science and Faith. Unfortunately, what I have learned over the past two years is that some profoundly scientifically naive fundamentalist Christians only want war - apparently intent on destroying and discrediting anyone who does not conform to the fundamentalist creationist mindset.

I truly feel that I can empathize with Galileo of 1633 when the Catholic church placed restrictions on him. I suppose it was inevitable that it would someday come to this: The battle fought against the scientifically naive religious authority and won by Galileo (albeit it took 400 years for vindication) was in the physical sciences. (The earth is NOT the center of the universe.) In contrast, regarding the emancipation of evolution (biological sciences) from the self-appointed religious authorities has not yet occurred in the United States. Perhaps it is time.

I believe that it is a matter of when, not if, the evolutionary paradigm WILL be integrated into the evangelical Christian theology. If not, the Christian faith will be relegated to cultural obsolescence. With the genetic data derived from the human genome project and other sources, the evolutionary connectedness of life on earth can no longer be denied. Therefore to build the foundation of the Christian faith on opposition to evolution is not only silly, it is suicide for the long-term viability and credibility of the faith.

It has been a rude and very unsettling experience. While promoting a message of peace, and after 26 years of faithful devotion to Christian higher education and investment in the lives of thousands of our college men and women, it is difficult to describe the depths of my disappointment that a few profoundly scientifically ignorant individuals have been allowed to create such discord and damage to to me and the university in the public's eye - by convincing a university president to acquiesce to their demands. (even though the president privately continues to say that he has identified nothing in my teaching or writing that is scientifically or theologically deficient.) The truth is this: My students love me, I love them, and we are all getting along fine. The outside critics notwithstanding...

I have been told in essence in a letter from the president of the university that although it may seem unfair, the truth and facts will not matter here. Perception is what is guiding his actions. I am still numbed by these words coming from a university president when discussing the teaching of biology in a university setting. Therefore, it seems that the only tools allowed for this discussion and commitment to truth and principle are political tools. Sad. I have always held that it is truth and education that sets us free, not uninformed political perceptions.

I am under no illusion that certain members of the board of trustees who have been uniformly hostile toward my teaching and writing may now attempt to manufacture something to use to retaliate against me. Oh well. I stand on truth and principle.

I include here for you a written statement I provided to the local newspaper. The article should come out today. Feel free to disseminate any of this commentary and information.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All I have ever wanted in my 26 years of writing and teaching is to communicate a message of peace and harmony between science and faith. I believe I have faithfully fulfilled this work in a manner that models the stated ideals of an Olivet Nazarene University faculty member. Therefore, I am very disappointed by these unwarranted and unnecessary actions which seem to suggest otherwise.

I believe these measures, made in response to off-campus scientifically uninformed critics of evolution, cannot help but cast a negative, and up until this time, an undeserved reflection on Olivet's reputation as a bona fide institution of higher education. As a proud ONU alumnus (Class of 1976) and veteran faculty member of 26 years who devoted my entire professional career to upholding the Olivet mission of "Education with a Christian Purpose", this seems like a medieval blow to the university's dedicated professional faculty and the institution's educational standing in the greater academic community.

In a culture and society increasingly driven by advances in science and technology, it is a sad day in the life of a Christian university when new understanding and insights into God's creation revealed by biology and genetics are viewed as a threat to faith. Students deserve better. Those who continue set biology at odds with the Bible do a terrible disservice to both.

Let the whole world know. It is time for truth and transparency.

Rick Colling

Not much else to say. Professor Colling is another of those rare men of honor and integrity who might just bring someone like me back to the fold. I will tell you one thing: I no longer believe creationism is merely misguided...in many manifestations (such as this) I think it is actually evil. I can no longer give creationism or its proponents any quarter....

A Science Cafe in Susanville?

2007-09-12T19:59:00.000-07:00

I just received my E-newsletter from American Scientist and saw that WGBH Boston and Sigma Xi have teamed up to help promote the idea of Science Cafes:

The joint venture is the product of an ongoing partnership that began in 2004. That's when Sigma Xi chapters around the country started holding informal public discussions in restaurants, pubs, coffee shops, science museums and other venues, drawing on themes presented in the PBS television series NOVA scienceNOW, produced by WGBH.

At Science Cafés, scientists and engineers share their expertise in a relaxed, friendly setting. Topics have been wide-ranging, from bird flu, human space flight, chaos and global warming, to the Irish Potato famine, green building, the ivory-billed woodpecker, honeybees and dark energy/dark matter.

I'm thinking it might be a good idea to get one of these going here in Susanville (I'm thinking Starbucks...). More information on organizing and maintaining a science cafe can be found at the Science Cafe website.

An Opportunity for Lassen County Libraries

2007-09-12T19:52:00.000-07:00

Here's a unique opportunity from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) for librarians in Lassen County to add back issues of Creation/Evolution and NCSE Reports to their shelves so that area students can get accurate information regarding evolution and the various forms of creationism (like "intelligent design"):

Tell your librarian...

NCSE is now extending a special offer to libraries. Both because we are eager for libraries to maintain holdings of our journals, and because we are eager to make space in our storage facility, we are offering free copies of any or all of the back issues of Creation/Evolution (ISSN 0738-6001, nos. 1-39, 1980-1996), NCSE Reports (ISSN 1064-2358, vol. 9 through vol. 16, 1989-1996), and Reports of the NCSE (continuing both, ISSN 1064-2358, vol. 17 ongoing, 1997-present) to libraries. Libraries can take advantage of the offer to replace missing or damaged individual copies or to extend the range of their holdings.

Probably academic libraries will be most interested -- and we urge our members and friends who work at colleges and universities to bring the offer to the attention of the periodical departments of their libraries -- but the offer is open to public and school libraries as well. Interested librarians should write to Archivist, NCSE, PO Box 9477, Berkeley CA 94709-0477, fax (on letterhead) to (510) 601-7204, or e-mail the NCSE archivist at archivist@ncseweb.org to request further information or order back issues at no cost to their libraries. The offer is good only while supplies last, and may be withdrawn at any time at NCSE's sole discretion.

I certainly hope Susanville Library and Lassen Community College library take NCSE up on their offer. I would hope other Lassen County libraries consider adding these important issues to their collections.

Another Archaeology Blog

2007-09-12T19:42:00.000-07:00

I have been remiss in pointing out a wonderful blog I discovered, Looting Matters. The blog deals with "Discussions of Archaeological Ethics Regarding the Collection of Antiquities" and provides some interesting perspectives on this topic.The blog is owned by David Gill, Department of Classics, Ancient History and Egyptology at Swansea University, Wales. Check it out....

The War To Rescue "Biblical" Archaeology

2007-09-02T20:57:00.000-07:00

Following Jim West’s recommendation on his blog some time ago, I listened to Eric Cline’s interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education. Dr. Cline is Chair of the Department of Classical and Semitic Languages and Literature at George Washington University and has written several books on the subject of biblical archaeology. After listening to the interview I immediately ordered his new book, From Eden to Exile, and started reading through it this week.

In the introduction, Cline clearly spells out a dilemma facing serious scholars of biblical archaeology today. The field of biblical archaeology, at least as its results are presented to the general public, has been largely confiscated by charlatans with little or no training in archaeology (or serious scholarship in general) and yet who present their views as “scientific”:

While doing the research for this book, I became amazed and, frankly, appalled by the amount of pseudoscientific nonsense that has been published on these topics, especially on the Internet but also in book form. The vast majority of this work has not been produced by professional scholars but rather by amateur enthusiasts…These enthusiasts…all work outside of academia. As such, they are not held to the same standards of rigor, peer review, and scrutiny as professional scholars employed by colleges, universities, and other institutions of higher learning.

Cline is, of course, referring to the usual array of the intellectually vacuous who appear to speak authoritatively on the subject of biblical archaeology, but who in reality have not the foggiest clue about the nature of archaeological research: the Ron Wyatts and Bob Cornukes of the world, for example. But there is a continuum of problem enthusiasts here, some not as extremely ignorant, who nonetheless uncritically use archaeological data to advance their proselytizing efforts:

Some biblical maximalists – particularly those working outside of mainstream academia – seem to be closer to the enthusiasts in setting out with their own a priori set of assumptions, which are often stated outright in the mission or message statements on their Web sites. Others dilute their good and careful analysis of archaeological material and ancient literary sources with uncritical thinking or blatant proselytizing. In addition, both the maximalist and minimalist camps harbor individuals who abuse and occasionally distort the information.

It is refreshing to finally hear a professional archaeologist recognize the fact that spokesperson responsibility for the serious discipline of “biblical” archaeology has to be rescued from the public malfeasance that typically passes for legitimate commentary these days (I continue to use quotations around “biblical” only because I personally prefer the term Syro-Palestinian archaeology). This includes the local minister providing uncritical “archaeology proves the bible” assessments as equally as the crackpot Noah’s Ark investigators or creationists masquerading as archaeologists. Cline intends to raise the needed alarm:

Thus, one of the reasons I have written this book is to sound both a word of warning and a call to arms, because I believe that the general public deserves-and wants-better. It is high time that professional archaeologists, ancient historians, and mainstream biblical scholars take back their fields from the amateur enthusiasts, psuedoscientists, uninformed documentary filmmakers, and overzealous biblical maximalists and minimalists who have had, for the most part, free reign to do what they wish, without any regard to scientific method or an unbiased investigation for the truth.

Forgive my over-generalizing passion for this, but it is about time the battle cry was sounded. Archaeological science has been polluted by those Cline describes and we professional archaeologists should start being blunt (and public!) about the danger posed by both charlatans and proselytizers. Some of you know I have fought my own battles here in Lassen County with a local media willing to portray ignorance as science and I am pleased that the call for a rigorous defense of archaeological integrity is being made internationally. I look forward to continuing with Dr. Cline’s book. I am sure it is just the first salvo in the upcoming war to reclaim archaeology.

UPDATE: My apologies to Jim West - if I had been paying a little closer attention I would have realized he commented on some of the very same issues in an initial assessment of Clines book way back in May. Whoops...I'm just excited about the book!

A Lesson In Creationist "Kinds"

2007-09-02T20:23:00.000-07:00

My current edition of American Scientist has a wonderful article by Elaine Ostrander entitled “Genetics and the Shape of the Dog”. The piece generally focuses on the results of the dog genome project and its implications for understanding the genetics of canine diseases and potential changes to dog breeding programs. More specifically, the article discusses how an understanding of the dog genome demonstrates how tiny genetic changes lead to tremendous physical variation within the species.

In reading the article I could not help but be struck by the potential implications for creationism (both kinds – young-earth and intelligent design). Most creationists trot out the “kinds” argument for explaining the differences they see between different species: God created the basic kinds of animals (dogs, cats, horses, etc.) and all the species we see today are essentially variations on a theme. In other words, they can accept the relationship between genotypic change and phenotypic change only to the extent that these changes are limited to the same “kind” of animal. Dog variation (stand a Chihuahua next to a Great Dane, for example) can easily be the result of minor fluctuations in the genome – but the differences between a Chihuahua and a Siamese cat are the result of God’s creative separation of the species.

Creationists engaged in a cursory reading of Ostrander’s article (and can we expect creationists to engage in anything but a cursory reading?) will find the vocabulary necessary to proudly proclaim that “science” has verified the “kind” hypothesis of speciation. Of course, the “kind” hypothesis can only be supported if your knowledge of the animal world is extremely limited. Scientists working with either morphological (physical) or genetic variation among species understand that this discrete categorization of animals doesn’t work. One can easily envision the variation among dogs (most of us own one or more) and think that the “kind” hypothesis makes sense; but how many completely understand the range of variation within the genus Canis? The Family Canidae? The Order Carnivora? It’s easy to envision the “kind” separation between cats and dogs, but where does one “kind” end and another begin?

Ostrander provides an interesting figure showing the phylogenetic grouping of “dogs” based on a comparison of genetic sequences. Our domestic dog is grouped with an impressive array of wild species and the question to creationists begs itself: when is a dog not a dog? Wolves are clearly “dog-like”, as are coyotes. That’s easy. What about dholes and jackals? How about foxes? Certainly dog-like, but clearly some differences (to make it easier on our creationist friends reading this, we’ll follow their preferred methodology and ignore the morphological differences that don’t quite “fit” the “kind” hypothesis – foxes are dogs!). But we’re not even close to the end of the dog-like animals within the Canidae. Hyenas? What “kind” would they fall under? How about mustelids (mink, ermine, weasel, ferret)? Mephitids (skunks)? – are skunks more like dogs or cats? Or are they a separate “kind”? On Ostrander’s diagram “raccoon dogs” are listed. What about raccoons? Are they dogs…or are they bears? Some bears are awfully dog-like (particularly the smaller ones).

Of course all of my evolutionary biology friends understand this dilemma perfectly – and it is one reason we buy into evolution as an explanation for this huge variety of life we see around us. Taxonomy, like Sesame Street, certainly reflects the human propensity for grouping animals that are not like another. Very basic groups (dogs and cats) are simple to understand. But when you have knowledge of the entire range of animals represented in a group (Carnivores, for example) you spend a lot of time scratching your head (or arguing in the literature!) over a huge number of animals that do not quite fit in one group or another. And here I am just talking about living species. Add in the fossil record and (contrary to creationist claims) transitional species – species that don’t easily fall within one group or another because they share characteristics of both - are suddenly a dime a dozen. Of course the Ken Hams of the world are not interested in explaining the totality of the evidence – their only interest is in sifting the data for the few nuggets that support their own ideas. Contrary to Ham’s claims, creationists and evolutionary biologists are not looking at the same set of data!

In my college courses I generally prohibit students from writing papers on creationist ideas (unless it is from a strictly historical comparative perspective). I sometimes wonder if that is not a mistake. If the idea is to get a creationist student to “think outside the box”, then perhaps allowing a paper on creationism would be a better learning tool, provided it adhered to strict scientific guidelines. Could a creationist student learn something from the following assignment?...

Write a term paper on the creationist “kind” model. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Re-group all genera and species from these families according to biblical “kinds” and then justify, in detail, the characteristics you used to organize them into separate kinds and why these characteristics are discrete for each kind.

For the intelligent design creationists out there I would modify the essay requirements:

Write a term paper on the creationist “intelligent design” model of species origins. Compare and contrast a minimum of three family level groups of animals within the same order (Ursidae, Canidae, Procyonidae, for example). Discuss, in detail, the mechanism for species divergence within each. At what taxonomic level is the designer likely to have intervened to define a new group of organisms (what criteria would you use to define the point at which a designer intervened? What drives the mechanism for the divergence (why did the designer intervene at this particular point and not another?).

It would certainly be interesting to see the results of such an exercise.

Atheist Convention Sold Out

2007-09-02T20:17:00.000-07:00

For anyone who is interested...

Apparently the Atheist Alliance Convention in DC September 28-30 is SOLD OUT. However, the Alliance is providing an alternative for you to listen to the incredible lineup of speakers through streaming video:

The Atheist Alliance International's Crystal Clear Atheism 2007 convention is a complete sell out. That's the bad news. Now for the good news--AAI is pleased to offer you an opportunity to view all of the convention proceedings as a live Internet video stream. You will be able to see speeches by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Julia Sweeney and many others from the comfort of your own home (at 1/10 of what it would have cost for you to attend in person). For more program details, please see the convention schedule at:

http://www.atheistalliance.org/conventions/2007/aaicon2007_schedule.php

(click on the "Download Schedule" link)

You must receive a password by September 19, 2007 so please go to the following link to connect to the AAI Convention Live Video Stream Website where you can make your password purchase through Pay Pal or credit card. http://www.onsitestreaming.com/

Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and Isolated Artifacts

2007-08-28T16:32:00.000-07:00

Using isolated artifacts with no associated provenience data seems to be all the rage amongst biblical archaeologists of late. First we have the controversies surrounding the Talpiot, or Jesus Family Tomb – an isolated artifact said to simultaneously verify (because it formally names Jesus and members of his family) and repudiate (because a resurrected body would leave no bones to bury) the authenticity of Jesus. Earlier we had issues regarding the James ossuary as a potential artifact authenticating the existence of James as the brother of Jesus. We also have the Jehoash Inscription describing repairs made to the temple in Jerusalem by Jehoash, son of King Ahaziah of Judah – an artifact authenticating biblical references in 2 Kings. There has also been King Solomon’s Tablet of Stone and more recently online discussions regarding authenticity of the Ivory Pomegranate, said to be a relic from King Solomon’s temple. Much is written evaluating the potential of these items for archaeological interpretation and there seems to be no end to the controversies surrounding their potential meaning for Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Setting aside for the moment the problem that interpretation in Syro-Palestinian archaeology is hamstrung by theological entanglements that inherently force it outside the proper bounds of scientific application (I shall return to that below), the question at hand is just how useful are unprovenienced artifacts in archaeological research?

Here in northeastern California, we maintain a collection of approximately 100,000 items confiscated from a looter caught illegally digging on national forest lands in the mid-nineties (he paid fines and served jail time in addition to having his collection confiscated). As archaeological collections from northern California go, this one is splendid – replete with all those “diagnostic” artifacts we find important for determining chronology, tracking population movements, even understanding ideology, including several classes of projectile points, beads, copper and sandstone pipes, burial goods, and a variety of additional items. In effect, these items were looted from significant assemblages that undoubtedly would address many of the important archaeological questions in California and Great Basin prehistory – questions that are analogous to those asked in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Unfortunately for us, these artifacts are not merely of limited archaeological value, they offer us nothing of interpretive value whatsoever. Without the necessary provenience data (location (both geographic and site), depth, mapped association with other artifacts, etc.) and discussion of excavation methodologies, the only legitimate interpretations given would have to be tagged with the following disclaimer: “trust me”. Oh, some graduate student might get creative and propose an interesting analysis using inherent characteristics of the artifacts themselves (using obsidian hydration, for example, one might date various point styles to assess the consistency of style and chronology) but the best that could be accomplished is descriptive analysis that skirts the larger questions of archaeological importance. The collection has been most useful for public displays and classroom talks. It is one of the few collections I can afford to allow school children to directly handle - an accidently dropped and broken arrowhead results in no net loss to the “interpretive value” it lacked in the first place.

From a strictly archaeological perspective then, isolated artifacts with no associated provenience are simply useless for archaeological interpretation. Information offered on their basis is nothing more than un-testable speculation. I would suggest this goes for Syro-Palestinian archaeology as much as it does for Californian archaeology. The unfortunate difference, of course, is that assemblage interpretation in Syro-Palestinian archaeology is not simply a function of applying archaeological principles and methods as it is elsewhere. It also tainted by religious zealotry that demands “archaeology proves the bible”. Long-proven methods of archaeological analysis are called into question when the results don’t conform to pre-conceived theological interpretations, data are ignored or “explained away” when they contradict biblical passages or stories, or worse…data are outright fabricated to demonstrate the authenticity of sacred texts. The degree to which these efforts occur are subject to debate, but one conclusion cannot be avoided: the potential for archaeological malfeasance of one type or another is extremely high in Syro-Palestinian archaeology. Much higher than it is in other areas of archaeology. It is not surprising that controversy surrounds the proliferation of “biblical” artifacts suddenly making the news. Christianity has a long history of miraculously coming up with “sacred artifacts” (none with verifiable provenience) that offer the faithful some history upon which to hang their theological positions. To the faithful, there can be no objective doubt offered regarding such artifacts, and the complexities of scientific knowledge can be sufficiently tweaked to minimally open the possibility of authentication. For a broader public uneducated to such matters this is more than sufficient to ignore or denigrate whatever contradictory science is available. The Shroud of Turin and Juan Diego’s cloak, both “appearing” in the 16th century, can be added to this laundry list of items proving Christianity’s authenticity (and conveniently lacking the history and provenience necessary to confidently address claims of authenticity). The Ivory Pomegranate and Talpiot Ossuary are merely the current extension of such efforts.

Unfortunately, the science of archaeology is being enlisted to aid theological confirmation of these relics and in the process archaeological integrity suffers. In the new issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Editor Hershel Shanks protests use of the words “relics” or “curiosities” to refer such isolated artifacts of mostly dubious history. He writes,

Now I happen to disagree with that. I believe that, if these items are authentic, they have much to teach the scholar…If they are authentic, they connect me emotionally and even spiritually to times and events that give meaning to my life. I don’t like them referred to as mere “curiosities”.

Shanks’ arguments epitomize the problem with much of Syro-Palestinian archaeology: it is too enmeshed in theology to confidently consider it as a historical science. Archaeological research here will always be viewed with theological oversight. Mere possibilities from fragments lacking provenience will be elevated to the level of “proving the bible correct” and textual contradictions backed by solid research will be dismissed. This comes less from the discipline’s primary scholars, many of whom appear to make valiant efforts to separate the archaeological science from the theological implications, than from meddling groups outside the field. As someone who actively works to provide opportunities for non-professionals to participate in archaeological research it pains me to say this: Syro-Palestinian archaeology is far too “public” for its own good. Shanks seems to understand that the “mere curiosities” lack appropriate archaeological information, but he nonetheless wants to give them some sense of respectability. It is ironic that he later bemoans archaeologist Jonathan Reed’s assessment of the intellectual challenges facing Syro-Palestinian scholars:

In a recent book on the historical Jesus, archaeologist Jonathan Reed…tells his fellow scholars how “difficult” it is to “overcome the caricature of Biblical archaeologists seeking relics [there’s that word] or sinking their spades in the ground to find sites listed in the Bible or artifacts mentioned in the New Testament.” To his scholarly audience, Reed is making fun of the Christian pilgrim who comes to the Holy Land to find spiritual nourishment in its stones and antiquities…

I don’t know if Reed is making fun of the Christian pilgrim, but if he is not he should be. It is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will return to tell his home audience how archaeology “proves the bible” without understanding the nature of the archaeological research; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will sift the science so that theological implications are justified; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will ignore or dismiss contradictory evidence that doesn’t support his belief system; it is precisely this Christian pilgrim who will turn mere rocks into the hull of Noah’s ark. Shanks berates Reed and other professional archaeologists for discussing the relic-seeking caricature of “biblical” archaeology while simultaneously promoting such a caricature by refusing to take the discipline seriously. As long as Syro-Palestinian archaeology remains overshadowed by discussion of isolated artifacts with no provenience its professional respectability will be doubted.

Creationist Essay Winners Versus True Young Scientists

2007-08-26T16:24:00.000-07:00

Answers In Genesis has announced its winners in the creationist essay contest for young people. Zeno and Bay of Fundie provide appropriate evaluations of these essays, which meet the predictions we would all expect from homeschoolers and the religiously educated who have been successfully sheltered from actual science. Zeno sums up the expected content of the essays:

While it's not fair to expect teenagers to write purely original essays, all of the winning papers suffer from the suffocating effects of their reliance on recycled creationist propaganda. Time and again the writers make demonstrably untrue statements (and they probably don't know any better). In this, of course, they simply mirror their elders.

Through random chance (or should I attribute it to divine intervention?) the very antithesis of an Answers In Genesis sponsored essay contest also published their winners this year. In my current issue of Natural History (arriving the day I first learned of the AIG essay winners) the American Museum of Natural History also announced its 2007 Young Naturalist Awards winners. From the article:

Every year scientists from the American Museum of Natural History travel far and wide on expeditions to learn more about the natural world. The Young Naturalist Awards, now in its tenth year, invites students in grades 7-12 throughout the United States and Canada to follow in those footsteps, embarking on their own expeditions in areas of biology, Earth science, or astronomy. Their research can be conducted as to home as their backyard or a local pond or stream.

This year's Young Naturalist Award winners are:
Ashley Hunt (Grade 7) - Algae in the Weiva River: Is it Helping or Hurting Water Quality?
Noah McDonald (Grade 7) - The Toads of Delaware County
Alexandria Day (Grade 8) - An Analysis of Water Quality on the Severn River over Two Years
Ryan Wham (Grade 8) - Lighter, Brighter, and Cooler: An Analysis of the Effects of Roofing Albedo on Ambient Temperature
Alex Nagler (Grade 9) - Investigation of Water Quality in Mercer County Lake
Jon Atkinson (Grade 9) - Barn Owls on the Side of the Road
Viola Li (Grade 10) - From the Desert to the Subalpine Forest
Nikola Champlin (Grade 10) - Thigmomorphogenesis in Pisum Tendril Development
Anastasia Roda (Grade 11) - Human Factor IV: The Impact of a Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor on the Plankton, Benthic, and Biofouling Communities in the Reactor's Intake and Discharge Creek
Arjun Potter (Grade 11) - A Survey of the Birds of Indroda Nature Park in Gujarat, India
Joanna Nishimura (Grade 12) - More Than Meets the Eye: Do Himasthla sp. B Cercariae Use Chemo-orientation?
Jeremy Koelmel (Grade 12) - Lichens as Indicators of Vehicle Pollution
More on the contest winners may be found here.

The distinction betwee these kids and the winners of the AIG creationist contest is quite clear. The Young Naturalist winners followed the dictates of science by asking questions, gathering data and then reporting on where those data led them in their interpretation. The ground rules of the contest made this quiet clear:

After identifying a question, students plan how they will gather information, conduct outside research to learn more about their topic and possible methodologies, observe their subjects, and record their findings. Finally, their data analysis results in conclusions that either answer the original questions or lead to further inquiry.

By contrast, the AIG essay contest winners had already determined their conclusions before even beginning any research. Research was largely confined to those sources that already agree to their position and anything presented in alternate sources was either falsified, mischaracterized or the data ignored so that the biblical mythology could be upheld.

So which group is conducting the better science?

A Question For The Archaeology Blogosphere

2007-08-21T22:35:00.000-07:00

In my previous post on historical inscriptions at High Rock Canyon, I got sidetracked with the discussion of religious intolerance and neglected to pose a question to my fellow archaeology bloggers (or anyone who wants to weigh in on the matter): should sites like High Rock Canyon be opened to the public?

As someone who is in the business of managing the nation’s cultural resources, this is a constantly debated question. On the one hand, allowing public access and promoting the existence of a cultural site (be it historic or prehistoric) poses the risk of individuals who will vandalize, or worse, loot the site. Many of my colleagues in cultural resources management feel very strongly that public access to archaeological sites should be severely restricted. There are many of us, however, who believe (equally strongly) that the appreciation for history is collectively fostered by education and access. If we are not protecting sites for public benefit then why bother? Certainly there are all shades of opinion in between. No one arguing for public access is suggesting we post site records on the internet (although we have had interesting discussions locally whether certain high profile archaeological sites shouldn’t be on visitor/interpretive maps). The questions for me are 1) what are the costs/benefits of public access?...and 2) to what degree should access be afforded (advertise the site? Provide a location on a map people may or may not pick up? I’ll tell you if you ask?...)?

So, what do my fellow archaeologists around the blogosphere think about public access to sites?

Gotta Love Sweden!

2007-08-21T22:28:00.000-07:00

Here’s a nation that has its priorities right. From Martin at Aardvarchaeology I read this post on the nature of the “religion debate” in Sweden. Basically, the issue of whether religion should be discussed seriously as a alternative to other explanations of how the world works and humans should behave has been moot in Sweden:

The question posed is whether the same debate could rise in Sweden. The answer seems to be a definitive no. The role of religion in Sweden is peripheral, and the power of the religious communities is relatively weak. The major media; our national papers, the big tv channels and the national radio are all expressly secular. There simply aren’t any strong religious counterweights to the secular forces. There’s also a lack of numerous religious grassroots organisations that can mobilise the people in a defense of traditional superstition and bronze age morality.

The question, it seems, is not whether organized religion (as opposed to personal belief systems that carry no political weight) can bring anything substantive to the intellectual table. The question is whether a religious viewpoint should be tolerated at all. I don’t believe the author is implying that religious viewpoints should be legally restricted – and as an unapologetic defender of the First Amendment I would reject any notion that religionists should be unable to voice opinions – it’s that Swedish society at large has progressed beyond the need for primitive mythology to explain their world. There is simply no serious consideration within Swedish society that religious viewpoints would be tolerated as a likely explanation for anything. To borrow an idea from Dawkins, the Swedes apparently consider all religion in much the same light as American Christians consider Greek mythology – nothing more than an interesting historical experiment.

Americans, by contrast, aren’t even close to this phase of intellectual enlightenment. There are still too many in society who consider religious viewpoints not just as tolerable with respect to others, but actual believe them to be superior (otherwise we wouldn’t be having conversations about creationism, gay marriage and blastocyts as human beings while simultaneously justifying the war in Iraq on the basis of a few lines from a Bronze Age text).

Predictably, the American religionists are not happy with the Swedish take on things. And, like explaining lack of rainfall, or the high school team winning the championship, they are quick to invoke their personal knowledge of God’s feelings on the matter: God hates Sweden. And Sweden’s response? A classic comeback: they don’t care for Him too much either…

Relilgious Graffiti At Historic Sites

2007-08-21T22:16:00.000-07:00

This is part of the Applegate emigrant trail through the High Rock Canyon in northwestern Nevada. The trail was established in 1846, offering emigrants an alternative to the northern routes along the Columbian river. Why anyone would want to travel this route by oxen-drawn wagon is beyond me. We were in 4WD much of the time and had to negotiate steep inclines and large boulders. Obviously, the emigrants improved the trail as they went, possessed infinitely greater patience than we exhibit today, and were, how shall we say it?…a lot tougher (natural selection acted on these folks in ways we could not fathom today). Nonetheless, the going was rough for the emigrants passing this way. Upon entering the canyon in 1849, J. Goldsborough Bruff remarked:

“We found that generally the bed of the stream was unavoidably the line of travel through this very rugged mountain pass. This pass, for trail there was none- was filled with stumps of Cotton Wood Trees, large fallen trees, stones and rocks of every size. Dead cattle, broken wagons and carts, wheels, axels, tires, yokes, chains, etc- testimonials of its difficult character.”

Bruff would eventually make his way along the Nobles and Lassen trails across Lassen National Forest here in northeastern California, maintaining a wonderful diary with sketches that give us a fantastic glimpse of Euro-American emigrants during the mid 19th century.

Back on the Applegate Trail through High Rock Canyon we came to “Post Office Rock”: a place where many of the emigrants left their names and dates of passage. Sometimes short messages were left for emigrants traveling behind or returning through the route. The trail and the names carefully scratched or painted on the rock of High Rock Canyon provide a brief glimpse into the life of 19th century emigrants traveling across a rugged landscape. They are relics of a presence and activities that took place more than 150 years ago.

It is amazing what context and time will do to the remnants of human behavior. The majority of the names and dates scratched into the stone at the Post Office are, by today’s standards, nothing more than graffiti. But add time and a context, and the words become a priceless piece of history.

Graffiti, however, does exist alongside the historic gems of the Post Office. Here someone has much more recently added his or her own monogram alongside those from the 19th century. Several aspects of this recent addition immediately came to mind when I first saw it. First, it is an act of vandalism and desecration. The mere presence of these words bespeaks disrespect for history and for those who would follow this person to view what had previously been a pristine historical site. It also denotes lack of intellect and a demonstrably absent appreciation of historical context and respect for those who came before. The name “Calvary Chapel” further suggests that this individual holds his or her own spiritual values as more important than those maintained by anyone coming to this place either before or after. That the name of a church would be used to deface this sacred place also hints at the misplaced priorities of a nation. Any group of people who consider the possibility that religion should ascend above respect and deference to those who hold alternative views needs to reevaluate the basis for its assumptions. Consider this: had Jesus Christ himself written his own name on this place it would be considered defamation.

This is from one individual within a larger group. But context plays here as well: the social and cultural context this individual finds himself within clearly promotes the idea that their views should take precedence. And they no doubt justify their actions by appeal to an unseen, undemonstrated higher power. This is the point that Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens and others have made – appeal to deities of any stripe, without recourse to reason and criticism, allows individuals to justify their behavior in any situation. I have to laugh when religionists claim morality exists only with belief and faith. On the contrary, history is littered with the human debris of religious subjectivity: ultimately anything is permissible if enough people are lead to the idea that “God wills it”.

A Lassen County Camp For Secular Kids?

2007-08-10T06:41:00.000-07:00

I have posted several times on the issue of Virginia teachers suing the district for permission to hand out flyers and announcements on Christian bible camps, organizations, etc., but then refusing to hand out flyers promoting Camp Quest. Well, a good friend of mine in Lassen County (and a fellow LACIS member!) recently told me that he read about the camp on my post and attempted to enroll his kids in the California Camp Quest. Unfortunately California Camp Quest was overbooked (a good thing!, but...) and he couldn’t enroll his kids this year. However, that did spark a conversation on setting up a similar type of camp at Eagle Lake. I’ve been thinking about a Camp Quest/Lassen County Science Camp for a while and the two of us (plus some other folks) are going to try to pull one off next summer. This is all in the planning stages at the moment, although we’re looking into curricula, activities, etc. We also have an initial group of people to contact who we think would be interested in giving their kids and opportunity like this next year.

What I would like to know is if any Lassen County readers of Northstate Science (or anyone from surrounding areas) would be interested in having their kids attend something like this? Again, it’s still in the planning stages, but I’d like to get a sense of just how many might send their kids.

Talking To Kids About Science

2007-08-10T06:31:00.000-07:00

I gave a talk on the interpretation of bones to the Summer Reading Session at the Lassen County Library last week and there was a nice little blurb in the Lassen County Times (for a change!). The audience was made up of about 20-30 kindergarteners through fourth graders. I had been asked to give a discussion on dinosaurs, which is not my forte; however I fortunately have a collection of fossils (including vertebrate fossils), shells, belemnoids, gastroliths, and a few other things. I think the highlight might have been the fossilized Carcharadon tooth (white shark) that all the kids thought must have come from the biggest shark in the world….until I showed them the Megalodon (extinct cousin of the white shark) tooth that was easily five times the size!

Before pulling out the fossils, however, we looked at bones of modern animals and talked about the kinds of things you can tell from bone: the species, how it might defend itself, sometimes the sex of the animal…but most importantly we talked about diet. One thing I’ve noticed about kids this age: they’re pretty smart, and most can use their reasoning skills to put two and two together. So, it became clear fairly quickly that the type of teeth an animal has is a really good indication of its diet. This is a point these early grade schoolers get but one that seems to be lost on Ken Ham and the Answers In Genesis crowd. I made it a point to talk to these kids and let them use their own reasoning to solve a problem based on an understanding of the natural world around us. Creationists like Ham won’t allow their children to reason, ask questions or explore alternative explanations – the only answers they accept are the ones they’ve contrived from biblical sources and the only science they’ll accept is that which gives them the answers they expect. (And if they get any political power, they won’t allow our children to reason and ask questions either!).

It is extremely important that those of us in science fields get out to talk to kids as often as we can. First, to insure that they understand what science and reasoning is all about, but secondly, so that they will know they’re not alone when other adults in their lives start to close the cultural blinders on their curiosity. You never, ever know the full extent to which you’ve influenced a child, even if they seem to appear bored while you’re talking about zebra teeth. I know from experience that it’s the little things that make a difference.

It’s also quite rewarding on a personal level: kids really do ask great questions and make wonderful observations. Even when they’re off the mark, they’re not off it by much. I just shiver at the thought of kids living in Ken Ham-like households where truth is a construction of their parents’ fears and reality is limited to what can be supported by a two thousand year old text written by primitives. Kids have a right to explore the world around them – those of us in professional science fields have a duty to give them that opportunity as often as we can.

And A Good Example Of Catholic Science

2007-08-08T22:29:00.000-07:00

My father-in-law sent me a link to Bellarmine’s magazine, Connections, the current issue of which contains a number of articles on the school’s alumni and their take on various views of science, including evolution and intelligent design. Bellarmine is a Catholic college prep high school in San Jose, California and my father-in-law has always been proud of his attendance there. He should be. While reading the articles I again found a bit a hope that the Catholic educational system (of which I am a product, at least partially) hasn’t completely teetered to the side of anti-science advocacy. (Unfortunately, I merely have to read Michael Behe, Denyse O’Leary, Benjamin Wiker, Richard Newhouse and numerous authors in First Things, or visit a host of “Catholic Answers” web pages to realize there is still a large and vocal group of Catholics wanting to return science to the 12th century). Nonetheless, the articles clearly showed a group of scientists who, while maintaining their own faith, clearly understood that science pretty much tells us the truth about the way in which the world works. The article on “Finding Frontiers in Science” highlights the amazing scientific discoveries of the last decade, including “…new discoveries of hominid skulls in Kenya leading to breakthroughs in studying early man”. In an interview with several Bellarmine alumni scientists, Dr. Richard Nevle says

Now, it’s pretty clear that shallow seas once existed on the Martian surface. But back in the mid-eighties the notion of water on Mars was still very speculative. Holding pieces of Mars in my hand was pretty cool. And that is the reason, to this day in my geology class, I pass around meteorites to my students, because there’s nothing neater than holding on to a 4.6 billion year-old piece of history.

Bellarmine alumnus and science teacher Marty McKenzie:

People don’t realize it, but science is a great path for people who want to do something creative. To take a set of scientific observations, make sense of them, and come up with new experiments to test your theory — that is really a creative challenge.

No Answers in Genesis anti-science young earth creationists in this crowd of Catholic scientists. And while the Catholic journal First Things seems to be touting authors who doubt the existence, effects or human sources of global warming, these Catholic scientists view the issue less politically and more pragmatically:

Roman DiBiase:
Unfortunately, we do not have the convenience of waiting around for the best solution to appear before taking action. There are certain things we can do as a country that can help regardless of the exact nature of the problem. There is no reason not to build more energy-efficient houses, or fuel-efficient cars. Conservation is the key. The technology is available, but it requires a certain acceptance of failure on our part. People don’t want to change unless they absolutely have to, especially when the status quo is perfectly functional in our day-to-day lives. While I personally would not like to see gas go up to $6-8 per gallon, I’m sure it would jump-start a new era of energy efficient vehicles and alternative transportation.

(I agree: I’m not excited about $6-8/gallon gas, either – but it may be the only thing that gets us really serious about abandoning fossil fuels and moving into more efficient, cheaper and non-polluting sources of energy. Humans never seem to make radical jumps in their technology and cultural evolution until faced with a crisis).

Richard Nevle on the human causes of global warming:
So, with the birth of agricultural civilization about 8,000 years ago, humans began clearing land of forests to make it available for agriculture. The burning of those trees, by comparison to previous eras, was putting large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Later on, the advent of rice cultivation began to introduce large amounts of methane to the atmosphere…I and my collaborator surveyed the existing natural records of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from this time, and just as importantly, the records of the carbon isotope composition of CO2 — a chemical fingerprint, which together reveal a removal of CO2 in the atmosphere right after European arrival that is consistent with the signal expected from reforestation. All because so many indigenous Americans died from pandemics during the centuries of European conquest. Humans, we learned, seem to be changing climate even before the Industrial Era.

On the topic of Intelligent Design and Evolution, none of the Bellarmine alumni favored intelligent design. They were, however, unwilling to abandon faith completely, certainly something to be expected from Catholic scientists. I was interested, however, to read that they were exploring the intersection of faith and science beyond what we would normally read in the mainstream press. Charan Ranganath asks, “When is the imprimatur of God imposed upon matter? Is it at the very beginning of the universe — in the very nature of matter itself? For scientists who have a faith life, this is a very appealing notion. Einstein said he believed in the God of Spinoza, in other words, a god who is manifested in the order of nature…How does randomness fit with the notion of a God who is active in our lives? Now that’s an interesting question”.

There are vestiges of Gould’s NOMA (Non-Overlapping Magisteria) principle here, again something to be expected from Catholics and certainly something akin to what was presented during my early Catholic educational career. I am afraid that I have come to largely abandon the NOMA principle although there was a time when I advocated for it. During that period in my life, the randomness question was actually quite easy to solve: for a god of infinite time and space (which is presumably what we all believed in) is there such a thing as “random”? Randomness is a product of scale…and at the scale of human perception, things that appear random to us may not in fact be random to something at a much different scale.

Now, however, I think this is all a rather moot point. Personally I can no longer accept today’s religions as a window on the spiritual (I’ve read too much Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris; studied too much religious history, and know too much about human behavior). Religion (and by association, theology) is largely a product of human political agendas, disguised as something personal. But more on that later…

In the article, Charan Ranganath seems to look to further discovery in science as a way to bolster a personal faith, provided a mind is kept open: “I told him every time I’ve learned something about the brain, it gives me an appreciation of our complexity and of the delicate balance of factors that makes each of us unique. If you believe in God (or Gods), I would think that understanding our origins and our nature should reaffirm that belief, not undermine it”.
But Dr. Ranganath’s most impressive words on the subject of evolution and intelligent were the following:

When I hear about this issue, I can’t help but think that the blame falls squarely on scientists, not on the “religious right.” …Unfortunately, most scientists aren’t interested in engaging in a dialogue with the public, which is why you have the current state of affairs. If we want people to believe in science, we have to actually give them a reason, and say it clearly and consistently.

Certainly many scientists don’t engage the public on a regular basis. We need to step out of our ivory towers and discuss the method and results of scientific inquiry, whatever the discipline. As I’ve said countless times before, we need to compete with the creationists in constantly voicing why they are in error and we are correct. Those of us in the blogosphere are taking a good first step to counter the misinformation generated by the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the like. It’s good to see that good Catholic institutions like Bellarmine are turning out scientists who feel the same way…

Of Capybaras And Catholics

2007-08-08T22:20:00.000-07:00

I’ve been meaning to post on this ever since a good friend of mine brought it to my attention at work several weeks ago. Many of you may be familiar with the large capybara of South America. This animal is a member of the Order Rodentia – the same order to which mice, rats, field voles and squirrels belong – it’s just that capybara’s are a whole lot bigger. Most weigh in at over 100 pounds. Even the most taxonomically challenged would not have a difficult time concluding that this thing is a mammal (although I doubt many would immediately recognize it as a ROUS (Rodent Of Unusual Size – yes, I saw the Princess Bride). However, it turns out that the Catholic Church, through a twist of theological reasoning, proclaimed the capybara to be a fish. Yes, you heard correctly…during all those years of Lenten Fridays, while most of us were suffering through fried patties of cod, halibut or orange roughy in recognition of “meatless” observances, those in South America were happily consuming vast quantities of mammal meat, with the full blessing of the Church. Now, I do not begrudge my South American brothers and sisters the redness of their Lenten meat. I happen to love fish (although there are few who can butcher a fish meal better than a Catholic during Lent!). Nor, in all fairness, do I mock the Catholic Church over this. The proclamation was made during the 15th century, when Catholic officials in charge of such matters as meat taxonomy had little or nothing to go on other than local descriptions of the capybara – which pretty much amounted to “it’s mostly found it water”. No, I cannot mock a decision made half a century ago.

What I can mock them for is that, in 500 years since the decision (and 250 years since Linnaeus!) they haven’t changed their classification!!! The Catholic Church still considers capybara to be a fish.

The reasons for this seem to be clear. South America is loaded with Catholics who have a long tradition of eating capybara meat on Lenten Fridays (among others). In the interest of maintaining a large number of souls under the Catholic umbrella (and reais, pesos and bolivars in the collection basket!) I can understand why the Church would be so reluctant to accept modern science and maintain theological consistency. But if Catholic theology can be so easily morphed to accommodate the acquisition of political power (which is what a lot of souls ultimately buys you), then why should any Catholic Church (or any other for that matter) proclamation be considered something more than a contingency of values, as subject to the vagaries of political will as genetic variation is to the forces of natural selection?

Were this an isolated case, it might be considered something of an anomaly, but apparently the Catholic Church also considers sea turtles to be fish (and not reptiles). Local consumption of turtle meat along the Mexican coast, particularly during Lent, has compounded efforts to save these endangered animals. Conservationists and concerned fishermen pleaded with the Pope to repeal the declaration that sea turtles are fish in an effort to stem the tide of slaughter during Christianity’s Holy Week. (This was in 2002 and I can find no record of the Pope actually complying in an effort to help conservation efforts). Again, the issue appears to be a Vatican more concerned with stemming the tide of deserters than maintaining a consistent theology. This tells me that theological rules are made to be broken (or at least, never corrected)…but such is the nature of religion.

Fundamentalist Christians In The Mililtary

2007-08-07T21:36:00.000-07:00

In light of my previous blog on the issue of atheists being mistreated by our own military in Iraq, I ran across this interesting blog on the issue of fundamentalist Christians in the American military. Some frightening stuff....

What Fundamentalist Christians and Radical Muslims Have In Common

2007-08-07T21:11:00.000-07:00

Was just catching up on my blog reading over at Dispatches From The Culture Wars and saw Ed's post on this:

Atheist Mistreatment In Iraq

No, not by radical Muslims but by our own military. This email was forwarded to me from a soldier in Iraq whose friend is being harassed at another base for organizing a meeting of atheists on the base....

Thought you'd be interested in this report of the first-ever meeting of Atheist service-members in Iraq under the umbrella of the MAAF-Iraq chapter of the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers. This meeting was put together by the same young MAAF member who recently had his second letter published in the Stars and Stripes....

Four soldiers attended this meeting - all of them very junior enlisted soldiers with the exception of one Major (an O-4), who claimed to be a "freethinker".

Well, to make a very long story a little shorter, the Major turned out to be a fundamentalist Christian who verbally berated the other attendees, accused them of plotting against Christians and disrespecting soldiers who have died protecting the Constitution, and threatened them with punishment under the UCMJ for their activities (said they were "going down") and said he would do whatever it took to shut the meetings down. Keep in mind that by this point, he had two of the attendees (one soldier fled when the shouting started) standing at the position of attention so that he could yell at them, berate them, and humiliate them. This apparently went on for several minutes at which time the Major shut down the meeting by saying he wasn't some "push-over Chaplain" and that he would not tolerate the meetings to continue.

This Major is as much a threat to American freedom as any radical Muslim. He has no concept of the US Constitution which he claims to be protecting, its history, its principles or its ideals. He should immediately be given a dishonorable discharge and forced to apologize publicly for his despicable behavior.

Archaeology and Animal Behavior

2007-08-07T20:56:00.001-07:00

This cute little guy is an Ord’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys ordii). We caught this little fellow (and several more like him) during the recent Zooarchaeology Conference field trip to northwest Nevada. I particularly like kangaroo rats because they are so docile and will allow you to handle them as long as you’re gentle (pocket mice, on the other hand, are vicious little creatures and will take a nasty chunk out of you if you’re not careful!). You might be wondering why a bunch of archaeologists would be interested in setting trap lines for rodents in the middle of the hot Nevada desert, but it’s rather easy to explain. As archaeologists interested in the use of faunal remains to indicate past human behavior (zooarchaeologists), most of us further recognize the need to go beyond the bones and study animal behavior and distribution as well. Our biologist colleagues always attend the conference and field trip with us and the cross-discipline exchanges have benefitted both sides. [On a side note, I hate to brag, but it was the archaeologist “team” who “out-trapped” the biologist team on this particular trip. However, although we successfully trapped more animals, the species diversity was identical between the teams].

It’s one thing to just identify the bones to species or genus level; but understanding the animal’s behavior is crucial to understanding its relationship to past human societies: as prey, as an indicator of environment, as an exchange item, as a source of raw material, etc. All aspects of animal behavior affect the technology, organization and resource acquisition behavior of humans. It is not sufficient to simply indicate that you have bighorn sheep or zebra in the faunal remains from your site. Those remains also imply particular things about human prey selection, transport, hunting method, economic return, seasonality, abundance and distribution. Understanding the behavior of a species is just as important as being able to identify its left distal tibia.

Of course, apart from providing a context for interpreting zooarchaeological remains, viewing and learning about wildlife is fun in and of itself. On our trip through northeastern California and northwestern Nevada we also encountered pronghorn antelope and mule deer, and in the High Rock Canyon in Nevada we were fortunate to come across this group of bighorn sheep. It was a magnificent sight as these animals are generally elusive. Besides the larger game animals and rodents, we also encountered a huge variety of bird species as well. My wife and I have found the fun in bird watching and have started our own list of identified species. It's a bit short now, but that will certainly change in time.

And The Winner Is....

2007-08-07T20:38:00.001-07:00

Well, I'm back from the Zooarchaeology Conference at Eagle Lake (and finally caught up a bit at work!). As usual, it was a great week, and the field trip through northeast California and northwest Nevada was spectacular! More on that later, but first the important news:

I won the Zooarchaeology Conference Eagle Lake fishing derby and now hold the coveted "ceramic piranha" trophy (which is, in actuality this cheesy statue of a piranha someone brought back from Brazil and for more than a decade served as a table decoration in the dining hall of the CSU Field Station...until we absconded with it and use it as the "Stanley Cup" of the fishing derby!). The contest is based on largest Eagle Lake trout caught during the week - mine came in at a mere 3lbs 3ozs. - there was a time we would regularly catch 4 lb trout, but they seem to be getting smaller. So I'll have to come back and post on the concepts of prey depression and overharvesting...

Although not part of the traditional derby, several of us had a side bet (1$ per person) on the total number of fish. I pulled it out the last couple of days of fishing and tied for the total number during the week. My daughter might have won the size contest had she landed the fish that ultimately snapped her 6lb test Maxima line - there were of course claims of tampering on my part as I was last seen adjusting her reel as she was struggling with the fish (I was trying to loosen the drag!!), but how could I do that to my own offspring?

Anyway, lots of fun and I'll post some stories and photos shortly...

Of Local Interest - Re-take

2007-08-06T19:45:00.000-07:00

Unlike the Pope (or, maybe like the Pope, depending on your perspective) Northstate Science is not infallible. I just noticed my previous post on a new Lassen County website, Photos By Jana, I forgot to actually provide a link. So, now that I've fixed it, please visit Jana and take a look at her beautiful photography work.

Luskin Doesn't Ask The Right Questions

2007-07-24T15:28:00.000-07:00

I hope Afarensis gets involved with this, but Casey Luskin at Evolution News & Views just posted one of the most misleading assessments of human evolution that I have ever read. If you're an idiot, you'll comment on Luskin's post, congratulate him on once again defeating Darwinism, and pat him and yourself on the back for how outlandishly clever you are. If you happen to be a curious, sentient being who maintains any kind of knowledge regarding evolution in general or human evolution specifically, you might wonder if, as Luskin insists, there is only one member of the family Hominidae who walks upright: Homo sapiens. You might ask whether Luskin has even the most basic knowledge of taxonomy. You might ask about ask if there are other species of Hominids that Luskin forgot to mention that also walked upright: oh, say, Australopithicines (several species), Paranthropines (several species), Kenyapithecus, Ardipithecus, or perhaps several that we're currently unsure as to if they walked upright or not (Orrorin, Sahelanthropus). At this point you might also ask why not all cats have stripes if they work so well for tigers, or why not all mammals swim in the ocean if it works so well for whales and dolphins.

If you really think Darwinism is a "...theory that explains everything, therefore explains nothing" without understanding the data behind it, you should also consider the possibility that God is an entity that also "explains everything and therefore explains nothing". After all, God is apparently responsible for rain and no rain; falling off a bike or winning a bike race; causing earthquakes or saving people from them; car accidents that kill people, those that simply injure people and those in which people walk away; God is apparently the source of mercy, hatred, justice and injustice all at the same time; God dislikes one race during one historical period then favors them during another; God causes me to loose my keys and another person to find hers; God grants touchdowns, home runs and bigger bucks to those who attend church on Sunday; God is telling you not to take Spanish when you fail an exam or is the source of your ability when you ace one; God is testing those whose children die, but is rejoicing with those whose children live; God cures some cancers but is simply exerting his "will" with those who don't recover from cancer; God will "provide for us" in our hour of need, "test us" if we continue to need and "reward us" if we no longer need.

God...."explains everything....therefore explains nothing"....

Update: Really, God is apparently nothing more than one big post-hoc accommodating argument...

A Preview Of Lassen County Science Camp

2007-07-24T13:27:00.000-07:00

The Girl Scout trip to the Eagle Lake Field Station a couple of weekends ago proved to be a lot of fun as well as highly educational. For me it was part revelation, part confirmation. It was revelation in the fact that several of the girls who I originally thought might be more interested in boys, church or other societal distractions turned out to be quite interested in science and the process of discovery, to my surprise and amazement. It was confirmation in the fact that I have always suspected exposing students to actual science and nature might bring to the surface some inherent interest in discovery being suppressed by the cultural context of their communities. In other words, the educational system (at all levels) in Lassen County has largely failed to expose students to actual science despite claims to the contrary; when these students are actually given an opportunity to ask questions and seek answers without their pastors looking over their shoulders, they get really excited about the opportunity and want to pursue it further. We talked about all aspects of the natural history of Eagle Lake basin flora and fauna, saw examples of all the major classes of animals in the region, talked about morphological and skeletal similarities and differences between animals (an introduction to taxonomy and common descent), collected and identified skeletal remains on in the area, went to the “bat cave”, went on a night drive and all other kinds of things. Of course, we had plenty of time for swimming and fishing!

The skeletal identification proved to be a challenge, but one the girls relished – we couldn’t leave until we figured out the species to which the bones belonged. The skull was particularly difficult (I have only a superficial knowledge of specific bird anatomy, but I learned a lot in this exercise). We finally found the skull fragment to be from a western grebe (Aechmophorous occidentalis) – a common bird on Eagle Lake, and one we should have looked at first! During the night drive we encountered cottontails (Sylvilagus nuttali), black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), pinyon mice (Peromyscus trueii), and one striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis)! A couple of girls I wouldn’t have pegged as interested in fauna were the first out of the truck with the nets, trying to catch spotlighted animals. Our only success in this regard came down by the creek that night where several of the girls successfully netted bull frogs and tadpoles (Rana catesbeiana). During the day we encountered mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and gray foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus). The western pipistrelle bats (Pipistrellus hesperus) had largely abandoned their cave, except for one lone female who had several young clinging to her back. The girls really enjoyed looking at the mama and her babies through a red light (so as not to disturb her) – it was probably more exciting than seeing hundreds of the little animals hanging from the cave ceiling!

The entire experience encouraged me to discuss the possibilities of a “Lassen County Science Camp” up at the field station, and I discussed the matter with a review team from CSU that was up here this weekend exploring the possibility for other bringing other educational groups here to use the facility. I of course discussed the general lack of science exposure to students in rural northeastern California and the need for some alternative to a weakly developed Lassen County Science Fair and a high school biology field trip that was, until recently, largely run by evangelical Christians with limited science background. The problem of rural students entering the CSU or UC systems with little or no background in science is recognized and we discussed plans to pursue the project.

Of Local Interest

2007-07-24T12:58:00.000-07:00

Via Kurt, a new Lassen County blog with some very nice pictures of the area. The sequence on the recent Antelope/Wheeler Fire is pretty good...

God's Design

2007-07-24T12:17:00.000-07:00

Intelligent Design proven with the "dick-plant"....

Secular Student Alliance Website

2007-07-24T11:55:00.000-07:00

Just received an email newsletter from the Secular Student Alliance linking to information on their organization, articles and news on various events around the country, including the highly succesful 2007 season of Camp Quest (you remember...the humanist summer camp for kids that Virginia teachers actively sought to block students from receiving information on, just after these same teachers had complained the school district discriminated against them for refusing permission to hand out flyers promoting Christian organizations). Ed Brayton recently posted on an interesting twist to the issue here.

I think Eagle Lake would be a perfect location for another western states Camp Quest....

Science and the Susanville Church of the Nazarene

2007-07-23T14:35:00.000-07:00

There are certainly a number of conservative Christians who have argued that the truth of evolutionary theory has no adverse implications for the Christian belief system and as such, there is nothing really unique in blogging on these individuals. However, I ran across this article on Richard Colling, a professor at a university run by the Church of the Nazarene and someone who apparently defends evolution unabashedly. One telling tidbit:

"It pains me to suggest that my religious brothers are telling falsehoods" when they say evolutionary theory is "in crisis" and claim that there is widespread skepticism about it among scientists. "Such statements are blatantly untrue," he argues. "Evolution has stood the test of time and considerable scrutiny."

Of course this is contrary to what is preached by those in the Church of the Nazarene, although Colling (and others) are clearly trying to change that. What peaked my interest is that my own town of Susanville has a local Church of the Nazarene, which I believe to be a primary source of anti-science sentiment in the community. I am wondering how many of them have heard of Richard Colling?

Prison Town, USA

2007-07-23T12:45:00.000-07:00

My understanding is that PBS will be airing a documentary this week entitled “Prison Town, USA”, about Susanville, California, where I currently reside. I have not seen this documentary nor have I read a detailed summary of its content; however, the subject matter clearly concerns our town in the context of having High Desert State Prison as its economic focal point. The Lassen County Times has already expressed some angst over the airing of this documentary, replete with the usual conservative sniping at “liberal” PBS and the media. I have mentioned the prison here and commented on the nature of the local prison culture in previous posts. I have been somewhat reticent to comment on this aspect of our community, in large part because I have friends who are employed at the prison – our local “gated” community, as someone once quipped – and their attitudes, demeanor and intelligence are the exception to the rule. Many clearly take the job of correctional officer, or CO as we call them here, out of necessity, historical circumstance or lack of opportunity – I rather doubt many intentionally choose it as a career path. Not everyone should be judged by the majority, despite the fact it is Homo sapiens’ inherent nature to do so.

The fact is that the prison culture of Susanville, although perhaps good for the local economy (an arguable point in and of itself), also brings with it a load of negative baggage that prison town proponents choose to ignore. I suspect the documentary may uncover or at least allude to the significant downside of being a prison town and having this information aired nationally probably scares the hell out of prison proponents. Social, educational and economic problems spawned by the presence of prison are swept under the rug locally and probably intentionally covered up at the state level. There is certainly no effort to calculate the long term effects to a community outside of the immediate economic benefit gained by establishing a facility housing an inmate population and its high-priced babysitters. But then, county boards of supervisors, city councils and other local government entities are not known for intellectual ability to consider anything other than short-term profit.

While there is a laundry list of negative issues with living in Prison Town, USA, my primary concern is the effect on education, both locally and as a larger cultural issue. The prime motivation for working at the prison is money. More to the point, the prime motivation is the ability to garner a huge salary without the need to demonstrate skill or intellect. As one CO friend of mine pointed out, about all you need to qualify for employment in the prison system is a heartbeat. Apparently, you also only need an education to the 9th grade. I can think of no other profession, other than prostitution, that rewards individuals so handsomely for having absolutely no skill and no intellectual ability.

Starting COs make somewhere in excess of $7000 per month…starting teachers make something like $2000 per month. We build more prisons than universities or colleges. This alone is an indictment on the nature of American priorities…and ultimately a recipe for societal collapse. In Susanville, this is further compounded by the fact that the teachers are fighting to fend off a cap on their benefits, while COs enjoy significant raises and lots of overtime. While the teacher’s union is certainly large and prominent in California (and maligned heavily by conservative radio talk show hosts) they are no match for the correctional officer union, which basically has the California state government by the nuts. Teachers, who have skills, education, and dedication, must constantly fight for benefits and salary, while COs, who have basically no skills, are barely literate and whose only goal is apparently the accumulation of wealth, generally get whatever they want. And when the correctional officers get what they want, the cost is paid by teachers, other service providers, health care, environmental protection, and the other priorities a decent society should focus upon.

There are other effects as well. I have been asked to several “career day” events at the local schools. Many of the organizers have explicitly stated the goal of these events is to show students, particularly young boys, that there are other careers out there that will be far more rewarding. It is difficult, however, to compete against the vision of large houses, expensive vacations, ATVs, motorcycles, huge four-wheel drive trucks and lots of other “toys” that a $7000/month income can provide. The example provided by COs is generally that kids can ultimately get lots of goodies without having to do much educationally or vocationally. And many of the COs are young, bringing with them an immaturity and disrespect for anything that doesn’t personally benefit them that would normally be weeded out by educational programs or vocations requiring actual commitment, learning and competition. It is not surprising to me that most of my CO friends are older, have been in the system a while, and have avoided (or at least survived) the social and moral pitfalls entrapping so many of their colleagues.

While I malign the COs, it is the system and not the individuals that are the problem. That greater society allows such a system to exist is the ultimate problem, not that individuals take advantage of it. And of course there is a cost to the CO’s themselves that is rarely considered. While the job itself requires little in the way of skill or education, no one can doubt that it is one of the least desirable jobs on the planet. One of the reasons the salaries are so high is that most people don’t think the salary is worth the cost of the job (although one of the reasons I have no problem maligning individuals is that clearly most consciously choose the job for personal financial gain, without weighing the effects to themselves, their families, and the community). Many of my friends in the system actively discourage others from applying for the job – for the intellectually astute, at some point financial gain is not worth the sacrifice in intellect and self esteem.

Ultimately, the identification of Susanville as “Prison Town, USA” is not a moniker to be desired. It is one to be shunned at all costs. While we have fallen into the trap because of poor leadership, it would be wise for any community contemplating such a move to think long and hard about it. Hopefully, this documentary will scare the hell out of any community contemplating construction of a prison…and finally begin to expose the dark “belly of the beast” that is our state prison system.

Some Hadza Updates

2007-07-23T12:09:00.000-07:00

Afarensis and Tim at Anthropology.Net have some new posts up regarding the current situation with the Hadzabe. Both discuss a recent Daily Mail article on the Hadzabe regarding their way of life and efforts by the United Arab Emirates to have them evicted from their own lands (the picture of Gonga with the article's author is the same Gonga I knew and hunted with in the late 1980s/early 1990s - I even have a few examples of his arrows in my collection).

I have been in contact with several individuals regarding the Hadza, although I have yet to post on these developments. Part of the problem is the lack of information regarding the actual state of negotiations between the UAE, Tanzanian government and the extent to which the Hadza may or may not be involved (or other organizations are involved on their behalf). It has been suggested that we not "rock the boat" too much in the blogosphere given that there may be negotiations taking place that could be compromised by too much media attention in the West (the old " westerners interfering with sovereign people like they always do" argument). On the other hand, the UAE is apparently sensitive to publicity (particularly negative publicity - the fact that the UAE and Tanzanian governments are now accusing researchers and tourism operators of violating Hadza rights in order to shift blame (as if they really cared!) is suggestive that outside word about this shady deal may be having an effect); plus I have had some indications that the transfer of Hadza land to the UAE royal family is a "done deal".

Given this rather limited information, I have a request from my fellow bloggers and any commenters:

Do you think it is better to stay relatively quiet on this matter, under the presumption that "behind the scenes" talks might be taking place that would at least give the Hadza retention of their lifestyle (and there is no indication that this would be a condition of the negotiations at this point) and so as not to jeopardize any potential deal that might benefit the Hadza? Further, should we be sensitive to the "Western intereference" argument, or is that a red herring?

or...

Should some of us go for broke and ramp up the negative publicity (strategies are already being worked on) in an effort to completely forstall any sort of deal between Tanzania and the UAE, even if it might jeopardize a potential deal favoring the Hadza? (Let me add this: even if negotiations on behalf of the Hadza are taking place, there is no doubt in my mind that UAE royal family control of this area would still radically change the Hadza way of life).

Any comments/suggestions/advice would be helpful.

A Late Night....

2007-07-23T12:01:00.000-07:00

Although I was able to write some posts, I didn't get logged on the server to post last night - we decided on a night drive around 10:00pm and didn't return until midnight. Of course we had to get up at 4:30am to go fishing - I don't know whether it's age (I prefer to think not!), but these consecutive days with 3-4 hours of sleep are getting tougher...

The results of our endeavors have not exactly been encouraging. So far, the night drives are Rodentia: 1, Homininae: 0. The trout have been giving us the sleep too! Tomorrow we change tactics...

Some new posts up shortly....

Still Here...

2007-07-21T21:36:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not dead or anything...just needed to drop just about everything to put the finishing touches on a long overdue report, plus move a couple of other things off the plate. The report went into the mail yesterday!!! I'll be blogging regularly again shortly...

I am currently back up at one of my favorite places on earth: the Eagle Lake Field Station, this time for the annual Zooarchaeology Conference. Actually, this year the conference itself is on hold as we reorganize and plan for it in 2008. The Planning Committee just finished meeting and we have a great conference planned for next year! Papers, posters, workshops and guest speakers are all on tap...more as things develop over the coming year.

I'm catching up on some blog reading and will be posting again shortly. I finally got the connection going with the wireless up here and so can give everyone a play-by-play as things happen this week. Right now, though, we're getting ready for another "night drive" until midnight or so, then up at 4:30 to attempt catching some of those elusive Eagle Lake trout...

Til tomorrow...

New Four Stone Hearth

2007-07-06T12:18:00.001-07:00

Alun at Clioaudio has the new Four Stone Hearth up...as usual, Alun does a wonderful job of pulling eveything together.

Check it out!

Off Again to Eagle Lake - More Blogging To Come

2007-07-06T11:54:00.000-07:00

No, I haven't gone away, just got extremely busy between field trips. As I noted earlier, I recently returned from the Eagle Lake Field Station after helping to teach a course on zooarchaeology (and kissing frog paunches!) and am on my way back up there - this time with some local Girl Scouts who have, quite frankly, outgrown the Camporee tradition and need something a little more intellectually stimulating. So I and their leaders will expose them to some Eagle Lake natural history (bat caves, night drives, skeletons, animal and plant identification, etc.). I've worked with Girl and Boy Scouts for a number of years now and enjoy exposing them to opportunities they might not otherwise get in this culturally myopic corner of California. I've also been talking to my colleagues and select townsfolk about getting a "science" camp started up at the field station. Again, the purpose being to expose local teenagers to science actually taught by scientists for a change. So my bags are packed (as is the fishing pole!) and blogging will be intermittent for a couple of days.

Certainly there is lots to blog about. I missed out contributing to the lates Blog Against Theocracy, so I owe Blue Gal a post, even one in retrospect...Mark contributed a comment on my AP Biology post that deserves further comment and exposure; there are some further efforts being made on behalf of the Hadzabe, and I've been in touch with several organizations in Europe who are moving forward on aid to them; Abnormal Interests and Claude Mariotinni have been engaged in a very interesting discussion on who can fully interpret the Bible that I naturally have some thoughts on...Jim West has also engaged on this matter. And speaking of Jim, I finally joined his Biblical Studies group and have been following along on some of the discussion (although I haven't posted yet, because, yes I am a group discussion novice and am not sure my Yahoo settings are set correctly...) - I was particularly intrigued with the discussion on political archaeology and ethnicity; I am currently helping the local Native American tribe out with some NAGPRA issues (Native American Grave Repatriation and Protection Act) that bears directly on the subject of determining ethnicity in the archaeological record and its political implications (but I have to finish the final report first!!).

So, I'm actually pulling some things together...back shortly with more animal encounters at Eagle Lake...

Blog Against Theocracy July 1-4

2007-06-30T21:12:00.000-07:00

Once again, thanks to the tireless efforts of Blue Gal and others, another Blog Against Theocracy commences July 1. Be sure to get your entries in, and please note the instructions for participating.

Field School Fun

2007-06-30T20:02:00.000-07:00

I'm back from a great week up at the Eagle Lake Field Station teaching the Osteoarchaeology Course with my colleagues from CSU Chico and the University of Utah. Check out the view from the conference room above (and no, that's not what happens to students who fail the exam! - not my photo, either - it's courtesy of a CSU grad student who will remain nameless until she prefers fame and fortune by appearing on Northstate Science...yeah, right...).

Long week, but always well worth the time and energy. The class was fantastic as usual; lectures on skeletal anatomy and natural history of the major classes of vertebrates followed by lots of time in the lab identifying bone elements; we ended with lectures on the application of zooarchaeological data to problems in California archaeology, reconstruction of Holocene environments and historical ecology. We also provided special discussions on specialized techniques using bones and teeth: dental increment analysis, isotope analysis and ancient DNA.

Of course, we didn't just spend all our time in the lab and conference rooms. We took our usual trip to the "Bat Cave" where we sat beneath a cave ceiling covered with hundreds of western pipistrelles (Pipistrellus hesperus), North America's smallest bat. Although the bats are entering and leaving the cave by the hundreds (using the same small entrance we humans go through...thank natural selection for echolocation!) the hardest part is getting in the cave without using lights as we want to disturb the bats as little as possible. Once inside and some subdued lights come on, the ceiling is literally moving with the small bats. Fortunately all the bat guano is in the center of the cave floor, although the bats occasionally urinate on those below (nothing personal, I'm sure...). My 14 year old daughter joins me on these adventures and the Bat Cave is one of her favorite activities.

And no trip to the field station could be complete without a night drive or two. These events are somewhat difficult to describe. Their purpose is scientific, but through the years they have also attained an air of cultural tradition about them as well. Imagine 5-10 biologists and zooarchaeologists in the back of truck driving slowly through sagebrush and forest with spotlights and nets, searching for small (and not so small) fauna to capture. Creatures wandering across our path suddenly find themselves blinded by lights and surrounded by a bunch of excitedly chattering bipedal monkeys (ok, apes...but if you saw us you'd understand why "monkeys" is a better term) who discuss the anatomy, adaptations and sexual proclivities of animals before releasing them unharmed. Before releasing, however, those who wish to shower themselves with good fortune in their pursuit of science may "kiss the paunch" of the captured animal. As far as we know, "paunch kissing" is a phenomena found only among those who frequent the CSU Biological Field Station...

(Here, yours truly has just finished planting one on the paunch of a large bull frog while my daughter (herself a veteran "paunch kisser"), looks on...I wonder: if PZ ever caught a squid...).

Night drives make for long periods with no sleep (our drive this week went until 2:00 am), but one must still be up by 4:30 am to take advantage of the best opportunities to fish for the famed Eagle Lake trout (Onchorynchus mykiss). Unfortunately, June is not the best time for trout fishing here and all of us walked away empty handed. We did, however, enjoy a wonderful morning on the lake, filled with ducks, grebes, pelicans, ospreys and eagles.

In a couple of weeks we take my daughter's Girl Scout troop up to the field station for a more scientific version of Camporee, where we can expose them to the sights and sounds of the natural history of the Eagle Lake basin. Anyone for the Bat Cave?

Intermittent Blogging

2007-06-24T21:21:00.000-07:00

Blogging may be intermittent through the end of next week. I'm heading up to the Biological Field Station on Eagle Lake for a couple of days to co-teach a class on zooarchaeology. The Field Station has internet capability but only on a limited basis...I'll try to post something from there but I can't promise anything. In case you're wondering what the area looks like, here you go...

A Funny Thing Happened In A Redding Bookstore...

2007-06-24T08:07:00.000-07:00

While my wife was enduring a 6 hour state teacher's exam yesterday in Redding...I went shopping (I can't remember if we've ever had that kind of role reversal in 20+ years of marriage!). Of course, as a friend pointed out, where I shop and where she shops are two (actually several) entirely different places. But to the point....

After a cup of coffee at Starbucks, I went straight to Barnes & Noble and did some book shopping...I picked up a copy of Karen Armstrong's The Great Transformations: The Beginnings of Our Religious Traditions (I'm a big fan of Armstrong) and From So Simple a Beginning: The Four Great Books of Charles Darwin, edited by E.O. Wilson.

I was perusing the science section, which happened to be located near one of their information kiosks. A customer came up, with a teenager in tow, and said something to the effect, "I'm looking for this new book....something about religion and God, I believe the author's name is Hitchens...."

"Oh", the employee responded, "You're looking for God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens...yes we have a few left right over here"...

I smiled to myself and then continued to look at the science titles. About 10 minutes later, another customer came up..."Where can I find God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens?". A few minutes later I saw the clerk directing another customer to Hitchens's book. Remembering that I hadn't bought my own copy as yet, I hurried over to the section and picked one up before they were all taken!

I had an opportunity to read the first two chapters in the parking lot later (waiting for my wife to finish her exam). The first thought I had was not about leaving organized religion, but what took me so long?

Advise Your Kids - Northstate Science Is Rated PG

2007-06-23T05:58:00.000-07:00

From Duane at Abnormal Interests, comes this little gem to help you decide if parental controls should apply to your own blog. And how is Northstate Science rated?

Apparently I use the word "dead" four times, "death" once, and (God help us!) "sex" twice (it must have been the "meat for sex" thing that took my blog out of the sphere of being family-friendly). Following Duane's procedure I ran it two more times but kept getting the same results.

I am not sure what to make of this. Seems like an archaeologist talking about the dead and death would be, well, kind of normal. Ah, we'll just blame it all on the sex....

UPDATE: Whoa! When I take Duane's advice in his comment and log off then back on I get 6 "Dead", 3 "Death", 2 "Kill" and (he, he!) 4 "Sex" references (although I don't know where those are coming from)...and now I'm at PG13 - Parents Strongly Cautioned...

UPDATE II: After several more attempts it seems to have leveled out at an R Rating with 7 references to "Dead", 5 to "Sex", 4 to "Death" and 3 to "Kill"....definately not in the family-friendly range anymore...

The Lassen High School Biology Field Trip

2007-06-20T21:26:00.001-07:00

Dinner with Lassen County friends the other night proved to be something of an eye-opener for me regarding the profound effect some individuals in this community have had on the teaching of biology at the local high school. One of the major efforts touted locally is the Biology Field Trip taken by high school sophomore biology class students each year. This trip involves taking students to the California coast for a week of camping and presumably studying biology. However, it has historically been lead by individuals with strong ties to the Christian community here in Lassen County. I have been on the field trip as a parent helper and have largely given those involved the benefit of the doubt with regard to their motivations for participating in the field trip, although it was clear that religion is more a driving force than science for many of those involved. My friends all had personal experience with the event and referred to it not as the “Biology” field trip but the “Evangelical” field trip. Stories of proselytizing efforts on the part of the staff, parent volunteers and some students were relayed. I have also received email messages from former LHS students who have suggested their biology training was minimal at best, but the emphasis on evangelism was first-rate...

Recently the LHS biology staff has turned over and hopefully the biology field trip will focus less on personal evangelization and more on actual biology. I know most of the current staff and I am confident this will be the case. I have also offered to take a more active role in both the field trip and as a consultant in my own areas of science expertise. Regardless, after the other night’s conversations with many long time residents of the county who have personally witnessed the non-science shenanigans of some associated with the field trip, I will be paying more attention than I have of late.

Some Thoughts On The Nature Of Biological Sciences

2007-06-20T21:26:00.000-07:00

Looney left an interesting comment on my previous post regarding Wells’ pending hysteria over the fact that the PBS Evolution series was still being used in public school classrooms. The bulk of the comment was rambling incoherence and bad analogy - it was the first sentence that peaked my interest:

Last I checked, the admission scores for doctors and engineers were far in excess of biologists.

First, I have to wonder about the legitimacy of that comment - certainly the people I attended graduate school with were generally top of their class; those that weren’t were weeded out during qualifying and prelim examinations. Even if true, however, I suspect that admission scores in those fields function primarily as a tool for cutting students out of impacted majors - I have no reason to believe they reflect innate intellectual capacity. Given rampant grade inflation (the result of considerable student whining “I won’t get into med school if you don’t give me an A++”, parental pressure, cheating and I am sure the occasional pressure from academic/congressional “friends of the family“) and the fact that test scores have more to do with the ability to take tests than to actually understand and apply the information, I find admission scores largely useless measures of performance. As an employer of students, I do look for general trends - students getting a lot of C’s are put into a separate pile from those getting A’s and B’s, but the valedictorians and 4.0 students are lumped with the latter group. It’s what the students have done with that knowledge that counts for me (and a lot of professors I have talked to) - a 4.0 and high admission scores are a dime a dozen and can cover up a lot of weak ability when it comes to using the knowledge rather than simply regurgitating it. Using higher admission scores to weed students also probably says much about the character of the students entering the fields: I suspect most are in it for high salaries rather than the betterment of humanity.

Be that as it may, the sentence nonetheless reflects an commonly arrogant attitude on the part of engineers and many doctors - that those fields somehow require greater intellectual capacity than biology or anthropology. It also implies that their viewpoints should carry more weight. Looney was apparently taking exception to my dismay that creationists typically assume a professional equivalence between engineers commenting on biology and biologists commenting on biology. It is clear he thinks nothing is wrong with this as engineers and doctors have higher admission standards and are therefore qualified to speak with expertise on those disciplines. He reminded me of a discussion I have each semester with my introductory anthropology class on the nature of science.

Ernst Mayer, in The Growth of Biological Thought, has a wonderful discussion on the position of biology within the sciences. The basic theme is that biology is not physics (or for that matter, engineering) and the methodologies and epistemologies of physics are not suited for the study of living things. The efforts of physicists to reduce biology to the sum total of physical laws has not advanced our understanding of biological systems. He quotes G. G. Simpson on this matter:

It is just that living things have been affected for…billions of years by historical processes…The results of those processes are systems different in kind from any nonliving systems and incomparably more complicated. They are not for that reason necessarily any less material or less physical in nature. The point is that all known material processes and explanations apply to organisms, while only a limited number of them apply to nonliving systems…Biology, then, is the science that stands at the center of all science… [emphasis in the original].

In other words, those disciplines that deal only with nonliving systems (such as engineering and physics) ultimately deal with a very myopic view of the universe, particularly in relation to those who study living systems. I would suggest further that engineering in particular as well as most forms of medical practice, as important as they are for our daily lives, focus largely on specific application of principles but are not generally concerned with broader explanations of the world around us (which is probably why many of them can intellectually afford to be creationists). They are, in effect, glorified mechanics.

But in my class, I follow that up with Dawkins, who further explores this relationship of biology to the other sciences. With his usual flair, in The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins suggests not only that physics and engineering are not up to the task of competing with the kind of knowledge exhibited by biologists, but the irony is that, relative to the study of nonliving things, they deal with fundamentally simple phenomena:

We think that physics is complicated because it is hard to understand and because physics books are full of difficult mathematics. But the objects that physicists study are still basically simple objects…They do not, at least by biological standards, have intricate working parts…The behavior of physical, nonbiological objects is so simple that it is feasible to use existing mathematical language to describe it, which is why physics books are full of mathematics.

The point, I tell my students, is that we often think it is easy to grasp biology (and make substantial claims about it) because it does not appear on the surface to be as difficult a subject as physics. But biology deals with systems infinitely more complicated than those in physics (or engineering) and the ability to study and explain those systems requires grasping a body of knowledge inconceivable to most lay people and to many others in different disciplines. Again, this is why it is easy for creationists to cherry pick certain data out of context a paint a picture of uncertainty and apparent falsehoods, when in fact the larger body of data tells a much different story.

But Dawkins goes further and provides us with great analogy on the differences between studying living and nonliving systems:

If you throw a dead bird into the air it will describe a graceful parabola, exactly as the physics books say it should; then come to rest on the ground and stay there. It behaves as a solid body of a particular mass and wind resistance ought to behave. But if you throw a live bird into the air it will not describe a parabola and come to rest on the ground. It will fly away and may not touch land this side of the county boundary.

We can explain the dead bird completely in relation to physics. But the live bird we must explain not only in terms of physics and chemistry, but also anatomy, physiology, zoology, ecology, ethology, paleontology, geology, and a host of additional disciplines. The explanation for living things (what they do and why, how they live and why, where they come from and why) is more complicated than any nonliving system. (I would further argue that adding the cultural complexities of human societies on top of their nature as biological organisms, the complications increase - so anthropology is actually a more complicated science than biology - but don't tell the bio-bloggers that!). The engineer and medical doctor for the most part cannot intellectually grasp the intricacies of biological systems.

So when Looney implies that the intellectual capacity of engineers and doctors allows them by definition to make meaningful statements on the subject of biology…I have to chuckle at the primitive thought process.

Wells Worried Students Still Being Shown PBS's Evolution Series

2007-06-18T17:52:00.000-07:00

In a recent article in Evolution News & Views, there is an edge of desperation in Jonathan Well’s concern that public school students are still being shown the PBS Evolution series in the classroom. I suppose he should be desperate - it is a wonderful teaching tool for helping explain to students some of the most important concepts in the theory of evolution, a science Wells refuses to accept because of its implications for his personal worldview. Wells would apparently prefer that students read the Discovery Institute’s Viewer’s Guide To PBS’s Evolution, which explains how, in Wells’ words, the PBS “…propaganda extravaganza — like most modern biology textbooks — distorts and exaggerates the evidence to convince people that Darwinism is true”.

Like all creationists, however, what Wells and the Discovery Institute don’t tell you about evolutionary theory is far more revealing than what do say. Strip the DI Viewer’s Guide of its fabrications, out-of-context quotes from prominent scientists and selective use of technical information meant to convey not just a contrary, but often opposite, meaning than that in the original, and you have very few complete sentences in the English language. The National Center for Science Education’s own guide, A Response To Creationist Misinformation, is also worth a student’s reading as it exposes the DI’s attempts to create a controversy where none exists, turn engineers and medical doctors into the professional equals of geologists, paleontologists and anthropologists, and lets the reader know what information the DI is keeping from them. The NCSE Guide reads like a scientific response from the pages of American Scientist; the DI Guide reads more like a presidential swift-boating campaign.

Despite Well’s hysteria, I certainly intend to continue using the PBS Evolution series in my own classroom. I have found that students enjoy the series and they become far better equipped to be suspicious of claims made by Wells and other creationists.

More On The Hadza

2007-06-18T11:29:00.000-07:00

Well, once again, thanks to all who took the time to spread the word about the current plight of the Hadzabe. Duane at Abnormal Interests actually took the time to call the US State Department and was successful in reaching two individuals in the Bureau of African Affairs. You can read more about it at Duane's blog. I received an email from the State Department in response to my email inquiries, but it was the usual bureaucratic form letter along the lines of "thank you very much for your concern...the State Department values all feedback...should you require further assistance...yada, yada, yada..." - so, altogether not very helpful. Duane's efforts I'm sure made more inroads. I have heard nothing from Cultural Survival nor Survival International.

I am also in touch with the chairman of the German branch of FPCN (Friends of Peoples Close to Nature) whose organization has been highly involved with the Hadza. A reader also left me a message saying that she had written NBC, ABC and BBC - she and her husband had recently visited the Hadza and was appalled at the efforts to displace them.

Thanks again for everyone's efforts. I will keep you posted should there be any new developments.

Hadza Support Letter

2007-06-12T21:20:00.000-07:00

Well, I just sent this letter to the UAE and Tanzanian embassies and cc'd the US State Department, Cultural Survival, Survival International and the IPCC. Hopefully someone will take notice:

12 June 2007

To: Embassies of the United Arab Emirates and United Republic of Tanzania

RE: Plight of the Hadzabe Tribe of northern Tanzania

Dear Sir/Madam:

I am writing regarding the reported effort by members of the United Arab Emirates’ royal family to purchase rights to land in the Lake Eyasi region of northern Tanzania. I am greatly concerned that this deal will adversely affect members of the Hadzabe (Hadza, Watindiga) tribe who make their homes in the area. Reports are that the Hadza were not consulted on this issue and that they will effectively lose their right to subsistence hunt. Media reports have further painted the Hadza as “primitive” or “savage” in an effort to culturally excuse the effort by the UAE and Tanzanian government to deny the Hadza their traditional homeland. I find it ironic that these governments would invoke the same language of cultural division used by every conquering society throughout history as justification for taking tribal land away from native people. I would ask if members of either government (UAE or Tanzanian) see any connection at all with their current behavior toward the Hadza and the Arab expansion, conflict and slave trade across East Africa in the 15th and 16th centuries.

I am not an outsider unfamiliar with the area or its people. I lived and worked with the Hadza and other Eyasi people from 1988 through 1993. The Hadza want nothing more than to continue their traditional cultural practices within their traditional homeland. The efforts of the rich to seek their own pleasure at the expense of those wishing only to practice their traditional culture amounts to a human rights tragedy of epic proportions. This travesty has not gone unnoticed amongst the internet blogging community and word is spreading worldwide quickly. I implore both the UAE and Tanzanian governments to cease further consideration of selling or leasing Eyasi region land instead take legal steps to insure that the Hadza may continue their cultural traditions without interference.

I would be happy to offer further insight and discussion on this matter.

Sincerely,

Christopher O’Brien, Ph.D.
Susanville, CA 96130

Cc:
Embassy of the United Arab Emirates
Embassy of the United Republic of Tanzania
U.S. State Department
Cultural Survival
Survival International
Indigenous Peoples of Africa Coordinating Committee

Hadza Diary

2007-06-12T20:13:00.000-07:00

I can't thank those of you who have spread the word about the plight of the Hadza enough - beer is definitely on me if you ever find yourself in northern California!

Afarensis started it all, but Abnormal Interests posted, as did Tim at both Anthropology.net and at Remote Central; Kambiz posted a clarion call at Anthropology.net to "Help Out The Hadza" and got some Diggs on it today! Afarensis came back with another post on my post, and Carl at Hot Cup of Joe picked it up as well and has also summarized the current list of posts on the Hadza (so I don't know why I'm repeating it here, except to express my thanks at the effort!). Schmoo On The Run also posted. From Carl I also see that Indigenous Peoples of Africa Co-Ordinating Committee has a position paper on the subject of Hadzabe rights and a link to a Guardian article on the potential for violations of Hadza human rights. Thanks to all those who are currently "digging" it as well...

During all this, I have of course been reminiscing on my time with the Hadza. I dusted off a couple of my old field notebooks and diaries from my first visit with them and couldn't resist sharing this with you (it certainly made me laugh!!):

7 Sep 1988 Lake Eyasi

This morning I thought I would try my hand at "hunting" some Francolin hens [a type of game bird, although in retrospect, I think I was really talking about guinea fowl at the time] that were innocently rummaging for grubs near the tent. I proceeded, on my hands and knees, to position myself within rock throwing range. I was fortunate enough to launch two of the missiles with no significant effect, although I am convinced that were my aim better we would be eating hen instead of corned beef [Kenyan canned corn beef - I wrote later that not even flies touch the stuff!] tonight. Upon noting my lack of success, I stood up and turned around to notice, quite unexpectedly, that I was the subject of some curiosity by the Hadza women and children, no doubt wondering what the crazy "wazungu" [white man/stranger - my Swahili wasn't too good at the time - I used the plural when I should have used the singular "mzungu"] was doing crawling through the grass! Perhaps a little too much "bongi" [East African version of...well...grass] the night before!

Fortunately the research team didn't have to depend on my hunting skills to eat!

Update: Afarensis has another post up and discusses the IPCC briefing note in some detail. He also recommends following Carl's advice at Hot Cup of Joe to contact the Tanzanian and UAE embassies. Afarensis further suggests the State Department. A great idea!

Update II: Anthropologi.info has another post;

Friends And The Power Of Blogging

2007-06-11T20:49:00.000-07:00

Some very interesting blog reading today...

Afarensis (who originally alerted me to the issue) and Abnormal Interests both picked up on the Hadza post from yesterday. Tim at Remote Central left a comment asking if there was anyone who might be able to intervene in this tragic situation. Fortunately, there are a number of indigenous rights groups about, some of which the original MSNBC article alluded to, although the nature of hunter-gatherer groups (no centralized authority, dispersed, etc.) makes it hard for them to be represented properly. I see that Anthroplogy.Net had also picked up on the story. Kambiz and the other commenters had some good suggestions - spreading the word about the current situation facing the Hadza would help raise awareness and possibly put enough pressure on the Tanzanians internationally to at least make them sit and listen to the tribe. Contacting Survival International was a great idea (I've written to them as well)...Cultural Survival is another group to which one might send an email or letter...I really appreciate everyone's concern on this issue...

Another surprise awaited my daily repertoire of blog reading...Martin at Aardvarchaeology found that the editor of the journal Antiquity quoted my post on archaeology and creationism in the current issue. I was quite frankly dumbfounded...Martin sent me an email over the weekend in which he anticipated posting on "...this blogger who is quoted extensively in the editorial of Antiquity's summer issue...". My first thought was: "Fantastic...I wonder who he's talking about?"...I really appreciate Martin taking the time to point the editorial out to everyone (not to mention I'm delighted a journal the caliber of Antiquity is picking up on my concern that we as archaeologists should take a more active role in combating creationism).

These blog entries spawned a couple of thoughts this afternoon. First, it's wonderful having friends in the blogging community who continue to encourage you by taking the time to reference your writing. I know I was gloating about being picked up by Crooks and Liars last week, but I wouldn't trade Afarensis, Martin or Duane for any of those big ticket blogs. Getting picked up by any of these three guys (and lots of other science-type bloggers) to me is an honor...

Secondly, the blogging response to both the Hadza situation and the current editorial in Antiquity further illustrated to me the power of blogging. I think people take the blogging community more seriously than many of us realize. And many in the blogging community affect change more often than they realize also. I'm proud to be associated with such a cutting edge group of people...

Hadza Tribal Lands Being Confiscated By Arab Royal Family

2007-06-10T22:36:00.000-07:00

Afarensis notified me of this MSNBC story regarding my friends, the Hadzabe (Hadza) of northern Tanzania. He posted the story and commented on it as well. I can only say that this is the most depressed I have been in while and the lead sentence to the article says it all:

One of the last remaining tribes of hunter-gatherers on the planet is on the verge of vanishing into the modern world.

Apparently a United Arab Emirates royal family is trying to use Hadza tribal territory as a “personal safari playground” and has worked out an arrangement with the Tanzanian government to lease 2500 square miles of the Eyasi highlands. Of course the Hadza were never consulted about the agreement and now may well find themselves trespassers on their own land. Previous agreements between the Tanzanian government and other private companies have resulted in a number of Hadza hunters being jailed for subsistence hunting – an experience that ended up killing most of those imprisoned.

Most disappointing of all, Tanzanian officials and others invoked visions of the Hadza as primitive savages in need of being removed from the bush for their own good:

The [Tanzanian] official, Philip Marmo, called the Hadzabe "backwards" and said they would benefit from the school, roads and other projects the UAE company has offered as compensation…

Marmo said the Hadzabe -- who until recently had no use for money, organized religion or standard time -- are "the one backwards group in the country”….

"We want them to go to school," said Marmo, who is Tanzania's minister for good governance and represents the valley in parliament. "We want them to wear clothes. We want them to be decent."

It is ironic that government officials would be calling the Hadza “backwards”. On the contrary, it appears the Tanzanian government, far from exhibiting a societal maturity more in line with the 21st century, seems to prefer a cultural connection with 19th century Europeans in North America or 16th century Spanish in Central and South America. Indeed, catering to UAE royal family despotism might make Marmo and other Tanzania officials more comfortable with a return to the 17th century Arab slave trade across East Africa.

The Tanzanian government has frequently attempted to “settle” the Hadza and make them good little agriculturalists like we all should be. And, as the article has pointed out, this almost never works:

Government efforts over 40 years to forcibly integrate the Hadzabe into modern society have mostly failed. Instead, the Hadzabe seem to have preferred changing at their own pace, adopting bits of modern life over centuries…

A program to move families into a village of metal houses ended with Hadzabe fleeing to the bush after only a few days. "When it rains, those houses make a lot of noise," said Sarah Makungu, who tried them.

I remember returning to work with the Hadza in the early 1990s, at a time when the government forced them into settlements and brought it western development workers to teach them how to grow corn. Understanding that the Hadza would not be able to feed themselves while they were in “training” to grow corn, truckloads of milled corn were brought in regularly to feed the families until they were able to sow and harvest their own crops. The Hadza graciously accepted this government handout while the process of growing food was demonstrated to them over a number of months. All the while, Hadza men sat in the community meetings, working on arrows and bows. Eventually, the government felt the Hadza had been shown all they needed. The trucks of corn stopped coming, the officials said “good luck in your new economic system” and departed, and the development workers went back to their western countries. And the Hadza? They promptly left the settlement when no one was around and returned to hunting and gathering in the bush.

The one bright spot for me from the article is that the effort to Christianize the Hadza apparently never took hold either:

Missions to spread Christianity have also failed. "We just go to church as if we are pictures," one man said. "Our hearts and minds are not there."

The greatest tragedy in all the efforts to forcibly modernize or convert the Hadza is that these efforts destroy the strong family and cultural ties that members of the tribe have with each other. One year, after an attempt to settle the Hadza into government camps I remember sitting around the fire one night with an old hunter. We were listening to the children singing in their huts. The old man turned to me and said “We can’t go back to the government camps; the children don’t sing there”. Now they have to hide and worry they will be arrested for getting meat to feed their families:

A recent meeting in the Yaeda Valley on the issue ended with several Hadzabe men shouting at Tanzanian government officials for ignoring them. One of the men was later charged with disruptive behavior and jailed for several days. Two others who have spoken against the deal said they have been threatened with arrest and are now on the run, moving from hut to hut to elude police.

"We're not used to that kind of life in jail," said Gudo, an elderly Hadzabe whose best friend, Sumuni, was among those who perished. "Sumuni was my age. Our fathers were friends. We played together, learned how to hunt together," he said, looking away. "I don't want to talk anymore."

Reading the article was also difficult because I recognized the names of many Hadza interviewed: Gudo, Kaunda, Gonga….men I had met, lived with, hunted with and together roamed the Eyasi highlands. There were others that came to mind while I was reading: Makungu, Hamisi, Koiobe, Katembuga, Mahia…I can only hope that their way of life will remain for as long as they choose to live it.

High School AP Biology Classes Must Teach Evolution

2007-06-09T07:43:00.000-07:00

Greg Laden has an interesting post up about Advanced Plaement Biology courses in high school. Apparently, many creationist high school teachers are under the impression that they can develop biology courses that "teach the controversy" and still give their students advanced placement credits. According to the College Board, however, that is definately not the case and those biology teachers who think they can weasel in intelligent design or skimp on teaching evolution in an advanced placement course need to be put on notice:

From a College Board memo circulated to AP teachers:

The College Board, in consultation with its Science Academic Advisory Committee, would like to address recent public concerns pertaining to the theory of evolution as it is assessed in the course audit of Advanced Placement (AP) Biology. The objective of an Advanced Placement course is to provide students with a learning experience that is equivalent to a high-quality freshman college course. In order to meet this objective, such a course must present an accurate and modern description of its academic discipline. Therefore, The College Board endorses the consensus of those professional organizations (a few examples are listed below) that delineate the discipline of modern biology. In keeping with this consensus, the College Board must specify that, in order to meet the AP Biology Audit Course Requirements, the course must treat evolution as “the foundation of modern biological models and thought.” Furthermore, a biology course which purports to be “AP” cannot endorse as a scientific alternative any treatment of the origin and development of living things which conflict with the modern concepts of evolution as described by the aforementioned organizations. The College Board understands the deep and profound regard some students, teachers, and schools may have for such alternative explanations, and respects the right of private and religious schools to develop their own curricula. However, in allowing the designation of “AP,” The College Board is compelled to uphold the standards of the consensus of the community of professional biologists. [emphasis mine].

Greg considered this good news, as do I, but he had a couple of additional suggestions to strengthen the wording and prevent the intelligent design activists from cherry picking words to develop a Frankensteinian version that actually endorses teaching "the controversy" in AP classes. Regardless, I think the message is quite clear: if high school biology teachers are going to develop AP classes for their students, not only must they not include the non-scientific "alternatives" but the central theme of the class must be evolutionary theory.

Is The Designer Pro Life?

2007-06-09T06:59:00.000-07:00

So, according to intelligent design activist and Catholic Michael Behe in his new book, The Edge of Evolution, malaria was intelligently designed. So, Catholics in the audience, pay attention and understand the following (and I quote from PZ's post):

Got that? Plasmodium falciparum was explicitly and intentionally constructed to infect, make ill, torment, and kill human beings. He goes farther than most YECs—the parasite was not simply a product of corruption at the Fall, it had to be carefully modified, built, and released to carry out its designed job of causing suffering.

But Behe's Designer (and let's not pull any punches here, you all know exactly who Behe is talking about: the Christian God of the Bible) apparently was not satisfied in specifically designing a parasite responsible for the agonizing death of millions. No, He felt further moved to provide Plasmodium with an added feature: the ability to trigger leukemia in children:

Now, Arnaud Chene and colleagues have identified CIDRla as the first microbial protein able to spur a latently EBV-infected cell into active production. Their results suggest that P. falciparum-derived proteins can lead to a direct reactivation of EBV during acute malaria infection, increasing the risk of Burkitt lymphoma development for children living in malaria-endemic areas.

So, how does this fit in with God and the Catholic Church being "pro-life"?

Conservative Catholics and other Christian denominations apparently are so hungry to destroy Darwin that they appear to be more theologically comfortable with a God who specifically designs organisms to kill children, than with the idea that humans arose through non-directed processual mechanisms. Isn't this what they call a Faustian bargain?

Creation Museum Embroiled In A Sex Scandal?

2007-06-07T21:57:00.000-07:00

Looks like there is a god after all....

(Hat tip to America Blog).

More On Virginia Teachers Refusing To Send Atheist Camp Flyers Home With The Kids

2007-06-06T20:18:00.000-07:00

From the Institute for Humanist Studies: an interesting follow-up and additional detail on the Viriginia school teachers who refused to hand out flyers promoting an atheist summer camp but are perfectly willing to insure the kids go home with flyers promoting church organizations and bible classes. Mary Ellen Sikes, a resident of Albermarle county and retired employee of the Institute for Humanist Studies sought (and received) permission from the school district to distribute flyers on Camp Quest, a summer camp aimed at the children of non-religious families. According to Sikes:

"Church organizations were now starting to take advantage of this new expanded policy by advertising things like Bible schools and church events for kids, and it seemed to me that families in Albemarle County should have access to other perspectives," Sikes said. "I remember how it felt to learn that I wasn't the only freethinker out there and I wasn't the only one trying to raise kids. I know what it is like to feel isolated in this community of believers who probably do not respect what you're all about."

But it was apparently too much to ask that some teachers apply the same constitutional standards to non-Christians. Unfortunately, Sikes did not realize that some teachers were refusing to send the approved flyers home until it was reported in WorldNutDaily:

"There's a part of me that sympathizes with these teachers," Sikes said. "I'd be pretty uncomfortable as a teacher handing out a Bible camp flyer. But I'd still do it. And if I had a problem with it, I'd go to the principal. I wouldn't just dump it in the trash. That's what is so frightening about these teachers making the decision in the classroom -- based on their own values -- to override a flyer that their school board has approved and decided to be distributed. Just based on their comfort with the message of this flyer. That's censorship. I have to wonder what other messages they're sending to kids about conformity. To send kids the message that you should also conform to the majority view on religion or politics is frightening."

I'm sure Thomas Jefferson is rolling over in his grave about now...

A New Scheme To Reduce Gas Prices...And Email Chains

2007-06-05T20:02:00.000-07:00

I received an email message from my brother-in-law today regarding a NEW strategy to get the big oil companies to lower gas prices. The new scheme correctly points out that the previous strategy (don't buy gas on May 15, or whatever day the organizers pick) is nothing more than a big joke for the oil companies...they know what we don't buy on May 15, we'll buy on May 16. This new plan has, I think, a little bit of merit to it (at least I hadn't heard of it before!)...

Don't buy from Shell or Exxon...

The idea is to force one or two companies to begin to lower their prices by essentially boycotting their product in favor of another...theoretically, I think it could work; of course I'm not sure how many of the smaller distributors are actually part of the Shell/Exxon network (are either getting some of the profit from "Joe's Gas" down the street?). Still, it's easy enough to do...

My brother-in-law sent this via a chain email in an effort to spread the word. However, I take perverse pleasure in destroying email chains - something about "if you don't send this on, God doesn't love you" or "you'll be rich in 30 days if you send this to 300 people" messages just infuriate the hell out of me - so I kill them...immediately....and then have a cold beer or a nice glass of wine, sit back in my chair and say "Ahhhhhh"....

However, this idea made a modicum of sense, so I thought I'd kill the email chain and then post the idea on the blog...

Letting A Secularist Run Rampant In The Creation Museum

2007-06-04T19:23:00.000-07:00

This is hilarious...but not until you get to the voice over with the monkey (be patient...)...

Humanity Shouldn't Expect Much From Florida Valedictorian

2007-06-03T20:53:00.000-07:00

Today PZ reported on a valedictorian at a Florida high school whose message to the audience was largely that the godless among them would be heading straight to hell unless they opened their hearts to Jesus. My wife and I had a spirited discussion about the incident, the details of which are somewhat vague in the media report. My wife was convinced that the student performed a typical conservative Christian stealth move and switched the speech without notifying the administration or teachers; I don’t know…I didn’t see any indication of that in the news article and would have thought it might have been a major issue to report had it gone down that way. I actually don’t know anything about the rules governing valedictorian speeches, and I suspect they vary from place to place, but I have a feeling the speech might have been given with full knowledge of the immediate administration. My wife was under the impression a teacher review panel must have reviewed here speech for appropriateness prior to graduation, they gave the OK, and that they were culpable for the offensiveness of the speech, not the valedictorian.

Regardless, the valedictorian was clearly using the opportunity to preach to a captive audience. I don’t think that’s an ethical thing to do (and it speaks volumes about this student’s lack of character that she would willingly force others to listen to her personal belief system) but I tended to side with PZ on this: it’s her speech; let’s not have any undue constraints on what she wants to say. My wife, on the other hand, emphatically felt that the content of her speech was inappropriate for the event: again, a captive audience forced to endure Christian proselytizing.

My take on it stems from something I have maintained all along: don’t censure it…compete with it. Obviously, it is a bit tough to directly compete with a valedictorian at the event itself (“And now for our anti-valedictorian, Ms. So and So, who will now have fifteen minutes to respond….). People could get up and walk out…turn their backs…have some universal symbol of anti-conservative Christian protest (a raised fist like the Black Panthers?)…lots of ways to express your opinion in protest, even without being disruptive.

Of course perhaps the best counter protest is to help make it easier for a Buddhist, Muslim, or (god forbid!) an atheist valedictorian to give a speech centered on their own personal belief system. The hurdles in front of such a student getting to be valedictorian are currently beyond comprehension; and the courage it would take for a non-Christian student to do their own proselytizing at the podium hasn’t been seen since the 1770’s. Not likely at the moment…but then again it just takes one to start the ball rolling…

But I wasn't dwelling on these issues. I was really contemplating what this says about our Floridian student. Well, she’s not very courageous…telling an audience made mostly of conservative Christians that the godless among them must find Jesus takes about as much courage as asking a grocery clerk where you might find a head of lettuce. She’s very afraid of the world and needs others to agree with her in order to be safe. She certainly doesn’t have any respect for anyone who doesn’t agree with her. Therefore she has no demonstrated ability to communicate with others in their own terms, or even respect their own cultural contexts. In a future of global communication, travel, and information and cultural exchange, she will have no ability to advance society to future prosperity, security and peace. She’ll probably make a good engineer or “medical mechanic” like Dr. Egnor – stuck in her own world of “application” where her culture can be maintained without challenge. From here she can take potshots at those of us concerned with the broader philosophies of human existence that are the driving force behind human capacity and capability; and have been ever since people used cave walls to demonsrate an ability to ponder the human condition beyond the necessity of having a sharpened Levallois point.

In short, it is doubtful that a 12th grade proselytizer will have anything useful to contribute to the betterment of the human race.

Some Blogs To Take A Look At

2007-06-03T20:20:00.000-07:00

Well, in typical fashion, I am usually several weeks (if not months) behind in updating blog links and giving other folks their due (my reading list is actually about 5 books behind!)...I want to highlight a couple of new (or if not new, perhaps less well known) blogs I have found through various means:

You have to stop by and see Dinosaurs: A Creationist's Fairytale; DCF had another right-on critique of Ken Ham's vegetarian tyrannosaur hypothesis. There's a lot of other good stuff there and DCF is clearly not sympathetic to the way creationists have abused dinosaur science for their own cause.

Mikayla from Bits of Starstuff emailed me after we both left comments on Dakata Voice's blog regarding Answers In Genesis. Mikayla was at the Rally for Reason held outside Ken Ham's museum opening and has some interesting things to say about...well, a lot of issues. She's certainly not apologetic about being being enamored of naturalism...

Dan Vojir from The Devil and Dan Vojir commented on one of my posts with a post of his own: the first one on his blog. He's a writer in San Francisco and if his first post is any indication of what will be forthcoming I hope he finds the time to post often. I'm anxious to find out more about his upcoming book, Sacred Cows Make The Best Hamburgers...

Permit Me A Little Gloating

2007-06-03T11:28:00.001-07:00

Who needs the Lassen County Times when you're getting picked up on Crooks and Liars?

(Yes, yes, I know....one does not a pattern make - of course that never stopped Ken Ham and Answers In Genesis...).

The Creation Museum Needs Falwell's (Jr.) Help

2007-06-02T06:21:00.000-07:00

Jerry Falwell's son is extolling WorldNutDaily readers to visit Ken Ham's museum as often as possible...is it already in financial trouble?

Ken Ham Has Some Competition

2007-05-31T22:02:00.000-07:00

Interesting....

Apparently Ken Ham and the Answers In Genesis folks have been wrong about Genesis all along...

Some Observations On Dakota Voice And His God

2007-05-31T21:22:00.000-07:00

For some strange, inexplicable reason, ever since the Blog Against Theocracy, I have occasionally dropped in on the blog of one of its most vociferous opponents, Dakota Voice. His latest incoherent rantings against evolutionary theory and almost perverse love affair with Ken Ham's Creationist Museum makes me think of...well, a puppy or kitten that has been mauled by a large dog and is, in its own significant way, seeking a higher power to help rescue it. This is clearly a man who has never read anything but Answers In Genesis...it's no wonder he feels a misplaced sense of power now that the Creation Museum has opened up to support him. As another blogger recently opined..."And on the 8th day God created a Creation Museum to back Him up"....

However, I really should point out that Dakota Voice is much more intuitive than he realizes. His concern over the state of Christianity today is pretty much on the mark. In spite of the surficial appearance of Christian domination of our society I suspect we are actually witnessing the beginnings of its decline. It will take some time, but it will come. Part of what will fuel it is that, ultimately, the "thinking" populace will have to reject Dakota Voice's version of Christianity because it requires casting off intellect in favor of blind obedience to positions like those represented in Ken Ham's Creation Museum. And there will be no "retribution" as Dakota Voice envisions...his Christ is impotent.

More On Ham's Creation Museum, Tyrannosaur Teeth And The Scientific Process

2007-05-29T09:12:00.000-07:00

A reader, responding to my Creation Museum Carnival post on what Ken Ham’s Creation Museum won’t be telling kids about teeth, cautioned me that one argument in particular was weak and that Answers In Genesis views could not be so easily dispatched. The argument in question is that differential tooth form clearly reflects differential diet among animals today. We can use this to infer diets for extinct species by comparing their teeth with what we know of the dentition and diets in modern animals. This is contrary to the view held by Ken Ham and the AIG PhDs who maintain that all animals were vegetarian prior to the Fall of Adam, including tyrannosaurs. This aspect of natural history has to be true for Ham and fellow creationists in order for them to retain consistency with a specific verse in Genesis. So they argue that the dietary inferences paleontologists and other evolutionists make from teeth cannot be correct. As an example of this, Ham himself has pointed out that tyrannosaur teeth and bear teeth are both “sharp” and yet the bear’s diet is comprised of a significant portion of plant foods; hence there is no real reason to think tyrannosaurs couldn’t have also been vegetarians.

My response was that bear teeth and tyrannosaur teeth are not alike at all, as Ham suggests. (Of course Ham only indicated that both species possessed teeth that were “sharp”, not necessarily similar in morphology. But this is an example of deliberate subterfuge the AIG staff does best: gloss over the specifics and make the necessary generalization to prove your point. There is not doubt that in describing the teeth of tyrannosaurs and bears as “sharp” Ham is expecting that his audience will understand him to mean “the same”). If you are interested in the simple question of why bear teeth are different from tyrannosaur teeth, the observation still remains that tyrannosaurs have teeth much more in common with those of modern carnivores than plant eaters. Again, from this I would have to infer that tyrannosaurs were clearly carnivores. At this point, the only defense Ken Ham can come back with is a line from the bible[1].

However, my reader pointed out some additional issues to consider that at first glance would re-open the case for tooth morphology having anything to do with diet and at least force us to ask if AIG might have a viable alternative. He basically made three points (except for words in quotes I’m paraphrasing):
1) polar bears feed exclusively on other animals, yet their teeth are “hardly different” from other bears;
2) flat teeth are for grinding/chewing and the fact dinosaurs had gizzards would mean that scimitar-toothed species like Tyrannosaurus could have eaten plants, swallowed them whole and let their gizzards do the work;
3) “As for serrations” the pro-sauropod group of dinosaurs, thought to be herbivores, “…had them on their teeth like Tyrannosaurus”.

Certainly the responses to these observations are important, but that is not what prompted me to write this post. What really intrigued me was the process I engaged in while obtaining the information. It is the process of discovery that, as much as the answers, serves to radically distinguish science from creationism in all its forms. As I said, my reader raised several issues that, on face value, would be sufficient for most people to stop and wonder if Ham and AIG weren’t at least raising a legitimate issue. For Ham, AIG, and on a different level, the intelligent design advocates, inquiry would completely cease at this point. See, O’Brien is wrong: polar bear teeth are hardly different from other bear teeth and they exclusively eat meat…hence it is possible that tyrannosaurs ate vegetation at one time. Here, the entire goal is accomplished: raise reasonable doubt with the general populace at large.

But science follows a completely different process. Upon reading the phrase “polar bear teeth are hardly different from other bears” the first thing I did was ask myself, “is that true?” and reach for a book on mammalian anatomy; and I did it so sub-consciously and automatically that the significance of the act did not become apparent until a few hours later. Scientists constantly question whether their data (and others') are correct…it’s ingrained as part of the process. The same cannot be said for creationists.

Turns out, polar bear teeth are not “hardly different” – their back teeth are distinctly more carnassial (for ripping meat, not grinding) than those of their ursid (bear family) cousins. They are not completely like the back teeth of obligate carnivores like wolves, but it also turns out that mostly what they eat is seal fat and they are not entirely carnivorous (although clearly more so than brown or black bears). On the heels of an automatic question when being confronted with a new “observation” also came an automatic mental prediction (also an inherent part of science but not of creationism or intelligent design): IF tooth morphology is largely explained by diet, THEN another species of bear with a radically different diet should also exhibit radically different tooth morphology from other bears. Sure enough, the Panda, which subsists on bamboo, exhibits a much different tooth morphology than seen in other bears.

But the scientific process didn’t stop there. It came along with me as I read through my reader’s list of observations. The gizzard idea was interesting, but do all dinosaurs have gizzards? No, they are suspected in only a few species because of the presence of “gastroliths” or gizzard stones. And again, IF tooth morphology is a good predictor of diet, then I was betting that the only dinosaurs found to have them so far are probably those with teeth expected to be good for chewing vegetation and probably limited to sauropods and not found in carnivorous dinosaurs – sure enough, that’s the case. Finally, I wondered if the “serrated” teeth of pro-sauropods were really like tyrannosaurs. Of course I hadn’t mentioned tyrannosaurs having serrated teeth in my original post, but that’s part of the overall morphology of a tooth and they do have a serrated edge. But “serration” is not equivalent to meat eating, and in fact iguanas, which are mostly vegetarian, also have serrated teeth. Turns out pro-sauropod teeth are also a lot like iguanas, and in addition are very small, unlike the very large carnivorous teeth of tyrannosaur – i.e. much more in line with eating vegetation than meat.

But science is also about “multiple lines of evidence”…so are there other observations about diet that are consistent with the hypothesis that tooth morophology is largely explained by diet? Yes. Many readers of the Creation Museum Carnival pointed out in the comments that tyrannosaur coprolites (fossil feces) don’t contain plant materials – another observation consistent with the hypothesis. Microscopic analysis of early hominid teeth show that Paranthropus, thought to subsist almost exclusively on hard seeds, nuts and roots because of the unique structure of its teeth and skull, actually shows pitting and gouging expected of that kind of diet. And Australopithecus, suspected of having a more omnivorous diet like humans (again, because of their tooth morphology)? Microscopic analysis shows a smooth surface on the tooth as in modern humans.

So where does that put us with regard to evidence consistent with the null hypothesis that tooth morphology is a very good indicator of diet?:

- bear teeth unlike tyrannosaur teeth
- bear teeth showing variation in tooth morphology with diet;
- gizzard stones highly correlated with dinosaur species whose teeth suggest plant eating
- tooth morphology in pro-sauropods consistent with largely vegetarian ignuanas
- microscopic analysis of tooth wear consistent with dietary differences between early hominids Paranthropus and Australopithecus

And evidence that is consistent with the AIG hypothesis that tooth form has nothing to do with diet?
- a line in the bible

I may be off here, but I'm guessing it's a bit early to reject the null hypothesis in favor of helping Ken Ham maintain his belief in a literal meaning of Genesis. There is no reason to think that the diet of tyrannosaurs was vegetarian at any stage of its evolution and Ken Ham’s personal interpretation of that line is clearly in error. I would suggest he look at some alternative explanations of his own…and he can start with those I outlined in my footnote...

[1] I have to digress here a moment: If you believe the bible to be authoritative from the start, then perhaps that’s enough evidence for you and you can dismiss any observational evidence of the real world. And that’s fine…but it isn’t science. However, those who accept creationism never consider other alternatives on this matter themselves (although they expect everyone else to consider theirs): 1) the bible is not divinely inspired at all, but merely a collection of different types of writing form Bronze and Iron Age people who were trying to explain the world around them without reference to the scientific knowledge we have today; 2) the bible is not divinely inspired, but has been rewritten multiple times, other texts of the time lost or purposefully destroyed, and certain texts available at the time specifically selected, all to give the appearance that the bible was divinely inspired; 3) the bible was divinely inspired but never meant to be anything more than allegorical, metaphorical and symbolic in its broader meaning; 4) the bible is divinely inspired but humans are too evolutionary primitive to understand the complex meaning that is really behind its passages; 5) there is a god and he was responsible for creating the world, but how it was done is best captured in one of the hundreds of other creation stories around the world and not in the bible. Of course, although some alternatives have historical and scientific angles to them and can be tested (for example, we know parts of the bible were re-written to appear more consistent with theological statements from historical documents and early biblical texts themselves; there is also good evidence to suggest the bible texts were purposely selected to convey specific theological arguments as if they were prophesized or demonstrated historically), the alternatives listed are largely theological and can be accepted or rejected pretty much solely on the basis of personal preference.

Virginia Christian Teachers Want Constitutional Protection Limited To Them

2007-05-29T08:31:00.000-07:00

I caught this story on Richard Dawkins' website but Ed Brayton does his usual best at cutting through to the heart of the matter:

I love stories like this, when the religious right is up in arms over non-Christians exercising the same rights they went to court to demand for themselves...

In 2001, a Christian group tried to use a school's system to inform parents of one of their events and they were refused. They filed suit and the 4th Circuit ruled in their favor, saying that if a school is going to allow some community groups to use that system, they cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination in choosing which groups to allow in. This was not unexpected; it fits with a long line of rulings on limited public fora that say, in essence, "allow one, allow all."

But one could easily predict what would happen if a non-Christian group demanded the same access as Christian groups; all that talk of how unfair such viewpoint discrimination is would go right out the window. But we don't have to predict this, we can see it in action in this Worldnutdaily article about a school in Virginia where teachers are throwing a fit over flyers from a freethought group advertising their summer camp, and even refusing to hand them out as instructed...

Several thoughts come to mind regarding this issue. First, of course, it is a blatant case of sheer hypocrisy and something we've come to expect from the Christian Right: constitutional rights and public policy should be all about protecting their views, not those that anyone else might hold, particularly if they run counter to Christian perspectives. Further, if the "we'll protect constitutional rights so long as they are Christian" viewpoint isn't starting down the road toward theocracy, then I don't know what is.

Second, this is exactly the way you fight Christian viewpoints in public...not by petitioning or suing to limit their freedom of expression because you don't like it, but by forcing them to play by the same rules they expect everyone else to follow. Use your own First Amendment right to challenge their belief system in public and make them show their hand by doing what some of these Virginia teachers are doing: attempting to limit every one's free speech but their own. If you don't like the message on the t-shirt, wear your own with a counter message. Getting tired of the local high school promoting its Christian clubs all the time? Start a Darwin Club...(In fact, for those locally who are reading this: I offer to serve as an advisor to any Lassen High School student who wants to start one! I also think starting a "Freethinkers Camp" like this group in Virginia might not be such a bad idea - Eagle Lake would be a great place for such an event!).

Ultimately, however, teachers and school administrators should not be saddled with advertisement, period. Christian, non-Christian, non-profit...it doesn't matter. Our school systems should not be used as free advertisement for anything....if you can't call, walk the neighborhood, mail, put up posters or whatever on your own, you probably shouldn't be in the business of hosting an event.

Is There A Correlation Here?

2007-05-28T07:45:00.000-07:00

Let me get this straight....
Reading declines significantly in the United States and during the same period a creationist museum opens up....

Creation Museum Blog Carnival Now Up At Pharyngula

2007-05-27T08:22:00.000-07:00

In honor of tomorrow's grand opening of Ken Ham's Creation Museum, PZ has just posted a lengthy list of responses from around the blogosphere at the Creation Museum Blog Carnival. Check out all the great scientific information you won't be getting from the Answers In Genesis staff....

(I grabbed the "modified" paper from This View Of Life....)

Discovery Institute's Luskin and Egnor Contradict Each Other On Archaeology's Role In Intelligent Design

2007-05-27T07:17:00.000-07:00

While perusing the Rev. Big Dumb Chimp's blogsite I came across his post on an earlier exchange between Carl Zimmer and Casey Luskin over Zimmer's National Geographic article on the evolution of complex features. Part 3 of Luskin's response was very enlightening. He thinks he was showing that Zimmer and National Geographic were not conducting science so much as treading into an area of theology by questioning the capability of an "intelligent" designer. In other words, as Zimmer notes, Luskin (and other ID proponents) are saying that ID is only about detecting the presence of "specified complexity" (design) - move beyond that and begin to question the behavior of the designer, and you've moved beyond science and into the realm of theology, where everyone agrees science must not tread.

Well, with that discussion Luskin demonstrated precisely why ID's use of archaeology's "design detection" as an analogy with biology is misleading at best. Ironically, Luskin also completely castrates Egnor's fraudulent example of design detection using the Antikythera Mechanism, which I previously commented upon. I pointed out then that archaeological research is not about detecting design - in most cases in archaeology we already know items, including things like the Antikythera Mechanism, are made by humans. As Alun Salt expands upon in a similar post on Egnor's misplaced analogy, however, archaeology's "design detection" is understood only because of a body of background experience, observation, experimentation and general hypothesis testing has already informed us that an Acheulian handaxe, for example, was made by early Homo and is not the result of lightning bolts. But that was not always the case: the first encounters with stone tools described their origins as exactly that: formed from lightning - not the result of an intelligent designer! We recognize stone tools (and the Antikyther Mechanism) as designed only because we now know about fracture mechanics, have witnessed aboriginal people making stone tools, understand the development of bronze working and the history of wheels, gears and other already familiar mechanisms. Without that kind of referential knowledge (and a lot more) already in place, even the Antikythera Mechanism would appear as just another natural oddity to avoid stubbing your toe against while tracking that mammoth.

Archaeologists have already done a lot of the hard hypothesis testing behind design detection and have long since moved on to asking question about the designers themselves. But Luskin makes it clear that once design is detected, no more questions are needed - so very unlike archaeology. Archaeology follows the rules of science in its quest for understanding the behavior of the designers behind the arrowhead or the mechanism. It continues to question and accumulate data about the past. ID assumes design is present by comparing itself erroneously with archaeology and then stops. To paraphrase deGrasse Tyson in a previous post, ID is a philosophy of ignorance...archaeology is a philosophy of discovery.

While the "design detection analogy" with archaeology is frequently brought forth as "evidence" for ID it is nothing more than a cheap gimmick that works well with those unfamiliar with crtical thinking and accostumed to watching FOX every night, but has absolutely nothing at all to do with archaeological method and theory. And we can thank Luskin for helping to demonstrate that!

DEFCON Stop Teaching Ignorance Petition

2007-05-26T07:32:00.000-07:00

DefCon is sponsoring a petition focusing on the lack of scientific evidence being presented at Ken Ham's museum (and for that matter, other creationist museums around the country). If you are an educator, go to their website and sign the petition - there is one for non-educators as well. Here is the full petition:

As educators, we join together to express our opposition to the "Creation Museum," an institution built by Answers in Genesis (AiG) and designed to promote the falsehood that science supports the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth.

This institution is only the most recent example of the religious right's war on science education - whether in the form of anti-evolution stickers in textbooks or the promotion of intelligent design in the classroom.

In all of these cases the religious right has sought to create controversy where none exists, confusing our children and undermining our nation's commitment to scientific understanding.

As Americans, we support our fellow citizens' freedom of religion and freedom of speech, and as a private institution, AiG is free to deny the overwhelming evidence resulting from hundreds of years of scientific work.

We, however, oppose this nefarious campaign to institutionalize a lie. We urge AiG to cease their war on science and we call on educators, media, and citizens to exercise critical thinking and their own right and responsibility of free speech, and oppose AiG's false claims wherever they are promoted.

Ham's Creation Museum - What Kids Won't Hear About Teeth

2007-05-25T19:18:00.000-07:00

No doubt information found in the exhibits at Ken Ham's Creation Museum will be derived directly from the AnswersInGenesis web pages, particularly their "Get Answers" sections. As such, the expectation is that visitors will be treated to false information regarding the geological, paleontological and biological history of life on this planet. It is not difficult to find errors, misrepresentations, selective information and outright falsehoods on the AnswersInGenesis website - and these intellectual atrocities will be repeated throughout the museum.

Consider, for example, Ken Ham's "explanation" regarding the tyrannosaur's sharp teeth. He and his staff clearly believe that, as they interpret biblical passages, all creatures were originally plant eaters:

Were dinosaurs meat-eaters? According to the Bible, all animals were originally plant eaters (Gen. 1:30), not carnivores....Therefore, even the menacing T-Rex was meant to eat plants at the beginning. Although he had very sharp teeth, a lot of animals who have sharp teeth today are not carnivores, but use them to open fruit and eat vegetables. Having sharp teeth has nothing to do with an animal being a meat-eater or not.

Ken Ham has gotten somewhat more specific in interviews. When reporters comment that the tyrannosaur has very sharp teeth, he responds:

"So do bears", says Ken, "but they eat nuts and berries! Remember, before the sin of Adam, the world was perfect. All creatures were vegetarian."

It is difficult to know where to begin pointing out the errors of logic so completely that so completely dominate Ham's thinking on any subject of evolutionary consequence. There are not only a number of specific fallacies inherent in Ham's conclusions regarding teeth, but by these statements it is also apparent that Ham and his staff reject some of the most basic methods of science and fundamental procedures for making inquiries about the world around us.

On the specific errors, Ham draws a false similarity in tooth structure between bears and tyrannosaurs. To Ham, the gross generality is sufficient: both bears and tyrannosaurs have "sharp teeth", but different diets - the conclusion, therefore, is that this observation is consistent with the Genesis account that all creatures ate plants initially, but later diverged into different diets. Of course a very simple inspection (I have a bear jaw and skull in front of me now) shows quite clearly to anyone without pre-conceived ideas of what these animals should be eating that bear teeth are not like tyrannosaur teeth at all. Tyrannosaurs have multiple, generally cone-shaped teeth. The only remotely cone-shaped teeth on the bear are the canines: the remaining teeth are largely low, with rounded cusps. When you look at the teeth of to days carnivores (crocodiles, porpoises, sea lions, tigers, coyotes, foxes, etc.) their teeth are cone or triangular (a flattened cone) in design, much like the tyrannosaurs. Bear teeth on the other hand, show a mixture of cone-like and low, flattened teeth similar to those seen in raccoons, badgers, monkeys and, to a lesser extent, humans. All of these animals eat a variety of foods including meat, insects, fruit and other plant materials.

Anyone who has spent a lifetime looking at the specifics of teeth (as I have) knows that they are highly distinctive of both diet and species. I can often identify a particular species in the archaeological record on nothing more than a fragment of tooth. Not all teeth look alike and animals have widely varied combinations of them. Most of this variation occurs as a result of diet, but teeth are often designed and used for other purposes: for social grooming, defense, stirring up sediments, "rooting" in the soil for grubs, etc. As Simon Hillson has pointed out in his seminal work on teeth: "Teeth are highly variable structures. They are very closely adapted to the jobs for which they have to do" (Hillson 1986:14). For Ham to suggest that tyrannosaur teeth and bear teeth are similar is simply bypass volumes of data to the contrary. But bypassing data that doesn't fit Ham's model of biblical origins is what the staff at AnswersInGenesis do best.

The often repeated mantra among the AnswersInGenesis crowd is that they use the same evidence "evolutionists" do but simply start with a different premise (biblical literalism) and reach a different conclusion. This is simply not the case. Actually, it is only Ham who starts with a premise and then proceeds to find the evidence to fit it; and his expectation is that evolutionists are doing the same thing with their data: starting with an assumption of evolution and then fitting the data to it. But contrary to Ham's assertions, evolutionary biologists do not start with an evolutionary premise. He and other creationists fail to understand that the data are better explained by the evolutionary model when considered cumulatively. In contrast, AnswersInGenesis incorporates only those data that fit the model of biblical origins - anything else is considered either faulty or ignored. Ham cannot recognize that bear teeth and tyrannosaur teeth are different because his model cannot account for that difference. Moreover, if star with Ham's assumption that all creatures started as vegetarians, then why the current distinctions among animals now? What was it about "The Fall" that caused tyrannosaurs and lions to start eating meat? Why do deer browse and zebra graze? (For that matter, why does the black rhino browse and the white rhino graze?). Why do colobus monkeys only eat leaves but vervet monkeys eat a varied diet of fruit and insects? Why do bears and humans eat a broad variety of things. And ultimately, why does each of these species exhibit a quite different set of teeth? Ham's model cannot account for the facts of the geological, paleontological and biological records unless selected examples are used. In contrast, evolutionary theory "explains" most of what we see in each of these records, to a far greater extent than biblical models ever could. This is why the biblical model started to be abandoned several centuries ago: it failed to adequately explain the mounting evidence we see all around us. AnswersInGenesis wants to return us to a biblical model of origins, but it can support it with nothing more advanced than 14th century data.

Finally, Ham's model and his explanation of how bear and tyrannosaur teeth fit into it outright rejects basic principles of comparative anatomy. Basically any observational data must be rejected if it does not meet his interpretation of scripture. I regular take skulls of North American and African mammals to elementary schools in Lassen County and talk about the different skull types, including differences in teeth. Kids are fascinated by this and quickly grasp the connection between different diets and different tooth types. Ken Ham would have these kids believe that none of their powers of observation have anything to do with reality - and it is here that Ham and the Creation Museum pose the greatest threat to society. Ham and his museum pose no threat to those of us who are educated and have seen this stuff first hand. We know Ham and his staff are lying about the evidence. But the kids that see the Creation Museum will walk away carrying no inquisitiveness about the world; they will think that they have seen it all and that bear teeth and tyrannosaur teeth are really the same.

And America will take one step closer to a new Dark Age because of Ken Ham.

References
Hillson, S. (1986) Teeth. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Are There Dinosaurs In The Bible?

2007-05-25T18:54:00.000-07:00

For those of you who have always felt that the creationists' constant reference to "dinosaurs" in the Bible was, at best, a bit of an interpretational stretch, Abnormal Interests has a fantastic post on the real etymology behind the Hebrew words Ken Ham and others think refer to Mesozoic beasts. You need to read it for yourself, but here's part of the punchline:

I must say at the top of this post that one needs to have a very strong prior belief that the Hebrew Bible might mention dinosaurs to see them anywhere. And that includes Leviathan, Behemoth and any other of the words or phrases that has been suggested. There is absolutely no reason, based on internal evidence to associate dinosaurs with any word or entity mentioned the Bible. Nothing in the larger corpus of Near Eastern literature would lead one to such a conclusion either. [emphasis added]

Read Duane's post...and then the next time you hear a creationist say the Bible refers to dinosaurs, just shake your head and laugh at the wishful thinking....

deGrasse Tyson And The History Of Intelligent Design

2007-05-25T15:08:00.000-07:00

I never thought that I'd really "get into" astronomy, but thanks to Neil deGrasse Tyson I've become a consistent reader of his regular column in Natural History. So I had to watch when Red State Rabble posted a video of deGrasse Tyson talking about the role of intelligent design in history. It's something you have to see.

I was certainly struck by his analysis of intelligent design as a common theme throughout the history of science, but always being raised at the point at which the particular scientist (and science itself) did not possess the information to advance further in explanation. It is a consistent conclusion to problems for which we have insufficient information: "We can now explain A, B, C and D...but E God must have done...". As deGrasse Tyson explains, this is why Newton did not come up with perturbation theory and history had to wait a century before LaPlace did "the math" that Newton, although intellectually capable of conducting the calculations, could not conclude. Why? Because Newton was hamstrung by his "religiosity" - he could go no further because his "intelligent design" prevented him from asking questions that could be solved through simple observation. DeGrasse Tyson concludes:

Intelligent Design, while real in the history of science....is nonetheless a philosophy of ignorance...And so...science is a philosophy of discovery, intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. That's all.

However, I was additionally struck by his assessment of the ascendancy (and supremacy) of Arab science during the first millennium A.D. and its collapse approximately 1100 A.D. During the period of 800 to 1100 A.D., Bagdad, not the Vatican, was the center of intellectual advancment. With the advent of the 13th century, the Islamic world was overtaken by a fundamentalist religious dogma, codified in its government institutions (church and state merged) that resulted in a collapse of Arab society from which they have never recovered. The end result of a slow takeover of Islamic religious fundamentalism is guys strapping explosives around their waste and flying planes into buildings.

The rise of Christian fundamentalism in the United States in the 21st century is nothing if not history repeating itself. And creationism, whether Ken Ham's creation museum or Dembski's Intelligent Design, is a mirror of the events of the 12th century Arab world. Our continued advancement as an enlightened society, capable of meeting new challenges, particularly economic ones, is dependent upon having people capable of making discoveries running our science classrooms. In this context DeGrasse Tyson has a particularly interesting twist on why he was not concerned about the outcome of the Dover trial, which concluded that Intelligent Design was nothing more than a religious effort to get creationism in the classroom:

Republicans, above else, do not want to die poor. So there's a limit to how far this will go. And I bet most poeple in this room...were highly concerned about the Dover trial, wondering how that would turn....I looked at that and I said "I'm not worried"...because it's a Republican judge. In the end, if you put people who are not making discoveries in the science classroom, that is the end of the foundation of your future economy.

Republicans might be blinded to social responsibility by the accumulation of personal wealth....but they're not stupid....

The Antikythera Mechanism And Intelligent Design: A Response To Egnor

2007-05-25T12:19:00.000-07:00

As the late Stephen J. Gould once commented on reading the “scientific” arguments creationists put forth, he didn’t know “whether to laugh or to cry”. I found myself reacting similarly upon reading Michael Egnor’s latest attempt to use archaeological science in support of Intelligent Design. And once again, like every attempt at the “archaeologists seek design” analogy, Egnor’s fails because A) he gets his facts wrong; B) he completely misrepresents archaeological method and theory; and C) fails to understand the implications of ID’s real analogy with archaeology.

Egnor uses the Antikythera Mechanism as an example of detecting “intelligent” design. The Antikythera Mechanism, when recovered in 1901 from the submerged wreckage of a Roman merchant ship dated to approximately 65 BCE, appeared as little more than a series of bronze wheels and other fragments, all badly corroded. It remained largely unstudied until the 1950s through 1970s, when Derek De Solla Price studied the fragments extensively, particularly as more advanced radiography techniques became available. It was clear to Price that the bronze gear fragments were part of a machine apparatus, the purpose of which was not well established although Price’s reconstruction suggested it was used as an astronomical calculator. Egnor of course wants his audience to see the “detecting design” part of the story: here is a case of archaeologists detecting intelligent design and making no illusions about it. Egnor then wonders why biologists can’t accept (like their archaeologist brethren) that design exists in the natural world and move on. However, like all intelligent design arguments, Egnor’s requires that knowledge be incomplete in order to pull the story together:

Archeologists believe that the technology to produce such a device didn’t emerge until at least the 14th century A.D. They have no evidence as to who designed it, and no evidence even of who could have designed it. Yet the inference to design is obvious, and no archeologist doubts that it is a designed artifact. Design can be inferred from an artifact alone, regardless of the obscurity or the implausibility of a designer. [emphasis in the original].

First, we can assume that what is not reported in an Evolution News &Views story is usually far more intriguing than what actually makes it to website and Egnor has once again proven that assumption correct. Egnor pulled the 14th century A.D. date largely out of his ID hat of unsubstantiated facts. Current thoughts on the Mechanism’s dating suggests a manufacturing date of 100-150 BCE, with statements that nothing with its complexity occurs until almost a millennium later. By my calculation, that means closer to the 9th century A.D. (and if you are about to argue that an error of five hundred years is not a big deal, then we’ll need to have a serious discussion on the implications of 9th versus 10th century dates in the Holy Land).

Egnor then goes on to report that archaeologists “…have no evidence as to who designed it, and no evidence of who could have designed it”. Completely false. Convenient for an ID argument that relies on lack of knowledge, but a purely fabricated statement on Egnor’s part. At the most basic level we of course know it was humans who manufactured the mechanisms parts – because archaeologists know all about bronze and metal working during the first few centuries BCE (and for some time before and after that period!). But in the case of the Mechanism we can get even more specific. Evidence points to it being quite clearly Greek in origin, and probably from the island of Rhodes. We can even state with some confidence that it may have been designed by someone of the Hipparchos school during that time; Hipparchos being the great Greek astronomer from the very period when the Mechnism was constructed who probably died and was buried on Rhodes. In fact, such ideas regarding its origin have been bantered around for more than a decade. If you read some of the original Nature articles on the Mechanism (sorry, no direct link) especially Charette (2006), it is highly probable it was connected with Hipparchos in some way, in particular because it is in part a “mechanical realization” of a lunar geometrical model originally developed by the great astronomer himself. And how do we know this? Because archaeologists and historians have not ended their search with “it’s designed”. A number of hypotheses have been generated regarding its origins and its function. Price’s was not the only reconstruction – there have been several, including a more recent reconstruction by a combined British, Greek and American team. All are hypotheses built upon each other, using the most current data and observations and tested to reach the best explanation to account for the evidence. That process is unheard of in intelligent design. Egnor is creating illusions: there’s no revelation here that serves as an analogy to ID’s “unnamed Designer”…

Finally, let’s get something straight: archaeology is about understanding past human behavior, not artifact collecting. Egnor would probably make a great pot-hunter because all he understands is that ancient people made things that we can pick up today. That is the extent of Egnor’s inquisitiveness in the matter. But archaeologists don’t excavate things …we excavate information – information used to test ideas about the ultimate archaeological goal: how did the artifact “designers” behave and why did their behavior change through time. And more importantly we continue to test the designers’ behaviors and motivation. And archaeology is not in the business of detecting “design”… we know all about design, but for one reason only: we’ve observed, documented and tested the designer over and over again, from two and a half million years ago, when the ape-like designer first started making simple stone tools, to watching modern hunter-gatherer designers develop their own archaeological patterns today. And guess what?: those archaeological “designers” that Egnor and other ID advocates want to incorporate into their arguments? They were constrained and molded by the same evolutionary forces of contingency ID advocates so despise as an explanation for the world around us.

Archaeology doesn’t detect design;
Archaeologists gather data and test hypotheses:
Archaeology’s goal is to test hypotheses about the designers;
Archaeology shows that the designers are constrained by evolutionary contingency, just like squid, tigers and mammoths;

Doesn’t sound like intelligent design to me.

What Kind of Atheist Am I?

2007-05-24T09:10:00.000-07:00

You scored as Spiritual Atheist, Ah! Some of the coolest people in the world are Spiritual Atheists. Most of them weren't brought up in an organized religion and have very little baggage. They concentrate on making the world a better place and know that death is just another part of life. What comes after, comes after.

Spiritual Atheist

75%

Scientific Atheist

75%

Apathetic Atheist

67%

Angry Atheist

58%

Agnostic

58%

Militant Atheist

42%

Theist

What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com

So, I scored as a "spiritual atheist" - I can live with this as an fairly adequate assessment of my belief system. I did cheat a bit, however - at the end I was asked to choose the most "true" of two questions: the first choice actually ended up labeling me a "Scientific Atheist", but I went back and made a different choice (both were a wash for me anyway). I suppose both the fact that my first choice labeled me a "scientific" atheist fact that I went back and changed an answer but kept the "spiritual" atheist result also says something about me...

I also disagree with the characterization that most of us "...weren't brought up in an organized religion" - I certainly was, in some sense strictly, but ultimately found the experience too intellectually myopic. I would suggest that a lot of us who have left organized religion probably retain a certain sense of spirituality but just don't see modern religions as a viable mechanism for fulfillment.

Interesting, however: I scored 0% theistic...even PZ scored 17%....hmmmm....