Francisco Ayala on ID

Francisco Ayala, one of the most well known and renowned biologists has weighed in on the ID issue, according to a story in the Madison, Wisconsin Capital Times. He has no uncertain opinion:

"How do I know what the intentions of the designer are? There is no way we can test the theory of intelligent design," Ayala said. "It is not a scientific theory. It has not generated peer-reviewed publications. It has not been the subject of any testing or research."

Also:

"It would have to be imperfect design or incompetent design or inept design, but not intelligent design," he said, noting for example that human beings have more teeth than can fit in the jaw, so dentists have to remove the wisdom teeth.

"Any engineer who would have designed the human jaw would be fired the next day," he said to laughter.

This has always been a serious problem for ID and requires supporters of ID such as William Dembski to postulate that some parts of the biota are subject to ID and some are not.

Dr. Ayala also notes, in opposition to some writers, that by being able to explain things like tsunamis and earthquakes using scientific principles, we can stop blaming God for them. For those wondering where Dr. Ayala is coming from, here is an excellent article outlining his stance on science and faith issues.

George Murphy and Original Sin

George Murphy has written a provocative paper on the nature of evolution and original sin. This is the paper that is being discussed over at Steve Martin's page. I would like to add my own two cents. He starts thus:

This paper is offered as a constructive theological proposal that takes into account scientific realities. Only the most essential aspects of Scripture, the theological tradition, and scientific theories and observations can be included. I will assume that the general scientific picture of biological evolution is correct and that humanity came into being by God working through this process.

Alienating half your audience in the first paragraph. Not bad. Here he concedes the scientific evidence that the ICR and Discovery Institute beat their heads against continually. It is an evolutionary creation that drives his theology:

God created a universe able to develop in such a way that intelligent life would come into being so that God could become Incarnate.

He mentions the Cross as being the way that God reconciled himself to all things and that sin had entered the picture. In this view, he argues that Paul and the Gospel writers viewed Adam's sin as secondary to that of humankind as a whole. Here he introduces the concept of "sin of origin":

The crucial distinction here is between the idea of an “original sin” which took place at the beginning of human history and that of a “sin of origin” which affects all human beings from their beginnings and from which they cannot free themselves. The need for a savior is dependent upon the latter belief but not upon the former.

This viewpoint dispenses with the actual Adam and Eve, which has been a serious impediment for a truly evolutionary perspective. With the notion of a historical Adam, one must ask, at what point did this Adam live? What kind of human was this Adam? Was he a Neandertal, an advanced Homo erectus? What does this do to the ideas of early modern human origins that have moderns showing up in sub-Saharan Africa between 150 and 200 000 years ago? As Davis Young has pointed out, evidence that modern humans existed 100 000 years ago is irrespective of evolutionary scenarios. It still pushes a literal Adam way beyond any kind of literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2. This notion of a universal Adam creates the problem of how sin came into the world. As Murphy writes:

If Adam and Eve represent all humans, then they represent also the first humans. And if humanity has been sinful from the time that it came into being, without doing anything to become sinful, sin would be part of human nature itself. This would mean that in an important sense God was the creator of sin. To avoid this conclusion, we must use biblical texts about creation and sin for guidance in trying to understand how the first human sin might have had a role in bringing about a sinful condition as part of the evolutionary process.

Here the argument relies on interpretations of how Paul meant "sin" in various passages, positing that the Eastern Church, with its more developmental approach is more in line with what was meant by the original text. In this view, humans were able to "progress, with divine grace, toward full union with God." He then address human origins. Here, he argues that humans had evolved with selfish needs, wants and desires that conflicted with God's notions of right and wrong. Once humans became aware of God, these tendencies came into conflict with who he wanted them to be. The problem here is that it clearly casts what had come to be natural creation as evil and in need of correction. This suggests strongly that God is the author of evil, because the traits that have evolved over time he is surely responsible for in an ultimate sense. It is as if he then says, after 6 gigayears, "okay, now it is time to do things my way."

Interestingly, he notes, in his passage on biological death, the verse where God tells Adam that if he eats of the tree of life, "he will surely die." A literal reading of this passage would then suggest that humanity would have come to a screeching halt and there would be no one to read this. That ought to be a big clue to the literal crowd.

I have not provided a solution to the problem, just some ramblings. This is in no way a fully-fleshed out essay to the problem. I am still working on that. I am just not convinced Dr. Murphy has come up with a theologically sound, workable one.

The Nature of Sin and Evolution

Steve Martin has a running forum going on right now on original sin and evolution that I have been trying to keep up with but have not had a chance to comment on. Go here.

4300-Year Old Pyramid Found in Egypt

This is neat. In the sands of Saqqara, a pyramid has been discovered that is 4300 years old. According to the story in CNN:

The 4,300-year-old monument most likely belonged to the queen mother of the founder of Egypt's 6th Dynasty, several hundred years after the building of the famed Great Pyramids of Giza, the country's antiquities chief Zahi Hawass said as he took the media on a tour of the find.

The discovery is part of the sprawling necropolis and burial site of the rulers of ancient Memphis, the capital of Egypt's Old Kingdom, about 19 kilometers (12 miles) south of Giza.

All that remains of the pyramid is a square-shaped 16-foot (5-meter) tall structure that had been buried under 65 feet (25 meters) of sand.

History comes alive.

Creationism in the English Classrooms

A new poll suggest that almost a third of school teachers in England favor teaching creationism in the classroom. The story in the Guardian continues:

Most controversially, 29% said they either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the government's guidelines on teaching evolution which states that "creationism and intelligent design are not part of the science national curriculum programmes of study and should not be taught as science". Fifty-three per cent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.

Thirty-one per cent of respondents and 18% of the 248 science teachers in the sample said they thought creationism or intelligent design should be given the same status as evolution in the classroom, although this question did not specify whether it was referring to science lessons or the curriculum in general. Twenty-two respondents said they had been pressured to teach creationism or intelligent design by their school.

I find this surprising in a country that is, at least in appearance, so secular in nature. This seems at odds with other trends in the country. It could be, as Michael Reiss pointed out, a world view as much as anything. More work to be done. Be sure to watch the link embedded in the story. It is a bit long but worth it.

Larry Moran of Sandwalk has an equally scathing read on the Eyre review. It is here. And he is a biochemist.

Attack of the Non-Scientists!

I am writing this with a temperature of 101, so if it seems a tad incoherent, that is why. The National Post has a book review of David Berlinski's new book The Devil's Delusion: Atheism And Its Scientific Pretensions by Wayne Eyre in which he says some unfortunate things that are becoming more true what comes out of the Discovery Institute every day. In it, he says:

For example, Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion, says that anyone who doesn't believe in evolution "is ignorant, stupid or insane." Oxford professor Peter Atkins, another ardent atheist, recently denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that "scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest." Geneticist Emile Zuckerkandl -- writing on whether biological facts suggest an intelligent designer -- terms the notion of intelligent design an "intellectual virus" and its advocates "an offensive little swarm of insects ... [who] feed like leeches on irrational beliefs."

That these gentlemen go on like this in the wake of, for example, biochemist Michael Behe's masterful Darwin's Black Box, in which he sets out a devastating case for the "irreducible complexity" of human systems, truly makes one wonder about the confidence they have in their own convictions.

As A.J. Hakari noted in his review of Expelled:

...using figures like Richard Dawkins to represent the entire scientific community is like saying Charles Manson is indicative of all Californians.

Quite true. Wayne Eyre also hasn't done his homework on Behe. As far as confidence in the theory is concerned, Kenneth Miller notes something that is lacking from this review:

Perhaps the single most stunning thing about Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe's "Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," is the amount of territory that its author concedes to Darwinism. As tempted as they might be to pick up this book in their own defense, "scientific creationists" should think twice about enlisting an ally who has concluded that the Earth is several billion years old, that evolutionary biology has had "much success in accounting for the patterns of life we see around us," that evolution accounts for the appearance of new organisms including antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and who is convinced that all organisms share a "common ancestor." In plain language, this means that Michael Behe and I share an evolutionary view of the natural history of the Earth and the meaning of the fossil record; namely, that present-day organisms have been produced by a process of descent with modification from their ancient ancestors. Behe is clear, firm, and consistent on this point. For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry. Creationists who believe that Behe is on their side should proceed with caution - he states very clearly that evolution can produce new species, and that human beings are one of those species.

Moving back to Berlinski's book, the author of the review states:

It's Berlinski's commentary on the paucity of "argument or evidence" in support of classic Darwinism that constitutes the biggest atom bomb of the book. "Suspicions about Darwin's theory arise for two reasons," he writes. "The first: The theory makes little sense. The second: It is supported by little evidence ... The theories that we do have do what they can do, and then they stop. They do not stop because a detail is missing; they stop because we cannot go on. Difficulties are accommodated by the magician's age-old tactic of misdirection."

Well, its a bomb all right. It is just one that doesn't go off. This fabrication is so old it has whiskers. It is also so intellectually dishonest, it warrants condemnation. There is so much evidence for evolution that, at this point, only one who chooses to remain ignorant refuses to see it. There is evidence for microevolution, macroevolution and everything in between. We have transitional fossils from every major class and thousands upon thousands of genus and species transitions, including ones in the human fossil record. I probably should read the entire book before forming an opinion, but I have read Berlinski's work and don't have high hopes. At one point, I had respect for the research that was going on at The Discovery Institute but that was long ago. As John Derbeyshire said:

George’s [Gilder] 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. I am certainly willing to be corrected here. If the DI or CSC have any papers of scientific standing — published or not — I shall post links to them to NRO for qualified readers to scrutinize.

Nope, still hasn't happened. The DI seems to become more insular as time goes on, resembling the ICR more and more. David Berlinski is a classic example of this. What a shame.

St. Charles?

This parody hits on so many levels it is hard to know where to start. It is also likely to offend just about everybody on some level. The Onion has the following story: "Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain." In Dayton, Tennessee, no less. The story begins:

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

"I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits," said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed "Scopes Monkey Trial" and is widely considered one of Darwinism's holiest sites. "Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested."

In light of the "temple to science" built in Berkeley, this is not so far off the mark. This manages to get the rabid atheists like Richard Dawkins, the mystic "face on Mars" followers (although see this absolutely creepy photo), and then turns the tables on the church-as-believer/scientist-as-skeptic motif. This is brilliant and ranks up there with the "Intelligent Falling" story they did a bit back.

Blogging will be extremely light this week. I am playing house dad while my wife looks after her parents, one of whom just had neurosurgery. That means i am watching after four children under the age of nine for the rest of the week. I will post when I can.

The Houston Chronicle: "Board's actions could put students at a disadvantage"

The Houston Chronicle has an editorial on the Texas School Board and their decisions in hiring six people to head a panel to evaluate the science standards for the state curriculum. They are quite clear on their position:

It appears, however, that some members of the State Board of Education are working on a different agenda. Last week, they appointed three anti-evolution activists, including a leader of the "intelligent design" religious campaign, to a six-member panel that will review proposed new science curriculum standards.

The new standards will shape how science education is taught in Texas for the next decade, and it would be a terrible mistake to water down the teaching of evolution in any way.

Read the whole thing. Hat tip to Little Green Footballs.

Pushing Hominids Back in China

New evidence suggests that homids were present in China as early as 1.7 million years ago. An article in the ThaiIndian relates this, regarding the layer where the hominid remains were originally discovered in 1973:

The new team traced that sediment layer - or time horizon - throughout the basin, collecting 318 rock samples from it. The researchers reported that the fossils came from a layer of rock just above a magnetic landmark known as the Olduvai-Matuyama reversal boundary, which is at least 1.77 million years old. This makes the fossil site slightly younger, about 1.7 million years old. This age estimate represents “the oldest definite fossil and archaeological evidence of early hominins in China and mainland East Asia,” according to co-author Rick Potts, a paleoanthropologist at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.C. Taken together, these dates from at least three fossil sites are convincing many researchers that early humans were moving rapidly across Asia 1.77 million to 1.66 million years ago.

Another part of the puzzle. Cool.

The Elephant in the Room

I am posting one more review of Expelled, which is now out on DVD, because the reviewer mentions something missing from the other reviews that I read, which harped on the film-making of the movie and the one-sidedness of the presentation. This review, by A.J. Hakari, in Blogcritics Magazine, instead, addresses what is missing from the prosecution:

In not a single one of its 97 minutes does the film provide a valid argument as to why intelligent design should be accepted. Instead, Expelled spends its time depicting those who oppose it as being part of an atheistic conspiracy to rid the world of all religious thoughts. This movie discusses Darwinists the same way that Ann Coulter refers to liberals, as if they all travel in packs just waiting to pounce on and discredit anyone who disagrees with them. Virtually the entire film is one story after another about how the big, bad scientific community is out to put the kibosh on anyone in the academic world who dares even mention intelligent design. But Expelled does nothing to counter its subject's detractors, rather trying to win its argument not by being right but by making the competition look as bad as possible.

No theory, no science. The other great comment about the "new atheists" is:

I have no doubt that there are those a little too trigger-happy when it comes to shooting down intelligent design, those who aren't willing to give it even a little consideration. But these people are all that Expelled talks to, and using figures like Richard Dawkins to represent the entire scientific community is like saying Charles Manson is indicative of all Californians.

Yup.

If You Are in Vermont...

There is a performance of "Clarence Darrow's Search For Justice" in the Main Street Landing Performing Arts Center, in Burlington. Darrow, if you will recall, was the defense attorney for John Scopes in the famous trial in 1925, in Dayton, Tennessee. It sounds interesting.

The Lone Palaeontologist on the "A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism" List

The Discovery Institute is publishing and pushing a list of scientists who dissent from "Darwinism." The tag line reads:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Aside from the fact that that is a poor definition of evolution, leaving out genetic drift, adaptive peaks and valleys, allopatric and sympatric speciation, evo-devo and many other areas of study, who populates the list? Well, I found 13 physicists, 1 plasma physicist, 10 biochemists, 24 chemists, 8 engineers, 7 mathematicians, 2 psychologists, 13 geneticists, and 5 medical doctors. I found one palaeontologist. Who is he? He is Omer Faruk Noyan, from the Celal Bayar University in Turkey. Its page can be found here. A trip to the English version found many out of date or dead links. The publication list is three years old. So, I went to Web of Science. He does publish, sporadically (like yours, truly), mostly in the Triassic on conodonts. I found four articles in the last eighteen years. He has recently produced something in Nature Precedings, a paper on the emergence of modern humans and their relationship to the preceding Neandertals. It is oddly constructed and oddly formatted but I have not had a chance to review it yet. It is here. It does not appear that he is a creationist in the YEC mold, but rather an ID sympathizer.

More on Tiktaalik

Little Green Footballs reports on new analyses of Tiktaalik roseae and the characteristics of it that are intermediate, morphologically. In it, he quotes a New York Times story, which reads, in part:

“Our work demonstrates that the head of these animals was becoming more solidly constructed and, at the same time, more mobile with respect to the body across this transition,” Dr. Daeschler said.

Dr. Shubin said Tiktaalik was “still on the fish end of things, but it neatly fills a morphological gap and helps to resolve the relative timing of this complex transition.”

For example, fish have no neck but “we see a mobile neck developing for the first time in Tiktaalik,” Dr. Shubin said.

“When feeding, fish orient themselves by swimming, which is fine in deep water, but not for an animal whose body is relatively fixed, as on the bottom of shallow water or on land,” he added. “Then a flexible neck is important.”

More pieces of the puzzle. Yay.

Something More to Read

Reader Arv Edgeworth has just sent me his book Dismantling Evolution Made Easy and has asked me to read it. I won't post the link for it on my blog since until such time as he says that I may. It is just 84 pages so I will tackle it this morning. A cursory glance at the first page suggests that he has defined evolution very broadly, incorporating such disparate topics such as the Big Bang, the origin of life, and biological evolution, itself. He also refers to it as "evolutionist' faith." My empirical mind seizes up at that phrase but i will unlock it as best I can.

The Creation Museum One Year Later

According to Ken Ham, the founder of Answers in Genesis and guiding light behind the Petersburg, Kentucky creation museum, success has been overwhelming. The International Herald Tribune reports that over 550 thousand people in a little over a year, according to the museum. So, what has been the local effect?

State education officials said they have seen no sign of students challenging science teachers in their classrooms based on conclusions drawn from visits to the Creation Museum.

"It's not been a huge issue. In fact it's almost a nonissue for public schools," said Lisa Gross, a spokeswoman for the Kentucky Department of Education. "Teachers have been dealing with these things long before the Creation Museum came into being."

The Creation Museum doesn't draw nearly the numbers of visitors as the nation's top science museums, which boast larger facilities and government funding. The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington attracted 5.8 million visitors in 2006; the Children's Museum in Indianapolis brought in 1.2 million that year, according to a list compiled by Forbes magazine.

Still, Ham can be proud of the draw that it has been. It has clearly been a success.

Don McLeroy: Evolution Doesn't Apply to Biology

UWire is reporting that scientists in Texas continue to be nervous about the upcoming science standards that will take effect early next year. They note:

More than 800 scientists from Texas signed a document in September, titled “Scientists for a Responsible Curriculum in Texas Public Schools,” to support the teaching of evolution.

The statement said instruction on evolution is vital to understanding all the biological sciences. It also said that a sound core curriculum encourages valid critical thinking and scientific reasoning by leaving out all references to strengths and weaknesses in biological theories and explanations, which politicians have used to introduce supernatural explanations into science courses.

“I have problems with what they said,” said Don McLeroy, chairman of the State Board of Education. “Evolution is vital to understanding a lot of the sociological sciences, not the biological sciences. To say that evolution is vital to understanding biology is simply not true.”

How did this man, who is so blissfully ignorant of the cornerstone of modern biology, become the chairman of the State Board of Education in Texas?? The sheer ignorance of the statement is mind-boggling. The one area to which you cannot extrapolate evolution is the social sciences. He has it exactly backwards. If there is a recall procedure in Texas for the Board of Education, it needs to be used. Now.

Creationism in Australian Schools: Under the Radar?

The Fairfax Regional Network is reporting that there is little monitoring of Christian schools as to whether or not they are teaching creationism, which is not part of the Australian school curriculum and not evolution, which is. They write:

The head of the NSW Board of Studies, John Bennett, told a NSW parliamentary committee yesterday that the education watchdog relied on the Christian schools network to assess whether schools kept to the NSW curriculum, which forbids the teaching of creationism in science classes.

Dr Bennett said teaching creationism was not outlawed in schools, but those that taught creationism were obliged to make clear to students that it was not part of the curriculum and could not be part of an examination assessment.

Responding to questions from a NSW Greens MP, John Kaye, he said that apart from an inspection once every five years and spot checks, the board also relied on individual complaints.

This is likely what will happen in the US in states that pass "academic freedom bills."

Scientists: Both Candidates are Okay

The AP is reporting that both presidential candidates approach science in a vastly different way than George Bush does. They write:

Both presidential candidates — Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama — offer policies farther from the president than they are from each other. They advocate mandatory caps on the main global warming gas and favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research — positions opposite the Bush Administration.

Obama and McCain promise to seek, not censor, government science advice and to restore the White House science adviser's office.

The differences between them are more notable in the nuances of policy than in the broad brush of campaigns. Both have promised more money for scientific research, though the ongoing financial crisis may make that tough.

Yes, especially if taxes go up. Alot of people seem to be saying the same thing about the Bush White House:

Obama's science advisers, such as former National Institutes of Health director Harold Varmus, mostly paint differences between their candidate and President Bush, not McCain. Varmus criticized what he called "the Bush administration's overall war on science."

It hasn't been good, that's for sure.

Communicating Science

David Depew, who wrote a truly topflight book called Darwinism Evolving, which traces the history of evolutionary thought, has written a guest column in the Iowa Press-Citizen called The Problem With Communicating Science. He has some provocative things to say:

Some people think that the decades following Sputnik were something of a Golden Age of science communication in America. But lurking within the communicative practices that sprang up at that time were attitudes and assumptions that may have contributed to our current worries.

Back then a trickle-down notion of science communication was taken for granted. All that the journalist or popular science writer had to do, it was thought, was clothe claims that were assumed to be too difficult for the weak lay mind to understand in a few superficial metaphors.

When I was young, I was told that only five people in the world could understand Einstein's theory of relativity. What a bizarre claim and what a discouraging thing to tell a kid.

Given the assumed deficiency of the public illustrated in this claim, no wonder popular science writing usually bypassed evidence altogether and instead promised that practical goodies of all sorts would flow smoothly from the money the public had spent on the research that produced the claim -- as if that were the point of scientific inquiry.

This formula still is pervasive today

Indeed it is.

Between God and Rationality

Paul Vallely writes in the Statesman that the gulf between scientists on one hand the general public on the other has been growing for years and has some thoughts on it, including the alarmist reaction to Michael Reiss:

The hapless Reiss made it clear that he insists creationism is scientific nonsense. But a handful of the Royal Society’s most eminent members began a campaign to have him sacked. Sir Harry Kroto, Sir Richard Roberts and Sir John Sulston said in a letter to the president of the Royal Society, “We gather Professor Reiss is a clergyman, which in itself is very worrisome.” We must all now be on the look out, it seems, for reverends under the beds.

This mirrors, as Vallely says, the ruminations of Barbara Forrest, who argues that current attempts to "teach the controversy" (the currently popular phrase) are, in reality, nothing more than attempts to bring religion-based ideas into the science class.

It also gives ammunition to researchers like Richard Dawkins, who has been, perhaps the most polarizing influence on the debate thus far. About that, Vallely writes:

John Hedley Brooke, who recently retired as the first Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford, is more sanguine. “These eruptions take place from time to time historically,” he shrugs. “Dawkins is just a throwback to 19th-century rationalism. He has a strong emotional antagonism that is very indiscriminate and treats all kinds of religion the same. A lot of fine distinctions get lost in the polemics. The problem is that it is all a cumulative process in which the extremes feed off one another.”
“Paradoxically, Dawkins is the biggest recruiter for creationism in this country,” says Denis Alexander. Recently, he says, Bill Demcksi [sic], a leading US creationist, e-mailed Dawkins to thank him for his assistance. “The danger is that all this polarisation will make some believers more anti-science, which is not a clever move tactically.”

Dawkins doesn't seem to care. For those of us that are Christians, we should.

How About Someone that's an Actual Palaeontologist, Please?

The Discovery Institute has, on its Evolution News blog three more people that have doubts about evolution. One is a sociologist Steven Fuller, who has written a book called Dissent over Descent. About it, the writer says:

Fuller argues that intelligent design is not anti-science (just anti-establishment), as biological study continues to become more like an engineering project, it will be harder for scientists to deny that life is intelligently designed.

*sigh* another book to read.

The second guy is Ray Bohlin, a molecular biologist and Discovery Institute researcher, who wrote a book called The Natural Limits to Biological Change, in 1984.

The third gentleman is the stuff of Expelled!:

Rodney LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but because he committed a thought crime by doubting Darwinism.

Answers in Genesis has their take on the LeVake affair here:

As we reported earlier (Time magazine gets it wrong again!), LeVake is a Christian biology teacher in Minnesota whose ‘crime’ was simply to expose his students to some of the scientific flaws in evolution. He did not even teach creation but merely brought up problems with evolution. His punishment was removal from his high-school biology classroom (to teach the ‘safer’ subject of general science).

Here is a very short section of a transcript on CNN between LeVake and Kathy Slobogin from 2001:

SLOBOGIN: A few years ago in the small town of Faribault, Minnesota, Levake was promoted to a job he had wanted for years: teaching biology in the local high school. But he ran into trouble with the other biology teachers when he didn't teach evolution. Levake claims he ran out of time in a shortened school year and had to skip the chapters on evolution. The school says the other biology teachers managed to fit them in. When school officials questioned Levake about his future intentions, one thing became clear: He wouldn't teach evolution their way.

LEVAKE: No, I -- I'm not willing to teach evolution as a fact. I'm willing to teach evolution and take a look critically at both sides of the issue. That I -- I feel like I could do.

SLOBOGIN (on camera): Are you bringing your religious beliefs into the classroom?

LEVAKE: No, absolutely not. There is a vast difference between questioning evolution as a theory and teaching science from a religious standpoint.

SLOBOGIN (voice-over): Levake says he's simply trying to expose his students to what he calls holes in the theory of evolution.

LEVAKE: But why would a peacock evolve such a beautiful tail if one of the main purposes of evolution was survival of the fittest?

Funny, that's not what he said in an interview with the AP in 1999:

FARIBAULT, Minn. --- Science teacher Rodney LeVake says believing in evolution is as absurd as thinking the Earth is the center of the universe.

LeVake is speaking over apple pie in a restaurant in this quiet southern Minnesota town of 20,000 that has become the scene of the latest flare-up in the debate about teaching evolution in high school.

"I'd like an evolutionist to look me in the eye," he says, "and tell me one thing about evolution that is true."

Digging a bit deeper reveals that LeVake has a degree in biology education, not biology. He is a product of the education system, not the biological curriculum. I can tell him a whole bunch of things that are true about evolution and if he had a basic background in biology, he could too.

Of course, one wonders why the DI is just now putting him on their honor role since all of the above happened eight to nine years ago. Interestingly, the DI could not come up with an honest-to-goodness, regular, garden-variety biologist who doubts evolution, let alone a palaeontologist.

Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Evolve...

The Guardian has a tongue-in-cheek article (influenced quite heavily by reading Douglas Adams, I'm sure) on why not continuing to evolve would be a good thing. One of the four points:

1. We're not going backwards. If we're standing still then at least we're not backsliding down the evolutionary ladder, despite whatever anecdotal evidence to the contrary you may have gathered. This is good news. If de-evolution were suddenly to start accelerating rapidly we could all end up as hairy little hominids standing around on all fours in the lobbies of buildings waiting for someone tall enough to come along and push the lift button.

Funny.

Yoko Ono has dropped her lawsuit.

I Suspect This Happens More Often Than We Think.

An article in the Louisiana Advocate recounts an exchange between their editorial staff and a local pastor is instructive in how these arguments typically go and why there is so much work to be done. They write:

The problem is that individuals such as Pastor Corie simply do not accept the empirical data. They claim that dating methods are inaccurate, that all the fossil hominid evidence is not what paleoanthropologists say it is, that the geologists are all wrong about the age of the Earth, that the astronomers are all wrong about the age of the universe, that biologists and geneticists are all wrong regarding speciation etc., etc., ad nauseam.

Finally, Pastor Corie claims that individuals like myself “will be eternally damned,” and asks God to have mercy upon our souls, since, apparently, data-based reasoning is a sin.

Yes, the gulf is that wide.

More on Texas

Airtightnoodle, who is a Texas science teacher, has a science blog here. He has lots on the controversy as well as other articles. Looks like my kind of place.

More on the Texas Standards

The Houston Chronicle has a slightly different story about the resistance to the Texas Standards. According to the story:

"We are here to support and promote strong, clear, modern science education in Texas schools," said David Hillis, professor of integrative biology at the University of Texas at Austin. "Texas public schools should be preparing our kids to succeed in the 21st century, not promoting political and ideological agendas that are hostile to a sound science education."

But it's important for Texas biology teachers to explain the strengths and weaknesses of various theories, including biology, said the board's chairman, Dr. Don McLeroy, R-Bryan.

A panel of experts recently recommended the "strengths and weaknesses" provision remain in astronomy and chemistry but be removed from the updated science curriculum.

"We will probably put it back in," McLeroy said. "If it's viable for astronomy and chemistry, it's good enough for biology."

The unspoken point here is that he thinks that astronomy and chemistry are just fine but evolution is misguided. Dr. McLeroy has stated a number of times he thinks that the theory has weaknesses. I would like to know what those weaknesses are. I believe I will ask him.

Texas Scientists Speak Out

The Dallas Morning News has an article reporting an organized effort on the part of Texas scientists to oppose the changes in the state science guidelines advocating teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution. The writer notes:

The State Board of Education is considering new science curriculum standards. It is expected to vote next spring. Because Texas is such a large purchaser of textbooks, its ongoing science debate affects textbooks nationwide.

An academic work group proposed that Texas standards for biology courses eliminate the long-held language of teaching students the "strengths and weaknesses" of theories.

The science coalition supports that language change because it says talking of "weaknesses" of evolution allows for religion-based concepts like creationism and intelligent design to enter the instruction. The Texas Freedom Network, an Austin-based group that says it monitors the influence of the religious right, also praises the proposed language change.

But they say they fear State Board of Education members, led by chairman and creationist Don McLeroy, will switch the language back before the final vote.

I think that people on those boards should have to have a minimum amount of knowledge of different subjects. This might be done as an administered test. Being a dentist does not qualify you to lecture on biology.

"Religulous" and "Expelled!": Same Tactics?

Several people who were interviewed for the new Bill Maher film Religulous are crying 'foul.' According to a story in the Charlotte Observer:

“Bill Maher was quite aggressive in pursuing his atheist agenda,” said Dr. Francis Collins, the former head of the Human Genome Project, which successfully mapped human DNA.

Collins filmed lengthy conversations with Maher about the relationship between faith and science, making “the case that acceptance of evolution is entirely consistent with belief in God,” he said. That conversation apparently ended up on the cutting room floor; Collins appears briefly in the film, discussing a non-science related topic.

“Religulous” is directed by Larry Charles, the man who teamed up with Sacha Baron Cohen to create “Borat,” which drew criticism from its subjects for some of the same deceptive tactics and creative editing.

Maher declined requests for an interview, but explained his tactics to the Los Angeles Times:

“It was simple: We never, ever, used my name,” he told the newspaper. “We never told anybody it was me who was going to do the interviews. We even had a fake title for the film. We called it `A Spiritual Journey.' … At the last second, when the cameras were already rolling, I would show up. So either they'd be seen on camera leaving the interview and lose face or they'd have to talk to me.”

There are many other complaints in the article about the tactics used and the lack of unbiased editing. Given his heavy-handed politics in "Politically Incorrect," this does not surprise me much. It won't get as much press as the same tactics used in "Expelled!" did . That is a shame. All of the anti-religious bile of Christopher Hitchens without any of the wit. And the fact that he is honest about his deception does not make it any better.

Oktar Offers Prize for Evidence of Evolution

Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar has offered a prize of ten trillion (that's 10 zeroes!) Turkish Lira for fossil evidence of evolution. That's over 8 trillion US dollars (we're still talking nine zeroes here!). The story notes:

Mr Oktar, 52, who successfully campaigned for Mr Dawkins' official website to be banned in Turkey, has said he will give 10 trillion Turkish lira, roughly equal to £4.4trn "to anyone who produces a single intermediate-form fossil demonstrating evolution."

Mr Oktar is a household name in Turkey after publishing hundreds of books, pamphlets and DVDs to contest Darwin's theory of evolution.

Using the pen name Harun Yahya, his book The Atlas Of Creation sold 10,000 copies worldwide.

The 800-page book detailed his claims that for millions of years life forms have not developed, thus supporting his Islamic creationist beliefs

Here's why this reward will go unclaimed: as with Kent Hovind before him, any evidence of evolution he will simply dismiss as being unconvincing. He will claim that the intermediates are simply aberrant animals of one kind of another.

The author's website is a breathtaking journey inside rampant enthusiasm and boundless ego. In the "About the author" section, I counted no less than 49 pictures of the author in various "Joe Cool" poses. Nowhere, however, are there guidelines for the challenge (if I missed 'em, please let me know). At least Dr. Dino gave guidelines, even if no one could satisfy them. Kent Hovind is, by the way, in prison for tax evasion.

Of Oktar's Atlas of Creation, Richard Dawkins said this: "I am at a loss to reconcile the expensive and glossy production values of this book with the breathtaking inanity of the content."

More Controversy Surrounding Toumai

Expatica has an article which details the new round of name-calling with regard to the fossil known as Toumai. The article notes:

Toumai's big defender is French palaeontologist Michel Brunet, a professor at the prestigious College de France, who says Toumai walked the Earth shortly after chimpanzees and hominids diverged from a common ancestral primate. Brunet has been roundly attacked in other quarters. Critics are incensed that he has given a hominid honorific (Sahelanthropus tchadensis) to a creature whose cranium, in their view, was too squashed to be that of a pre-cursor of Homo sapiens.

There are many other problems, apparently, including provenance. Without that, your arguments are pretty much without merit. In another situation, Günter Bräuer dated the Eliye Springs cranium using morphological criteria to around 140-170 kya, when in fact, it was eroding out of a river bank. Sometimes, you just don't know. Read the whole thing.

Deeply Ingrained...

So, I am sitting in my Sunday School class, which is on parenting and we are discussing the roles of men and women. Then this verse popped up:

11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day. (Genesis 1: 11-13, NIV)

Then one of my friends piped up: "That is so great because it just invalidates evolution."

Eh? What was that? How does it do that, exactly? Sensing that the true focus of the class was not the E/C controversy, and in a moment of true cowardice, I said nothing but sadly shook my head. My minister said, at that point, "well, Jim, I know you think differently," at which point, I said "I'm not saying a word." The uncomfortable moment passed and we went about our business. It reminded me, though, how deeply ingrained this teaching is. My friend has no biology training or background. She is just regurgitating what she has been taught.

On the other hand, my minister did approach me afterward and said that he would like to sit down and talk with me about the subject. That might be promising. We shall see...

The Sneer Review: "Darwin Exposed."

This came up a bit back and now dovetails nicely into the post on Harun Yahya. It is a "letter" from Charles Darwin to Adolf Hitler and points out some of the problems that seem to get missed along the way.

How The University Came To Be

The Times Higher Education Supplement has a newsletter called the Poppletonian, run by Laurie Taylor. In this week's release, she has the following:

The great evolution versus intelligent design debate surfaced on our campus last week following the publication of the vice-chancellor's letter to new students. In his letter, the v-c repeatedly informed his readers that the present Poppleton University was the product of strategic planning by superior beings in management.

This was too much for Professor K.W. Proudfoot of our Biology for Business Department. In a long article published on his website, he insisted that all the empirical evidence pointed to the critical role of evolution in the formation of the present university. "Only random mutations could possibly explain the appearance and rapid expansion of such previously unknown species as the Employability Strategy Committee and the Centre for Blended and Digitally Enhanced Learning. No one looking at these grotesque new mutations could believe they were the product of intelligent design by anyone, let alone a Supreme Being."

What do you think? Join the debate at Blindwatchmaker.com.

I laughed for five minutes. A trip to Blindwatchmaker.com yields exactly what you would expect.

Harun Yahya: All Terrorists are Darwinists

Der Spiegel has interviewed Harun Yahya, a.k.a. Adnan Oktar, the prominent Muslim creationist. The opening question about why scientists accept evolution yields the stock creationist answer and goes unchallenged:

Adnan Oktar: First of all, there are 100 million fossils that prove creation. And these have never changed in any respect. For example, fish have always been fish, shrimp have always been shrimp, and crabs have always been crabs. And their fossils are on display in every corner of the world. We displayed them in Turkey as well, and people saw them with their own eyes. First and foremost, this is a clear proof. Secondly, in contrast to creation, Darwinism does not have a single piece of evidence demonstrating the theory of evolution. Its proponents don’t have any fossil evidence, of the kind which they should be able to put forward.

Sitting here looking at Donald Prothero's Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why Its Important, and having just read Your Inner Fish by Neil Shubin, I find such statements amazing. That people take this kind of statement seriously is, perhaps, even more so. He rattles the ID cages as well:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How much were you influenced by Christian movements, the so-called intelligent design movements in Europe and the United States?

Oktar: I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity. This is a theory which claims that things have somehow been created, but it is unknown who created them. I find this rather dishonest, actually. The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.

Aside from the lack of a theoretical construct, this is the other elephant in the room at the Discovery Institute: that the universe shows design in places, we're just not saying who did it. Such wishy-washiness is what led to Pastafarianism. His take on terrorism is a peculiar bend of honest Islam and creationism:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Do you really think that someone like Osama bin Laden, who justifies terrorist acts using the Koran and the alleged ungodliness of the west, is following Darwinist ideas?

Oktar: Things are not what they seem to be. You do not see that appearance and style in such people in their youth. Yet, when their actual faith is scrutinized, it emerges that they are genuine materialists and Darwinists. It is impossible for a person who fears Allah to commit terrorist acts because of his faith. Such acts are committed by people who were educated abroad, who received a Darwinist education and who internalized Darwinism, but who later called themselves Muslims. When scrutinized carefully, when their speech and essays are carefully analyzed, we see that all these people are Darwinists.

It is unfortunate that the Der Spiegel interviewer was not equipped to (or chose not to) counter Oktar on his understanding of the fossil record (or his lack of understanding, thereof). Whether you are reading Phillip Johnson or Harun Yahya, that is where the wheels typically fall of. Read the whole thing.

Hat tip to Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs

Roger Ebert on Creationism

Roger Ebert has branched out in a column for the Chicago Tribune on creationism. It has been called satire by at least one writer and, one suspects, Ebert wrote it to expose the truly strange perspectives of the YEC group. He lets the facade slip once:

Q. What about bones representing such species as Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal Man?

A. Created at the same time as man. They did not survive. In fact, all surviving species and many others were created fully formed at the same time. At that moment they were of various ages and in varying degrees of health. Some individuals died an instant later, others within seconds, minutes or hours.

This is an odd combination of "appearance of age" and the standard YEC arguments. I did rather enjoy his comment on the moose, which has been said to be a criticism of Sarah Palin's moose hunting:

Q. Why would God create such an absurd creature as a moose?

A. In charity, we must observe that the moose probably does not seem absurd to itself.

Ebert's original column on Sarah Palin is here. In some senses he reminds me of the late film critic Pauline Kael, who is reported to have said, when Richard Nixon was elected president "How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon!" Nixon won the popular vote by over 23 percentage points. The venom against Sarah Palin seems to emanate from journalists and (now) film critics. They don't understand how anyone could like Sarah Palin because, like most of us at one point or another, they are prone to group think. Most of the people that I speak to about it feel fine about her or don't have much of an opinion.

A moose bit my sister once...

Texas Fights Back

According to Education Week, a review committee of teachers and academics has drafted proposals that would remove the "strengths and weaknesses"language in the Texas science standards. The article goes on to note:

Proposals released Tuesday from review committees of teachers and academics would also put up roadblocks for teachers who want to discuss creationism or "intelligent design" in biology classes when covering the subject of evolution.

The biology review committee proposed language that states supernatural and religious-based concepts such as creationism have no place in science classes.

The standards are subject to approval by the state Board of Education, where a majority of members have said they are in favor of retaining the current mandate to cover both strengths and weaknesses of major scientific theories, notably evolution.

The problem that I have always had with this kind of language, echoed by Kenneth Miller, is that it is squarely aimed at evolution and was drafted by self-admitted creationists, both in Texas and in Louisiana. An intellectually honest approach would be to apply those standards to all of science. Oh wait! That's what science does already. Predictably, there is opposition:

State Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, R-College Station, said Tuesday he will oppose the recommendation.

"I like the present language on strengths and weaknesses," said McLeroy, who describes himself as a creationist. "This is something we've been doing for over 20 years in Texas, and we should keep doing it."

He said the theory of evolution has "plenty of weaknesses."

Somewhere in there it needs to be mentioned that Dr. McLeroy is a dentist and has no advanced training in the biological sciences. That's a nice way of saying he has no idea what he's talking about.

Where There is no Separation...

Sometimes there is something to be said for how our founding fathers set things up. The Guardian reports from Turkey where:

A Turkish court has banned internet users from viewing the official Richard Dawkins website after a Muslim creationist claimed its contents were defamatory and blasphemous. Adnan Oktar, who writes under the pen name of Harun Yahya, complained that Dawkins, a fierce critic of creationism and intelligent design, had insulted him in comments made on forums and blogs. According to Oktar's office, Istanbul's second criminal court of peace banned the site earlier this month on the grounds that it "violated" Oktar's personality.

I am not sure how such comments would have violated his "personality." Does he not walk, talk and smile with it? Oktar (who goes by the pen name of Harun Yahya), if you will recall, was the brainchild behind the Atlas of Creation, the 750 page tome that magically began to show up on the doorsteps of schools as far away as Scotland. In a lot of ways, this is no different than the tactics of the creationists in this country. When they can't produce the science, they try other routes.

Chicago Rabbis Back Teaching of Evolution

The Chicago Tribune reports on a letter drafted by David Oler in Deerfield that supports the teaching of evolution in public schools. The story relates the reaction of other rabbis:

Seeing evidence of the divine in the theories of Charles Darwin meant that [David] Gerson did not hesitate to sign an open letter drafted by a suburban Chicago rabbi this summer supporting the teaching of evolution in public schools. The two-paragraph letter, written by Rabbi David Oler of Congregation Beth Or in Deerfield, has attracted 235 signatures since its completion in July, with Jewish leaders from across the United States supporting its cause.

The effort, Oler said, spun off from the Clergy Letter Project, launched in 2004 by Michael Zimmerman, now the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis. Zimmerman asked Christian clergy to draft an open letter, since signed by 11,000 religious leaders, supporting the public teaching of evolution and emphasizing that religion does not have to be an enemy of science.

One wonders what other Jewish leaders around the country think. That Rabbis around the country are backing a Judaism/evolution reconciliation, though, was earlier evidenced by their loud denunciation of Expelled! It is interesting that, despite their comraderie in other areas, it appears that evangelical Christians and Jews are lining up on opposite sides of this issue.

Carol Hunt on ID and Evolution

Carol Hunt has written a piece on the climate of evolution that is alluded to in Kenneth Miller's new book Only a Theory. She alone seems to have understood exactly what Michael Reiss said about teaching creationism:

Earlier last week, the UK media pounced on comments made by Professor Michael Reiss, director of education at the Royal Society -- one of the world's oldest existing scientific organisations -- and forced his resignation.

Seemingly, the poor misguided man -- a biologist and a Church of England minister -- said that teachers should take the time in science class to explain why creationism had no scientific basis. So what's wrong with that? Plenty, screamed his colleagues. Why not spend time explaining why Bertrand Russell's teacup isn't actually orbiting Venus? Or why the flying spaghetti monster isn't living on Mars? A journalist from the Observer pointed out: "The prospect of such ignorance spreading to Britain quite rightly appalls scientists."

She has taken a somewhat jaundiced view of the new ID movement, arguing:

There has never been a better time to promote nonsensical and dangerous claptrap and get away with it, because we are all so afraid of "offending" other people's religious and cultural sensibilities. Moral, cultural and scientific relativism is in, and validated; empirical "truth" is out.

Today everyone is allowed to be an expert, as long as they "believe" in what they are saying. Gut feeling is everything, and to hell with the experts. So what if the scientists tell us that creationism -- or its well-dressed first cousin, Intelligent Design -- is not supported by any evidence whatsoever and therefore as likely to be as real as the Tooth Fairy?

And, with today's instant communication, it takes minutes to find other like-minded souls who also believe incredible things before breakfast.

Get enough people believing in Thetans or aliens or spaghetti monsters or whatever, and soon you can tout for cash -- or votes.

She is likely correct. Kenneth Miller argues that, until the ID movement came about, science was able to practice in an apolitical environment. By attaching anti-religiosity to the science of evolution, the movement has gained momentum. Whether this will work in ID's favor in the long run remains to be seen.

National Geographic Neandertal Model

National Geographic Magazine has created a model of a Neandertal woman in time for the October issue. According to the press release:

With a beetle-browed stare, the red-haired, pale-skinned Neanderthal woman gazes from the October cover of National Geographic magazine across the millennia. Affectionately known as "Wilma," the life-size, 5-foot-tall, heavily muscled model is the first ever reconstruction of a Neanderthal using evidence from fossil anatomy and ancient DNA preserved in cannibalized bones.

Wilma was commissioned by National Geographic to illustrate an article in the October 2008 issue, "Last of the Neanderthals," which explores what caused these hominids who dominated Eurasia for more than 200,000 years to vanish in the Ice Age, while our modern human ancestors survived.

A tad sensationalized, of course, but it is nice that they are getting more positive notice. It seems as though people only use the term Neandertal to mean an ignoramus.

More on the Vatican Congress

There is another large story on the Vatican Congress over at Panda's Thumb. They also dissect PZ Myers' views on the congress.

Vatican Shuts out Creationists, ID Supporters

The Vatican is hosting a congress on evolution, science and faith and are, according to the story in the Catholic News Service, excluding supporters of ID and recent earth creationism. The story notes:

Jesuit Father Marc Leclerc, a philosophy professor at the Gregorian, told Catholic News Service Sept. 16 that organizers "wanted to create a conference that was strictly scientific" and that discussed rational philosophy and theology along with the latest scientific discoveries.

He said arguments "that cannot be critically defined as being science, or philosophy or theology did not seem feasible to include in a dialogue at this level and, therefore, for this reason we did not think to invite" supporters of creationism and intelligent design.

While it has always been the catholic position that evolution be treated as science, this takes the form of institutional support. It also follows on the heals of the Methodists' declaration that they would not support teaching either creationism or ID in the public schools. The vast majority of evangelicals still lean the other way and this will startle more than a few people.

Reiss Resigns from Royal Society

You knew this was coming. Michael Reiss, the professor of education who made waves by hinting that teaching creationism was not a bad thing has resigned. The story relates:

The Royal Society announced Reiss's resignation in a statement today. It said: "Some of Professor Michael Reiss's recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society's Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society's reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as director of education."

I am not sure what is more disturbing about this. The fact that he was clearly misquoted by people who should have known better and resigned in spite of that or the fact that the Royal Society felt that even the hint of creationism was enough to damage its reputation. The society should simply have issued a statement saying that the esteemed professor firmly believes that creationism is without merit but that it needs to be addressed on some level. I don't know anyone who follows this debate who doesn't think that. This is also a stark reminder of how wrong the media gets things, even when they know the whole story. This is why I get my news from blogs these days.

Only in Berkeley

Well, Berkeley has outdone itself. The Judah Magnes museum has erected a temple to science. The press announcement goes like this:

Four millennia after Abraham fathered Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and 150,000 years after hominids introduced burial rituals to the Mediterranean, religion will finally be made compatible with science on September 27, 2008. From that day forward, a two-story downtown Berkeley building dubbed the Atheon will provide a spiritual home for rational people in California, and guidance to acolytes worldwide.

Establishment of an Atheon has been a high priority in the scientific community for the past several years, rivaling even enthusiasm for the new Large Hadron Collider. "When you listen to people like Nobel-laureate cosmologist Steven Weinberg, or Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, you hear a lot of talk about how god-based religion is out-of-date," says conceptual artist Jonathon Keats, founder of the Atheon. "The leading minds believe that science can and should provide a spiritually satisfying replacement. But until recently no one bothered to consider what form that alternative might take."

It gets better. There is a song composed for the temple. According to the story:

The song composed for the Atheon is equally scientific, a canon for three cosmic voices titled "Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?" The canon is comprised of sounds pulsating through several hypothetical universes as well as our own living cosmos, musically arranged by Mr. Keats using audio files produced by University of Virginia astronomer Mark Whittle. According to Mr. Keats, "these universes don't provide any answers. If people are to find spirituality in science, it's likely to be by immersing themselves in questions."

That's great. A place for people to go and ask "why am I here?" and get no answer. I get the same thing from Zombocom. This is EXACTLY what science isn't: a world view. Science is a means by which we examine the world and try to understand how it works. It has no power to provide a worldview. As far as rivaling the enthusiasm of the LHC, that is overreaching of the highest order. I was aware of the LHC for months ahead of its powering up. I heard about this nonsense only because I prowl the airwaves for things like this. The Atheon web site is here. If you find something other than a late 60s tie-dyed pattern, let me know. Sheer silliness that only Berkeley can provide.

I am avoiding stories about Sarah Palin since it would take too long to debunk most of them and the level of vitriol is very high. An example of this would be Josh Rosenau's article on "Palin-spastic." On to other things.

The "Tuscan Swamp Ape"

No, it is not another Bigfoot, it is an ape that appears to have gone extinct toward the end of the Miocene, around 5.5 mya and went by the name of Oreopithecus (which Fred Smith used to call "the cookie monster"). According to the story in Life in Italy:

It had a small head and large eyes, and its teeth indicate it lived on a diet of berries, fruits and vegetables. Crucially, it also had hands capable of manipulation similar to that of a human being. According to Rook, it had more dexterity than any ape alive today and could handle objects with the same precision that was formerly thought to be the exclusive capability of homo sapiens and their direct ancestors. The Swamp Ape evolved in isolation from other animals on the tropical island, where it appeared to have had no natural predators. However, as sea levels fell with the Ice Age, a land bridge appeared, bringing with it dangerous new species, including large predators, which eventually wiped out the Swamp Ape.

Convergent evolution. I love it.

Top Scientist: Teach Creationism

The Daily Mail is reporting on Michael Reiss, Director of Education for the Royal Society, who is now arguing that creationism should be taught along science in schools. They write:

Children should be taught about creationism in school biology lessons, a leading scientist said today. Professor Reiss, a Church of England minister and former biology teacher, said he strongly believed in teaching the theory of evolution to children.

But rather than dismiss creationism as wrong or stupid, teachers should be prepared to discuss it as another 'worldview'. 'It arises from my time as a biology teacher in schools when I realise that simply banging on about evolution didn’t lead some pupils to change their views at all,' he said. 'I had previously been rather evangelical about teaching evolution, trying to change pupil’s minds. 'Now I would be rather more content simply for them to understand it as one way of understanding the universe.'

Or is he? Later in the same article, we find:

But Professor Reiss added: 'Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis.

'However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis.

It is amazing what a sensationalistic headline will get you. What he says in the second quote is the kicker. If you teach creationism in the public schools, it will be exposed for the scientific fraud that it is. Will it change minds? Who knows.

Creation Moments

Anonymous has left a comment on the "Sarah Palin and Creationism" post. Next time I am not going to post something unless they are willing to identify themselves. It is like knocking on someone's door with a bag over your head. Anyway, he/she lists several links in the comment which I would like to address. The first one is to a page called "Teaching Evolution: Is there a Better way?" The opening paragraph states:

Today's public school textbooks on Biology, Earth sciences, and Human society generally well-present the facts; it is the interpretation of those facts that is currently under fire and is being openly questioned. Without exception, that interpretation is from the evolutionary perspective and serves to colour the very words that are used in the text. Textbooks on Human anthropology are notoriously bad in this repect [sic].

Currently under fire and openly questioned? Other than the ICR and like organizations, who is doing the questioning? How are textbooks on human anthropology (I assume they mean human palaeontology) notoriously bad in this regard? Mr. Taylor does not say. A bit later, he writes:

For example, the octopus eye and the human eye are very similar yet these are not regarded as homologous because the octopus and the human are not believed to have a common ancestor. But, having decided that two similar-looking limbs are homologous, it is then argued that this similarity proves their common ancestry! This is nothing more than circular reasoning.

How is this circular reasoning? The reason they are homologous is that they are made up of the same anatomical parts and embryologic studies show that they develop the same way. Structures are analogous if they do not derive from the same anatomical parts. That is evolution 101. This passage shows that Mr. Taylor knows little about how homology works.

In the second link, Should Evolution be Immune from Criticism?, the author David Buckna, writes:

One popular biology textbook used in public schools is "Inquiry Into Life" by Sylvia Mader, published by McGraw-Hill Ryerson. On page 529 (eighth edition) are diagrams of giraffes which compare Lamarck's theory and Darwin's theory. According to Darwin, "Early giraffes probably had necks of various lengths. Natural selection due to competition led to survival of the longer-necked giraffes and their offspring. Eventually, only long-necked giraffes survived the competition."

Regarding giraffes, shouldn't students be taught to distinguish between fact and speculation? No fossil evidence has ever been unearthed showing giraffes with shorter necks.

Yeah it has. Here is a pair of articles detailing it. Here is another comment:

It's certainly easy enough for evolutionists to pick out something and call it a "giraffe" and thus generate an ancestor for giraffes. Carroll illustrates a marvelous example of how other ancestors are generated: He suggested that the wolf-like Mesonychus (which he believes was the terrestrial ancestor of whales) should be placed in the Order Cetacea. Since the Order Cetacea is reserved for whales, presto! Mesonychids are whales!

This is just silly. Mesonychus has characteristics in the inner ear and orbital construction that are similar to whales to the exclusion of other animals. That is why researchers draw similarities.

I would comment on the third article but it couldn't be found on the link provided and I don't have time to go hunting for it. The fourth article, Teaching Origins in Public Schools takes a different approach: teach evolution and then pick out the holes in it. He then lists several criticism of evolution that would come out during teaching. I don't have time to go through them all but, for example, he writes:

Evolution is necessarily speculative:

Every science is necessarily speculative. That is how science proceeds, by speculation and then hypothetical testing. This is a non-criticism.

It behooves the teacher to fairly distinguish fact from speculation in any discussion of evolution as this will not always be obvious to the student. Even the term "theory" ought to be strictly limited to those hypotheses which are subject to the scientific method and thus are capable of being disproven by a critical experiment.

This shows a lack of understanding of what a theory is and how it is differentiated from a hypothesis. A theory is a broad statement of relationships about a particular set of phenomena. Quantum theory and gravitational theory are classic examples. A hypothesis is simply a test of a particular question that falls within that overall theoretical construct.

Evolution seems incompatible with the second law of thermodynamics:

Perhaps the reason that there is so little compelling scientific evidence in support of evolution is that it appears to contradict one of the most fundamental laws of nature - the second law of thermodynamics. This law says what is intuitively obvious to most people, that all real processes tend toward a condition of greater probability and disorder. Thus a house is more likely to spontaneously disassemble over a period of a thousand years than it is to assemble itself into an even more complex and more highly organized structure. Order can be achieved out of disorder, but it requires information, programs, energy and machines. Energy from the sun can help to transform an acorn into an oak tree but it requires the indescribably complex biological machinery and information in the living cells of the acorn to do it. Dead oak trees are destroyed by the same energy from the sun.

It is also intuitively obvious that, were the sun to simply disappear, we would survive about a day. Kelvin made his statements in the 1870s before anyone was aware that radioactivity was what was responsible for the internal heating of the earth and it was not until Einstein came along that we had some idea of why the sun has burned as long as it has (Harter 2005).

The other examples betray evidence of quote mining. This is the trick of misquoting authors to get them to say what you want them to say. There is a great page on TalkOrigins that lists the most egregious examples. So, once again, it is a case of creationist' half-truths, quote mines and out-dated information that has become standard and reveals, again, why no one in the scientific community takes them seriously.

I obviously didn't take time to address all of the concerns of anonymous but if you do a peripheral search of the literature, all of the comments made in the articles have been repeatedly rebutted in different places. Go to Talk Origins for good bibliographies of these.

"Strengths and Weaknesses"

The Eugene Register-Guard has an editorial on the growth in popularity of the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" with regard to teaching evolution. Written anonymously (maddeningly), the author notes:

It is the quintessential irony that nothing has evolved more conspicuously than the strategies creationists keep devising to challenge evolution, which has been accurately characterized as “the organizing principle of life science.”

Ample evidence of this exists, of course. One such example is the pre-Edwards vs. Aguilard text of Of Pandas and People and the post decision text, which had substituted the word "creationist" with the words "Design Proponents." The author also points out the hypocrisy in these movements:

Ever the trailblazer for pioneering new methods to legitimize injecting religion into science classrooms, the Texas State Board of Education is again considering a science curriculum that teaches the “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution. Not creationism or intelligent design, just “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution.

This needs to be pointed out more often.

Sarah Palin, Creationism and AIG

Answers in Genesis wants to know if Sarah Palin is a creationist. In a recent article, they address this question and conclude with a resounding "maybe."

In 2006, then-candidate Palin indicated in a TV debate that creation should be taught alongside evolution in the state’s public schools, declaring that schools should “teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”³ Now, in stating this, she may have been advocating the teaching of scientific creationism, as opposed to biblical creationism⁴ (the latter having been deemed unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987⁵), but we don’t really know.

They also note that she backpedaled on this the following day by stating that she:

...meant to say that a discussion of alternative views should be allowed but not forced on students, adding: “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

They then make the following (correct) observation about politicians:

Most politicians, when asked about their origins beliefs, try to answer somewhere between the two bookends, settling into a comfortable place in between so as not to alienate those who believe in a Creator (the overwhelming majority of Americans) while protecting themselves from allegations that they reject mainstream science. We recall that in 2007, Republican candidate for president Gov. Mike Huckabee put up his hand during a debate to show that he did not believe in evolution. Some creationists quickly rejoiced, concluding that Mr. Huckabee, a former Baptist pastor, must believe in a literal, straightforward reading of Genesis. Later, however, he made it clear that he did not necessarily want to be identified with young-earth creationism, saying that he was not sure about a six-day creation.

That's as true as it goes but they then go on to say something somewhat startling:

Gov. Palin’s clarification of her views on the teaching of origins in public schools mirrors AiG’s general view: biblical creation should not be forced into classrooms, specifically because science teachers with a strong belief in evolution would teach creation poorly, so it would ultimately be counterproductive for the students. The better tactic would be to follow through on the Supreme Court’s ruling that teachers are “free to teach any and all facets” of all the scientific theories concerning the origins of humankind (p. 9 of the ruling).

I suspect they are taking liberties with the "teaching creation poorly" part, since we have no idea why she doesn't want to force creationism on the public schools. Although this tact will open up creationist teaching to a level of scrutiny it has not, as of yet, had, this somewhat subtler approach dovetails directly into the recent spate of "academic freedom" bills that have been passed.

The Movement of the Human Race

The Guardian has a story (originally from the Observer) covering a study done to sequence the genetic make-up of over 250 000 volunteers. They write:

Scientists have known for several years that modern humans emerged from sub-Saharan Africa within the past 100,000 years. However, the £25m Genographic project - backed by National Geographic, IBM and the Waitt Family Foundation - has recently transformed that knowledge by painting in a mass of highly detailed information about our African exodus.

After emerging into the Arabian peninsula, some of our ancestors took sea routes along the south Asian coast to reach Australia 50,000 years ago. Only later, about 40,000 years ago, did we enter Europe - its cold and its Neanderthals making it far less hospitable - while one group of Asians headed farther east over the land bridge that then connected their continent to America.

Such stories sort of gloss over the possible contributions of archaic Homo sapiens' genes to the early modern migrants, an issue hotly debated in palaeoanthropology circles. More to come, I hope.

Reevaluation of the Palau Small-Bodied Human Remains: "Berger Got It Wrong."

Science Daily is reporting on a study done by archaeologists from three different universities, University of Oregon, North Carolina State University and the Australian National University, who claim that Lee Berger's contention that the Palau remains are those of primitive, dwarf-sized humans is in error:

"Our evidence indicates the earliest inhabitants of Palau were of normal stature, and it counters the evidence that Berger, et al, presented in their paper indicating there was a reduced stature population in early Palau," said University of Oregon anthropologist Greg C. Nelson. "Our research from whole bones and whole skeletons indicates that the earliest individuals in Palau were of normal stature but gracile. In other words, they were thin."

They are also scathing on Berger's overall work in this area:

"I think Berger's primary mistakes were his not understanding the variation in the skeletal population in which he was working, using fragmentary remains again in a situation where he didn't understand variation, and stepping outside his own area of expertise, which, I think all scientists try not to do but sometimes we do," Nelson said.

"One of his biggest mistakes was rushing to publish," Nelson said of Berger. "He did not take the time to understand the area in which he was working -- its entire history, not just the skeletal stuff," he said. "Any time you work anywhere, you have to understand this history. You just can't walk in and cowboy it, pull some stuff out and draw conclusions in the absence of understanding the bigger picture."

One suspects that there is more here than meets the eye between these two groups of researchers. Berger has yet to respond and this story does not mention the evidence corroborating Berger's contentions from the island of Flores, although one suspects that this group will turn its attention to those remains now.

Well, its plain and simple that I am not going to get anything other than Sarah Palin stories today. It is either the Palin "media mayhem" or "Palinsanity," take your pick. I will try to find the most interesting ones.

Update: Well I was wrong. See the above post.