There was a fascinating moment on last night's "Hardball" with pugnacious center-lefty host Chris Matthews, which was covered (not all that accurately) by some right-wing media, and it is emblematic of what is wrong with most media coverage of alleged science vs. religion spats.
Speaking with GOP political operative Ron Christie about the views of presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Matthews suggested that many Republicans have a problem with Gingrich's past expressions of support for the concept of global climate change, and he did so in provocative terms: "So the bad Newt, as you guys see it, is the one who believes in science?"
Christie took the bait, and apparently surprised Matthews by affirming that the thought global climate change is simply a hoax, put together by Al Gore and the like. It was a refreshingly straightforward expression of this view, which is often not expressed by mainstream Republicans in such fora....but also pointless, in that this only appeals to a particularly rabid fraction of your own base, and annoys a lot of independent voters.
There is, after all, a way for GOP types to have the middle ground, not casting their opposition to climate change policy as an outright rejection of the science, but merely a cautious and prudent response to a model which is not 100 percent certain. I don't hold with this view, but any dope can see that you instantly lose a lot of independents by indiscrimately trashing all the science and labeling it (incorrectly) a leftist hoax.
Anyway, Christie took the bait, and Matthews then made the connection a lot of mainstream media types continually fail to make: he asked Christie whether he believes in evolution. As NCSE has been saying quite a bit lately, the same knuckle-draggers who want to bring creationism into the public schools tend to be global warming skeptics, and they want to bring their version of "fair and balanced" climate science into the classroom.*
Christie responded that he was "feeling pretty good about evolution these days." That is, he's not opposed to it being taught and, by his flippant tone, doesn't see it as a big issue. Matthews pressed him, though: "Do you believe in it?"
I hate this. Properly speaking, scientific theories are powerful and useful models for studying the natural world. They are grounded in objective data, empirically-determined facts about the natural world. They contain truth, in the sense that they are honest and data-driven, and hold the potential to explain so many pheonomena. But they are not great Truths in a philosophical sense, principles that we must affirm with a statement of faith.
Evolution itself is a fact, and so is the reality of climate change. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is never a Truth, but simply the most useful and productive way of explaining how evolution occurs (largely through natural selection), and how evolutionary processes generate the diversity of adapations, and ultimately, much of the features on our world. Properly speaking, scientifically-literate people should accept some version of evolutionary theory as "the best fit" to the data we now have, and the most useful and productive way of studying life that we presently have. They should see that evolutionary theory contains many facts that are undeniable, not the least of which is that life has evolved. But you don't have to believe things like that, because "belief" implies faith in this or that. That populations evolve is trivially easy to demonstrate, and things like that are not beliefs, they are facts.
But, Matthews asked for belief, and so at that point Christie affirmed that he believed in a Creator, and (by way of temporizing) suggested that humans evolved from that Creator. (The transcript on the link above is muddled; listen to the video carefully, and you'll hear Christie use the word 'evolved', not 'fall').
In other words, Christie was dancing pretty close to the idea of theistic evolution, which seems to be the position adopted by both the GOP front-runners. Theistic evolution is not a scientific position, but a theological stance, and it is certainly not taught in the public schools. It is, however, the theological stance held in some form by the majority of voters in this country, and it is a theological stance that is consonant with some understanding of science.
Now, Matthews is certainly aware that a whole lot of the GOP base holds a different theological stance which is not consonant with science: young-Earth creationism, which (based on a literal interpretation of Genesis) see the teaching of evolution as an assault on the authority of the Bible. Consequently, they deny the very clear evidence for the age of the Earth and common descent, because it runs counter to their understanding.
Not exactly a news flash, but Matthews is also willing to do what a lot of media don't do: connect the dots between the "evolution-deniers" and "climate science deniers", who see claims about rising global temperatures as an attempt to undermine our fossil fuel-based economy, U.S. sovereignty, capitalism and their way of life, in general. These individuals tend to have a similarly-literal, black-and-white, unnuanced understanding of economics and politics, and are easily manipulated by anecdotal arguments that supposedly undercut the scientific consensus. Which is to say, that they are easily manipulated by the same sort of bad arguments that have been pushed for years by professional creationists. Thus, it's no surprise, if you scratch a "climate change denier", you'll often find an "evolution denier", as well.
So, that's what Matthews was getting at. I salute him for having the courage to connect the dots. However, his rough-and-tumble interview style often leads to people talking past each other, especially in the case where the person being interviewed is in another location. Impatient partisans + Noticeable lag in response time due to distance traveled = Mischief. In this case, Matthews is too quick to connect-the-dots between Christie's views on climate change and evolution. It's actually not clear from Christie's response whether he has any skepticism regarding the fact of evolution. Watch the video. As soon as Matthews heard the word "Creator", he in effect assumed that Christie was defaulting to something like young-earth creationism, and implied that those who hold such views were "troglodytes."
This allows guys like Christie to quickly invoke the mantra of "faith", and for right-wing bloggers to declare that Christie is some sort of anti-God bigot. But of course, Matthews, an observant Catholic, is not declaring war on religion. He's expressing his distaste for the anti-intellectual, knuckle-dragging set of the American public that would prefer to see their privileged belief systems substituted for real science. It would be fair to say that Matthews does "believe" in evolution, in a sense. He's no creationist, but that doesn't make him anti-God.
Unfortunately, the exchange really doesn't tell us what sort of creationist Christie is, or whether he is even an evolution-denier. A lot of this posturing could be avoided if commentators like Matthews would not frame acceptance of evolutionary theory as a belief system. That gives the real partisans on the other side an easy "out" on grounds of religious liberty. It would actually be better to draw out exactly what their views are, and watch them attempt to dance around details that might offend the troglodytes.
Here's an example of a longer exchange from Matthews with a legislator. Again, Matthews connects the dot, and he makes explicit a larger argument, which is that the GOP lacks credibility in science because of the rampant anti-science attitudes. But, again, he gives rhetorical cover for the pol by framing it in terms of belief:
*Speaking just for myself, I don't think climate science should be either politicized by either end of the aisle, nor do I think that the scientific consensus should be taught as fact. Rather, it should be seen as what it is: a set of possible models, well-supported by data, that indicate that human activity plays a role in shaping the climate, but which stops short of mandating any particular political or economic response.
1/27/2012
CHRIS MATTHEWS: NEITHER A CREATIONIST NOR ANTI-GOD
12/02/2010
HAMMING IT UP
He's certainly the most successful of late at building mailing lists and war chests, precisely because the lion's share of his public effort is addressed at young people. That's what you'd expect from a guy who has a background as a school teacher, when you think about it.
Used to be, I gave most of my attention to the ID people, rather than YEC (Young Earth Creationist) types because YEC in all of its incarnations has been throughly rejected multiple times by the court system in this country and has zero chance of ever persuading anyone that it is anything other than religious in nature. To my way of thinking, people like Michael Behe and (especially) Jonathan Wells were more troublesome, in that they conceivably could offer tidbits that could make it into public school science classes.
That's due, to, um, design. The Disco Institute and their lawyers continue to claim that their formulation ('intelligent design') is by no means religious, and should pass muster with the Establishment Clause. They also claim that their viewpoint was not actually adjudicated by Judge Jones in the Dover case. They also claim that teachers like me are violating the Establishment Clause by mentioning the fact that there are varieties of religion which do not oppose evoution. Well, none of that is true from where I sit, but ultimately it doesn't matter, because the truth is, the Disco Institute has simply not been successful at building the broad political coalition they pursued.
There are a lot of reasons for this, but one major reason is that some creationists actually hold their views in a consistent way. Such as Ken Ham, who has never made any bones about the fact that he is defending the Bible "from the very first verse", and feels no desire to be a part of some 'big tent' that won't affirm Biblical literalism. Ham has been quoted as describing 'intelligent design' as a Trojan horse for religion, ironically echoing the extremely effective talking points of Barbara Forrest---whose testimony at the Dover trial was so devastating to the defense of the ID-friendly board.
4/09/2010
HEAD SHAKING EXERCISE
Some of my fellow Christians are just dolts. Look at the slogan of this outfit, which has multiple campuses in Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Washington, D.C.
You might think that this would be an outfit that would not be afraid to consider alternate viewpoints within the Christian tradition. But, as this article from USA Today shows, there are Reformed Church leaders who would rather permanently disassociate themselves from one of their denomination's leading scholars rather than countenance any possibility of being associated with the acceptance of biological evolution.
See, this is what the face of honest doubt can look like. It turns out the offender is one of the campus's most respected scholars. Did he offend in the course of teaching impressionable young Presbyterians under his charge?
Actually, there is no evidence that he did that, either. Rather, he made some statements that were videotaped in a conference with a bunch of other theologians. In that video, he (gasp!) allowed himself to make some sympathetic noises to the notion that evangelical churches need to openly engage the facts of nature as revealed by science in order to retain their credibility. This video eventually made its way onto the Templeton Foundation-sponsored, entirely religion-friendly site BioLogos associated with evangelical Christian Frances Collins.But I can't show you the video. It was removed in an (apparently unsuccessful) attempt to preserve Dr. Waitke's status with his employer and his denomination. There is a lengthy explanation of that here.
A few statements caught my eye. What does Waitke actually believe? He issued a clarification, as follows (this is also on the BioLogos site):
- Adam and Eve are historical figures from whom all humans are descended; they are uniquely created in the image of God and as such are not in continuum with animals.
- Adam is the federal and historical head of the fallen human race just as Jesus Christ is the federal and historical head of the Church.
- I am not a scientist, but I have familiarized myself with attempts to harmonize Genesis 1-3 with science, and I believe that creation by the process of evolution is a tenable Biblical position, and, as represented by BioLogos, the best Christian apologetic to defend Genesis 1-3 against its critics.
- I apologize for giving the impression that others who seek to harmonize the two differently are not credible. I honor all who contend for the Christian faith.
- Evolution as a process must be clearly distinguished from evolutionism as a philosophy. The latter is incompatible with orthodox Christian theology.
Well, they certainly are within their legal rights to do this, but the leadership of Reformed Theological Seminary is certainly not honoring their own motto. Their public relations skills need some serious Reformation, as how they handled this constitutes an unbelievably stupid and destructive policy. For the record, they say they accepted Dr. Waitke's resignation, which means that he cares so much for the institution that he would rather go through the pro forma exercise of pretending to bow out gracefully rather than forcing them to accept full responsibility for his dismissal.
As if this whole exercise is Waitke's fault? Shameful!
4/06/2010
THE HOLLOW CAST
I've known some pretty decent people who happen to be creationists. They use arguments that I reject, but they treat scientists as people. I've even met a few ID supporters who, by their own lights, act with integrity. These folk don't engage in conspiracy theory, don't call us names and don't accuse evolutionary biologists of willful deceit.
Larry Faferman doesn't fall into any of these categories. He's an obsessive crank even by the standards of many a tin-foil hat, to the point that he has been banned from commenting at many well-known science blogs. His latest move, however, is the cherry on top of a large, rancid sundae of abuse and accusation.
Apparently, some of the leading lights in the world of evolutionary biology? Simply goose-steppers attempting to suppress free inquiry, sez Larry, and thus worthy of enshrinement, to wit:
FIRST RECIPIENTS OF "FRIEND OF HITLER" AWARD
Judge John E. "Jackass" Jones III, Eugenie "Evil Genie" Scott, Fatheaded Ed Brayton, Stupid Steven Schafersman, Sleazy PZ Myers, Wesley "Ding" Elsberry, Brandon "Haughty" Haught, Josh Rosenau, Kevin Padian, Jerry Coyne, Chris Mooney, Chris Comer, Carl Zimmer, Ken Miller, Francis Collins, National Center for Science Education, Florida Citizens for Science, Texas Citizens for Science, Texas Freedom Network.
So, yeah. I can't actually say anything good about the guy, except that he has the potential to (by his lights) 'honor' me as well. So I took a stab at it, leaving the following post on his blog for all to see:
Larry: my name is Scott Hatfield. I am an enthusiastic teacher of evolution and proud NCSE member.
I have a request.
Please, Please, PLEASE nominate ME for your newly-minted 'Friend of HITLER' award.
It would indeed be an unprecedented honor for me, a humble science teacher, to have my pedagogy, my field of study, yea verily my personal character attacked by the likes of you and your buddies with the Disingenuous Institute.
I cheerfully invite you to so lambaste me. Feel free to visit my blog:
www.monkeytrials.blogspot.com
I have been trolled by professional provocateurs, so you would not be the first ID maven to misrepresent the state of the scientific enterprise in my neck of the woods. Your attempt to make rhetorical hay with your version of 'Der Fuhrer's Face' is like an outtake from 'The Producers': twice as juvenile, and nowhere near as funny.
Anyway, I have to confess that I can only look forward to the day you attempt to brand me with the same sort of limply-rotating, politically impotent mock-swastika.
After all, the intellectually crippled should, as a rule, avoid goose-stepping. They are likely to slip, fall and hurt themselves. It's awkward even for the adroit, and for you it's pure vaudeville spectacle, akin to slipping on your own banana peel.
Now, that might not seem funny to YOU, but compared to the trivialization of the Holocaust your precious 'award' implies, it has the ring of high farce.
Sincerely....Scott Hatfield
(now holding breath)
3/09/2010
THE SECOND LAW
I have a correspondent who has brought up that old argument about evolution violating the 2nd Law. I am sorry to say that when I was young and uneducated, I knew just enough about entropy that the argument sounded plausible and science-y.
But here's what I think these days, with Wikipedia citations embedded.
Entropy is a measurement of a system's disorder, and can often be treated as a loss of information. I assume that you will agree, however, that living things on Earth are highly organized and contain much information, at least when compared with naturally-occurring inanimate objects? That is, the fact that life exists and is seemingly complex seems to violate the 2nd Law, which is an expression of entropy? At the very least, we certainly require some explanation for life's complexity!
Please notice that I have said nothing so far about evolution. It is not evolution itself that seems to violates the 2nd Law, it is merely that fact that life is complex and enduring.
Many people often assume that evolution especially violates the 2nd Law, because they assume that evolution's most likely result is greater complexity. This assumption turns out not to be correct. Evolution itself is simply populations changing over time. Sometimes the result might be more complex, some time less so. So, again, there is nothing that specifically ties evolution to a violation of the 2nd Law. This is just an assumption in the creationist literature that has not been critically examined.
So, since evolution itself doesn't necessarily contradict the 2nd Law, what does? Again, it is simply the apparent complexity of living things, diversifying over time and seemingly able to resist the universal tendency to disorder. It is the very fact of life's properties that seem to violate this law, and while evolution is naturally advanced by scientists as a explanation for life's properties, it is not evolution itself that appears to violate the law.
In fact, since mutations are 'errors' or 'mistakes', they can be thought of as a means by which information is lost. This isn't always the case, but there can be no denying that gene sequences are not perfectly copied, and that information is lost, entirely in keeping with the 2nd Law. Evolutionary biologists will tell you, however, that these mutations form part of the pool of variation on which Darwin's principle of natural selection is able to act. In that sense, evolution not only does not violate the 2nd Law, it is in a sense dependent upon it.
The question then becomes what is the source of the original order. Interestingly enough, the 2nd Law says nothing about that. Christians naturally assume that the source of the Universe's original order is the Creator, but it is important to remember that we Christians only 'know' this by faith, and that the 2nd Law is not really a theological construct that points to any faith, much less Christianity. It is simply a generalization that systems tend to disorder, and in particular that the universe is becoming less ordered all the time. Properly speaking, the 2nd Law is not a law about the Earth, or our solar system, but about the Universe as a whole.
What, then, is the source of the local tendency for living things to diversify and become more complex? The answer is simple: a surplus of free energy, most of it provided by the sun, which on the average bathes every acre in North America with about 4 megawatts of energy per hour. This is far more energy than living things can actually use, but even at 100:1 exchange rate, we are talking 40 kilowatts per hour per acre. This is more than enough energy to drive what Schrodinger called the 'negentropy', the situation of apparently-decreasing entropy.
This decrease, of course, is an illusion. Things here on Earth still fall apart, and in order to provide us with surplus energy, the Sun is busy fusing hydrogen to form helium. At some point billions of years in the future, the Sun will run out of hydrogen and other light atoms to 'burn' as fuel. At that point, the 'party' on Earth will be over, and, in fact, the solar system will largely cease to exist. So, as the saying goes, someone has to pay for that party eventually. But it is the Universe as a whole that gets the bill, not just the inhabitants of our local system. Remember: the 2nd Law is properly speaking about the Universe as a whole. A local system can experience a temporary decrease in entropy due to the availability of surplus free energy, but in the long run the total entropy of the system must increase.
Since life is flourishing here in that window of time in which there is a surplus of free energy from the sun, how life diversifies and changes over time does not violate the 2nd Law.
3/05/2010
MYERS MIFFED, MILLER MOCKED
An article over at PZ Mwahaha's details his disappointment with another bout of one-dimensional reportage (featuring Ken Miller) allegedly at the expense of the godless.
I can't blame him for feeling that way, after being gulled by the makers of 'Expelled.' When are we science communicators going to learn to insist upon complete copies of all the raw footage and binding agreements not to misrepresent their views with creative editing before signing up for these affairs?
Anyway, I think this mess is overblown, with the perception of intellectual dishonesty such articles promote being more odious than the very real differences in worldviews between Dr. Myers and Dr. Miller.
Look. Based on several years of observation, Ken Miller is hands down the best pro-evolution debater in North America. It really isn't even close.
At the same time, based on several years of observation, PZ is for my money the most entertaining and trenchant critic of creationists in North America.*
Both are invaluable resources for me personally, and I value them for different reasons. It's a shame that we keep having this tactical debate with respect to how atheists should comport themselves.
I personally think that Ken Miller has no business complaining about the godless's desire not to be marginalized, ignored or pilloried unfairly. I'm a theist, but it is no sweat off my back if some atheists happen to be vocal in their non-belief. I don't see how it helps the scientific enterprise one bit to discourage constitutionally-protected speech.
On the flip side, I also think that many of of the commenters at Pharyngula are clueless when they attempt to argue that Miller is intellectually dishonest simply because he doesn't share some of their premises. Guys and gals, seriously. The Ken Miller I know is not your enemy, because he would never attempt to put his version of 'Darwin's God' into the public schools.
By the way, it is likely every year more people read what Miller and his colleague Joe Levine have written about evolution than any other author, living or dead---and there is nothing in their texts at all about religion one way or the other.
Jerry Coyne was similarly a casualty of the same one-dimensional reportage. He writes thoughtfully about the whole affair here. I find myself pretty much in agreement with him the whole way, including his criticism of an argument Miller makes regarding amputees included in the original article. While I am not an atheist, I don't think a concern for 'free will' trumps human suffering. The problem of evil (theodicy) is dicier than that, and I think Miller's views as presented in the article are wanting. They are certainly going to provide more fodder for Miller's critics.
*(Sorry, Abby, but you finish a close second with your version of bitter LOLspeak)
3/03/2010
The good Republican folk of Texas have spoken. By a slim majority, they have expressed their lack of confidence in the tactics of dentist Don McElroy, the most vocal supporter of creationism on the Texas State Board of Education.
McElroy actually chaired the Board for awhile, but stirred up so much needless controversy that his confirmation was denied. Here's a video of McElroy in action, and why he is thankfully going to be part of the Lone Star's past where education is concerned:
1/23/2010
WE NEED A WISE CRYPTOZOOLOGIST FOR THIS CONSPIRACY!
CHUPACOON!
Here's Wise County, Texas:
And here's the latest (sigh) chupacabra sighting from Texas, and thus, the latest Internet sensation, found on a golf course:
The explanation, according to this report, is of a denuded young raccoon. Interestingly enough, a similar case appeared of an otherwise normal hairless raccoon reported by Kentucky Fish and Game officials (see pg. 7 of this PDF!). The beast, shown below, was found around Somerset, Kentucky:
Coincidence? Or part of a growing conspiracy to discredit evolution? After all, the living 'raccoon' was found in the same state as Dayton and the Answers in Genesis 'Creation Museum': 
In case you don't know, Dayton, Kentucky is where the original 'monkey trial' showdown of Darrow and Bryan took place, with a chilling effect on science education. To cap it off, the most famous 'creation scientist' of Kentucky origins is none other than former Bryan College (Dayton) professor (and Answers in Genesis consultant) Kurt Wise:
Kurt Wise, the 'creation scientist'?
Wise County Texas chupacoons?
A coincidence??!?!?
I think not! Texas, after all, has some State Board of Education members who would love to find a few chupacoons to put in the textbooks. Why not the incredible insights of giant raccoon flatulence theory, which in turn is the fault of none other than Carl Zimmer. (Shame on you, Carl!) And there is this remark by J.B.S. Haldane about rabbits. Hey, raccoons and rabbits are both mammals! And they both begin with the letter 'r'!
Those are simply too many coincidences. Clearly, there is a great revelation coming. This supposed 'hairless raccoon' is no doubt been planted as a 'missing link' by Kentucky-based creationists which, after being put out there in Texas, will be revealed as a 'fake', thus putting egg on the face of every evolutionist in the Lone Star State. Hey, I know it's true, I read about it on the Internet.
1/12/2010
GRIST FOR THE MILL
A family member sends me a link to this news story about a marvelous creature, the sea slug Elysia chlorotica:
I know, it looks like a leaf. But, actually, its a mollusc, specifically a gastropod, like the snails and slugs you might find in your garden. This particular slug's green color is derived from the fact that it sucks up up intertidal algae as a food source and actually incorporates some of the captured chloroplasts into its own cells. The significance of the news item is that scientists from the University of South Florida have shown that the slug has acquired the genes to manufacture its own chlorophyll, a pigment required for photosynthesis. That is a little mind-blowing, and the best guess put forward to how this happened is a process (horizontal gene transfer) usually associated with bacteria.
Most of us have grown up knowing that plants do photosynthesis, and animals eat the plants. Plants are said to be autotrophs ('self-feeders') since they make their own food, while organisms like ourselves are described as heterotrophs ('other-feeders') since we eat the plants or some other creature higher up in the food chain based on the plants.
But the skimpy MSNBC article I was originally sent is a little breathless* when it describes the creature as 'half-plant, half-animal.' I (ahem) 'fished' around for other news coverage , and while this article is better on the science, it still uses the (misleading) 'part animal, part plant' tagline.
In the first place, algae are not plants, anymore than mushrooms are plants. While photosynthetic like plants (which are multicellular), algae as a group are simpler, the vast majority unicellular and found in aquatic environments. Algae are actually a very diverse group, more so than the plants, with many important biochemical differences, and phylogenetic studies reveals that the common ancestor of today's land plants and modern-day algae lived nearly 500 million years ago. Bottom line: algae are similar to plants in some ways, but different in others and they are not all that closely related.
In the second place, it would be just as clumsy to describe the sea slug Elysia chlorotica as 'half-animal, half-algae' . Elysia chlorotia is still a sea slug, it is still a mollusc, it is still 100 percent animal. How can I say that? Because, morphologically and behaviorally it is still defined in those terms: it is a heterotrophic, ingestive, predatory.
People will no doubt wonder if all these distinctions matter. After all, doesn't the sea slug have some algae genes? There is a subtle point that needs to be acknowledged, however. While properly speaking genes from algae could be called 'algae genes', there is nothing inherently 'algae-ish' about the genes. Genes are simply instructions to build proteins, and the fact that a sea slug appears to have acquired a recipe for building something exotic doesn't mean that it's now anything other than a sea slug.
After all, you and I both have fifty percent of the same genes as a banana. That doesn't make us 'half-person, half-plant'.
Now, some (often creationists) have suggested that the fact of horizontal gene transfer is a blow to the old 'tree of life' image in biology, that there might be something fundamentally wrong with the notion of common descent. Please. We can still draw phylogenetic trees, we just have to add some horizontal nodes to our branching diagrams:
All this does is establish another mechanism for the generation of genetic diversity in populations. If it is to be of value to any population, the incorporation of new genes must somehow enhance fitness. Natural selection will still be involved, and if the venerable image of a tree can not always be mapped exclusively to "vertical" branches, oh well. Evolution still happens!
* There are lots and lots of organisms that are not plants, but can still photosynthesize or which have little photosynthesizers living in them. Euglenoids, for example, are well-known protists that swim, they eat other microorganisms, and turn sunlight into sugars.
12/07/2009
EUGENIE SCOTT VIDEO, PARTS 1-?
Here's the opening segment. I'm going to have to split the second segment into two parts in order to get them on YouTube, so that may have to wait until tomorrow:
12/04/2009
GENIE!
WOW.....
So, like, we had a really big crowd for Dr. Scott's talk on Wednesday evening:
As it turned out, I was sort of drafted at the last minute to tape Dr. Scott's talk (with her permission!) since I had brought my little Flip video recorder. All praise to the Generator Of Diversity, Madhu was able to loan me a tripod, or else I really wouldn't have been able to enjoy the talk. I couldn't video the whole deal with the Flip's limited hard drive, but Madhu also recorded the audio, which we hope to podcast.
Who knows? We may be able to combine the audio, what video I have and the Power Point and make a pretty slick little deal. But, seriously, while I love my Flip, the resolution is pretty low and I am starting to wonder what it's going to take for me or some other local science geek to invest in a better video setup for these kinds of events. I'd like to come up with some one-size-fits-all technology that would connect to any presenter's laptop, automatically stream the images of their Power Point, and record their audio to hard disk. Any thoughts, gentle reader?
Here's a brief (and probably incomplete) outline of Dr. Scott's talk:
1) Introductory remarks, the image of 'monkey to man', through presentation of the evidence for descent with modification (Darwin's original phrase), which is to say, evolution from a common ancestor
2) Exploration of the nature of science, drawing on an idea of the physicist James Trefil:
(click on the picture to read the introductory chapter of Dr. Scott's book 'Evolution and Creationism' )
3) The 'Pillars of Creationism'
4) The Creation-Evolution Continuum
5) A brief discussion of the role played by NCSE in defending the teaching of evolution.
Anyway, in a few days I'll start releasing segments of the talk here as YouTube thingies.
8/11/2009
EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM: THE SHORT COURSE
Yours truly will be teaching it, as shown in this snapshot from the local web site:
I'm afraid my course isn't highlighted at the web site, but there is also a link here to a PDF version of the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute's offerings this fall in Fresno. The details of the course are as follows:
I received the opportunity to do this out of the blue in late April. I hope to offer a user-friendly, engaging but uncompromising course. Anyone can become an Associate Member of Osher for $15 per semester, and the course fee is an additional $30. If interested, please contact the Osher Institute:
Phone # 1-559-278-0008
Email: osher@csufresno.edu
5/15/2009
FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD
Gasp! A concern has been raised as to what gets taught in Mr. Hatfield's classes concerning evolution, and I've decided it would be prudent for me to publicly state what I've privately affirmed to colleagues within district channels. If you've no interest in the question of what should be taught, skip this post. If you want to see how folks like me handle such questions, read on.....
As it happens, at the beginning of 4th period yesterday (May 14th) , a concerned student asked me why she had been called into the office to discuss 'religion.' If this student is to be believed, she was asked to verify claims that I was pushing religion in the classroom. The student was more than a bit shocked by this, and was frankly a little worried. I played it off, but in the back of my mind, little wheels clicked as I quickly reviewed my own memories of what, exactly, I've been covering: 'Where is this coming from?' This comes a few days after a V.P. visited me and asked me similar questions, such as 'Did I say God did not exist?' or some such.
Which, of course, never happened. But apparently some parent has got a bee in their bonnet because their student repeated (accurately) the (correct) claim that evolution is a fact. There is an understandable confusion here: evolution is of course a fact, but the public hears us saying 'evolutionary theory' or 'theory of evolution', which leads to the mistaken impression that evolution itself is 'just a theory'.
Anyway, for the record, Mr. Hatfield teaches the same evolution that the other teachers at Bullard High School teach, the evolution described in the state standards and in our approved text (Miller and Levine). The latter defines it as a fact, as follows: 'Evolution, or change over time, is the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organism." Later on, the book gives a more technical definition: "In genetic terms, evolution is any change in the relative frequency of alleles in a population."
Neither one of these are theoretical objects! They are brute facts about the natural world: populations do change over time, and this change is known to have a genetic basis. I would prefer to meet privately with any parents to address these concerns, but since that course was apparently not being pursued it seemed prudent to make public disclaimers.
But, of course, the real issue is that there are parents out there who want their children to be protected from pesky little facts that, in their minds, contradict what they hold near and dear. They believe that evolution is a belief system of sorts whose purpose is to knock their (religious) beliefs, and since they think it's all about belief, many of them are convinced that they are entitled to have evolution and natural selection presented as purely theoretical objects. They expect us to essentially cater to this point of view as a matter of religious freedom, and they think anyone who has the candor to tell them otherwise is somehow stepping on their civil rights.
I don't know how to be nice when I hear this argument, because being nice tends to legitimize the underlying assumptions, which are rotten to the core. There is no civil right guaranteeing any of us the facts of our choice where science is concerned. Evolution itself is not a theoretical object, no matter how much some creationists might wish it to be true---and the Establishment Clause does not give them the right to privilege their unscientific views within a science classroom.
Now, I would never make an issue of any of the above stuff in a classroom setting, for a lot of reasons, but the most important being is that it's the wrong forum for that discussion. Students and parents have an absolute right to believe what they want and their beliefs should be treated with respect by teachers and administrators. I think the best way to do that is to be very clear about what is factual, and what isn't, and make it clear that deciding the implications of evolutionary theory is a topic best left to individual students and parents. But, if I'm going to do that, then parents and students owe it to themselves to discuss these things with the instructor first before starting a fight they are unlikely to win.
3/24/2009
THIS JUST IN . . .
Caldwell loses. What a shocker.
I've posted about this before when they were denied by the Court of Appeals, and now the State Supreme Court essentially allows their complaint to perish from lack of attention.
Casey Luskin, are you paying attention? I've urged you to take me to court when you complained that NCSE and others who acknowledged faith traditions accepting evolution were trammeling on the Establishment Clause. I double-dog dared you. I guess maybe I was right when I claimed back then that you and the rest of the DI's lawyers were empty suits, grandstanding by offering some 'legalese' for the faithful that you knew would never pass muster in the courts. You could've at least saved Larry Caldwell some trouble by giving him some of that free advice you dispensed so liberally in the Dover case. Hello?
Silence.
Ftk, who made a federal case of this line of reasoning, where are you on Caldwell's setback? No comments, even after I invited you or any of your fellow travelers to observe my class and see if you could catch me indocrinating anyone? I even gave out my cell phone, but no one took me up on my offer back then. Curious!
Starwind, who filled up my comments thread with lengthy sermons as to my supposed hypocrisy on this point, nothing to say? I mean, really, this is pretty much a rejection by the courts of the merits of your argument, which claimed that even an allusion to or an acknowledgement of evolution-friendly belief was somehow prejudicial.
I hear crickets.
3/18/2009
BEN STEIN IN FRESNO
I won't be attending, but the odious Mr. Stein can be observed plying his trade as a social commentator at my alma mater on Thursday evening. A sparring partner of mine dropped me a line about it, and I wrote back to say I wouldn't attend, and why. Here's my reasoning:
1) From what I understand, his main topic is going to concern economic and political things, rather than 'Expelled', which was kind of a dud in the theatres. I was going to take some Bullard kids to see it, but River Park yanked it from their screens after only a one-week run so they could add more showings of 'Iron Man'. I suspect anyone hoping to hear an indepth discussion of ID's merits is going to be disappointed, and that would be the only thing I'd be remotely interested in hearing.
2) I've also agreed to help out the choir at my church's 11:00 service get ready for Holy Week, and their rehearsals are on Thursday. My church commitments take priority over my personal interests here.
3) But, to be frank, even if I didn't have other commitments and even if he was going to focus on his support for ID, I just can't see giving Stein any money. I've seen his movie, and it's just not worth making much of a fuss about. A couple of my science colleagues screened an advance publicity awhile back and I got to see it for free. Ironically, I've been offered bootleg copies of 'Expelled' more than once by people from the pews who seem unclear about the fact that they are violating the crap out of Ben Stein's money! Poor Ben: does he know that many of the churches which are the main audience for his film are peddling pirated DVD's? Maybe this falls under the category of 'no bad publicity.'
Anyway, I've seen enough of the film to know that it largely manufactures controversies where none exists. ID needs to adduce positive evidence on behalf of its proposed mechanism of design that will pass muster with the scientific community, and so far it has failed to do this. That doesn't mean that they are the victim of a conspiracy. Really, if anyone has cause to complain about a conspiracy, it should be the scientific community that was the object of Philip Johnson's secretive 'Wedge' Strategy.
There is no evidence that Sternberg or Gonzales lost any privileges to which they were entitled due to their ID sympathies. If they have such evidence, they should litigate and let the facts come out, not turn their pity parties into a sideshow serving the propaganda wing of American fundamentalism. The whole enterprise is (ahem) fundamentally dishonest, because the film isn't about science at all. It's about ideology, and one side crying 'foul!' about the tactics of the other side. And I get enough of that for free without paying fifteen bucks for it.
3/02/2009
NEW CREATIONIST ARGUMENT: THE "CONSTITUTION"
Here's a thought-provoking exchange from the comments on the Florida Citizens for Science site that deserves to be read by thinking people. The post to which the comments are filed has to do with the filing of SB 2396 in the state of Florida by state Senator Stephen Wise, who is already on the record as an ID-style creationist.
Wise essentially amends an existing law by making insertions at the very front of the law to add language requiring, well, this:
21 (a) A thorough presentation and critical analysis of the
22 scientific theory of evolution.
23 (b)(a) The history and content of the Declaration of
24 Independence, including national sovereignty, natural law, self
25 evident truth,
Now, this seemingly-innocuous language ('critical analysis') has been shown time and time again to be a dodge to give legal cover for science teachers to introduce unfounded and discredited creationist arguments under the guise of critical thinking. That's easy to establish for anyone who wants to research this further. The Panda's Thumb, NCSE and Florida native Wesley Elsberry all have some good stuff on this, if you're interested.
But the following exchange in the comments is really thought-provoking. Recall that Wise also adds some specific language about the Declaration of Independence, which I didn't initially notice meself. An observant fellow poses a question . . .
Patrick Henry: Strange to put so much emphasis on the Declaration, important as it is. What about the Constitution?
Glenn Branch (NCSE): Perhaps because the Declaration mentions “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “divine Providence,” while the Constitution’s language is resolutely non-religious.
Patrick Henry: You’re right, Glenn, but the Declaration — although a splendid document, isn’t the law.
Dave Campbell: This is part of a continuing trend. Focus on the Family’s James Dobson was interviewed on Faux News a couple of weeks ago and quoted the, “…endowed by their Creator…” line from the “Constitution” in an attempt to support the inherently Christian nature of our government. His interviewer obviously noticed the erroneous citation (body language is wonderful) but kept his mouth shut. Creationists have been doing that a lot lately, quoting the Declaration of Independence to support their theocratic goals. Patrick Henry is (as usual) right. Great document, beautiful language, lofty ideals, and absolutely NO legal standing in the courts. It’s bad enough these people don’t understand basic biology. They can’t even cite (correctly) the nation’s foundation documents.
The appearance to which the last commenter alludes to may be this one, though Glenn Beck seems merely in a hurry to get to a commercial break to me. And it might be an error, but then it again it might be part of a deliberate strategy to reinvent our history to appeal to the 'persecuted religious minority' trope that the entire piece is invested in. But check it out for yourself, make up your own mind: the money quote, in response to a prompt from Beck, comes around 4:15 into the video. I'd embed it, but the thought of these two guys on my blog at the same time...well.....
But wait, there's more. Fresh off the presses, who should fall into the same ideological wheelrut but the country's most popular conservative radio shock jock (and some would say, most popular conservative with conservatives):
In this case, the 'money quote' occurs around 6:30 into the video. Now, this is actually a fairly well-delivered speech overall, unlike the self-indulgent style of his radio broadcasts, and I think you could make a case that Mr. Limbaugh is just confused. But, whether he knows his stuff or not, mixing up these two documents is going to be perceived for the conceptual bait-and-switch that it is. Here, of course, the minority group under siege is the conservative wing of the Republican Party, which somehow managed to control both the Executive Branch, the Supreme Court and Congress for six of the least eight years. Amazing how they became a persecuted bunch so quickly: I wonder how that happened.
Anyway, it's clarifying to see how easily all this stuff dovetails for some people. The same arguments that are used to justify creationism are the ones put forward on behalf of prayer in school and other issues to which social conservatives feel they should be privileged.
2/24/2009
20-MINUTE TAKEDOWN
I have insomnia. I'm bored and it's 2:00 in the morning. Here are some claims from some individual named Do-While Jones, available here, supposedly about conclusions from a Scientific American article:
- Darwin’s theory has been dramatically revised because Darwin got it mostly wrong.
- Furthermore, most of the aspects of evolution that are “true” today will be rejected in the future.
- There is no molecular proof that natural selection is responsible for all the life forms on Earth.
- Nobody knows how life could possibly invent complex traits.
- The story of human evolution is far from complete because there are only a handful of fossils, resulting in many different interpretations.
- The future of human evolution is potentially disastrous if we try to accelerate evolution artificially.
- The foundation of pop evolutionary psychology is baseless speculation, resulting in four major fallacies which affect human attitudes toward morality.
- Some computer programs and a few other things incorrectly called “evolution” are really useful, but they don’t really have anything to do with biological evolution.
- Most importantly, we can’t tell any of our public school students these things because it might lead to Christianity!
Look, it only took me about twenty minutes to grab this guy's text and rebut or recast (correctly) his misleading claims. What you've got here is another retired engineer making noises about science that they often clearly fail to understand. Hint, hint!
2/12/2009
HAPPY DARWIN DAY!
My counter has reached zero....and that means it's time to party, to celebrate the birth of the young man (shown in this portrait with his sister) on the right!
Charles Darwin's 200th birthday is indeed time for celebration. Darwin's contributions to the biological sciences are arguably the most significant, in that without evolution, much of biology would be fragmented into different camps of data-gatherers, with no explanatory framework to unite all the stamp-collecting. But, thanks to TENS (the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection), we can bring the disparate observations together into a single web of great power. Dobzhansky's famous quote says it all.
So, let me take this moment to remind folk of their opportunities today. This evening, as previously mentioned, I'll be attending an evening event sponsored by New Covenant Community Church and the local chapter of Reasons To Believe. As I said to one of my fellow Darwinians, this is my cross to bear. For those not interested in the speculations of creationists, or who don't feel an obligation to attend such, let me commend the following events in and around Fresno:
Darwin Birthday Celebration and Reception
Feb 12th, 2009, 4:00 PM
Downing Planetarium and Museum
Darwin Day Dinner (lecture, "Darwin's Finches")
Feb 12th, 2009, 7:00 PM
Carrow's Restaurant
4280 N. Blackstone (major cross streets: Blackstone and Ashlan)
Darwin's Ideas and the Societal Impact of Evolutionary Biology
Feb 13th, 2009, 3:00 PM
Science II Building, Room 109
There may be more events emerging this month as well, and I'll try to post them as I find info about them. If you don't live in the Fresno area, but you'd be interested in finding a Darwin Day event, have I got a web site for you! Check out Darwin Day Celebration. It has a searchable database of events, and as of this post the list is 371 events in 31 countries. Pretty wild!
HAPPY DARWIN DAY!
2/11/2009
WHEREFORE DARWINISM?
To celebrate Darwin, should we celebrate 'Darwinism'?
This op-ed from the Times says, in effect 'no'. PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne, gasp, agree with one another: they don't like the piece's rhetorical sallies. Well, bully for them, but I have to admit I'm more sympathetic to Carl Safina than they are.
Here's an observation to set my claim in stark relief, a list of the top 20 titles from Amazon.com with the word 'Darwinism' in the title whose central focus is closely related to evolution (I've omitted irrelevant titles, like Richard Hofstadter's 'Social Darwinism in American Thought'.
1) Darwinism and Its Discontents (Ruse)
2) Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds (Johnson)
3) Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Wells)
4) Exposing Darwinism's Weak Link (Poppe)
5) Darwinism (Wallace)
6) Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Milton)
7) Reclaiming Science From Darwinism (Poppe)
8) Darwinism and Philosophy (Hosle and Islies)
9) Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism (Behe)
10) Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists (Wiker and Dembski)
11) Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (Perloff)
12) Darwinism Evolving (Pew and Weber)
13) Neural Darwinism (Edelman)
14) Darwinism Comes To America (Numbers)
15) Darwinism and the Divine in America (Roberts)
16) Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism (Rachels)
17) Disseminating Darwinism (Numbers and Stenhouse)
18) Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who find Darwinism Unconvincing (Wilson and Dembski)
19) Darwinism Under the Microscope (Gills and Woodward)
20) Darwinism Applied to Social Goals (Beckstrom)
Three (1,8, 16) are works in the philosophy of biology. Ruse's work also covers much of the history of the 'evo-creo wars', as does 12, 14, 15, and 17.
Wallace's book (5) is basically of historical interest, a facsimile of an 1889 publication.
So how many books does that leave with 'Darwinism' in the title that are contemporary science books, instead of polemics or treatises motivated by interests in history, religion or philosophy?
Three (12, 13 and 20), and they are not concerned principally with documenting or describing mainstream evolutionary biology, but with applications of evolutionary concepts to (respectively) complex adaptive systems, brain function and the social sciences.
The remaining ten, fully half of the twenty, are creationist screeds, mainly from Discovery Institute stooges, highlighted in red. It is worth noting, as well, that these wastes of ink represent seven of the first ten.
I get similar results from searches for 'evolutionism', 'Darwinist' and 'evolutionist'. Very few titles having anything to do with contemporary science. Much about the history and philosophy of biology, discussions of 'social Darwinism' and (of course), a considerable number of Bible-based batshit.
So I think, really, I've made my point. 'Darwinism' has been hopelessly coopted, primarily by the creationists and secondarily by the various academics who study either the historical or present 'controversies' engendered by the cottage industry of creationism within the churches. It can no longer serve a legitimate scientific usage in North America. Let it go, and let those who use it to attack science be forced to wear it, like Cain's mark.
2/07/2009
KAUFMANN ON DARWIN DAY
CSU Fresno professor of chemistry (emeritus!) George Kauffman is among the most-published fellas in the Central Valley, and in today's Fresno Bee he has yet another op-ed, this time on the upcoming Darwin Day celebrations.
Unfortunately, while Dr. Kauffman praises Darwin's influence, and identifies some things going on outside of Fresno, he fails to either explain the science or publicize any of the local events devoted to a discussion of the science. One can only hope that the Biology Department will get another piece in the Bee prior to Feb. 12th to address those concerns, but I worry that our efforts to reach out to the community will be defined by this gentleman's polemic. Kauffman seems less interested in Darwin or in evolution, than in explaining his opposition to creationism:
Paleontologist Kevin Padian's expert witness testimony at the 2005 Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trial (tinyurl.com/2nlgar) destroys creationism's false assertions of critical gaps in the fossil record. Judge John E. Jones III decided, "The evidence demonstrates that [intelligent design] is nothing less than the progeny of creationism.The overwhelming evidence established that [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.
Nevertheless, creationists who want religious ideas taught as scientific fact in public schools continue to hide their true aims under ever-changing guises. Despite President Obama's promise, "We will restore science to its rightful place," creationism is still alive in the United States, and, according to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, which drafted a resolution. "The Dangers of Creationism in Education" (tinyurl.com/2knrqy), is on the rise in Europe. The resolution concludes, "There is absolutely no doubt that evolution is a central theory for our understanding of the Universe and of life on Earth. Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design,' is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning, and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes."
Evolution is as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth around the Sun, which were once theories. Yet creationists continue to play on the uncertainties shown by some citizens. Rather than wasting time and effort pursuing the impossible task of trying to convince creationists of the falsity of their changing positions, educators would do better to concentrate on enlightening those persons who are uncertain but still have open minds.
There may be no better way to celebrate Darwin's anniversary than to inform them of the incontrovertible evidence for evolution and to convince policymakers not to accede to creationist proposals.
Well, darn. While Kaufman's piece has some good things to commend it (notably several links to on-line sources for more info), the emphasis at the end leaves much to be desired. I wouldn't have written up a 'Darwin Day' piece that mentions some variant of 'creationism' 11 times, almost as many times (13) as 'evolution.' In fact, I wouldn't have mentioned 'creationism' at all, precisely because it has no scientific standing. Instead, I would've acknowledged that there are diversity of religious views on the topic of origins, but that many people from all walks of life have made their peace with evolution, and be done with it.My caution on this point has to do with the fact that the purpose of 'Darwin Day' is to celebrate a great scientist's contribution to science and culture, rather than to provoke another exchange in the so-called 'Fish Wars'. Doubtless, no matter what we evolution enthusiasts say, there will be flack from the other side, but Kauffman's piece can be arguably said to have fired a preemptive strike toward the pews, whom Kauffman evidently feels are not worthy of engagment, anyway, since changing their minds is (in his words) an 'impossible task.'
No, sorry, Dr. Kauffman, but you are wrong. It is not an 'impossible task'. I know for a fact that people with deeply-seated creationist views can come to a place where their religious understanding is honored without placing them on a collision course with science education. But it takes tact and sympathy on the part of evolution's advocates to reach that point, not an upfront declaration that such folk are benighted and without hope.
Now, there is a time and a place for everything. Anyone who knows me will know that I agree whole-heartedly with the fact that legitimate science education has from time to time required public engagement. Creationism in all of its forms, whether called 'creation science' or 'intelligent design', has failed to pass muster as science with the scientific community.
Unfortunately, the courts are the wrong place to adjudicate what science should be taught in the public schools. There is no guarantee of quality science education in the Constitution. The court's task when such conflicts arise is essentially negative with respect to the exercise of religious speech, rather than positive with respect to science. This reinforces the understandable but false belief held by so many creationists, that they are increasingly besieged by a culture that is hostile to faith. 'Warning shots' aimed at some believers in an op-ed column may make people like Dr. Kaufman feel good about themselves, but they also unnecessarily narrow the possibility of dialogue. Evolution remains enshrined in the textbooks and defended by the courts, but misunderstood and mistrusted in the public square. Not exactly the best publicity for Charles Darwin!
Worse, the lack of respectful engagement leads to the real problem---which is not that creationism occasionally leaks into the curriculum, but that still so many teachers either omit, distort or truncate any discussion of evolution. I have said previously that much of the resistance to evolution education is not inherently religious or related to any particular understanding of scripture, but is instead conceptual in nature. These latter problems can not be addressed by eliminating any and all references to a Creator in the public schools. They require a renewed commitment to teaching the depth and breadth of evolutionary biology, first to the next generation of public school science teachers, and then students, and then their communities.
