The "Academic Freedom Bill" Rises Again

Rhonda Storms has proposed the Academic Freedom Bill in the Florida State Legislature. Tampa Bay Online has this to say:

Storms said the new bill merely says teachers should have the freedom to teach what they want, including theories that may contradict the prevalent theories of biological and chemical evolution. The bill does not mention creationism or intelligent design.

The basis of her bill came from activists who failed in February to persuade the state Board of Education to allow the leeway. The board voted 4-3 two weeks ago to explicitly require the teaching of evolution.

Here is where the problem occurs. My wife and I teach our kids at home, in large part because we don't like the education in the public schools. It also allows us to tailor our education to the kids to maximize their learning potential. In our defense, our son Marcus took the first grade Stanford Achievement Test earlier this year and blew it out of the water. The key is that we teach well-grounded math, literature and science. Allowing teachers to teach "what they want" is not the same thing. I don't teach my children the theory of phlogiston, or Lamarck's theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. Why? Because it is not good science. I might teach science more rigorously than the public schools, and make it more fun for my kids than they would, but it is not junk science. If there are legitimate alternatives to evolution, they should be taught. As of now, there are no legitimate alternatives. ID argues from negative evidence.

Just because my theory is wrong doesn't make your theory right. And right now, there is not much evidence that my theory is wrong.

The DI and Bad Grammar

Josh Rosenau takes the Discovery Institute to task for bad grammar. The original article is here. His commentary is here. Here are my thoughts.

As silly as it may sound, there are scientists who are still researching gravity. This isn't as absurd as you might think. While no one doubts that mass attracts mass and apples fall down, not up, scientists are still debating the nature of the underlying physical laws and fundamental particles that cause gravitational attraction.

Yup. That's why they call it gravitational theory.

Except when it comes to neo-Darwinism. Then scientists are supposed to shut up, not ask questions, not challenge anything. That isn't science. It isn't even what Darwin himself envisioned for science.

Given that a perusal of any biological journal contains many articles that are tests of evolutionary theory, how is this true? In 1972, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould revolutionized the the field of evolutionary biology by introducing Punctuated Equilibrium (punk-eek). This was done by careful hypothesis testing of the evidence. This practically caused a paradigm shift. How is this not science?? Onward.

It looks as is Darwin would have been sorely disappointed in what is considered a fair consideration of the evidence these days. In Florida there was recently a vigorous debate over how evolution should be taught. Dogmatic Darwinists are insisting that Darwinian evolution be presented without any sort of critical analysis, as if it were 100% above reproach, as if it were a natural law that left no doubts.

This simply is not so. After reading the arguments of those who were opposed to the teaching of evolution in the schools, it was clear to me that most of them knew nothing of the theory! Would you want someone like me, a trained biologist, making policy on physics or English education? And what is a fair consideration of the evidence? As John Derbyshire pointed out in a National Review article:

George’s [Gilder's] own Discovery Institute was established in 1990; the offshoot Center for Science and Culture (at first called the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture) in 1992. That is an aggregate 30 years. Where is the science? In all those years, not a single paper of scientific standing has come out of (nor even, to the best of my knowledge, been submitted by) the DI or the CSC.

The DI seems to continually think that arguing from negative evidence is good scientific method. It is not. The author of this piece, Robert Crowther, also mentions the "Scores of Scientists" who reject evolution. As far as that goes, see this post. Even Michael Behe, the author of Darwin's Black Box supports evolution.

Meanwhile Over in Texas...

The Dallas Morning reports that there is a peculiar aspect of the School Board race going on in District 11 between Barney Maddox and Pat Hardy:

If Dr. Maddox, a Cleburne urologist, succeeds in unseating Ms. Hardy, a Weatherford educator, the whole political balance of the state board could shift. And that's when God shows up in the science books. Dr. Maddox is on record as referring to the theory of evolution as "a myth" and "a fairy tale."

That will come as news to the vast majority of scientists, who tend to use words like "foundational principle" and "overwhelming evidence" when discussing evolution. Nevertheless, seven members of the 15-member State Board of Education have sought to muddy the water by introducing creationism into science classrooms in Texas. A victory by Dr. Maddox would give them a majority.

It seems that Mr. Maddox' general education may be no better than his education in evolution:

"...The campaign flier says: "Barney Maddox believes social studies textbooks should devote more space to American presidents than Marilyn Monroe and that the vicious attack of 9-11 should be portrayed as an aggressive act by terrorists, not an American conspiracy."

Ms. Hardy said she's floored by something so preposterous. She said she doesn't know of a single textbook giving Marilyn Monroe more play than the presidents or even hinting that the 9-11 attacks were an American conspiracy.

Give the newspaper kudos for pointing out that Ms. Hardy is a "rock-solid Republican and dyed-in-the-wool Southern Baptist who firmly believes God is behind all of creation." We need more people like her and fewer like Mr. Maddox.

The Florida Debate as an Example of the "Wedge Strategy"

Tony Plakas of the SunSentinel argues that the debate over the science standards in Florida is a perfect example of how the Discovery Institute has used the Wedge Strategy to gain access to the public schools. He writes:

Ironically, members of the public who fought to keep the standards as presented, without the wedge, met a disciplined opposition who employed a scientific method. In fact, as noted by one speaker, it was proponents of evolution, so moved to message against the motivations of their detractors, who instigated a deity debate. In a masterful display of political prowess, evolution opposition gained ground promoting only academic freedom, cognitive inquiry, the scientific process, and of all things, choice!

You gotta hand it to 'em. They played the game well.

Toumai is 7 Million Years Old

The Toumai fossil, otherwise known as Sahelanthropus tchadensis, has been verified as being between 6.8 and 7.2 million years old. The other argument that is raging is whether or not Toumai really is a hominid. The story notes:

"The radiochronological data concerning Sahelanthropus tchadensis ... is an important cornerstone both for establishing the earliest stages of hominid evolution and for new calibrations of the molecular clock," [Michel] Brunet wrote in a study which will appear in the March 4 edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

If Toumai really is that old, it pushes the split date for humans and chimpanzees back to at least 8 mya and implies that it happened pretty fast, in evolutionary terms.

AIG asks "Are We Anti-Science?"

The website Answers in Genesis asks the question "Are we anti-science?" Peter Galling, of AIG, writes:

Much of the problem stems from the different starting points of biblical creationists and Darwinists. Everyone, scientist or not, must start their quests for knowledge with some unprovable axiom—some a priori belief on which they sort through experience and deduce other truths. This starting point, whatever it is, can only be accepted by faith; eventually, in each belief system, there must be some unprovable, presupposed foundation for reasoning (since an infinite regression is impossible).

Uh, wait just a minute. I was fine until he said that the starting point can only be accepted by faith. I do not have faith in the universe around me. I observe the universe around me. Scientists observe the universe around them and formulate hypotheses and theories explaining how that universe works. Such a position does not require faith in anything. It simply requires the understanding that the processes that go on around us operated in the past the same way they operate now. If they did not operate that way, evidence would have been left to that effect. Lets go on.

On the other hand, examine the origins science of Charles Darwin (and others like him). Darwin made observations, yes; he then borrowed the already-existing idea of natural selection and mixed it with a view he assumed was true (based on his rejection of the Bible): uniformitarianism. Thus, by combining observations, scientific ideas, and anti-God philosophy, Darwin published a speculation on how all of life could have descended from a common ancestor.

Darwin's use of uniformitarianism was not in response to rejecting the Bible (which he did not do). Furthermore, his understanding of deep time as well as uniformitarianism is what led him to establish his idea of natural selection. Additionally, how did uniformitarianism become anti-God? Mr. Galling does not say. To label a theoretical perspective of science anti-God is deeply troubling.

Thus, Answers in Genesis argues that evolutionary ideas are origins science, not operational science; evolution is, itself, a religious worldview, just as creation is part of a religious worldview, which affects how scientists do origins science. It is impossible to escape the presuppositions that give rise to one’s theory on origins. Those who portray evolutionism as solid science (contrasting it with [construed as blind] “faith” in creationism) ignore the fact that scientific data must be interpreted through a worldview.

How did origins science, which is based on predictions about what will be found in the historical record become a religious worldview??? By this definition, much of geology, astrophysics, astronomy, archaeology and palaeontology operates in a religious worldview. In fact, by this definition, crime scene investigation is a religious worldview, because it assumes that the gun used to kill the victim operated the same in the past as it does now.

This article betrays a serious misunderstanding of science. To the question "Are we anti-science," the answer must be "No." You can't be anti-science when you don't understand science in the first place.

"Expelled" Being Agressively Marketed

Variety has an article on the marketing of the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed detailing the efforts of all involved:

Producers of the $3.5 million film, which has been enthusiastically backed by anti-evolution think tank the Discovery Institute, have harnessed some big guns to get the film's message out. They've hired Motive Entertainment, the marketing brains behind "The Passion of the Christ" and "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe," to spread the intelligent design gospel and tapped powerhouse PR firm Rogers & Cowan to handle the film's media campaign.

I will try to see the film, if nothing else, to see if the criticisms of the implied Darwinism=Nazism link are warranted.

Serious Global Warming

A report on Foxnews states that the end of the earth has been predicted:

The sun will slowly expand into a red giant, pushing the Earth farther out into space, but not far enough. Our home planet will be snagged by the sun's outer atmosphere, gradually plunging to its doom inside the fiery stellar furnace.

"The drag caused by this low-density gas is enough to cause the Earth to drift inwards, and finally to be captured and vaporized by the sun," explains astronomer Robert Smith of the University of Sussex in southern England.

It turns out that we only have around a billion years of life left, which is sobering when you think that life on the earth has been around for 3.6 billion years. That fact alone seems to have built in a bit of immediacy to the whole picture. In fact, the process might be slowed down:

[Smith] cites a recent study emanating from the University of California, Santa Cruz. It proposes taming an asteroid to swing by the Earth every few thousand years, slowly nudging the Earth into higher solar orbit, enough to outpace the sun's own outward growth.

Or we could just get on the stick and figure out a way of getting out there. Colonizing Mars clearly won't work in the long run.

----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Corrina, Corrina
via FoxyTunes

Redesigning "Design"

Kenneth Miller, speaking in front of the AAAS, argues that there is design in nature, just not the way ID folks would have you believe. The story notes:

He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking. “There is, indeed, a design to life – an evolutionary design,” Miller said. “The structures in our bodies have changed over time, as have its functions. Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”

My guess is that he is going to get slings and arrows for this position but he argues this in Finding Darwin's God and is somewhat convincing. One cannot shake the lingering thought, however, that he is letting ID in the back door.

----------------
Now playing: Return To Forever - The Romantic Warrior

I have just signed up for AdSense. If this becomes bothersome, I will remove it but I am more than a bit curious to see what they link with my blog.

Michael Behe Ruminates on Charles Darwin's Birthday

The Morning Call has a piece profiling Lehigh biochemist Michael Behe's reaction to Charles Darwin's birthday and Darwin Day at Lehigh. Behe is famously known for his book Darwin's Black Box and for his testimony at the Dover trial in 2005. He is critical of evolutionary theory. As the story notes:

That puts him at odds with the rest of Lehigh's biochemistry department, which states on its Web site that Behe's views have ''no basis in science,'' while Darwin's theory of evolution is backed up by ''findings accumulated over 140 years.''

With regard to the theory's longevity, Behe had, perhaps, the best comeback of the day:

''This party is like a group of scientists [around 1905] having a birthday party for Newton because they want people to think that they're not associated with this new guy Einstein."

I don't think he is correct, but is still a nifty one-liner.

Exalting Stupidity

Susan Jacoby, writing for the International Herald Tribune, addresses why Americans have an almost inherent dislike for intellectualism. Although there has always been a distrust of academics, the article notes:

But now, Jacoby said, something different is happening: anti-intellectualism (the attitude that "too much learning can be a dangerous thing") and anti-rationalism ("the idea that there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion") have fused in a particularly insidious way.

Not only are citizens ignorant about essential scientific, civic and cultural knowledge, she said, but they also don't think it matters.

She pointed to a 2006 National Geographic poll that found nearly half of 18- to 24-year-olds don't think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. So more than three years into the Iraq war, only 23 percent of those with some college could locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.

As she notes, this cuts across ideological, political and religious lines and is certainly a factor in the whole creation/evolution mess. Not good.

The Florida Fight Rages On.

Tampa Bay Online is reporting that both sides of the evolution debate are gearing up for war. Supporters of the evolution standards are annoyed that "scientific theory of" was added to the standards and opponents are annoyed that the "Academic Freedom" revision was not included. It used this language:

"Evolution is a fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence and teachers should be permitted to engage students in a critical analysis of that evidence."

This does not strike me as being a problem, since if students really did engage in such analysis, they would find out how rock-solid the theory is. But among all of the sabre-rattling comes this ray of sunshine:

Although many opponents insisted otherwise, the Rev. Brant Copeland, a Presbyterian pastor from Tallahassee, suggested that the debate remains one between science and religious interpretation.

Copeland urged the board to adopt the standard as written by the experts.

"Children should learn science in science class, not religion in science class," Copeland said. "As a Christian, I am not threatened by what science can tell us about God's marvelous and ever-changing creation."

Stay tuned.

Journalists and Science

Scholars & Rogues takes on the journalism world and finds it wanting. They relate the following from Reuters:

The Reuters headline writer says “Florida will teach evolution, but only as a theory” (emphasis mine). Clearly, the headline writer also has no idea what a theory is. Michael Peltier, the writer, has this to say:

The panel includes the word “evolution” in state science standards for the first time, but it is relegated to a place among a host of ideas, including Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. By contrast Isaac Newton’s law of gravity is taught as undisputed fact.

“Relegated” to a place including the Theory of Relativity???!!! That’s like a musician’s being relegated to Carnegie Hall, or an actor’s relegation to the Royal Shakespeare Company! I can only hope I’m so relegated one day. As for “Newton’s law of gravity” being taught as “undisputed fact,” I would say that is true only in bad classrooms. Science has no undisputed facts. There are simply things that are so probable that they are treated as facts, and if they are undisputed at this time, then it is because no one has produced credible evidence to reduce their probabilities.

When are publishers and/or editors going to insist that their writers have at least rudimentary knowledge of science? Math? Anything at all?

It is not surprising to find that journalists have the same understanding of science as the the general public. I teach this in my Anthropology 110 course and, despite (presumably) reading the textbook, students still miss the question on what a theory is.

"An Evolutionary Dead End"

Florida Today columnist John Glisch writes a somewhat dour editorial on the potential impact of the Board of Education vote. The column came out pre-vote but still should be read. He writes:

You don't need a Ph.D. to see excellence in science education is a must and phony attempts to get religion in the science class door would be crippling. That's especially true in Florida, which in 2005 earned an "F" for its inadequate teaching of evolution from the Thomas A. Fordham Foundation that studies education reform.

He is absolutely correct.

Someone at the St. Petersburg Times Seems to Know

This opinion piece from the St. Petersburg Times has this little nugget.

The board's compromise adds the term "scientific theory" not just to evolution but to other areas of science, including the theories of atoms, cells and electromagnetism. This was done for one purpose: to allow the confusion over the term "theory" to cloud the legitimacy of evolution as the only accepted scientific explanation for life's origins. The scientific theory of plate tectonics doesn't inspire the same religiously grounded backlash.

Scientific theory is not a guess or a mere hypothesis. It is a framework that explains observable facts. In biology, evolution is the unifying theory that continues to be reinforced and verified by ever more sophisticated research. There is no credible alternative scientific theory. Other options, such as intelligent design or creationism, are a matter of personal beliefs or religious teachings. They could be discussed in an appropriate educational setting, but they do not belong in a science curriculum.

Yay!

Florida Approves Science Standards

The Florida Board of Education approved the standards teaching evolution in schools. Mark Caputo of the Miami Herald writes:

For the first time ever, evolution is to be taught clearly and explicitly in Florida classrooms now that the state Board of Education approved a batch of new science standards Tuesday that mention the ''E'' word. But there's a catch: The subject will be taught as ``the scientific theory of evolution.''

Doesn't ANYONE down there know what the word "theory" means? From Wordnet.com, here we go:

theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

At this point, Florida needs to figure out how to move forward.

The Frog From Hell!

A fossilized frog has been found in Madagascar. The story, from the BBC, states:

The creature would have been the size of a "squashed beach ball" and weighed about 4kg (9lb), the researchers said. They added that the fossil, nicknamed Beelzebufo or "frog from hell", was "strikingly different" from present-day frogs found on the island nation.

The researchers are puzzled as to how it got where it did but it is suggested that a land bridge at Antarctica (which was warmer than now) would have provided the conduit. Here is the image of what the frog probably looked like from National Geographic and how it compares to a modern frog.


----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Rain
via FoxyTunes

Florida Votes Today

In advance of the Florida School Board vote on textbooks, the News Press has a rundown of opinions of average Floridians. They are all over the map, although eventually, people are going to have to figure out what the word "theory" means.

----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Joy
via FoxyTunes

The Ancestor to the T-Rex is Found

Two dinosaur fossils have been unearthed in the Sahara which may have given rise to the carnivores that included Tyrannosaurus Rex:

The fossilised bones of the two dinosaurs were excavated during an expedition in 2000 but it is only now that scientists have been able to identify and name them as a newly discovered pair of carnivorous species that lived 110 million years ago.

The story also notes:

Until now little has been known about the early evolution of these two major groups of predatory dinosaur that dominated the southern continents. The latest discoveries reveal that Kryptops, Eocarcharia and another dinosaur – Suchomimus, a large, fish-eating dinosaur that walked on two legs – all lived together and would have made a fearsome troika for any plant-eater to face, Mr [Steve] Brusatte said.

Another piece of the puzzle uncovered.

----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Living Without You
via FoxyTunes

Cooking = Love?

Twincities.com is reporting a talk by anthropologist Greg Laden in which he will argue that cooking kept early humans together, rather than affection, companionship or hunting. This is the thrust of the argument:

"The earliest human ancestors, some kind of chimp-like apes, were living off raw plant foods and probably doing a bit of hunting like chimpanzees do now.

And then, somebody discovers the ability to control fire. Everybody argues about when this happened. We're saying it happened about 2 million years ago. Suddenly, all this food that was previously poisonous or indigestible becomes edible. We're talking about grass seeds, like wheat. And tubers. The amount of energy available to these early human ancestors goes up a huge amount. So, they get bigger. At the same time, their jaws get smaller, which is supported by the fossil record."

So where does the love come in?

Chimpanzee males are way bigger than female chimpanzees. But among early humans, males and females are roughly the same size. And we know that when males and females are roughly the same size, it's a sign of pair bonds, lifelong pair bonds. Male elephant seals are triple the size of females. Male gorillas are also much larger than females, and these animals are all polygamous. But male and female gibbons, for example, are the same size and have pair bondings. So, monogamy and same-sized males and females are linked throughout mammal species.

The same size? Not from what everybody else's research shows. Homo habilis and australopithecines were remarkably dimorphic. The dimorphism starts to even out with late Homo erectus, but not before. Time to run down some of the articles.

----------------
Now playing: Alex De Grassi - Turning: Turning Back
via FoxyTunes

We Demand to be Ignorant!

Carl Hiaasen of the Miami Herald has written a witty, tongue-in-cheek editorial about the Board of Education crisis in science education. He writes:

But forget the fossil record, OK? Forget DNA tracing. Forget the exhaustively documented diversification of species.

This battle is about pride and independence; about boldly going against the flow, in defiance of reason and all known facts.

In recent weeks, the Board of Education has been swamped by e-mails and letters from religious conservatives who advocate teaching creationism or intelligent design, and who believe evolution should be discussed strictly as a ``theory.''

For those who wish to see Florida standing still, if not sinking, this is a fantastic strategy. In fact, it could be expanded to revise other educational doctrines.

Let's start teaching gravity as a ''theory,'' too. And don't forget the solar system -- what proof do we really have, besides a bunch of fuzzy, fake-looking photos, that Mars really exists?

And a bit further:

If snubbing is to be done, Florida should be the snubber, not the snubee. Keep your elite biotech payrolls up North and out West -- we've got hundreds of thousands of low-paying, go-nowhere jobs that require little training and minimal education.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, "ouch."

St. Petersburg Times Editorial

There is a short editorial in the St. Petersburg Times on the Florida mess. The last paragraph caught my attention:

Twenty-first century businesses in biotechnology and other sciences are watching Florida's efforts to create an educated work force. Right now, our unwillingness to accept well-established scientific theory is making headlines - just the kind of thing that keeps us a low-wage, tourist-dependant state.

Yup.

Barry Lynn Responds

BBS News reports that The organization Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has responded to the brouhaha in Florida with a statement. As much as I dislike the organization, he is correct.

Florida Responds to the Science Standards

An article in Tampabay.com suggests that the new science standards for Florida fly in the face of what the majority of Floridians think is true about the world. The story notes pointedly:

Only 22 percent want public schools to teach an evolution-only curriculum, while 50 percent want only faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design, according to a new St. Petersburg Times survey.

A bit further down:

The Times survey - which included questions about evolution and a host of other education issues - was administered to 702 registered voters Feb. 6-10, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

It revealed a huge gulf between scientists and the public.

While the vast majority of scientists consider evolution to be backed by strong evidence, nearly two-thirds of those polled were skeptical.

To which a scientist replys:

"There is no justification for singling out evolution for special skepticism or critical analysis," wrote Richard T. O'Grady, executive director of the American Institute of Biological Sciences in a Feb. 8 letter to the Board of Education. "Its strength as a scientific theory matches that of the theory of gravitation, atomic theory and the germ theory."

The problem is that most people don't believe that. It doesn't matter how much evidence you show them. The association of evolution with godlessness has become so entrenched in our society that it is difficult to see how the two can be disarticulated. Many people out there without the necessary scientific background don't think about evolution, they feel about it. Because they feel about it, a mountain of evidence won't be enough. How do you address that?

Ben Stein's Expelled

Ben Stein has written a blog entry on the new movie 'Expelled,' which chronicles the problems of higher academicians who subscribe to Intelligent Design. He writes:

Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer – is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.

But that is your choice – or at least it should be a “choice” - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling – and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life’s “origins.”

And what evidence might that be? Accumulating where? I am not quite sure why he finds evolution gloomy. I find it exciting and full of mystery. Stein has also bought into the age-old mistake (of which I have blogged) that when Darwin wrote The Origin, he was talking about human races. He wasn't. To him, a race was a species. We just did not know what a species was at that point.

Pharyngula is not amused. Neither is Josh Rosenau, but for different reasons.

A Rundown on What is Happening in the States

Stateline has an article that gives a good overview of the contentious battles ensuing in the states involving the E word.

How a Businessman comes to accept Evolution

Businesspundit has written a truly excellent article on how he came to see that he was wrong about creationism and evolution. Something to think about:

Metacognition occurs when you think about your thinking. It means that instead of just analyzing evidence at face value, you start to ask questions about why you favor certain facts over others. You think about whether or not you have emotions, cognitive biases, peer pressures, or other things that are affecting your thought processes. You ask yourself if you would think something different if the roles were reversed, if you had a better day, if you had not had such a bad experience last time. Metacognition has become somewhat of an obsession with me.

Florida Revs Up

A picture paints a thousand words and it is hard to come away from viewing the picture at the beginning of this article in the St. Petersburg Times without thinking "idiot." To be fair, I don't know what the esteemed Mr. Ellis actually was saying when that picture was taken but when you hold up two oranges and speak about evolution, it can't be good. The story notes:

Monday's hearing was in a hotel conference room at Orlando International Airport. Those who spoke did not break new ground, with both sides repeating arguments uttered by scores of people at four prior public hearings, and in thousands of comments on the Education Department Web site. But the sheer number of speakers - and the fact some were willing to travel 200 miles - spoke to how much the issue has touched a chord.

One man linked Charles Darwin to Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. Another said evolution sanctioned murder. Still another held up an orange and said that because of evolution, he now had irrefutable evidence that an orange was "the first cousin to somebody's pet cat" and "related to human beings."

How does this happen in one of the most educated societies on the planet?

Addressing the Problem from Within

The Dallas Morning News has an article on clergy willing to address evolution openly from the pulpit.

As Texas debates creationism in the classroom, here's a different question: Should evolution be in the pulpit? Absolutely, say hundreds of clergy who will observe Evolution Sunday today. If there were more discussion of evolution in the pulpit, they believe, creationism would rightly recede from science classrooms. "Evolution Sunday offers an opportunity to educate our congregations that science is a gift," said the Rev. Timothy McLemore, senior pastor at Kessler Park United Methodist Church in Oak Cliff. "If we believe God is truth, we don't need to shrink from truth in whatever way it presents itself. We don't have to be threatened."

I think that if more clergy were willing to stand up and actually address the issue of evolution, rather than hiding their heads in the sand, like the church did in the early 1900s, progress might yet be made in this arena. The article finishes thus:

Evolution Sunday is an outgrowth of The Clergy Letter Project. Dr. McLemore is among more than 11,000 clergy who have signed an open letter calling for evolution to be taught in schools as settled science.

The letter says in part:

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Must evolution push God from the picture? Far from it, Dr. McLemore said. For him, it only exalts God higher. "As I understand the complexities and intricacies of what has been produced through human evolution, not only does it not make me want to run away from God, it strikes a chord of wonder and awe that I can only describe as worship," he said.

It is always reassuring to know there are other people out there who think the way I do. Here is the address for the Clergy Letter Project. There are currently over 11 thousand signatures on it.

Meanwhile, Across the Pond...

Things seem to be heating up in Europe:

Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a Kentucky-based organization that is part of an ambitious effort to bring creationist theory to Britain and the rest of Europe. McLean is one of a growing number of evangelicals embracing that message — that the true history of the Earth is told in the Bible, not Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.

In a country where the archbishop of Canterbury, the "Hairy Leftie," as he calls himself, has suggested that sharia law might not be a bad thing in England, they want to bring in Creationism? I have to confess, I am of two minds about this. As the article notes a bit further down:

Creationism is still a marginal issue here compared with its impact on cultural and political debate in the United States. But the budding fervor is part of a growing embrace of evangelical worship throughout much of Europe. Evangelicals say their ranks are swelling as attendance at traditional churches declines because of revulsion with the hedonism and materialism of modern society.

The church is England is largely dead and, ordinarily, I would welcome any and all efforts to revitalise it. The problem is that creationism is still creationism: a mix of bad theology and bad science, masquerading as the real thing. What happens when the children learn about real science? How will their theology then fare?

Right in Our Backyard

This is cool. The General Shale Brick Museum of Natural History in Gray, Tennessee has on display a 4 to 7 million year old rhinocerous. The museum is getting very good reviews:

The East Tennessee State University and General Shale Brick Natural History Museum and Visitors Center at the Gray Fossil Site opened in August. The 33,000-square-foot facility is filled with all manner of ancient animal sounds, dramatic displays and interactive exhibits. This kid-friendly spot offers lots of buttons to push, sand to dig in and entertainment for busy little hands.

Here is a photo of the rhino, courtesy of the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development.

The Battle Rages in Florida

The Miami Herald is reporting that legislators in Florida are massing to fight the teaching of evolution in schools as "fact." They prefer to have it taught as "theory." Each one of these intellectually-challenged people should have to open a book and find out what "theory" means. The story notes:

TALLAHASSEE --

Top state legislators say they're ready to join the fight over putting the word ''evolution'' in Florida's public-school science standards to ensure that it's taught as just a theory and not as fact.

Rep. Marti Coley, future House Speaker Dean Cannon and state Sen. Stephen Wise, all Republicans, say they're considering filing legislation this spring that would specifically call evolution a ''theory'' if the state Board of Education approves the proposed science standards Feb. 19 as currently written.

Hey, guess what? Evolution is a theory. That is why they call it "evolutionary theory." Just like they call it "gravitational theory" and "quantum theory." Do you suppose we can convince these guys to get up in arms about Dihydrogen Monoxide as well?

AIBS argues for Non-Neutrality on Evolution

The American Insitute of Biological Sciences has a released a policy statement harshly condemning the actions of the Texas Education Agency with regard to the resigning of Christine Comer. They write:

According to a memo from TEA officials calling for Comer’s dismissal that was obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”

This is the rejoinder to that decision by AIBS president and SUNY Stony Brook professor Douglas Futuyma:

“When it comes to science education, we absolutely cannot remain neutral on evolution. Evolution is the unifying principle of modern biology. Within biological science, the reality of evolution is not controversial. Creationism and its thinly veiled relative, ‘intelligent design,’ continue to pose a real threat to science education and the public understanding of science throughout the United States. It is the responsibility of science educators at all levels to stay well-informed, and to inform their students on the major principles in every area of science. With biology, evolution is the leading principle. We must remain vigilant.”

He is correct. "Neutrality" in this instance was simply appeasement to the creation camp.

Feminism Contributed to the Demise of the Neandertals??

Well, this is a new one. CanWest is reporting a story that addresses radical feminism. In addition to what can only be called a stinging indictment, the article (written by a woman) states:

No one knows exactly why Neanderthals became extinct 30,000 years ago, but a new theory recently reported in the Boston Globe suggests that once able-bodied women, the "reproductive core" of their small population, began hunting with the men, it was game over.

Already in survival mode, their combined forces were no match for the perils of climate change, ferocious beasts and interloper Homo sapiens, according to the theory. Worse, while a few Neanderthal men might be expendable, reproductive women were not.

I suppose it's possible. Here is the original Boston Globe article.

A Debate on Science

Josh Rosenau reports on a call for a debate between presidential candidates on science. Here is the National Academies press release:

February 4 -- The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine are joining the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Carnegie Institution, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations and universities in an effort to co-sponsor a presidential candidate debate on science, technology, health, and the economy. "This would provide a nonpartisan setting to educate voters on the candidates' positions on key science, technology, and health challenges facing the next administration, while giving the candidates an opportunity to discuss issues that are often overlooked in presidential candidate debates but that are critical to U.S. competitiveness," the presidents of the NAS, NAE, and IOM said in a statement.

"A discussion focused on such issues as how to spur innovation, improve science and math education, confront climate change, and guide advances in biotechnology would do much to inform the American electorate," the statement adds. The NAS, NAE, and IOM are independent, nonprofit organizations that provide advice on policy issues to the government and public under an 1863 congressional charter.

Science, for whatever reason, tends to scare people, including politicians. A great idea has been born.

Atheists Celebrate Darwin Day

The South Florida Sentinel-Sun is reporting of a group of atheists who are going to celebrate Darwin Day:

"So many aspects of science are under attack," said Ken Loukinen, president of Atheists of Broward County, a co-sponsor of Darwin Day. "I am committed to speaking out until intelligent design, abortion and stem cell research are not subjects of discussion anymore."

Two questions: 1. Given that Darwin wasn't an atheist, what is the connexion? 2. What does a socio-political issue like abortion have to do with Darwin Day?

Common Ancestry for Blue Eyes

World Science is reporting on a study indicating that blue eye color was a mutation that took hold some 6 to 10 000 years ago.

“O­rig­i­nally, we all had brown eyes,” said one of the re­search­ers, Hans Eiberg. But a muta­t­ion af­fect­ing a gene called OCA2 “re­sulted in the crea­t­ion of a ‘switch’ which lit­er­ally turned off the abil­ity to pro­duce brown eyes.”

A bit further comes this gem, which shows the power of evolution in populations.

The muta­t­ion of brown eyes to blue is nei­ther pos­i­tive nor neg­a­tive, Eiberg said; rath­er, it’s one of sev­er­al muta­t­ions such as hair colour, bald­ness, freck­les and beau­ty spots, which nei­ther raise nor re­duce a per­son’s sur­viv­al chances. “It simply shows that na­ture is con­stantly shuf­fling the hu­man genome,” he said, “cre­at­ing a ge­net­ic cock­tail of hu­man chro­mo­somes and try­ing out dif­fer­ent changes.”

Neat.

Peer-Reviewed Creationism?

Nature News has reported that Answers in Genesis has launched Answers Research Journal, a "peer-reviewed" journal on creationist research. Now, here is what they mean by "peer-reviewed":

Papers will be peer reviewed by those who “support the positions taken by the journal”, according to editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling, a geologist based in Brisbane, Australia.

If the data do not fit the facts, they must be disposed of!! The article goes on to state:

“There have been these kinds of publications in the past,” says Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, who follows creationism. For the most part, he says, the work is ignored by the scientific community. But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.

Therein lies the real problem, as we have seen in Florida.

Texas Higher Education and the ICR

The American Statesman reports that the new proposal to offer degrees in science education by the ICR has been met with a flood of emails, both for and against. The article notes:

The American-Statesman, under the Texas Public Information Act, obtained printouts of the e-mails, which fill nearly 300 pages. [education commissioner] Paredes' recommendation on the proposal for an online master's degree program is expected to carry considerable weight, but the final decision is up to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which oversees certain aspects of public and private postsecondary education.

Oh boy.

Florida Moves Forward

State educators in Florida are set to vote on new standards that look promising, replacing the phrase "biological changes over time" with the big "E" word. The article notes:

In March 2006, a review committee found that the discussion of divine origins in a ninth-grade Biology I book was "unacceptable for inclusion in a biology textbook." After almost a month of heated public debate, the Brevard County School Board voted to strike any mention of intelligent design from texts.

Frank Brunn, a tax accountant and father of a first-grade pupil at Meadowlane Primary School, said he thinks evolution is a theory that cannot be proven and that students must be exposed to other possibilities.

Yup. Not a biologist, a tax accountant. That is why this problem persists in public schools.

Problems in South Carolina

The Brown Daily Herald writes of a textbook controversy in South Carolina over a book written by Brown Professor Kenneth Miller.

One professor's critique of the presentation of evolution in a textbook written by Professor of Biology Ken Miller '70 and Joseph Levine almost prevented the book from appearing in South Carolina classrooms.

The textbook "Biology" was up for approval by the South Carolina Board of Education when retired Clemson professor Horace D. Skipper wrote a four-page review of the book, critiquing its treatment of evolution.

"In the view of this retired professor, what was wrong with our book was that we presented evolution to be true," Miller told The Herald.

The most astounding thing is what the retired professor actually said:

"The textbook under review fails to provide the necessary evidence (for the Darwinian theory of evolution). It seems reasonable to offer additional theories including creation and intelligent design, since all theories on origin are outside the scientific method."

Outside the scientific method? Dr. Skipper, it turns out, is a retired microbiologist, specializing in weed grass and turf. The fact that he views evolution as a "threory of origins" indicates that he is talking through his hat. For a textbook to get derailed by the criticisms of someone outside the discipline is ridiculous.

More on the Chinese human remains.

Dissent From Darwin

A bit back, the Discovery Institute promoted a list of scientists that "dissented from Darwinian evolution." Over time, the list has grown but recently, the DI has trotted out the list again to poke at evolutionary biologists. Mike Dunford at Questionable Authority takes issue with this. He quotes the DI:

Signers of the Dissent List have signed the list because it is their professional opinion that the evidence is lacking for the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

He then asks:

It's their professional opinion? Based on what, exactly?

What basis does Douglas Keil, who is listed as having a PhD in "Plasma Physics" have for forming a professional opinion on evolutionary biology? How about Jeanne Drisko, "Clinical Assistant Professor of Alternative Medicine" at the University of Kansas School of Medicine? Or Aaron Miller, who has a PhD in physics? Or mathematician Gary Dilts? Or "research meteorologist" John Brown? Or Baylor physical chemist John Burba? or Why on earth would I think that any of those people is in any way, shape, or form competent to form a professional opinion on a topic that falls outside their claimed area of professional expertise?

This is a persistent problem for creationists of all sorts. The grandfather of the recent creationism movement, Henry Morris, was a hydraulic engineer with no training whatever in biology.

"Board Opposes Evolution Being Taught As Fact"

Tampa Bay online reports:

SEBRING — Four of five members of the School Board of Highlands County [Florida]oppose the proposed change in the state's science standards that would present evolution as fact to students.

Some school board members across the state have opposed the proposed revisions to the science curriculum that specifies that evolution be taught as "fact" as opposed to a "theory," School Board Attorney John McClure said at a recent school board meeting.

Do these people even know what a theory is?

Tony Campolo Gets it Wrong

Another Christian, with little or no training to do so, tackles evolution and gets beat up pretty badly. Josh Rosenau is the one who takes him to the cleaners. In a column in the Philadelphia Enquirer's Currents, Tony Campolo makes some baldly wrong claims:

Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist.

Interestingly, Darwin only mentioned humans once in this entire book, and not in this context. As Rosenau notes, he clearly meant species when he used the term races. This is an elementary mistake on Campolo's part.

The second mistake is the classic "without Darwin, there is no Hitler." He writes about Ernst Haeckel, a naturalist of the late 1800s and early 1900s, who clearly did believe in biological determinism and eugenics as well as the anti-semitism of Heinrich von Treitschke. He then writes:

Although these men's lives much predated Hitler's rise to power, their ideas were very influential as he developed the racist ideas that led to the Holocaust. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.

Nope. Hitler rejected evolution as it applied to humans. He felt that God had created humans separately and that the ascent of the Aryan nation was divine right. I have posted about this here and here. Hat tip to Josh Rosenau.

New Human Remains in China!

Archaeologists have uncovered the almost complete remains of a skull in Xuchang, China that purportedly dates to around 100 000 years, although I don't know how they know that yet and Chinese dating is notoriously squirrely. Here is the picture from China Daily.


More than one creationist has called the Chinese Homo erectus remains fakes and they still have a hard time accepting that there are human remains in China. This'll help.

The Struggles of "Theistic Evolution"

The Chicago Tribune reports on the "New Theology" of scientists like Howard van Till, who (like me) accept evolutionary theory and Christianity at the same time. The story notes:

Evolution, they contend, is more than a soulless explanation for the development of life. It is a glimpse of a divine plan so subtle it's almost invisible. Some scholars call the idea "theistic evolution," though the term has been slow to catch on. Dr. Francis Collins, the leader of the U.S. government's Human Genome Project and a born-again Christian, prefers to call it "BioLogos," the union of biology with the word of God.

"BioLogos." Hmmm. Probably better than "evolutionary creationism."

The article also addresses the inadequacy of ID, a topic I have also addressed:

Intelligent design's shortcomings as science are immense, but its theological problems may be just as profound. The God of intelligent design is a master craftsman who leaves virtually nothing to chance. That's unsatisfying to Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, who says many of his objections to intelligent design stem from his Christian faith. "It's theology for control freaks, with God as an engineer."

van Till addressed the problems of ID in this article. In a related vein:

Darwin couldn't resolve his ambivalence about religion. But Georgetown's [John] Haught thinks he has a better answer to the dilemma that has bedeviled believers for nearly 150 years.

Don't think of God as a meticulous designer of life, Haught urges. A detailed design would have limited the paths that living things could take. Instead, he says, God's love led to a world that's always open to new directions for life, without the need for overpowering divine supervision. The chance-fueled nature of evolution doesn't disprove God's existence, Haught believes. It's what God wanted.

This is similar to what Kenneth Miller believes and has written about in Finding Darwin's God. Correctly, though, William Dembski points out a possible pitfall in this form of theology:

A theology of evolution risks turning God into an "attenuated deity," says William Dembski, one of the founding architects of intelligent design. Haught "sees God's hands in creation as fundamentally tied," says Dembski, a professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. Whether evolution can foster a spiritually satisfying picture of God ultimately depends on how ordinary believers receive the new evangelists of theistic evolution.

The problem as I see it is that it is extremely difficult to show that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, that the continents have not moved around, that plants and animals have not evolved and that the earth has not been subject to continual biogeographic and geological changes its entire history. We either choose to believe that God created it or we don't. As for me and my house...

Going once, going twice??

Apparently, a Texas museum is having to auction off a remarkable mastodon skull just to stay in business. According to Foxnews:

The founder and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, which rejects evolution and claims that man and dinosaurs coexisted, said it will close unless the Volkswagen-sized skull finds a generous bidder.

"If it sells, well, then we can come another day," Joe Taylor said. "This is very important to our continuing."

I have mixed feelings about this. I hate to see anybody go out of business, but I also fail to see the value in supporting a creationist museum. I also don't have a hundred and sixty thousand dollars lying around and, if i did, would spend it on something more worthwhile, like paying off my house.

The news seems light today. More smug sniping about the Papal cancellation of his visit to La Sapienza university. Not much else.

Another Take on Presidental Debates

Randy Scholfield of the Wichita Eagle has this to say about presidential debates. He suggests that the candidates be asked the following questions:

Is it realistic for the United States to achieve energy independence? How do we get there?

What is the government's role in fostering innovation and the new generation of alternative energy technology?

How can our schools better prepare students to compete in science and mathematics?

Should creationism and intelligent design be taught in our schools?

How do you assess the evidence for climate change, and are specific measures needed to control greenhouse gases?

What is the future of NASA's manned space program?

How can we continue to attract the world's best and brightest scientists to study and live here?

Democrats charge that under President Bush, scientists' advice has been censored and politicized. Is that true? If so, what would you do to restore the integrity of science?

Good questions.

Salon.com Sounds the Alarm

Shawn Otto, writing for Salon.com suggests that we need to inject more science into the political debate in advance of the election. He puts it thus:

But on the policy side of this cultural change, we haven't kept up. We have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the expectations we place on our elected officials; we have allowed the wrong issues to sidetrack political debates. No matter one's political flavor, this is a matter of increasing practical concern. In a science-influenced world, we need and deserve leaders who understand the basic rules of the game, or we're going to get shut out.

Already happening.

The Precursor to Wales?

Indohyus, a small 48-million year old animal from India, may be the link between land animals and whales, according to researchers.

The key finding connecting Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans.

An examination of its teeth showed that the land-dwelling creature spent lots of time in the water and may have fed there, like hippos.

Also, the specific positioning and shape of certain molars connects Indohyus to the earliest whales, which are about 50 million years old, [Hans] Thewissen said.

Nifty.

----------------
Now playing: Dan Fogelberg - Forefathers
via FoxyTunes

A Rat the Size of a Car!!

Foxnews reports on excavations taking place in Uruguay that have unearthed the remains of a rat that was the size of a car. While its likely descendant, the capybara is only about 125 pounds, this "rat" clocked in at around 2 ½ tons and was ten feet long!

Is Evolution a Religion?

David Gibbs III, the lawyer that represented Terry Schialvo's family and friends has written a legal memo in which he argues that by using evolution as the only method of explaining biological diversity, there is no room for alternative "philosophical" perspectives. Philosophical?? He is quoted as saying:

"Making this gigantic jump moves the evolutionary hypothesis from the realm of science into a philosophical faith-based belief system," Gibbs writes in the five-page memo, which he sent to the state Board of Education last month. "It has fallen into the same trap of which science has accused religion. It posits its entire interpretive rationale on something which is unobservable and untested."

Unobservable? Untested? Yeah, that'll fly. Another example of a well-meaning Christian in WAY over his head.

St. Petersburg Citizens weigh in Against Bill Foster

Here are some letters written with regard to Bill Foster's statement that without Darwin there would not have been a Hitler. They are not kind.

Pope Benedict vs. the Science Establishment

Breitbart notes a story in which the new pope has cancelled a speech at La Sapienza university due to protests by professors and students.

Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday cancelled a speech at Rome's La Sapienza university in the face of protests led by scientists opposed to a high-profile visit by the head of the Catholic Church to a secular setting.

"Following the well-noted controversy of recent days ... it was considered appropriate to postpone the event," which had been set for Thursday, a Vatican communique said, in the first such cancellation in the face of hostility since the pope's election in April 2005.

Many scientists fault the intellectual, conservative and tradition-minded pope for a series of positions he has taken that they say subordinate science and reason to faith.

The protest against the visit was spearheaded by physicist Marcello Cini, a professor emeritus of La Sapienza, who wrote to rector Renato Guarini complaining of an "incredible violation" of the university's autonomy.

What is interesting is that When John Paul II visited in 1991, students heckled him as well—and he was a pro-evolution pope!

Secular Europe strikes again.

The ICR takes on Tiktaalik

In what is an amazing piece of positive spin and vacuity, the ICR's Frank Sherwin has penned an article about Tiktaalik. It starts:

With the continued invalidation of the corrupt theory of neo-Darwinism in the eyes of many, and school boards nation-wide taking a favorable look at intelligent design, it is not surprising that evolutionists are scrambling to enact damage control. Enter an alleged “missing link” that some are saying reveals one of the greatest changes in the field of zoology.

A bit down, he writes:

But before evolutionists start celebrating, they should keep in mind that Tiktaalik roseae is incomplete. Scientists as of yet unable to determine what the hind fins and tail might have looked like. Paleontologist Neil Shubin states, “We’ve really only begun to sort of crack that spot [the small rocky outcropping 600 miles from the North Pole where Tiktaalik was found]” (AP 2006).
Also noteworthy, is the use of diffident language by the secular reporters and scientists when discussing Tiktaalik. For example, NGN says this creature “may” be a missing link. While the NYT states that changes in this creature “anticipate” the emergence of land animals. One may anticipate leaving the house, but he is still in the house.

Okay...of course its incomplete. There are very few fossils that are complete. Nonetheless, what is present is a wealth of intermediate characteristics. This does not in the least have any effect on the language that is used to describe it. A transitional fossil is a transitional fossil. Some damage control.

About the date of Tiktaalik, Sherwin writes:

We are reminded of the history of a lobed-finned fish called the coelacanth considered by evolutionists to be an index fossil that would date sedimentary strata to millions of years (the Devonian, a period in the Paleozoic Era). However, in 1938 a coelacanth was discovered alive off the coast of South Africa. Since then, others have been filmed and coelacanths have recently appeared in the South Pacific. Tiktaalik had lobed fins like the coelacanth and it “would have breathed like a lungfish”, says senior assistant curator Jennifer Clack of Cambridge's University Museum of Zoology (Owen 2006).

Guess what! That doesn't mean Tiktaalik isn't 375 million years old. Furthermore, the coelacanth is not a transitional animal. Tiktaalik clearly is.

No Darwin, No Hitler?

A candidate for the mayoral race in St. Petersburg Florida has equated Darwin with Hitler. Quotes the story in the St. Petersburg Times:

"Evolution gives our kids an excuse to believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, which leads to a belief that they are superior over the weak," Bill Foster wrote board members in a letter received this week. "This is a slippery slope."

Later, the story notes:

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," said the group's late founder, D. James Kennedy.

Foster echoed those words in his letter: "Adolf Hitler duped an entire generation using Darwin's evolution," he wrote. "He sought to preserve the 'favored' race in the struggle for survival."

Michael Ruse jumped on this one.

Ruse said Nazi ideologues were motivated by many factors, including "social Darwinism," a movement that tried to apply natural concepts like "survival of the fittest" to human society. But the Nazis later distanced themselves from Darwin because rather than promoting racial superiority, evolution showed "Aryans and Jews and Gypsies and Slavs were all one stem," he said.

I noted this problem a bit back. In both speeches that I reproduce by Hitler, he rejects the evolution of humans from lower forms of life. Another persistent untruth.

Sorry about the light posting. I have fallen prey to that marvel of UNintelligent design, the prostate. I spent the entire weekend with a catheter and am still trying to get up to speed, so to speak. No fun.

Mike Huckabee vs. "Your Inner Fish"

It seems that Tiktaalik, the 375 million year old tetrapod ancestral fossil is rising out the murky depths of the past to take a swat at Mike Huckabee, who has publicly rejected evolution. According to the Ottawa Citizen:

Now Neil Shubin, the University of Chicago biologist who discovered the High Arctic fossil, is poised to release a populist recounting of his Canadian find -- Your Inner Fish -- in which he traces the primordial origins of the human race to such lowly creatures.

"It is far worse for Huckabee. Before apes, his ancestors were fish, worms, and other creatures," Mr. Shubin told Canwest News Service yesterday. "With jaw bones that correspond to gill bones in fish and sharks, a body plan shared with headless worms, and with parts of a DNA recipe shared with relatives of jellyfish, Huckabee's ties to some of the most humble forms of life on our planet run deep indeed."

As far as transitional fossils are concerned, Tiktaalik has it in spades:

The fossilized bones of the three-metre-long Tiktaalik (its Inuktitut name means "big, shallow-water fish") showed that it had the scales and fins of a fish but the ribs, neck, head and limb-like bones of a land animal.

I am looking forward to reading Your Inner Fish.

Off Topic

Will Smith, recent star of I am Legend and the Upcoming Hancock (hilarious trailer) has some peculiar ideas. The following appears in a Fox News report:

He told "Access": "I was introduced [to] it by Tom and I’m a student of world religion. I was raised in a Baptist household, I went to a Catholic school, but the ideas of the Bible are 98 percent the same ideas of Scientology, 98 percent the same ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism."

On at least a basic level, Smith might be thought incorrect in that statement. Neither Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism nor, for that matter, Judaism espouse the idea of space aliens occupying one’s body.

Ya think?

More Trouble in Florida

The Miami Herald reports from Taylor County.

Oscar Howard Jr., superintendent of Taylor County's School District, and Danny Lundy, vice chairman of the School Board, spoke in accents from that other Florida. ''We're opposed to teaching evolution as a fact,'' Howard said, adding that his School Board and 11 others have passed resolutions against the imposition of evolution in the school curriculum.

Evolution, Lundy warned, would tear the Taylor public schools apart. ''The good people back home,'' he worried, would have no choice but to pull their kids out of school.

Just Lovely.

Find Out Where You Came From

Genetic Genealogy is offering to trace your ancestry back as far as 150 000 years. That's pretty far back, considering we don't know who those people were. There are some other peculiar assumptions as well, such as the "common ancestor" at 65 000 years ago. This suggests that it was one person, which is silly. It was likely one mitochondrial variant (if the replacement model is correct). Even if it is, the level of resolution suggests somewhere between 140 and 280 000 years ago.

A Funny Comic from Ted Rall

Here is an alternate universe version of Mike Huckabee and how the press would likely treat him.

Back to Plate Tectonics and Evolution

The Salt Lake Tribune reports on "theorizing" involving the East African Rift Valley uplifting and evolution. Quoth the story:

University of Utah geologists have devised a tectonic-based theory that supports this idea by linking massive uplift in east Africa with local climate changes that helped jump-start early human evolution.
"Most of the uplift occurred between 7 million and 2 million years ago, just about when hominins split off from African apes, developed bipedalism and evolved bigger brains," Royhan and Nahid Gani state in an article in the current edition of Geotimes, a magazine of the American Geological Institute.

Of course, carefully left out the story is the unexpected arrival of Sahelanthropus tchadensis, WAY OVER in Chad, which seems to be a pretty good candidate for hominid status at 7 mya and is nowhere near the rift valley. The split dates have been needing revision for some time now. 7 mya just doesn't cut it anymore.

Life Before the Cambrian

According to new research, even before the Cambrian "explosion," there was a radiation of life.

“It now appears that at the dawn of the macroscopic life, between 575 and 520 million years ago, there was not one, but at least two major episodes of abrupt morphological expansion," said Shuhai Xiao, a paleontologist at Virginia Tech.

It has been dubbed the "Avalon Explosion." Pushing back the frontiers of knowledge.

National Academy Report Emphasizes Evolution

The Statesman is reporting on a new version of a book by the National Academy of Sciences called Science, Evolution and Creationism that is strongly promoting the teaching of evolution. The article notes:

The report by the National Academy of Sciences and its Institute of Medicine follows up on similar past publications, the last of which came out in 1999. The new document includes recently discovered evidence supporting evolution, including an important fossil find.

The report released Thursday also takes swipes at creationism and other anti-evolution views.

"Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes," the report says.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory has an account with National Academy Press so I am downloading my copy even as I write this. It ought to be a fun read.

A Call For More Science Education

Yahoonews reports on a coalition of seventeen science organizations that are urging for more science education, especially on evolution. The article does not say what the science organizations are but the umbrella organization is the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). As Gerald Weissmann, editor-in-chief or the organization's journal notes:

"The bottom line is that the world is round, humans evolved from an extinct species, and Elvis is dead."

The corresponding article, which is behind a subscription wall, is called Evolution and its discontents: a role for scientists in science education. In it, the FASEB reports on a survey done on 1,000 likely U.S. voters. They found the following:

1. 61% thought that living things have evolved - 36% without God, 25% with God.
   
2. 53% thought that humans have evolved.
   
3. 31% thought that things were created in their present form.
   

As far as teaching evolution, the breakdown is like this:

1. 41% not sure about teaching creationism
   
2. 22% not sure about teaching evolution
   
3. 53% favored teaching evolution
   
4. 36% favored teaching creationism
   
5. 25% favored teaching ID

Here is where the wheels fell off. Only 23% of those questioned knew that continental drift theory explained the movement of the land masses, that antibiotics do not kill viruses and that humans and dinosaurs were not alive at the same time. Of those respondents

1. 78% who got all three questions right accepted evolutionary scenarios of life history
   
2. 78% favored teaching evolution in schools
   
3. 24% thought ID should be taught in schools
   
4. 27% though creationism should be taught.
   

Here is the smoking gun. The percentage of people who favored teaching evolution in schools has a positive correlation with the number of questions they got correct:

1. 0 to 1 question right: 38%
   
2. 2 questions right: 58%
   
3. 3 questions right: 78%
   

Many other factors likely play into this and the r-square for this may not as robust as the researchers let on, but anecdotal evidence suggests that this is not far off--as mentioned earlier, some of my friends thought that the Creation Museum in Kentucky was really neat and, based on conversations that I have had with them, couldn't find evolution on a map. Sound the alarm!!

Third Generation Leakey

Conference Room 4, an engineering blog to which I subscribe, has a weekly profile of a woman of science. This week, it is Louise Leakey, the granddaughter of Louis Leakey, the patriarch of African hominid studies. The article notes:

Louise Leakey received a Bachelor of Science degree in Geology and Biology from the University of Bristol. She then completed a PhD program in Paleontology at the University of London, where her dissertation focused on the influence of climate on faunal evolution at West Turkana between 3.3 and 1.6 million years ago. Like her parents, Richard and Meave Leakey, and her grandparents, the pre-eminent Louis and Mary Leakey, Louise focuses her study on the evolution of early human ancestors.

Polk County, Florida--In Search of National Press

The Polk County School Board, although since backing down, declared (5 of 7 members, anyway) that they wanted more ID taught in schools rather than "Darwinian Evolution." Somehow it always seems to be "rather than," instead of "alongside." According to the story:

Four of those five sympathetic board members said they would like to see intelligent design taught in Polk schools as an alternative to Darwinian evolution, at a time when new state standards mentioning evolution by name for the first time are under consideration.

Just like that, it appeared the Darwin wars had found their newest battlefield.

Yet a few weeks later, the controversy is dying with a whimper. There's no board support for a challenge to the proposed standards. Some of the five school board members blame the local newspaper for trying to start a fight.

"It's not our agenda," said Tim Harris, one of the board members. "My personal opinion and how I vote don't always jibe."

Apparently, they received a touch of Pastafarianism:

The satirical religious Web site asserts that an omnipotent, airborne clump of spaghetti intelligently designed all life with the deft touch of its "noodly appendage." Adherents call themselves Pastafarians. They deluged Polk school board members with e-mail demanding equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism's version of intelligent design.

"They've made us the laughingstock of the world," said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design. She dismissed the e-mail as ridiculous and insulting.

I find it more than mildly amusing.

More Bad News from South Carolina

Apparently, the evolution issue is simmering now in South Carolina. According to Myrtle Beach Online:

State Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, successfully lobbied for revisions to include the term "critically analyze," linked to a movement to elevate instruction about creationism and "intelligent design" to the status of evolution.

That modification of the state's widely acclaimed biology standards prompted criticism from national experts.

Fair's campaign angered many high school educators, including those who consider themselves devoutly religious but objected to being told to mix lessons about beliefs with science.

State senators ought to know better than to stick their necks into science education. The problem with evolution education is that you just can't get people up to speed with one or even a few articles. This is what hampers the local school boards--who fall prey to the bad science of the recent-earth creationists. Most science educators are not out to derail the religious leanings of your average student. That pretty much happens in the guidance counselor's office.

Neandertals Froze to Death?

In a study reported in Yahoonews, Ian Gilligan suggests that Neandertals did not survive because they did not adjust to the coming ice age and, consequently, froze to death. States the article:

Neanderthals probably froze to death in the last Ice Age because rapid climate change caught them by surprise without the tools needed to make warm clothes, says an Australian researcher.

Ian Gilligan, a post-graduate researcher from the Australian National University believes that by the time Neanderthals developed sewing tools it was too little too late.

Neanderthals began to die out just before the last glacial maximum, 35 to 30,000 years ago and were replaced by modern humans, say archaeologists.

Well, aside from the fact that many archaeologists suggest exactly the opposite, that hybridization is the only way to explain the fact that early modern humans and Neandertals used most of the same kinds of tools, especially in Southwest Asia, this seems somewhat "Day After Tomorrow"-ish in outlook and posits a remarkably minimal amount of intellectual prowess for Neandertals, who were pretty dang smart. People know when it is getting colder and they adjust. Another thing that seems to go unmentioned is needle and bone points don't show up until the Solutrean and Gravettian minimally and then the Magdelenian more so. This is a long time after the coming of the second part of the Würm glaciation and relates more to population pressure and changing resources.

Time to hunt down the article.