Where do the big jumps come from in evolution?

One of the most puzzling aspects of the development of life, and a major argument for Intelligent Design, has always been how do the big jumps come about?

According to EurekAlert a book co-authored by a Harvard Medical School professor and a professor from the University of California-Berkeley entitled "The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin's Dilemma," addresses this very question.

Apparently the book describes how newly discovered molecular properties of organisms facilitate evolution and how "the development of new arrangements of interlocking parts that some call 'irreducibly complex,' can only be understood in the light of the last 20 years of research in cell biology and development."

Someone call Michael Behe and let him know that the pile of published information on molecular evolution, which he claims doesn't exist, just got higher. Perhaps if Behe would spend more time tracking developments in his own field and less time providing text for creationist books such as "Of Pandas and People" he might learn a thing or three.

This is the critical difference between a science, such as evolution, and intelligent design. The response in science to "I don't know" is "let's try something else or let's look for new information because the answer is out there someplace." In intelligent design the response is "GOD DID IT, WE'RE DONE."

As I've said before, even if intelligent design is true, we'd all be a lot better off pretending that it's false.

Now here's where "faith" comes in or what I prefer to call "confidence." I am not going to attempt to read this book. I'm certain I don't have the training to understand it so it wouldn't do me any good to even try. However, I have "confidence" that a professor of Harvard and a Professor of the University of California-Berkeley are quite competent and that their work has been extensively peer reviewed by other knowledgable experts and found to have merit. Therefore, I am willing to accept that what they say in their book is very probably true.

Yes, this is a form of "Appeal to Authority" but notice that I didn't say that it was 100% certain that it was true, just very probably true and until someone comes along and demonstrates a problem with their conclusions, that strikes me as a reasonable position to take.

I might point out that people like Dr. Dino, the guy that runs Answers in Genesis and the guy that gives "biblically correct" science museam tours have to reject the work, or adjust the conclusions, of these gentlemen out of hand because it conflicts with their fundamental premise.

Can somebody, anybody, explain to me how a dogma driven rejection makes sense? As Galileo said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

Kansas Can't use Evolution Papers

The New York Times reported today that The National Academy of Sciences and the National Science Teachers Association have notified the state of Kansas that they cannot use the copyrighted materials of the two agencies in their new "science" standards.

In a joint statement the two groups soundly criticized the new standards. "Kansas students will not be well-prepared for the rigors of higher education or the demands of an increasingly complex and technologically-driven world if their science education is based on these standards."

The American Association for the Advancement of Science supported the copyright denial, saying: "Students are ill-served by any effort in science classrooms to blur the distinction between science and other ways of knowing, including those concerned with the supernatural."

Of course none of this phased the six conservative members of the state school board who indicated it would simply require some minor modifications. Others weren't so sure. The chairman of the standards-writing committee, an assistant research professor at the University of Kansas who opposes the criticism of evolution that conservatives inserted into the standards, is reported to have said that copyrighted material appears on almost all of the document's 100 pages, and to have predicted it could take two to three months to revise them.

Earth to Kansas, earth to Kansas, here's hoping you people have the brains to vote these yahoos out next year. Concept, they are focusing on their own agenda and not focusing on what is best for the students of Kansas.

More of the same

I keep reading articles from various places around the country, but to be honest, I haven’t seen anything new.

The Intelligent Design folks keep claiming its science and that the refusal to accept Intelligent Design by the scientific community is some kind of censorship. Come on guys, how about you haven't presented anything of substance beyond "Wow, that looks designed to me" as evidence. As a matter of fact, after listening to Behe, I'm not even sure what the hell the hypothesis is anymore nor do I suspect does anyone else including Behe.

I got the impression that Mike is sort of making things up as he goes along and not worrying about the accuracy of what he makes up. I also found it rather problematic that NO ADVANCES have been made in "Intelligent Design" since the hypothesis was first articulated some 15+ years ago while every real science, including molecular biology, is advancing at warp speed.

I did find it interesting that Behe thinks the “discovery” of Intelligent Design ranks as one of the great scientific achievements in history comparable to Newton, Einstein and others of that stature. The man does have some arrogance doesn’t he? I hate to tell him, but “Intelligent Design” was documented by the ancient Hebrews some 3,000 years ago and they presented a better case.

A new telephone poll by CBS claims that 51% of the country believes God created man in his current form while some 45% accept that man evolved and most of those, 30% out of the 45%, believe that evolution was divinely guided.

I don’t have a lot of faith in telephone polls and these numbers are significantly different from the higher resolution poll done by the Pew Research Center in August so I’ll take the CBS results with a grain of salt.

The President of Cornell University, in his state of the University address, while clearly trying to call for an atmosphere of co-operation and compromise in what appears to be a highly divided country, also clearly labeled Intelligent Design as not science.

Intelligent Design advocates are holding a conference in Prague however most Czech scholars are ignoring it. The chairman of the Czech Academy of Sciences called the conference "useless."

The Dover trial is behind schedule apparently but should be nearing its end. I’m having some trouble figuring out what is being accomplished there. I suspect that the court made up its mind before the trial even began and nothing that occurs is going to change that position. Unfortunately I have no clue as to what that position is.

Religion = Dysfunction?

An article in the “Journal of Religion and Society” entitled “Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look” comes to some interesting conclusions.

The abstract states:

“Large-scale surveys show dramatic declines in religiosity in favor of secularization in the developed democracies. Popular acceptance of evolutionary science correlates negatively with levels of religiosity, and the United States is the only prosperous nation where the majority absolutely believes in a creator and evolutionary science is unpopular. Abundant data is available on rates of societal dysfunction and health in the first world. Cross-national comparisons of highly differing rates of religiosity and societal conditions form a mass epidemiological experiment that can be used to test whether high rates of belief in and worship of a creator are necessary for high levels of social health. Data correlations show that in almost all regards the highly secular democracies consistently enjoy low rates of societal dysfunction, while pro-religious and anti-evolution America performs poorly.”

In other words, the more religious a society, THE HIGHER THE LEVEL OF DYSFUNCTION such as high violent crime rates, high murder rates and all that nasty stuff. Tom DeLay not withstanding, maybe evolution is PREVENTING more Columbines.

As perhaps further corroboration, in the poorly performing US, the most secular region, the Northeast, consistently has a lower violent crime rate and a lower murder rate than the most religious region, the South.

So, not only is religion perhaps the opiate of the people, it might also be the source of societal dysfunction too? Tsk, tsk.

Now we can have a new slogan. REDUCE CRIME - TEACH EVOLUTION!

The Text of the Lehigh Statement

While I’d seen a statement in the past attesting to the fact that the Lehigh biology department has distanced itself from Michael Behe’s Intelligent Design position I hadn’t seen the text of the statement.

The statement was reported in the Morning Call as:

''While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.''

Again, the point being that the scientific community is, at least for the moment, unimpressed and considers Behe’s ideas poor science. Now why would a rural school board pay attention to “poor science” if it didn’t line up with a religious agenda?

In the meantime, Channel 8 in Harrisburg has reported, “Behe said major scientific organizations and even his own colleagues have rejected intelligent design. But he said their objections aren't supported by scientific evidence.”

Well here we go with the “argument from arrogance” again. Only Behe understands the evidence. Everyone else, EVERYONE ELSE, is wrong. Tell me Mike, are you so sure because God told you so? Nah, erase that last statement, it wasn’t really a fair thing to say. Apparently Behe honestly believes in his “science.” But then again didn’t Pons and Fleischmann honestly believe that they had come up with a way to perform cold fusion? Should we be teaching high school physics students about their “fusion percolator?”

I don’t know how this judge is going to rule as the intricacies of the law is beyond my area of knowledge, but it seems pretty clear to me that the decision by the board could only have been driven by a religious agenda. There is no credible debate over the accuracy of evolution in the scientific community.

The only controversy that exists is between evolution and some religions. High School science classrooms are not the proper place to debate that controversy. Before one can consider both sides, one needs to know both sides! Students are told the religious side by parents and church from an early age. How about we give them the scientific perspective and THEN let them sort it all out.

The criticism about evolution being taught as a fact is, to be honest, rather nonsensical because according to science, IT IS A FACT! Just like 6 days of creation is considered a fact other places.

If there is truly a desire to teach critical thinking skills, then why not simply introduce instruction about the Scientific Method and how it applies to ALL sciences. I would think that teaching that all scientific theories, including evolution, are tentative would thrill them to no end.

Three sides of a triangle

I continue to read statements from the three sides and I’m, perhaps, slowly but surely sorting out the chaos. Three sides you ask? Yes three sides. We have Evolution, Intelligent Design and Creationism.

Evolution derives from the application of the scientific method. Collect empirical data and observations, establish a hypothesis to explain the empirical data, make predictions and gather additional data and observations and/or construct experiments in an attempt to validate or falsify the hypothesis. As new information becomes available, adjust the HYPOTHESIS as necessary.

I’m sorry kiddies but regardless of how often people say it to you Evolution is NOT “just a theory” nor does it require any faith for those who are knowledgeable. The only “faith” that might be involved is “faith,” for those with less knowledge, in the scientific community which overwhelmingly supports the accuracy of Evolution.

Is it possible that they’re wrong about evolution? Of course it is. The scientific community has been wrong in the past and will be wrong in the future which means it is very likely wrong about some things right now. Is it LIKELY they’re wrong? No it’s not. Given the successful record of the scientific method, the amount of evidence that has been piled up across virtually every scientific discipline and the amount of time the theory has been withstanding challenges, I’d say there are two chances, VERY slim and even slimmer than that.

Creationism starts with the hypothesis that God exists and the Bible relates how he created the universe, the earth and man. Any data or observations which come to light MUST be adapted to fit into the basic hypothesis. The entire discipline of Apologetics exists to insure that data and observations are made to fit the hypothesis in any way possible. While science attempts to identify what is probable, Apologetics is content if something that fits an awkward point into the hypothesis is possible regardless of how unlikely.

This is the critical difference between science and Apologetics. Science looks for the solution that best fits the empirical data regardless of the impact upon the hypothesis. Apologetics looks for any possible solution which allows the empirical data to fit the hypothesis.

At least I can understand this methodology. I think it’s absurd and childish but I understand it.

But where is Intelligent Design coming from? As far as I can tell it’s simply a combination of an Argument from Design, ala William Paley and his Watchmaker, AND an argument from arrogance. The arrogance part comes in when these folks decide that just because they can’t figure out how something came about, then no one else will ever be able to do so regardless of what may be learned as time goes on. Come to think of it, an argument from stupidity might be a better name. For about the thousandth time, if we had let the “god of the gaps” reign supreme and ended every investigation of what we didn’t understand with GOD DID IT, we’d still be convinced that lightning bolts were a manifestation of some god’s anger and be preparing virgins for the next sacrifice.

Now ID does claim its central hypothesis is based upon an attempt to explain empirical observations. What it has failed to do is establish any predictions or any methodology for testing its central hypothesis or any supporting hypotheses. This is why scientists don’t consider it science. It’s relying upon negative and not positive verification. Evolution can’t explain everything therefore you must, by default, accept design and around in a circle we go back to the argument from arrogance or stupidity.

Now creationists view ID as an ally based upon the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The average creationist sees evolution as an attack upon the existence of God and ID as perhaps a way of getting God back into the classroom. But here’s a flash for you kiddies, Behe, among others, appears to accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that evolution plays a part in the scheme of things. Now as to whether ID will shed this sheepskin once evolution is dead remains to be seen. I’m betting they would if they could ever kill evolution.

However if they intend to stick with the idea of evolution and design together being the answer on a 4.5 billion year old earth, the creationists may find that evolution and ID have more in common than ID and Creationism. Won’t that day be a chuckle.

UC Berkeley Sued over Evolution Page

Another law suit against the University of California. This one is over an Evolution web site. This suit is in addition to the suit over the university's refusal to accredit non-evolution biology courses and the slanted US History courses taught in some religious high schools.

The University of California at Berkeley has an “Understanding Evolution” web site that provides a nice overview of the theory including a “teacher’s resource” for grades K-12.

As a part of the teacher’s resource, there is a page which addresses “misconceptions.” One item labeled as a “misconception” is the idea that “Religion and Evolution are incompatible.” According to the Daily Californian, this is the source of the problem.

A parent has sued UC Berkeley claiming that the page violates the separation of church and state when it says that “most religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution and other scientific findings.”

According to the Californian the “plaintiff also took exception to a link for the National Center for Science Education Web site which includes religious statements on the theory of evolution by several religious denominations” and the suit claims that “the method the site uses forces students to ignore or change their respective religious beliefs in order to accept what the plaintiff calls ‘a government-sanctioned version of evolution.’”

But the site also says “some religious beliefs explicitly contradict science” so I guess I’m a little confused as to the point of all this.

The NCSE link leads to a page which lists 17 statements from religious organizations including the American Jewish Congress, the Roman Catholic Church and the United Presbyterian Church.

This suit is certainly an interesting twist. I suspect, it is based upon the misconception that calls evolution a “religion.” The state can, and does, sanction scientific and social positions.

As to whether a government site can make assessments of a religious nature and link to a site which quotes religious sources is rather an interesting question. I think however this particular site easily passes the modified Lemon Test.

Purpose Prong: Does the government action in question have a bona fide secular purpose?

Yes, the secular purpose is education with respect to science. The statements related to the misconception are accurate. Most religions have made their peace with evolution and the NCSE site provides the evidence of the accuracy of this statement. The site also acknowledges that some religious beliefs do contradict evolution.

Effects Prong: Does the government action have a primary effect of advancing religion: 1) government indoctrination, 2) defining the recipients of government benefits based on religion, and 3) excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Again, I think the answer here is clearly no unless one wants to argue that evolution is a religion.

I also think the site passes the Neutrality Test which requires that government be neither an ally nor an adversary of religion UNLESS, once again, either one considers evolution a religion in itself OR an adversary of religion.

Bottom line, this is a frivolous lawsuit that should get chucked at the first opportunity.

Behe Testifies in Dover

An AP article described Behe’s testimony, but that’s not what’s really important. What’s REALLY important is that the staff writer, Martha Raffaele, provided the type of background I expect from a good journalist. The kind of background which would allow a reader to put things into context.

Some points from the article that I feel obligated to comment on.

“Behe agues that evolution cannot fully explain the complexities of life, suggesting the work of an intelligent force.”

I wonder how he came to the conclusion that, even if evolution can’t explain them today, it won’t be able to explain them tomorrow? There’s that declaration of surrender again. We can’t figure it out BECAUSE it was designed. So no sense looking any further, we’re done. Basically Mike, horseshit. Maybe, maybe, I could take you seriously if you would hypothesize on WHO (or WHAT) the intelligent designer is, HOW he (she? It?) accomplished the design, WHEN the design was done and WHY the design was done. Hmmm, I’m starting to sound like a broken record.

“Behe contributed to the 1993 edition of “Of Pandas and People,” writing a section about blood clotting.”

Given “Of Pandas and People” seems to have started life as a creationist text, this makes me more than a little suspicious about the professor’s motives.

“He told a federal judge … that in the book he made a scientific argument that blood-clotting ‘is poorly explained by Darwinian processes but well explained by design.’”

How the hell can anything NOT be better explained by design when ones detailed knowledge of the processes involved must, by definition, be incomplete? I would think I could explain it better too by saying it was MAGIC while refusing to speculate on what type of magic.

“Lehigh’s biology department sought to distance itself from Behe in August, posting a statement on its web site that says the faculty ‘are unequivocal in their support of evolutionary theory.’”

Game, Set, Match! While I wouldn’t consider this the final word on the merits of intelligent design, I would accept this as the final word that the debate doesn’t belong in rural school boards or 9th grade biology classrooms. According to the article Behe achieved tenure before becoming a proponent of ID. I've been wondering about that.

I guess it's possible that Behe really believes he's engaging in true science. Still, calling a cow a horse doesn't make it one. Even if one is willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, there is lots of BAD, I mean REALLY BAD "science" out there. Should every crackpot hypothesis be taught in high school classrooms?

I think, obviously, that the answer has to be no. So let's let the scientific peer process do its job and stop trying to force what may be bad science into our classrooms because some folks find it compatible with their religious views.

Some Richard Dawkins Quotes

I just can’t resist. Like I said, he’s my new hero.

“It has become almost a cliché to remark that nobody boasts of ignorance of literature, but it is socially acceptable to boast ignorance of science and proudly claim incompetence in mathematics.”

Well that’s certainly true. Is it because so many people are illiterate in science and math that they have to rationalize it as ok? There is something fundamentally wrong with our institutions of education when this is the case. Note that I include JOURNALISM as one of those institutions. In a democracy it is the responsibility of journalism, print and broadcast, to help establish an INFORMED electorate.

I’m seriously beginning to wonder if universal suffrage is a good idea. Perhaps there should be some minimum knowledge base demonstrated or some minimal educational level achieved as a prerequisite for voting.

"Science offers us an explanation of how complexity (the difficult) arose out of simplicity (the easy). The hypothesis of God offers no worthwhile explanation for anything, for it simply postulates what we are trying to explain. It postulates the difficult to explain, and leaves it at that."

Like I said about Intelligent Design, “ID provides NO PATH TO INTELLECTUAL GROWTH. It begins with perfection, a Supreme Being, and ends with the conclusion that there’s no reason to understand how the universe works because GOD DID IT. The so-called explanations provided by ID are in fact a declaration of surrender. The universe is so complicated that man can’t hope to determine how it all came about, so just chalk it up to God and stop trying.”

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”

As reinforced by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:19 when he paraphrases Isaiah, “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

Translated, this is a warning to ignore earthly wisdom, such as science, if it conflicts with faith as defined in the bible. This admonition is one of the reasons why it is almost impossible to reason with a Christian Fundamentalist.

Other reasons are related to the psychological fact that religious adults usually have far too much of themselves invested in their faith. Younger folks often find it difficult to betray their parents who have the heavy investment. So it's unlikely we'll see much of a loosening of the stranglehold religion has upon the American public anytime soon.

“No doubt soaring cathedrals, stirring music, moving stories and parables, help a bit. But by far the most important variable determining your religion is the accident of birth.”

Amazing isn’t it? Yet virtually every single one of them will claim that they were just lucky to have been born into the true religion and their acceptance is based upon anything but an accident of birth.

“...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.”

Compromising with a lie is not a good idea and any such compromise will most likely come apart sooner or later. In the final analysis it is quite possible that religion and science are in a death struggle and inevitably one must destroy the other.

“Hot on the heels of its magnanimous pardoning of Galileo, the Vatican has now moved with even more lightning speed to recognise the truth of Darwinism.”

Damn Brits, when are they going to learn how to use the letter “z.” Like I’ve said, one certainly can’t accuse the Catholic Church of being a hotbed of progressive thought, but they’re ahead, at least in terms of evolution, of the evangelical Protestants you Brits dumped on us 400 or so years ago.

“There are all sorts of things that would be comforting. I expect an injection of morphine would be comforting... But to say that something is comforting is not to say that it's true.”

Dawkins way of warning us to avoid the fallacy of an “Appeal to Consequences.”

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.”

And if we were supposed to be satisfied with ignorance, why are, at least some of us, endowed with the desire to acquire knowledge and with the intelligence to achieve that desire. Ya think God set things up this way as a means of testing our willpower?

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”

I believe Bertrand Russell said something similar way back when. Statements like this sort of guarantee that Dawkins will continue to be viewed by some men of religion as a precursor of the anti-christ.

An Acolyte in the "Religion" of Evolution

In response to my post on DEFCON related to Dubyah's "code" about Harriet Miers beliefs, a gentlemen by the name of Jose took umbridge at my predicting Miers beliefs as a matter of dogma as follows:

"I bet you believe in the Theory of Evolution of Spicies (sic) by Natural Selection. Now that is a religiion (sic) and a dogma as people hold to it without reason. All of the scientific evidence contradicts it even though many scientists”believe” in it."

Jose's basic point being that "belief" in evolution is "dogma" while belief in Christianity, or at least Jose's belief in christianity, is based upon a "...careful examination of the evidence" (*cough, cough*). That the same "scientific evidence" that contradicts evolution Jose?

Anyway, I couldn't resist responding as follows:

Yup, you caught me Jose. I’m an acolyte in the Religion of Evolution. We BELIEVE for no reason whatsoever. Fossils aren’t evidence, DNA similarity isn’t evidence, observations related to genetic drift and natural selection aren’t evidence either. So tell me, what do you make of the discovery of the fossils of Buitreraptor Gonzelzorum (how’s THAT for a moniker. Say that fast 10 times I dare you!) in South America or those diminutive human like bones on the island of Flores? You figure this little beastie with serrated steak knife like teeth and those Hobbit like creatures had a place on the ark? How did they get from the mountains of Ararat to Indonesia and South America?

Now since you’ve found me out, I have to admit that not only is evolution part of our religious dogma, but so is the theory of tectonics along with all the rest of geology, paleontology, zoology, botany, anthropology, astronomy, cosmology PLUS a fair chunk of chemistry and physics.

Yup, you found us all out! It’s all a lie. Your computer doesn’t REALLY work, nor does your car. There are no antibiotics, no dialysis machines or cat scanners. All of science and all of the technology that has been derived from science is based upon dogmatic beliefs. Us scientists don’t test hypothesis, don’t run experiments, don’t trek to god awful places to make observations and don’t fight like cats and dogs over the implications of new information. We just BELIEVE in things like evolution simply to counter your well thought deductive conclusion about Christianity. Yes sir, I’ll come clean, as a Staff Scientist for 20 years I’m steeped in dogma. Yup, you done found me out.

Why didn’t I do this before?

Ok, I admit it, it was silly. WHY didn’t I go to “THE MAN” before! By “THE MAN” of course I am refering to Richard Dawkins. That noise you hear are all the evangelical christians in the world reaching for crosses to ward off the devil himself.

Dawkins’ explanations are so clear that even the relatively intellectually challanged (like moi) can understand what he’s saying. Consider Dawkins’ criticism of Michael Behe’s idea of “Irreducible Complexity;” rather than put a complex “why the system is not IR” argument on the table, Dawkins simply points out that Darwin was wrong, an IR system does not disprove evolution; IR systems are produced by evolution all the time!

Dawkins quotes the explanation provided by H. Allen Orr of how this can be.

“An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential.”

“The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers…But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential.”

“I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong.”

The next point made is that Behe makes the gross error of using analogies to draw conclusions rather than as simply a way to explain a conclusion. The latter is standard practice; the former is a blatant logical fallacy. Simply because A shares some characteristics with B (a plant is LIKE a factory), doesn’t mean that A shares ALL the characteristics of B or vice-versa. A factory is certainly NOT a living organism; a plant is NOT comprised of steel and concrete. Dawkins uses Behe’s mousetrap analogy to demonstrate this fallacy.

1. A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
2. A mousetrap is a product of design.
3. The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
4. Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
5. Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.

WRONG, the conclusion 5 does not follow from 4. The eye is like a camera, but I wouldn’t suggest trading in your oculars for a couple of Kodaks nor trying to take snapshots of the Grand Canyon by blinking. Just because two objects share some characteristics, you CANNOT conclude they share ALL characteristics.

Oh boy, I’m so excited. I think I have a new hero. There are lots of brilliant men that can’t explain jack and there are lots of men that can explain things but don’t know anything worth explaining. Nice to find one that’s both brilliant AND can explain things to the (relatively) intellectually challenged rest of us.

Hobbits and Raptors

Adding to the surreal quality of the evolution – creationism – intelligent design debate, while American journalism appears incapable of helping to establish a level of informed knowledge among the American people, it nevertheless dutifully reports scientific findings in its usual matter of fact style.

There are two stories making the rounds at the moment. The first involves the ongoing discoveries on the Indonesian island of Flores of the remains of what could be diminutive human like creatures which have been dubbed Hobbits. The carbon dating of charcoal found near the remains suggest they lived in a cave on the island as recently as 12,000 years ago. Other scientists aren’t particularly impressed with the conclusions and dismiss the remains as more likely humans with some sort of physical impairment leading to small bone size.

The other story relates to the discovery in South America of a rooster sized dinosaur of the raptor family and dubbed Buitreraptor Gonzelzorum (how’s THAT for a moniker. Say that fast 10 times I dare you! Hell, figure out how to pronounce it even.). I love the description of the beastie’s teeth as “serrated, like steak knives.” Based on the teeth, they figure it was a meat eater (yeah, sounds like a good guess to me). Apparently what’s interesting about this beastie is it implies that raptors have been around longer than anyone thought and possibly even before the breakup of Pangaea. Either that or two totally different species evolved independently (there’s that word) with strikingly similar characteristics. Add in the latest disagreement with the widely held hypothesis that birds evolved from dinosaurs, and I suspect that paleontologists will have stuff to argue about for quite a while.

So, now, in the interest of fairness, shouldn’t the news organizations also present the creationist and ID slants on these stories? Or would any reputible news organization get laughed out of business if it did? Do they even have a slant? If it's really science, then ID should be trying to explain these findings in terms of a "designer" in the same way that anthropologists and paleontologists are trying to explain them in terms of evolution. Come on boys, I don't hear you.

As far as the creationists are concerned, I supposed these discoveries are planted by Satan in order to confuse and mislead us? You figure the carbon dating of the charcoal on Flores is wrong? Was Buitreraptor of the steak knife teeth on the ark? How the hell did he get from Mt. Ararat to South America? How many different species do we have to discover before the fact that there WASN'T ENOUGH ROOM ON A FREAKING ARK TO HANDLE THEM becomes freaking obvious even to evangelical Christians?

Evangelicals and Evolution

In a USA Today article discussing the evolution vs. creationism debate the daughter of Billy Graham, evangelist Anne Graham Lotz is quoted as saying “If you believe you have evolved, you say your life is an accident, maybe even a mistake. You have come from nowhere. You are going nowhere, and your life has no eternal purpose. You don’t belong to anyone and you have no accounting to give to anyone.”

Sobering thoughts to be sure, but what does this have to do with the accuracy of evolutionary theory? First of all let’s start with the fact that one need not decide that evolution = God doesn’t exist. That question is beyond the scope of science to address. While I must admit evolution could be construed as evidence for atheism, it is certainly not conclusive and perhaps not even all that persuasive. How is it that Catholicism can make its peace with evolution, but Evangelical Protestantism can’t?

Secondly, but more importantly, Ms. Lotz is engaging in the same logical fallacy as Dr. Dino’s essayist, “The Appeal to Consequences of a Belief.”

The fact that you may find the consequences unpleasant has nothing to do with the truth of an idea or situation. I’m sure the passengers on the Titanic didn’t want to believe that the ship was doomed because of the consequences to themselves, but the ship sank anyway. The possibility that accepting the evidence for evolution might destroy one’s faith in God may be a reason for denying evolution, but it doesn’t make evolution any less true.

Dear Ms. Lotz, if your strength of character and faith are both so weak that you need to bolster them by denying the theory of evolution simply because it casts doubt upon your beliefs, then feel free to do so. However you will excuse me if some of us aren’t that cowardly and have the strength of character to accept the conclusions of science regardless of the potential unpleasant consequences.

Personally I prefer unpleasant reality to pleasant fairy tales.

School Vouchers and Creationism

In an article published by the Palm Beach Post it is pointed out that many of the private schools that accept state vouchers teach creationism rather than evolution and are apparently not held to Florida’s teaching standards.

There is a court case on the docket in California claiming the infringement of Freedom of Religion by the University of California because it has decreed that it will no longer accredit “science” courses that teach creationism or history courses that rewrite American history to line up with a religious agenda. I would think that Florida would at least want schools that accept vouchers to meet its educational standards.

Some of the quotes in the Palm Beach Post article are illuminating. For instance the principal of one private school is quoted as saying "Many of the parents bring their kids here because they want a Christian education. And a Christian education does not include evolution."

Many of the quotes were from either A Beka or Bob Jones “science” textbooks.

The Post reports that an eighth grade text from A Beka ends, according to its web site, "with a chapter on science versus the false philosophy of evolution."

So A Beka isn’t even willing to call evolution science! Wow, talk about being afraid of the competition. If you want to teach philosophy boys, may I recommend Immanuel Kant as I think learning the difference between science and religion would do you a world of good.

An A Beka sixth-grade science book teaches "the universe as the direct creation of God and refutes the man-made idea of evolution."

Actually, I can’t argue with calling evolution a man made idea, but do you think that A Beka points out that “The Bible” is also a “man made” idea, or at least it was written and copied through the centuries by men, or that there are people who figure that God is a man made idea? I don't suppose they go into Nietzsche at all do you?

A seventh-grade Bob Jones science book explains: "The Bible tells us that God directly created all things (John 1:3). The Bible contradicts the theory of evolution. In doing so, the Bible does not contradict true science, since evolution is not science."

I shudder to think what they call “true science.” Again there is this fear to even call evolution science, but calling a horse a cow doesn’t make it one. So according to the Post the state of Florida is paying for kids to learn that evolution isn’t even science. I wonder why we call biologists, zoologists and paleontologists scientists then?

These are the same curricula I’ve seen associated with Home Schooling. It’s incredible to me that in the 21st century this level of propaganda is allowed to be spoon fed to innocent children.

Its not very likely the damage can be repaired at the college level, even if these kids go to college, since often either they're headed for "Christian Colleges" or the propaganda is too firmly entrenched by then. This means that WE are faced with an undereducated portion of the electorate for the duration. No wonder this country is so screwed up.

Here’s my challenge to all those people that call themselves “Christians” but have so little faith in the strength of their “truth” that they have to isolate their children from other ideas that might contradict their dogma. What are you afraid of? Let’s put it all out on the table and see which “truth” comes out on top shall we?

University of Idaho President says “only evolution.”

This is an interesting development. The President of the University of Idaho has issued a directive that only Evolution may be taught in its biology and physical science classes. “Intelligent Design” may be taught in philosophy, religion, sociology or political science courses, but not in biology, life or physical science.

This is the first such directive by a University President and what makes it especially interesting is that one of the major supporters of Intelligent Design is a tenured professor at the University of Idaho’s school of Agriculture and is scheduled to testify in the Dover trial.

Predictably the Discovery Institute is howling in outrage claiming this is a violation of at least academic freedom if not freedom of speech. I certainly believe that a University President has some level of authority relating to the quality and accuracy of education at his institution. As to whether this kind of statement oversteps that authority, I will leave that question to people better qualified to make that kind of decision. In any event, I admire the man's courage and integrity. He did what he felt needed to be done.

Now let’s see if other university presidents show this kind of guts. For a starter, I’d like to hear from Lehigh, which provides Michael Behe with a pulpit.

Discovery Institute says Forrest distorting “Intelligent Design”

What else could they say? The whole strategy of Intelligent Design is to claim that it’s science and not religion. Forrest is doing her utmost to demonstrate that it’s religion and not science.

As I’ve said in the past, I’m willing to give the Discovery Institute some benefit of the doubt on this one, BUT if it’s science, then the theory needs to address what, how, when, why and WHO. They can’t continue to take what they call an agnostic position on the “designer” since if it’s impossible for a designer to exist, then it’s impossible for there to have been design.

Before I will begin to take ID seriously, it has to hypothesize WHO (or WHAT) the designer is, HOW he (she? it?) managed to do the design, WHEN the design occurred and WHY the design was done. All of these questions are addressed by evolution as follows:

WHO (or WHAT) = Natural processes
HOW = Random Mutation, Genetic Drift, Natural Selection
WHEN = Over the course of 4.5 billion years
WHY = Once things got going, simply to better insure the survival of the species. As for the genesis of the species, there may be no WHY, simply the random convergence of natural processes. In other words, we could be simply a cosmic accident.

I might point out that Creationsm, if I remember my catechism properly, also addresses all of these questions.

WHO = The Lord God
HOW = Through his Divine Power
WHEN = About 6,000 years ago according to Bishop Usher
WHY = So we could love God in this world and be happy with him in the next.

Ok, Intelligent Design dudes, your turn.

Cardinal Schoenborn Clarifies

No he’s not a utility infielder for St. Louis. Schoenborn is a Roman Catholic Cardinal from Vienna. Schoenborn caused a stir last July with statements that were interpreted as supporting the Intelligent Design movement in the US and perhaps, since Schoenborn is a close associate of Pope Benedict, a retreat by the Catholic Church from its acceptance of evolution.

Reuters has now reported that Schoenborn has made some clarifying statements which appear to deny that interpretation. Unfortunately Reuters chose to title its article “Cardinal backs evolution and ‘intelligent design.’’ This is another example of journalistic obfuscation. Schoenborn, in the statements reported such as “I see no problem combining belief in the creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition – that the limits of a scientific theory are respected” is clearly taking a theistic evolutionary position.

Statements to the effect that science must not move beyond its sphere and declare the non-existence of a creator or a total lack of divine design, perhaps in helping genetic modifications occur, is by no stretch of the imagination support for “Intelligent Design” which rejects evolution.

Such a statement is simply an accurate recognition that as religion shouldn’t trespass in science’s sphere, science must also respect religion’s sphere. I don’t see a problem with that statement. One can recognize that science, and in particular evolution, is evidence for the non-existence of God without accepting that evidence as definitive or even particularly persuasive. The problem with the average creationist is that he must have certainty. Science introduces uncertainty. This is why most creationists fear science.

Sounds to me like the Cardinal got torn a new one over his July comments and had to come up with a rationalization or perhaps he really was misunderstood. It really doesn't matter all that much; what is important is that the Catholic Church appears to still be willing to accept the basics of evolution.

I find it incredible that Catholicism, hardly a hotbed of radical progressive thought, can make its peace with Darwin but the most technologically advanced country in the world, the country that owes the most to science, can't.

Impressions of the Forrest Report

I downloaded and read Dr. Barbara Forrest’s Expert Report on Intelligent Design from the Dover trial and it’s a rather interesting read.

Somewhere along the line in perusing the 50 or so pages of the report I realized that what we really have here is a layered question that needs to be considered rather carefully.

Dr. Forrest addresses three major areas. Note that Forrest’s report is NOT organized this way and she covers many, many additional areas; I am reacting to my overall interpretation of the report.

Area #1 – The motives of the ID proponents is religious.

While this is clearly the case, and in fact not only religious but overwhelmingly Christian, I’m not certain that it matters. One can still pursue pure science for religious reasons. The motives of ID proponents are sort of irrelevant to the case. The motives of the Dover School Board are not, but the motives of the Discovery Institute are.

Area #2 – ID Rejects the Metaphysical Concept of Materialism as the sole existence.

Yeah, that it does, but then I know lots of people who accept evolution that reject it also. The existence of the supernatural is not, and never has been, incompatible with science, it’s simply that the supernatural is beyond the scope of science.

Science cannot deal with the supernatural and it must, by definition, act as if the totality of existence is the material world. Religion on the other hand can, and does, go beyond the natural into the supernatural. In other words, this is an accepted, even necessary, limitation that science voluntarily places itself under. Even if all the known evidence pointed to a supernatural cause, science MUST continue to look for a naturalistic conclusion or else it ceases to be science.

ID, by a logical extension of its conclusion that existence cannot come about by purely naturalistic processes, attempts to establish a supernatural conclusion as science. To do so would change the fundamental definition of “science.”

Area #3 – ID rejects the methodology of science.

This is, to my mind, the most damning indictment of all. In science one arrives at conclusions by analyzing the evidence at hand. ID starts with conclusions and then proceeds to search for evidence to substantiate those conclusions.

So the reality of the situation is that the proponents of ID would like to redefine science. First they would like to include acceptance of the supernatural and then they would like to side step the scientific method which calls for the evaluation of evidence. If one encounters a fact that contradicts a hypothesis, it is the hypothesis that must be abandoned and not the fact. ID however, with its foundation solidly entrenched in religious faith, can never accept any fact which potentially contradicts the existence of God. It would have to be rejected or explained away. Therefore rather than adjusting the hypothesis based upon the fact, the fact would have to be adjusted based upon the hypothesis. That being the case, I guess you COULD look at ID as a branch of Apologetics which Dr. Forrest points out its treated as in some places.

Once one has managed to bastardize the concept of science in this way, it’s a hop skip and a jump to dogma driven “scientific” conclusions. Science, as we know it, would cease to exist.

The Failure of American Journalism

In the article “Undoing Darwin” in the Columbia Journalism Review, Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet make the following excellent observations.

“At the very least, the flaws in the journalistic presentation of evolution by political reporters, TV news, and op-ed pages aren’t clarifying the issues.”

No they certainly aren’t. If I didn’t understand the underlying facts, most journalism on the subject wouldn’t have helped me much. Many articles have perpetuated common misunderstandings, such as that evolution teaches that men are descended from apes, that opponents of evolution use to their advantage. They also quote absurdities like "evolution is just a theory" with no critical evaluation or correction.

“Perhaps journalists should consider that unlike other social controversies — over abortion or gay marriage, for instance — the evolution debate is not solely a matter of subjective morality or political opinion. Rather, a definitive standard has been set by the scientific community on the science of evolution, and can easily be used to evaluate competing claims.”

Errr, more than perhaps especially when that definitive scientific standard cuts across virtually all branches of modern science including biology, zoology, paleontology, cosmology, astronomy, geology, physics and chemistry. To debate the validity of evolution is to debate not only the validity of all of modern science but also the validity of the scientific method itself. If one has any doubt about the accuracy of the scientific method, I refer them to technology, the offspring of science, which provides the strongest evidence of its effectiveness and its accuracy.

“Scientific societies, including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have taken strong stances affirming that evolution is the bedrock of modern biology. In such a situation, journalistic coverage that helps fan the flames of a nonexistent scientific controversy (and misrepresents what’s actually known) simply isn’t appropriate.”

This is what strikes me as the most disturbing. There is about as much controversy about evolution in the scientific community as there is about gravity. Yet poll after poll shows that the American public honestly believes that scientists are pretty much split over the validity of evolution. If it does nothing else, I would think that journalism in this country should at least take responsibility for insuring that the American public has the facts from which it can make an informed decision. I seriously think that much of the confusion here is the result of pure ignorance.

I find reprehensible the possibility that journalism in the United States has become so bankrupt that either it is afraid to take the strong position on the side of accuracy that is deserved or it chooses to perpetuate a phony controversy because it makes good copy.

Edward R. Morrow must be weeping at the sight of how a mighty institution has fallen. The vaunted 4th estate has become a source of embarressment rather than a source of pride. The guardian of truth and democracy appears to have deserted its post.

The Harriet Miers Nomination

Not strictly a Creationism/Evolution/Intelligent design issue, but I figured it might ulitmately have a significant effect, so I copied this from my Alencon's Place blog.

When Dubyah initially announced Harriet Miers as his nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Conner my initial reaction was "WHO?" After hearing some of the howls of disappointment from some on the Right, including Pat Buchannan, I thought for a second or two, "hey, maybe this won't be so bad." Then I remembered who nominated her.

Todays article in the Washington Post entitled "Church ties could shed light on Miers’ thinking:Faith in Jesus has shaped court pick’s personal values" REALLY scared the hell out of me. As a member of the Valley View Christian Church, she is committed, as a matter of religious faith, that abortion is murder, homosexuality is evil and that the bible is the literal truth.

What this could mean to YOU is:

1) A repeal of Roe vs Wade
2) A return of the anti-sodomy laws and forget gay marriage or civil unions
3) Creationsim being taught alongside evolution in the public schools
4) The display of Christian religious icons in public buildings and schools
5) Your tax dollars supporting parochial schools and other religious organizations

Ratification of Miers for the high court, given the current precarious balance, could be a catastrophe for the separation of church and state in this country. Miers is probably of the opinion, also as a matter of religious faith, that the separation of church and state is WRONG in a "Christian Country." Now we're not supposed to be anything but secular, but this appointment would be a big step toward a Christian Theocracy in this country that, by the way, will only have room for a certain brand of Christianity. If you're Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Liberal Protestant, I wouldn't expect any of those tax dollars to come your way and I'd begin worrying about Freedom of Religion too. At least YOUR freedom of religion. You can be sure that the Valley View Christian Church brand will do quite well.

As for me, an Agnostic Deist, I'm checking out employment and housing opportunities in Amsterdam. I figure I'll be lucky if I don't get burnt at the stake.

Dump Scott Garrett!

That's my new mantra. NorthJersey.com reports that MY representative in congress, Mr. Scott Garrett, has urged school boards across New Jersey to include lessons on intelligent design alongside evolution.

Mr. Garrett is quoted as saying "Evolution is the predominant theory right now, [But] intelligent design is one that is apparently growing in some scientific communities, in academia. ... It seems that a school board should at least consider being tolerant and open to discussing both theories."

Now I have a few observations.

1) Intelligent Design IS NOT a theory, or at least not a scientific theory. Throwing your hands up in the air and saying GOD DID IT is not a theory. More science illiteracy!
2) With the Dover case currently in the courts, isn't this kind of statement a little inappropriate?
3) "Apparently" Mr. Garrett does not know his butt from his elbow or "some scientific communities" means the Discovery Institute only. I'm certainly not aware of any gains in academia.
4) Why does Mr. Garrett think he knows better than the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, the American Association of Physics Teachers, the American Astronomical Society, AND 60 signatories of the National Congress of Science Education, including the New Jersey Science Teachers Association, all of whom have said that intelligent design is not science and should NOT be taught alongside evolution.

Regardless of whether one thinks ID is science or not, it's not the place of a politician to give advice to educational professionals.

I have never been able to understand how someone this far to the right represents northern New Jersey! Were we all napping when this guy got elected?

I sent Scott an irate e-mail and got back the standard form thank you in response (which I can add to my collection) which said not to hesitate to call him. Maybe I should? I've never called a congressman before. Nah, I'd probably just get voice mail.