Here are the winners of the 2007 Alliance for Science High School Essay contest. The essay topic was: "Why would I want my doctor to have studied evolution?". These students (9th, 10th, 11th and 12th grades) get the concept of science, evolutionary theory and what both mean in the context of our everyday lives. I am grateful that there are students more interested in an honest understanding of science than in divining biblical goat guts to solve today's problems.
Congratulations!
I wonder if any Lassen High School students participated...or if they would have known anything about evolutionary theory?
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Evolution. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Pope Calls Intelligent Design's Bluff
If someone who regularly posts on Uncommon Descent were to suggest that the sun was shining, the first action I would recommend is to run outside and look up...
Lee Bowman posts comments on an article discussing Pope Benedict's recent "clarifications" regarding his views on evolution and creation. The IDists are clearly upset about the Pope's latest statements, but they've gotten so used to spinning negative statements about evolution (and faking outside support for intelligent design) that their automated responses to evolution news are simply Pavlovian in nature. Bowman begins with the following quote from the article:
“Paris - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory… ”
...then discusses some historical points of interest about evolution, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's statements, Ken Miller and Francis Ayala's request that the Church clarify its position, yada, yada...
Then Bowman summarizes with this:
According to an AP report, the Pope addressed the issue to a general audience in Rome on 11/9/05. He stated that the universe was made as an “intelligent project”, and criticized those who say that it is without direction or order.
Someone please tell me that Uncommon Descent isn't actually trying to spin the Pope's latest comments into an endorsement of intelligent design. Here are some more tidbits from the article conveniently left out by Bowman:
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book Schoepfung und Evolution (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Ok, everybody, say it together...did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views...
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture,"
Whoa! Hold the phone! Is actually suggesting that there is something beyond faith?...something reasoned?....something logical?....something materialistic?
He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.
Ken Miller laid a knock-out blow to Dembski and Behe and the Pope just counted to ten! The premise of intelligent design is dependent upon actual science being unable to explain something...so that a designer can be "logically" inferred.
Ok, I'm not defending the Pope's entire statement (at least as currently reported). I actually find agreement with readers' comments at Uncommon Descent on thing: it's a religious figure making the proclamation, so who the hell really cares? The Pope is not a scientist and completely reiterated the same backward understanding of scientific proof, mutation, selection and random chance that almost every local preacher and conservative radio talk show host parrots to uncritically thinking sheep across this nation on a daily basis.
Still, the ID community can't be happy...and I'm going to go drink a beer!
Lee Bowman posts comments on an article discussing Pope Benedict's recent "clarifications" regarding his views on evolution and creation. The IDists are clearly upset about the Pope's latest statements, but they've gotten so used to spinning negative statements about evolution (and faking outside support for intelligent design) that their automated responses to evolution news are simply Pavlovian in nature. Bowman begins with the following quote from the article:
“Paris - Pope Benedict, elaborating his views on evolution for the first time as Pontiff, says science has narrowed the way life’s origins are understood and Christians should take a broader approach to the question.
The Pope also says the Darwinist theory of evolution is not completely provable because mutations over hundreds of thousands of years cannot be reproduced in a laboratory… ”
...then discusses some historical points of interest about evolution, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn's statements, Ken Miller and Francis Ayala's request that the Church clarify its position, yada, yada...
Then Bowman summarizes with this:
According to an AP report, the Pope addressed the issue to a general audience in Rome on 11/9/05. He stated that the universe was made as an “intelligent project”, and criticized those who say that it is without direction or order.
Someone please tell me that Uncommon Descent isn't actually trying to spin the Pope's latest comments into an endorsement of intelligent design. Here are some more tidbits from the article conveniently left out by Bowman:
But Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday in Germany in the book Schoepfung und Evolution (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
Ok, everybody, say it together...did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views...
In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
"I would not depend on faith alone to explain the whole picture,"
Whoa! Hold the phone! Is actually suggesting that there is something beyond faith?...something reasoned?....something logical?....something materialistic?
He also denied using a "God-of-the-gaps" argument that sees divine intervention whenever science cannot explain something.
"It's not as if I wanted to stuff the dear God into these gaps - he is too great to fit into such gaps," he said in the book that publisher Sankt Ulrich Verlag in Augsburg said would later be translated into other languages.
Ken Miller laid a knock-out blow to Dembski and Behe and the Pope just counted to ten! The premise of intelligent design is dependent upon actual science being unable to explain something...so that a designer can be "logically" inferred.
Ok, I'm not defending the Pope's entire statement (at least as currently reported). I actually find agreement with readers' comments at Uncommon Descent on thing: it's a religious figure making the proclamation, so who the hell really cares? The Pope is not a scientist and completely reiterated the same backward understanding of scientific proof, mutation, selection and random chance that almost every local preacher and conservative radio talk show host parrots to uncritically thinking sheep across this nation on a daily basis.
Still, the ID community can't be happy...and I'm going to go drink a beer!
Friday, April 06, 2007
My Alma Mater Strikes Against Intelligent Design
My Alma mater, UC Davis, seems to be figuring prominently in the blogosphere today with regard to events and discussions relevant to criticisms of intelligent design and creationism. First, Afarensis gives us another follow up on Sal Cordova's ridiculously premature mental spewage regarding the "new" reconstruction of the 1470 skull by citing none other than my undergraduate advisor at Davis, Henry McHenry:
And Henry McHenry, an anthropology professor at University of California, Davis, said Bromage faced some sharp questioning from colleagues when he first presented his findings at a symposium on human evolution in South Africa last year.
"I am a bit skeptical that Tim's version is all that much superior and that the original reconstructions violated principles of craniofacial development," said McHenry.
On another front, Ken Miller gave what was apparently a fantastic talk on the UC Davis campus this week. Miller clearly has a sense of humor too (you have to when dealing with the perpetually angry Dembski and Behe). I missed his appearance on the Colbert Report, but the article has him quoted as saying:
"I have a higher opinion of God than the people who favor intelligent design," he said. "This is a guy who was so clever that he set a process in motion that gave rise to everything on this planet, and you, and me, and maybe even Bill O'Reilly."
Beautiful.
Miller's Finding Darwin's God, is on my reading list for my Anthropology 1 class; those students who have chosen to read Miller for their book review project have always had positive responses and a deeper appreciation for what science and evolution are truly about. It usually (and in a positive way) shatters the creationist propaganda they've grown up with.
And Henry McHenry, an anthropology professor at University of California, Davis, said Bromage faced some sharp questioning from colleagues when he first presented his findings at a symposium on human evolution in South Africa last year.
"I am a bit skeptical that Tim's version is all that much superior and that the original reconstructions violated principles of craniofacial development," said McHenry.
On another front, Ken Miller gave what was apparently a fantastic talk on the UC Davis campus this week. Miller clearly has a sense of humor too (you have to when dealing with the perpetually angry Dembski and Behe). I missed his appearance on the Colbert Report, but the article has him quoted as saying:
"I have a higher opinion of God than the people who favor intelligent design," he said. "This is a guy who was so clever that he set a process in motion that gave rise to everything on this planet, and you, and me, and maybe even Bill O'Reilly."
Beautiful.
Miller's Finding Darwin's God, is on my reading list for my Anthropology 1 class; those students who have chosen to read Miller for their book review project have always had positive responses and a deeper appreciation for what science and evolution are truly about. It usually (and in a positive way) shatters the creationist propaganda they've grown up with.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Intelligent Design Forced to Seek Fungus in Cracks at the Bottom of the Barrel
Michael Egnor can't get any intellectually lower than by completely fabricating the history of Mendelian genetics and evolutionary theory.
At least I don't think he can....
At least I don't think he can....
Friday, March 23, 2007
Meat for Sex...And Intelligent Design
This morning’s symposium on "Human Behavioral Ecology and California Archaeology" at the Society for California Archaeology meetings comprised a number of papers on the use, abuse and differenting perspectives on the nature of evolutionary ecology models for interpreting the archaeological record. Much of this started a year or so ago, with the argument put forth by Kelly McGuire and Bill Hildebrand (both friends of mine) that the ascendancy of artiodoctyl hunting in California might have arisen not, as some suggest, as the result of simple caloric returns (larger mammals are a bigger package of meat, and therefore more “worth the effort” to find, hunt and process them than are smaller animals like rabbits), but rather as the advent of “signaling” by individual hunters, who through increased hunting success, “signal” to females that they are good providers and should therefore seek them as mates. (McGuire sardonically referred to the latter idea this morning as the “meat for sex” model!).
Regardless of which side of the debate one falls on (and a good range of issues on both sides was discussed) several things struck me listening to the papers this morning. The first is that archaeology is clearly a scientific discipline – there is far more to it than just digging square holes in the ground! All papers presented clearly presented well-developed theoretical approaches, which also clearly guided collection and interpretation of the data itself. The link between solid theory, hypothesis testing and data interpretation could not have been stronger. I have always argued that this is the true nature of archaeological research (developing a theoretical structure in which to frame and test problems is as critical as data recovery), but it was highly satisfying to see the two mesh so well this morning.
The symposium also highlighted the fact that the best innovations in archaeological thinking and interpretation derive from the rigorous application of evolutionary theory. Other theoretical perspectives have been tried, but explanations of archaeological data are best explained by evolutionary theory. I would argue that the advancement of “Syro-Palestinian” archaeology (read “Bible” archaeology) would also be better served by a solid dose of evolutionary theory instead of a misguided depdendence on humanly written texts (another discussion, I suppose….).
To the extent that the symposium demonstrated archaeology’s commitment to interpretation of data within a rigorously defined theory, it also showed archaeology’s commitment to science. Over and over again, I heard the broad “If/Then” statements so critical to developing testable hypotheses and then actually demonstrating whether or not the data fit the expectations suggested by the model. I couldn’t help but think of the great extent to which Intelligent Design is both theory and data derived. Papers presented this morning generally took the following form:
1) Here are the basic concepts behind theoretical approach X;
2) If theoretical approach X is an appropriate model, we would expect A, B and C in the archaeological record;
3) Here are the data from the archaeological record;
4) Data are best explained by the proposed model; or if not, it was identified precisely where the theoretical approach or the data may not have been adequate, or fit the expectations of a different model;
5) Here’s where additional research would be helpful;
In contrast, I would bet that the upcoming Darwin vs. Design Conference will proceed more along these lines:
1) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad;
2) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad and wrong;
3) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad, wrong, and has a deleterious effect on morals;
4) Therefore, we should all accept Intelligent Design.
I was also reminded that when McGuire and Hildebrand proposed the idea of signaling as a better explanation for certain archaeological trends we were seeing in California, they received a significant drubbing from the foraging theory community. In response, McGuire and Hildebrand did not whine about the “militant foraging theorists” dominating the discipline, write op-ed pieces for the various newspapers complaining about how they were being picked on, or outright lie about the nature of foraging theory. Instead, they wrote additional papers, clarifying their ideas, responding to specific arguments and more importantly, they developed testable hypotheses and collected more data. Whether or not they have offered a better theoretical approach, the fact that 13 scientists got together this morning to present data and tests on the idea of “meat for sex” shows that they are successfully engaging in that most precious commodity that still eludes Intelligent Design: good science.
Regardless of which side of the debate one falls on (and a good range of issues on both sides was discussed) several things struck me listening to the papers this morning. The first is that archaeology is clearly a scientific discipline – there is far more to it than just digging square holes in the ground! All papers presented clearly presented well-developed theoretical approaches, which also clearly guided collection and interpretation of the data itself. The link between solid theory, hypothesis testing and data interpretation could not have been stronger. I have always argued that this is the true nature of archaeological research (developing a theoretical structure in which to frame and test problems is as critical as data recovery), but it was highly satisfying to see the two mesh so well this morning.
The symposium also highlighted the fact that the best innovations in archaeological thinking and interpretation derive from the rigorous application of evolutionary theory. Other theoretical perspectives have been tried, but explanations of archaeological data are best explained by evolutionary theory. I would argue that the advancement of “Syro-Palestinian” archaeology (read “Bible” archaeology) would also be better served by a solid dose of evolutionary theory instead of a misguided depdendence on humanly written texts (another discussion, I suppose….).
To the extent that the symposium demonstrated archaeology’s commitment to interpretation of data within a rigorously defined theory, it also showed archaeology’s commitment to science. Over and over again, I heard the broad “If/Then” statements so critical to developing testable hypotheses and then actually demonstrating whether or not the data fit the expectations suggested by the model. I couldn’t help but think of the great extent to which Intelligent Design is both theory and data derived. Papers presented this morning generally took the following form:
1) Here are the basic concepts behind theoretical approach X;
2) If theoretical approach X is an appropriate model, we would expect A, B and C in the archaeological record;
3) Here are the data from the archaeological record;
4) Data are best explained by the proposed model; or if not, it was identified precisely where the theoretical approach or the data may not have been adequate, or fit the expectations of a different model;
5) Here’s where additional research would be helpful;
In contrast, I would bet that the upcoming Darwin vs. Design Conference will proceed more along these lines:
1) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad;
2) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad and wrong;
3) Darwin/evolution/natural selection is bad, wrong, and has a deleterious effect on morals;
4) Therefore, we should all accept Intelligent Design.
I was also reminded that when McGuire and Hildebrand proposed the idea of signaling as a better explanation for certain archaeological trends we were seeing in California, they received a significant drubbing from the foraging theory community. In response, McGuire and Hildebrand did not whine about the “militant foraging theorists” dominating the discipline, write op-ed pieces for the various newspapers complaining about how they were being picked on, or outright lie about the nature of foraging theory. Instead, they wrote additional papers, clarifying their ideas, responding to specific arguments and more importantly, they developed testable hypotheses and collected more data. Whether or not they have offered a better theoretical approach, the fact that 13 scientists got together this morning to present data and tests on the idea of “meat for sex” shows that they are successfully engaging in that most precious commodity that still eludes Intelligent Design: good science.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Upcoming Alpha/Omega Conference on Creationism in the Northstate
Northern California blogger Tim Hearden has been recently touting the upcoming Alpha/Omega Conference on Creationism and End Time Prophecy sponsored by Shasta Bible College in Redding. The conference is apparently the "Fourth Annual" version, so the college has been doing this for several years now. This year's conference featured speakers will include John Whitcomb, who co-authored The Genesis Flood with well known creationist Henry Morris. Among the presentations to be made by Whitcomb are the following:
7:00 pm: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Origin of the Solar System"
10:00 am: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Creation of Mankind and questions about Noah’s Flood"
8:00 pm: Dr. John Whitcomb: "Dinosaurs and Men"
11:00 am: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Genesis Flood and Modern Geology"
6:30 pm: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Tower of Babel and the Dispersion of Mankind"
Of the Creationism conference Hearden says:
I've attended the conference for the past several years and the topics are interesting. Whether or not you agree with all the theology that's presented, the presentations make you think -- which is, of course, the mission of a college-sponsored event.
I will be unable to attend, but I certainly hope transcripts of the presentations are made available. I don't know about the theology to be presented, but I'll make some predictions regarding the "science" that will be presented:
- I predict that just about every comment made about evolution, Darwinists, and the evidence for evolution will be absolutely false;
- I predict that all real scientific evidence for evolution will be missing from the presentation;
- You can expect a good amount of positive and self-affirming discussion on the "Darwin = evolution = Hitler" thing;
- I predict some discussion on the "archaeology is proving the Bible" topic; I predict almost no factual evidence presented by qualified archaeologists on this matter;
- You can expect that any positive evidence for creation is either fabricated, or leaves out significant contextual information necessary to interpret the "evidence";
In short, you can expect presentations based on marginal science with limited factual data but nonetheless welcomed by the audience as "truth" because they lack the education (and truth-seeking conviction) necessary to question the tripe they'll be fed.
7:00 pm: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Origin of the Solar System"
10:00 am: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Creation of Mankind and questions about Noah’s Flood"
8:00 pm: Dr. John Whitcomb: "Dinosaurs and Men"
11:00 am: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Genesis Flood and Modern Geology"
6:30 pm: Dr. John Whitcomb: "The Tower of Babel and the Dispersion of Mankind"
Of the Creationism conference Hearden says:
I've attended the conference for the past several years and the topics are interesting. Whether or not you agree with all the theology that's presented, the presentations make you think -- which is, of course, the mission of a college-sponsored event.
I will be unable to attend, but I certainly hope transcripts of the presentations are made available. I don't know about the theology to be presented, but I'll make some predictions regarding the "science" that will be presented:
- I predict that just about every comment made about evolution, Darwinists, and the evidence for evolution will be absolutely false;
- I predict that all real scientific evidence for evolution will be missing from the presentation;
- You can expect a good amount of positive and self-affirming discussion on the "Darwin = evolution = Hitler" thing;
- I predict some discussion on the "archaeology is proving the Bible" topic; I predict almost no factual evidence presented by qualified archaeologists on this matter;
- You can expect that any positive evidence for creation is either fabricated, or leaves out significant contextual information necessary to interpret the "evidence";
In short, you can expect presentations based on marginal science with limited factual data but nonetheless welcomed by the audience as "truth" because they lack the education (and truth-seeking conviction) necessary to question the tripe they'll be fed.
Saturday, March 17, 2007
Egnor's Back, But So Is Actual SCIENCE
Just returned from FS meetings and a couple of wonderful get-togethers with colleagues from UC Davis. From Afarensis' note I see that Egnor was at it again and that both he and Orac continues to rise to the challenge. Well, creationists are counting on an audience of people with no ability to seriously question what they already believe in. This morning I ran across a very apt description of those who I and others frequently challenge on these blogs. From Bring It On!:
These are the people who are anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-environmentalism, anti-gay, anti-women’s-rights, anti-free-speech, and in general anti-everybody-but-them. They’re the ones who burn books, and occasionally burn people. When they do discuss science, they do it backward: they start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it and ways to discredit any evidence pointing in any other direction. They turn the word “freedom” inside out – they scream that their freedom is being infringed unless they are allowed to stifle the freedom of others to think, speak, or behave differently from them. If anyone dares to express a view different from theirs, they cry that their beliefs are under attack. When science or plain old everyday reality conflict with their dogma, they blithely insist that the science is worthless and the reality is a trick by God to test people’s belief – their God’s first name is Gotcha, apparently.
These are the people who are anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-environmentalism, anti-gay, anti-women’s-rights, anti-free-speech, and in general anti-everybody-but-them. They’re the ones who burn books, and occasionally burn people. When they do discuss science, they do it backward: they start with a conclusion and look for evidence to support it and ways to discredit any evidence pointing in any other direction. They turn the word “freedom” inside out – they scream that their freedom is being infringed unless they are allowed to stifle the freedom of others to think, speak, or behave differently from them. If anyone dares to express a view different from theirs, they cry that their beliefs are under attack. When science or plain old everyday reality conflict with their dogma, they blithely insist that the science is worthless and the reality is a trick by God to test people’s belief – their God’s first name is Gotcha, apparently.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Egnor Evolution Malpractice:The Gift That Keeps On Giving
Just when you thought the science blogging community had finished demonstrating Egnor's ignorance regarding evolution, it turns out there's more...a LOT more...
Just read Orac's latest post at Respectful Insolence.
Not much else to say.
Just read Orac's latest post at Respectful Insolence.
Not much else to say.
Saturday, March 10, 2007
More Egnor Fallout
Lots of fallout from Egnor's comments on the illusionary lack of evolutionary biology to be found in medicine. Panda's Thumb and ERV have more to say. And that Afarensis fellow, damn him, once again has his thumb on the anthropology literature to an extent that would make a graduate student feel chagrined. He points out all those wonderful doctors who are combining research in medicine and human evolution! (How could I have forgotten? I'm feeling particularly absent-minded, since I also just realized I have an upcoming lecture in my Anthropology class on identification of hypervitaminosis A in an East African Homo erectus skeleton by Alan Walker (who was a professor of anatomy and cell biology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine)).
I happened to think of one more: anyone remember publication of the Paleolithic Prescription by Boyd et al. in the late 1980s? The authors are medical doctors who specifically used knowledge of human evolution to understand why our current diets are so mal-adaptive and the cause of a significant number of ailments. The following entry in Wikipedia sums it up best:
Those who advocate that contemporary humans should regularly consume a Paleolithic diet base their advocacy on the premise that natural selection had 2 million or more years to genetically adapt the metabolism and physiology of the various human species to such a diet, and that in the 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture and its consequent major change in the human diet, natural selection has had too little time to make the optimal genetic adaptations to the new diet. According to those advocates, physiological and metabolic maladaptations result from those suboptimal genetic adaptations, which in turn contribute to many of the so-called diseases of civilization.
Boy, it sure looks like evolutionary biology has no implications for the practice of modern medicine does it? To not understand the relationship between human evolution and medicine is to, as a commenter (a medical doctor, no less!) on my previous Egnor post put it, "...have your head up a very dark and presumably tight place".
If I were Egnor, I'd consider a new line of work...
I happened to think of one more: anyone remember publication of the Paleolithic Prescription by Boyd et al. in the late 1980s? The authors are medical doctors who specifically used knowledge of human evolution to understand why our current diets are so mal-adaptive and the cause of a significant number of ailments. The following entry in Wikipedia sums it up best:
Those who advocate that contemporary humans should regularly consume a Paleolithic diet base their advocacy on the premise that natural selection had 2 million or more years to genetically adapt the metabolism and physiology of the various human species to such a diet, and that in the 10,000 years since the invention of agriculture and its consequent major change in the human diet, natural selection has had too little time to make the optimal genetic adaptations to the new diet. According to those advocates, physiological and metabolic maladaptations result from those suboptimal genetic adaptations, which in turn contribute to many of the so-called diseases of civilization.
Boy, it sure looks like evolutionary biology has no implications for the practice of modern medicine does it? To not understand the relationship between human evolution and medicine is to, as a commenter (a medical doctor, no less!) on my previous Egnor post put it, "...have your head up a very dark and presumably tight place".
If I were Egnor, I'd consider a new line of work...
The Real Question Is Would You Want Egnor As Your Doctor?
Our esteemed creationist M.D., Michael Egnor, continues distorting evolutionary theory and its relationship to medicine. In a Evolution News and Views piece yesterday, Egnor makes fun of an Alliance for Science essay contest for high school students where they are asked to answer the follwoing question: "Why would I have wanted my doctor to have studied evolution?". PZ (several times) and Orac (again, several times) demonstrate Egnor's ignorance on the topic of evolution as well as the relationship between evolutionary biology and medicine. In this piece Egnor suggests the following point-blank:
I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Egnor also trots out the "Darwin = Eugenics = Hitler" BS again although that has been debunked time and again and shown for what it is: a marketing ploy creationists use to try to get the stupid to believe evolutionary biology is evil. But, just in case you haven't heard the argument, Orac provides a quick synopsis:
Aaagh! I can't believe he's invoking the whole "Darwinism equals eugenics" canard. That's about as idiotic as it comes. Even if it were true that eugenicists used evolutionary theory to justify their vile activities in the early 20th century and the whole concept of "racial hygiene," it would be irrelevant. Just because some people put a scientific theory to evil use does not say anything whatsoever about whether that scientific theory is valid or not. One might just as well condemn Einstein, Neils Bohr, and all the physicists whose work formed the basis for the construction of the atomic bomb for the use to which their work was put.
As for that last line, I recently made the same point when our northstate's creationist lawyer Larry Caldwell propped up the same old tired connection:
It seems likely to me that Goethe's eugenics views were underwritten not by Darwinian evolution, but by biblical teaching. We certainly know that, contrary to creationist claims, Hitler, Himmler and most of the Nazis used the guise of Christian religion to justify their behavior. Eugenics might be a theoretical derivative of evolution...but its application is driven by religious worldviews. In his zeal to tag evolution with the mark of human atrocity, Caldwell misses the more fundamental connection.
It is not biological theory that leads to human atrocity, it is the politicization of religious faith, absent reason and logic and disdainful of proper science, that promotes and then justifies human atrocities committed in the name of whatever god happens to be convenient.
Orac further trounces Egnor's faulty assertion that evolutionary biology has nothing to do with medicine. I also remember commenting on an article a while back, in which researchers specifically used evolutionary theory to develope new enzymes, some of which will have medical application. Despite the fact that doctors may not themselves apply evolutionary biology in their day-to-day practice, the basic tenets of how organisms are put together and work (or don't work and could be fixed) are evolutionary in origin. Again, follow the links to read the volumes of material Egnor leaves out of his comments on evolution.
Egnor's question did, however, get me to thinking. Not about how much evolution I'd want my doctor to understand, but how much of an Intelligent Design proponent would I want my doctor to be?:
- since my neurosurgeon cannot recite a single actual fact evolutionary biology, should I be cocerned there are a lot of other medical facts he doesn't understand?;
- since my neurosurgeon is willing to distort some science to make way for his personal belief system, perhaps I should question what medical science is being distorted when he operates on me?;
- if my neurosurgeon thinks my particular neuro-pathways were designed, then should I be worried that he won't fix a problem because to doesn't want to interfere with God's handiwork?;
- would my neurosurgeon be open to the implication of his work, that the intelligent designer is not perfect and screws up the design every once and while, and even look for serious problems that I might have?;
- if I am gay (or an atheist), should I be worried that my ID advocating neurosurgeon will simply chock my condition up to whim of an omnipotent deity who wanted me to suffer these problems because I was gay (or an atheist)?
- if new treatments became available because another, less intellectual hamstrung researcher developed them using evolutionary principles, will my ID advocating neurosurgeon not use them because he thinks evolutionary theory and eugenics are the same thing?
Egnor's question gets you to think, doesn't it?
[postscript: I see that PZ caught Egnor's idiocy and responded with "Career Day at the Discovery Institute Preschool"]
I am a professor of neurosurgery, I work and teach at a medical school, I do brain research, and in 20 years I’ve performed over 4000 brain operations. I never use evolutionary biology in my work. Would I be a better surgeon if I assumed that the brain arose by random events? Of course not. Doctors are detectives. We look for patterns, and in the human body, patterns look very much like they were designed. Doctors know that, from the intricate structure of the human brain to the genetic code, our bodies show astonishing evidence of design. That’s why most doctors—nearly two-thirds according to national polls—don’t believe that human beings arose merely by chance and natural selection. Most doctors don’t accept evolutionary biology as an adequate explanation for life. Doctors see, first-hand, the design of life.
I do use many kinds of science related to changes in organisms over time. Genetics is very important, as are population biology and microbiology. But evolutionary biology itself, as distinct from these scientific fields, contributes nothing to modern medicine.
Egnor also trots out the "Darwin = Eugenics = Hitler" BS again although that has been debunked time and again and shown for what it is: a marketing ploy creationists use to try to get the stupid to believe evolutionary biology is evil. But, just in case you haven't heard the argument, Orac provides a quick synopsis:
Aaagh! I can't believe he's invoking the whole "Darwinism equals eugenics" canard. That's about as idiotic as it comes. Even if it were true that eugenicists used evolutionary theory to justify their vile activities in the early 20th century and the whole concept of "racial hygiene," it would be irrelevant. Just because some people put a scientific theory to evil use does not say anything whatsoever about whether that scientific theory is valid or not. One might just as well condemn Einstein, Neils Bohr, and all the physicists whose work formed the basis for the construction of the atomic bomb for the use to which their work was put.
As for that last line, I recently made the same point when our northstate's creationist lawyer Larry Caldwell propped up the same old tired connection:
It seems likely to me that Goethe's eugenics views were underwritten not by Darwinian evolution, but by biblical teaching. We certainly know that, contrary to creationist claims, Hitler, Himmler and most of the Nazis used the guise of Christian religion to justify their behavior. Eugenics might be a theoretical derivative of evolution...but its application is driven by religious worldviews. In his zeal to tag evolution with the mark of human atrocity, Caldwell misses the more fundamental connection.
It is not biological theory that leads to human atrocity, it is the politicization of religious faith, absent reason and logic and disdainful of proper science, that promotes and then justifies human atrocities committed in the name of whatever god happens to be convenient.
Orac further trounces Egnor's faulty assertion that evolutionary biology has nothing to do with medicine. I also remember commenting on an article a while back, in which researchers specifically used evolutionary theory to develope new enzymes, some of which will have medical application. Despite the fact that doctors may not themselves apply evolutionary biology in their day-to-day practice, the basic tenets of how organisms are put together and work (or don't work and could be fixed) are evolutionary in origin. Again, follow the links to read the volumes of material Egnor leaves out of his comments on evolution.
Egnor's question did, however, get me to thinking. Not about how much evolution I'd want my doctor to understand, but how much of an Intelligent Design proponent would I want my doctor to be?:
- since my neurosurgeon cannot recite a single actual fact evolutionary biology, should I be cocerned there are a lot of other medical facts he doesn't understand?;
- since my neurosurgeon is willing to distort some science to make way for his personal belief system, perhaps I should question what medical science is being distorted when he operates on me?;
- if my neurosurgeon thinks my particular neuro-pathways were designed, then should I be worried that he won't fix a problem because to doesn't want to interfere with God's handiwork?;
- would my neurosurgeon be open to the implication of his work, that the intelligent designer is not perfect and screws up the design every once and while, and even look for serious problems that I might have?;
- if I am gay (or an atheist), should I be worried that my ID advocating neurosurgeon will simply chock my condition up to whim of an omnipotent deity who wanted me to suffer these problems because I was gay (or an atheist)?
- if new treatments became available because another, less intellectual hamstrung researcher developed them using evolutionary principles, will my ID advocating neurosurgeon not use them because he thinks evolutionary theory and eugenics are the same thing?
Egnor's question gets you to think, doesn't it?
[postscript: I see that PZ caught Egnor's idiocy and responded with "Career Day at the Discovery Institute Preschool"]
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Evolution News and Views Demonstrates Its Intellectual Supremacy Once Again
I recently signed up for "Google Alerts" for key words, such as "evolution", "creationism" and "archaeology". As result, I get a deluge of email daily with notifications of those topics showing up in blog entries, web pages, etc.
My only regret in doing this is that I am forced to wade through a lot of drivel (not dribble, although that word might work here too) like this from the intellectual giants at Evolution News and Views. Whoever Robert Crowther is, he writes poorly, can't get an understandable point across to his audience, completely misses the concept of "law" in science, and clearly has absolutely no fundamental comprehension of evolution whatsoever. Like most of the idiots writing for that website, he depends on stupid people to listen to him.
My only regret in doing this is that I am forced to wade through a lot of drivel (not dribble, although that word might work here too) like this from the intellectual giants at Evolution News and Views. Whoever Robert Crowther is, he writes poorly, can't get an understandable point across to his audience, completely misses the concept of "law" in science, and clearly has absolutely no fundamental comprehension of evolution whatsoever. Like most of the idiots writing for that website, he depends on stupid people to listen to him.
Monday, February 19, 2007
Two Versions of Evolution In America
Via PZ this morning, I read a superb article by Edward Humes, author of Monkey Girl, on the two theories of evolution currently being taught in America. The article's thesis is quite simple:
There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine scientific theory, and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not to enlighten but to deceive and enrage.
We all know what the difference is:
The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the “Why Evolution Is Stupid” lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans — a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.
These are just a few highlights of the awful and pervasive straw-man image of evolution that pundits harp about in books and editorials and, yes, on talk radio, and this cartoon version really is stupid. No wonder most Americans reject evolution in poll after poll.
It is sometimes difficult to battle against the twin juggernauts of American culture these days: a well funded media that spews massive volumes of mind-numbing tripe daily from radio talk shows and newspapers; combined with the American intellectual penchant for uncritically accepting anything tied to personal economic gain, patriotism, weight loss, or religion...and uncritically rejecting everything else. Struggling against this tide of willingly accepted misinformation is the "real" theory of evolution:
But then there is the real theory of evolution...for which there is overwhelming evidence in labs, fossils, computer simulations and DNA studies. Most Americans have not heard of it. Teachers give it short shrift in schools because the subject upsets too many parents who only know the talk-radio version. But real evolution isn’t random; it doesn’t say man came from monkeys. Those claims are made up by critics to get people riled up — paving the way for pleasing alternatives such as intelligent design.
Real evolutionary theory explains how life forms change across generations by passing on helpful traits to their offspring, a process that, after millions of years, gradually transforms one species into another. This does not happen randomly but through nature’s tendency to reward the most successful organisms and kill the rest. This is why germs grow resistant to antibiotics and why some turtles are sea animals and others survive quite nicely in the desert, and why dinosaurs — and more than 99 percent of all other species that have ever lived on Earth — are extinct.
The environment changes. The recipe for survival changes with it. And life changes to keep up — or it dies. Darwin’s signature insight is both brilliant and elegantly, brutally simple.
The real theory of evolution does not try to explain how life originated — that remains a mystery. The truth is that many scientists accept evolution and believe in God — and in a natural world so complete that it strives toward perfection all on its own, without need of a supernatural designer to keep it going.
As PZ notes, this is why we evolutionists get so angry (sorry, "passionate") and dismiss creationism as the joke it is. Creationist proponents are dismally ignorant of the data for evolution, fraudulent in their presentation of "alternative" ideas and yet these "prophets of talk-radio evolution" Humes notes, have the loudest media megaphone.
There are really two theories of evolution. There is the genuine scientific theory, and there is the talk-radio pretend version, designed not to enlighten but to deceive and enrage.
We all know what the difference is:
The talk-radio version had a packed town hall up in arms at the “Why Evolution Is Stupid” lecture. In this version of the theory, scientists supposedly believe that all life is accidental, a random crash of molecules that magically produced flowers, horses and humans — a scenario as unlikely as a tornado in a junkyard assembling a 747. Humans come from monkeys in this theory, just popping into existence one day. The evidence against Darwin is overwhelming, the purveyors of talk-radio evolution rail, yet scientists embrace his ideas because they want to promote atheism.
These are just a few highlights of the awful and pervasive straw-man image of evolution that pundits harp about in books and editorials and, yes, on talk radio, and this cartoon version really is stupid. No wonder most Americans reject evolution in poll after poll.
It is sometimes difficult to battle against the twin juggernauts of American culture these days: a well funded media that spews massive volumes of mind-numbing tripe daily from radio talk shows and newspapers; combined with the American intellectual penchant for uncritically accepting anything tied to personal economic gain, patriotism, weight loss, or religion...and uncritically rejecting everything else. Struggling against this tide of willingly accepted misinformation is the "real" theory of evolution:
But then there is the real theory of evolution...for which there is overwhelming evidence in labs, fossils, computer simulations and DNA studies. Most Americans have not heard of it. Teachers give it short shrift in schools because the subject upsets too many parents who only know the talk-radio version. But real evolution isn’t random; it doesn’t say man came from monkeys. Those claims are made up by critics to get people riled up — paving the way for pleasing alternatives such as intelligent design.
Real evolutionary theory explains how life forms change across generations by passing on helpful traits to their offspring, a process that, after millions of years, gradually transforms one species into another. This does not happen randomly but through nature’s tendency to reward the most successful organisms and kill the rest. This is why germs grow resistant to antibiotics and why some turtles are sea animals and others survive quite nicely in the desert, and why dinosaurs — and more than 99 percent of all other species that have ever lived on Earth — are extinct.
The environment changes. The recipe for survival changes with it. And life changes to keep up — or it dies. Darwin’s signature insight is both brilliant and elegantly, brutally simple.
The real theory of evolution does not try to explain how life originated — that remains a mystery. The truth is that many scientists accept evolution and believe in God — and in a natural world so complete that it strives toward perfection all on its own, without need of a supernatural designer to keep it going.
As PZ notes, this is why we evolutionists get so angry (sorry, "passionate") and dismiss creationism as the joke it is. Creationist proponents are dismally ignorant of the data for evolution, fraudulent in their presentation of "alternative" ideas and yet these "prophets of talk-radio evolution" Humes notes, have the loudest media megaphone.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Europeans More Advanced Than Americans
No surprises here. Europeans have a significantly better understanding of science and evolution than Americans. Of course the primary reason for this is Americans' uncritical acceptance of Bronze Age texts as absolute fact:
"The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. "The way we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. is that they are both one-book religions".
"Fundamentalists in this country say everything you need to know is in the Bible, period. Islamists say everything you need to know is in the Koran, period," said Miller, a professor in political science.
So tell me again, how is Christianity fundamentally different from Islam?
"The lowest-ranking country in terms of discounting evolution is Turkey. The United States is next," said Miller, who has analyzed surveys on belief in evolution from around the world. "The way we characterize religious fundamentalists in Turkey and in the U.S. is that they are both one-book religions".
"Fundamentalists in this country say everything you need to know is in the Bible, period. Islamists say everything you need to know is in the Koran, period," said Miller, a professor in political science.
So tell me again, how is Christianity fundamentally different from Islam?
Exposing Students to Evolutionary Theory
Another news story caught my eye this morning and further reminded me of anecdotal experiences with college and high school students here in Lassen County. A great article by Eric Scott, Curator of Paleontology at the San Bernardino County Museums reports that there is always more to learn from the fossil record. Some quotes from the article:
On the paleontological regard for "missing links":
In the early days of paleontology, many scientists sought "missing links" and interpreted evolution to be progressive, from "lower" forms to more advanced (and therefore "better") species. These views, still promoted by the media and widely held in the general view, are considered outdated by paleontologists today.
On the nature of "perfection" in the design of living organisms:
Living horses and their relatives are marvelous biological machines, seemingly perfected by millions of years of evolution. But "perfected" is actually the wrong word. Living horses are the current outcome of horse evolution, but they were never the goal of evolution. Evolution is progression, not progress. It is not directed at improving earlier models with some ultimate über-species in view as an eventual end-product.
My Anthropology class just watched an episode in the PBS Evolution series, Great Tansformations, which discusses major adaptive changes in the fossil record and directly links them to current understanding of genetics. You could see that many students found it intriguing and had never been exposed to this kind of information before. Several wanted to know where they could get the entire series...
On the paleontological regard for "missing links":
In the early days of paleontology, many scientists sought "missing links" and interpreted evolution to be progressive, from "lower" forms to more advanced (and therefore "better") species. These views, still promoted by the media and widely held in the general view, are considered outdated by paleontologists today.
On the nature of "perfection" in the design of living organisms:
Living horses and their relatives are marvelous biological machines, seemingly perfected by millions of years of evolution. But "perfected" is actually the wrong word. Living horses are the current outcome of horse evolution, but they were never the goal of evolution. Evolution is progression, not progress. It is not directed at improving earlier models with some ultimate über-species in view as an eventual end-product.
My Anthropology class just watched an episode in the PBS Evolution series, Great Tansformations, which discusses major adaptive changes in the fossil record and directly links them to current understanding of genetics. You could see that many students found it intriguing and had never been exposed to this kind of information before. Several wanted to know where they could get the entire series...
Teaching Anti-Evolution Promotes Greater Acceptance of Evolutionary Theory
An interesting post at Telic Thoughts reports on a study in which teaching both evolution and anti-evolution (ID/Creationism) in class leads to students' greater acceptance of evolution:
At the end of the course, the students were invited to take a voluntary, anonymous survey about possible changes in their outlooks. The results, published in the November 2005 issue of the journal BioScience, found that 61 percent of students exposed to both creationism and evolution changed their outlooks, while only 21 percent of students exposed only to evolution did so — and nearly all of the changes were from the creationist to the evolutionist direction.
The post is followed by the usual ID hand-wringing (led by Sal Cordova) about how the study must be "flawed" because, logically, students would always choose ID over evolution when confronted with both (Cordova reports that Dembski gets 100% turnover from evolution to ID when he teaches!).
While the study may have some methodological issues, the overall result is interesting and backs up some anectodal information from my own college classes here in Susanvlle. When the significant flaws in Intellilgent Design are pointed out to students and the disinformation ID activists hand out about evolution is corrected, my experience is that a large proportion of students, if not becoming strict adherents to evolutionary theory, at least realilze they've been fed a line of BS from Behe, Dembski, Wells and the pastors, teachers and other adults in their lives who regurgitate ID propaganda back to them. Certainly greater numbers of students walk away thinking there is something more susbstantial to evolutionary theory than what they have been lead to believe by local creationists.
At the end of the course, the students were invited to take a voluntary, anonymous survey about possible changes in their outlooks. The results, published in the November 2005 issue of the journal BioScience, found that 61 percent of students exposed to both creationism and evolution changed their outlooks, while only 21 percent of students exposed only to evolution did so — and nearly all of the changes were from the creationist to the evolutionist direction.
The post is followed by the usual ID hand-wringing (led by Sal Cordova) about how the study must be "flawed" because, logically, students would always choose ID over evolution when confronted with both (Cordova reports that Dembski gets 100% turnover from evolution to ID when he teaches!).
While the study may have some methodological issues, the overall result is interesting and backs up some anectodal information from my own college classes here in Susanvlle. When the significant flaws in Intellilgent Design are pointed out to students and the disinformation ID activists hand out about evolution is corrected, my experience is that a large proportion of students, if not becoming strict adherents to evolutionary theory, at least realilze they've been fed a line of BS from Behe, Dembski, Wells and the pastors, teachers and other adults in their lives who regurgitate ID propaganda back to them. Certainly greater numbers of students walk away thinking there is something more susbstantial to evolutionary theory than what they have been lead to believe by local creationists.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Caldwell Misses A Deeper Connection
Larry Caldwell, the north state's king of frivolous lawsuits and Evolution News and Views contributor extraordinaire, has a new post berating the Sacramento Bee for being "...strong and uncritical proponent of Darwin's theory of evolution" and for missing the connection between Darwin and eugenics. Once again, Larry dredges up the "Let's-Tie-Darwin-To-Hitler" creationist propaganda and demonstrates his adeptness at spinning historically weak links into conspiracy faster than Heinrich Himmler. Of course eugenics is based on genetic principles not aligned with evolutionary theory. And regardless of what theoretical perspective eugenics is most closely aligned with, most evolutionary biologists recognized it was simply bad biology.
Two comments about Caldwell's piece. First he is of course blaming the development of Darwinian evolution for its perverse application in the context of eugenics. Following that logic I wonder if Larry would also blame detonation of a nuclear "dirty bomb" by Islamic extremists on U.S. soil on Oppenheimer and the American atomic program?
Second, Caldwell is upset that the Sacramento Bee is being hypocritical by promoting Darwinian theory (apparently only because they reported on some local Darwin Day events) while failing to report on the proposed connection between Darwin, eugenics and local philanthropist Charles M. Goethe:
Unfortunately, Goethe was also a very enthusiastic and public supporter of eugenics programs. Goethe's ugly legacy as a eugenicist recently inspired the CSUS to remove his name from a public arboretum and community members to demand that a local school district remove Goethe's name from a public middle school.
The connection between Darwin's theory of evolution and eugenics is a well-documented dark side of the history of Darwinism. So how can the Sacramento Bee's editorial board square its admirable condemnation of eugenics with the Bee's unwavering support for Darwin and his theory of evolution? The Bee, like all too many in the mainstream media, simply appears to a turn a blind eye to some of the uglier ramifications of Darwin's theory of evolution for society.
In some follow-up reading on Goethe's eugenics advocacy, I couldn't help but notice the underlying references to Christianity as the driving force behind Goethe's admiration for the Nazi eugenics program. Of note was Goethe's correspondence with Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin, who fiercely resisted integration during the 1950s, insisting "...the white races are the only people able to perpetuate the Christian religion". Goethe himself was highly critical of labor unions in the United States, noting that allowing those without any talent to maintain jobs was "...the opposite of scripture". It seems likely to me that Goethe's eugenics views were underwritten not by Darwinian evolution, but by biblical teaching. We certainly know that, contrary to creationist claims, Hitler, Himmler and most of the Nazis used the guise of Christian religion to justify their behavior. Eugenics might be a theoretical derivative of evolution...but its application is driven by religious worldviews. In his zeal to tag evolution with the mark of human atrocity, Caldwell misses the more fundamental connection.
It is not biological theory that leads to human atrocity, it is the politicization of religious faith, absent reason and logic and disdainful of proper science, that promotes and then justifies human atrocities committed in the name of whatever god happens to be convenient.
Sam Harris is right...
Two comments about Caldwell's piece. First he is of course blaming the development of Darwinian evolution for its perverse application in the context of eugenics. Following that logic I wonder if Larry would also blame detonation of a nuclear "dirty bomb" by Islamic extremists on U.S. soil on Oppenheimer and the American atomic program?
Second, Caldwell is upset that the Sacramento Bee is being hypocritical by promoting Darwinian theory (apparently only because they reported on some local Darwin Day events) while failing to report on the proposed connection between Darwin, eugenics and local philanthropist Charles M. Goethe:
Unfortunately, Goethe was also a very enthusiastic and public supporter of eugenics programs. Goethe's ugly legacy as a eugenicist recently inspired the CSUS to remove his name from a public arboretum and community members to demand that a local school district remove Goethe's name from a public middle school.
The connection between Darwin's theory of evolution and eugenics is a well-documented dark side of the history of Darwinism. So how can the Sacramento Bee's editorial board square its admirable condemnation of eugenics with the Bee's unwavering support for Darwin and his theory of evolution? The Bee, like all too many in the mainstream media, simply appears to a turn a blind eye to some of the uglier ramifications of Darwin's theory of evolution for society.
In some follow-up reading on Goethe's eugenics advocacy, I couldn't help but notice the underlying references to Christianity as the driving force behind Goethe's admiration for the Nazi eugenics program. Of note was Goethe's correspondence with Georgia Governor Marvin Griffin, who fiercely resisted integration during the 1950s, insisting "...the white races are the only people able to perpetuate the Christian religion". Goethe himself was highly critical of labor unions in the United States, noting that allowing those without any talent to maintain jobs was "...the opposite of scripture". It seems likely to me that Goethe's eugenics views were underwritten not by Darwinian evolution, but by biblical teaching. We certainly know that, contrary to creationist claims, Hitler, Himmler and most of the Nazis used the guise of Christian religion to justify their behavior. Eugenics might be a theoretical derivative of evolution...but its application is driven by religious worldviews. In his zeal to tag evolution with the mark of human atrocity, Caldwell misses the more fundamental connection.
It is not biological theory that leads to human atrocity, it is the politicization of religious faith, absent reason and logic and disdainful of proper science, that promotes and then justifies human atrocities committed in the name of whatever god happens to be convenient.
Sam Harris is right...
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Evolution Sunday
Remember that Evolution Sunday is coming up a week from today, on February 11. If you're not familiar with Evolution Sunday, see the Clergy Letter Project. Here's some information from the website:
On 11 February 2007 hundreds of congregations from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic.
Red State Rabble is reporting that the number of congregations participating in Evolution Sunday has increased over 20% since last year.
Does anyone think we have even the most remote chance of getting one of Lassen County's churches to participate in this event?
On 11 February 2007 hundreds of congregations from all portions of the country and a host of denominations will come together to discuss the compatibility of religion and science. For far too long, strident voices, in the name of Christianity, have been claiming that people must choose between religion and modern science. More than 10,000 Christian clergy have already signed The Clergy Letter demonstrating that this is a false dichotomy. Now, on the 198th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, many of these leaders will bring this message to their congregations through sermons and/or discussion groups. Together, participating religious leaders will be making the statement that religion and science are not adversaries. And, together, they will be elevating the quality of the national debate on this topic.
Red State Rabble is reporting that the number of congregations participating in Evolution Sunday has increased over 20% since last year.
Does anyone think we have even the most remote chance of getting one of Lassen County's churches to participate in this event?
Monday, January 15, 2007
High School Teacher Stands Up For Evolution
Another brave high school teacher defends evolution in a public format! He could have accessed far more data to support his points than by relying on Wikipedia, but he nonetheless demonstrated why a previous letter writer to the Ventura County Star was depending on ignorant readers to make his case.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
A Chance To Promote Lassen County
Ok, here's one that ought to get the staff at the Lassen County Times hot under the collar. Evolution Sunday is coming up on February 11, 2007. What should we do here in Lassen County to mark the event?
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Luskin Goes Ape Again
I see that Casey Luskin is once again "going ape"...now, over the new issue of Time magazine, which shows a clever chimp/human hybrid face and which contains a very good article on the nature of the similarities (and differences) between humans and chimpanzees. However, once again, Luskin takes a very complex issue, picks a couple of pieces out of context, throws in a couple of quotes (also out of context) and then proceeds to explain away the silly notions of those anthropologists who don't know near as much about anthropology as Luskin the lawyer does. Luskin starts with the following:
Though the cover graphic (below) shows half-human, half-chimp iconography, University of North Carolina, Charlotte anthropologist Jonathan Marks warns us against "exhibit[ing] the same old fallacies: ... humanizing apes and ape-ifying humans" (What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee, pg. xv [2002]). The cover-graphic commits both fallacies
What Luskin is implying to the casual, uninitiated reader (in excellent lawyer obfuscation, by the way) is that a professional molecular anthropologist, Jonathan Marks, does not accept that humans are related to chimpanzees, particularly evolutionarily. I happen to have had the pleasure of talking with Jonathan Marks on a number of occasions at both UC Davis and UW Madison (casual conversations, granted) and read his wonderful book. Marks is indeed concerned, and justifiably so, that too many scientists and science popularizers use this figure to draw unwarranted conclusions about behavior and variation between Homo and Pan. There are immense differences between the two genera. In a great review of Marks' book, Andrew Petto gets to the heart of Marks' thesis:
However, in another sense, the widespread use of this figure is misleading, Marks argues, because its apparent precision generates a false sense of scientific certainty - not so much in the great genetic similarity that it confirms between closely related species, but in the inference that this figure somehow "explains" things. What things could it explain? Suggestions range from promiscuity to aggression to homosexuality to any of a wide variety of interesting conditions that have so far only the most tenuous connection to specific sequences of DNA contained in the individuals who express them. There is a long, long chain of inference here, and for years Marks has consistently been calling scientists and science popularisers to task for their overgeneralizations of genetics research to address a wide variety of interesting social, legal, and technical issues: everything from racial studies, to animal rights, to creationism, to cultural hegemony and colonialism.
But make no mistake. There is a pattern of genetic relationships between humans and the great apes, chimpanzees in particular, that indicates not only that we are part and parcel of the non-human animal world, but that we are closer, genetically, to the chimpanzee than any other species on earth. Yes, humans are not like chimps in ways that are legion, and we must put this fact into context when discussing the implications of genetic information. And this is Marks' concern. Fair enough. But at the end of the argument, the facts still remain: humans are genetically more like chimps than any other species; humans are anatomically more like chimps than any other species, and despite the gulf, humans are still behaviorally more like chimps than any other species. And whether you like it or not there is a really important pattern that is consistent (and needs to be explained): among living organisms today the further distant you travel genetically from humans, the less anatomically similar to humans organisms become, and the less behaviorally similar to humans organisms become. And all of that can be quantified. There is only ONE idea that can account for that pattern: EVOLUTION.
Luskin would like Intelligent Design to serve as an alternative:
The article predictably touts the 98-99% genetic similarity statistic between humans and chimps, assuming that the similarity demonstrates common ancestry. Can common ancestry explain shared functional genetic similarities between humans and chimps? Sure, of course. But so can common design: designers regularly re-use parts that work when making similar blueprints. The article ignores that shared functional similarities between two organisms do not rule out design in favor of descent.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Luskin has identified a valid hypothesis: shared functional genetic similarities are the result of design, not descent. How would you empirically test that assertion? What data specifically point to design and not descent. More importantly, would those data be useful in explaining issues as wide ranging as Hox genes, hominid skulls with varied cranial capacities, and pregnancy loss in wild babbons? Evolutionary theory is not just about hominid cranial capacity or the fact that we share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. In fact, the revelation of that genetic relationship, for as much play as it gets in the media, really just confirmed what evolutionary biologists already knew. Again, from Petto's review of Marks:
This book is more than a long argument about the technical precision of various genetic and biochemical methods, however. It is about what we make of them. Long before the 98% figure burst forth into the public discourse, scientists and nonscientists alike were convinced that the African apes were our closest biological relatives. Every relevant discipline - comparative anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, psychology, behavioural ecology, comparative physiology, and so on - produced the same conclusion. In one sense, the molecular studies only confirmed what we already knew, as they should.
Luskin cites Marks in such a way to disparage the strength of this relationship. Since he apparently believes Marks makes his case, he should also feel comfortable heeding Marks' warnings about research. Once more from Petto's review:
Despite the apparent precision of scientific studies and the authority with which their results are reported, most violate what Marks calls "a simple rule of molecular anthropology: Genetic conclusions require genetic data" (p. 114, emphasis in the original).
Let me re-phrase that for Luskin and the Intelligent Design proponents:
Intelligent Design conclusions require Intelligent Design data.
Though the cover graphic (below) shows half-human, half-chimp iconography, University of North Carolina, Charlotte anthropologist Jonathan Marks warns us against "exhibit[ing] the same old fallacies: ... humanizing apes and ape-ifying humans" (What It Means to be 98% Chimpanzee, pg. xv [2002]). The cover-graphic commits both fallacies
What Luskin is implying to the casual, uninitiated reader (in excellent lawyer obfuscation, by the way) is that a professional molecular anthropologist, Jonathan Marks, does not accept that humans are related to chimpanzees, particularly evolutionarily. I happen to have had the pleasure of talking with Jonathan Marks on a number of occasions at both UC Davis and UW Madison (casual conversations, granted) and read his wonderful book. Marks is indeed concerned, and justifiably so, that too many scientists and science popularizers use this figure to draw unwarranted conclusions about behavior and variation between Homo and Pan. There are immense differences between the two genera. In a great review of Marks' book, Andrew Petto gets to the heart of Marks' thesis:
However, in another sense, the widespread use of this figure is misleading, Marks argues, because its apparent precision generates a false sense of scientific certainty - not so much in the great genetic similarity that it confirms between closely related species, but in the inference that this figure somehow "explains" things. What things could it explain? Suggestions range from promiscuity to aggression to homosexuality to any of a wide variety of interesting conditions that have so far only the most tenuous connection to specific sequences of DNA contained in the individuals who express them. There is a long, long chain of inference here, and for years Marks has consistently been calling scientists and science popularisers to task for their overgeneralizations of genetics research to address a wide variety of interesting social, legal, and technical issues: everything from racial studies, to animal rights, to creationism, to cultural hegemony and colonialism.
But make no mistake. There is a pattern of genetic relationships between humans and the great apes, chimpanzees in particular, that indicates not only that we are part and parcel of the non-human animal world, but that we are closer, genetically, to the chimpanzee than any other species on earth. Yes, humans are not like chimps in ways that are legion, and we must put this fact into context when discussing the implications of genetic information. And this is Marks' concern. Fair enough. But at the end of the argument, the facts still remain: humans are genetically more like chimps than any other species; humans are anatomically more like chimps than any other species, and despite the gulf, humans are still behaviorally more like chimps than any other species. And whether you like it or not there is a really important pattern that is consistent (and needs to be explained): among living organisms today the further distant you travel genetically from humans, the less anatomically similar to humans organisms become, and the less behaviorally similar to humans organisms become. And all of that can be quantified. There is only ONE idea that can account for that pattern: EVOLUTION.
Luskin would like Intelligent Design to serve as an alternative:
The article predictably touts the 98-99% genetic similarity statistic between humans and chimps, assuming that the similarity demonstrates common ancestry. Can common ancestry explain shared functional genetic similarities between humans and chimps? Sure, of course. But so can common design: designers regularly re-use parts that work when making similar blueprints. The article ignores that shared functional similarities between two organisms do not rule out design in favor of descent.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that Luskin has identified a valid hypothesis: shared functional genetic similarities are the result of design, not descent. How would you empirically test that assertion? What data specifically point to design and not descent. More importantly, would those data be useful in explaining issues as wide ranging as Hox genes, hominid skulls with varied cranial capacities, and pregnancy loss in wild babbons? Evolutionary theory is not just about hominid cranial capacity or the fact that we share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees. In fact, the revelation of that genetic relationship, for as much play as it gets in the media, really just confirmed what evolutionary biologists already knew. Again, from Petto's review of Marks:
This book is more than a long argument about the technical precision of various genetic and biochemical methods, however. It is about what we make of them. Long before the 98% figure burst forth into the public discourse, scientists and nonscientists alike were convinced that the African apes were our closest biological relatives. Every relevant discipline - comparative anatomy, palaeontology, embryology, psychology, behavioural ecology, comparative physiology, and so on - produced the same conclusion. In one sense, the molecular studies only confirmed what we already knew, as they should.
Luskin cites Marks in such a way to disparage the strength of this relationship. Since he apparently believes Marks makes his case, he should also feel comfortable heeding Marks' warnings about research. Once more from Petto's review:
Despite the apparent precision of scientific studies and the authority with which their results are reported, most violate what Marks calls "a simple rule of molecular anthropology: Genetic conclusions require genetic data" (p. 114, emphasis in the original).
Let me re-phrase that for Luskin and the Intelligent Design proponents:
Intelligent Design conclusions require Intelligent Design data.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
