This is cool. Reptile tracks that are 290 million years old. It will necessitate a rewrite:
"We know from the trackways that these animals had their feet planted almost under their body," Berman said, "whereas in textbooks, they give them a sprawling gait as if the limbs are extended out from the body considerably. This just isn't true. You look at the trackway and you see that the footprints are very close to the midline of the body."
Science in action.
This is a blog detailing the creation/evolution/ID controversy and assorted palaeontological news. I will post news here with running commentary.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sort of related but not really. I am not sure what is more amazing: the lawsuit or that people elected this man. Interesting: Foxnews wasted no time in calling to attention the fact that the congressman is a democrat. Usually you have to read three stories on a particular event to figure that out.
It seems the Discovery Institute has a new book out called Explore Evolution. Here is the link for it. The publisher is Hill House. There seems to be a reluctance to say who the authors are. The flyer simply states:
Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels.
Where has it been pilot-tested? Not in any school district around here. Here is the book website.
Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels.
Where has it been pilot-tested? Not in any school district around here. Here is the book website.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Off-topic day
I just finished reading one of those "disnified" books of Winnie-the-Pooh. I was immediately struck by how vastly inferior it is to the original stories and how dumbed-down it is. All of the personality traits of the original characters are gone. That seems to characterize all of the Disney Winnie-the-Pooh books. How sad.
Friday, September 14, 2007
This seems more a legal question than a science question.
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against the Roseville Joint Union High School District that was filed by a Granite Bay man unhappy with how evolution was being taught in his children's school.
Apparently, the man had met with school board officials several times and, when he did not get the answer that he wanted, sued them. The judge saw through the smokescreen and dismissed the suit. Said school board member Jan Pinney:
"He had more time before the board than anybody has ever had in my 12 years on the board."
A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit against the Roseville Joint Union High School District that was filed by a Granite Bay man unhappy with how evolution was being taught in his children's school.
Apparently, the man had met with school board officials several times and, when he did not get the answer that he wanted, sued them. The judge saw through the smokescreen and dismissed the suit. Said school board member Jan Pinney:
"He had more time before the board than anybody has ever had in my 12 years on the board."
Thursday, September 13, 2007
New research suggests that early hominids did not have a fully developed achilles tendon and, therefore, couldn't run fast.
Anthropology.net isn't convinced.
Anthropology.net isn't convinced.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
In a paper dating back a few days, John Derbyshire remarks on Tom Bethell's paper about the AEI conference on Darwinism. Derbyshire recalls the exchange as follows:
If a graduate student came to you and said: 'You know, I've got this great idea for a possible evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. I think I could figure it out and I've got an idea for some experiments that would test this. Would you recommend me to go along with that?' And Michael said no. Which left me stunned. This is obscurantist.
Bethell responded thusly:
I sent Behe an e-mail. Could he verify this account? No, he could not. "John Derbyshire is imagining things," he wrote back. "I would never have said such a thing. I welcome experiments into evolutionary pathways. It has been my experience that the more we know, and the more experimental work is done, the less and less plausible Darwinian mechanisms become."
Chapman, also present, recalls no such exchange with Behe.
Derbyshire then responded:
So far as my exchange with Michael Behe is concerned, I reported it as I recall it. I distinctly recall his answering "No" to my question, as the answer startled me. I had not expected him to be so blunt. It is possible, I suppose, that he mis-apprehended my question -- there was some crosstalk going on at the time. I know what I asked, though, and I know what he answered. If anything got lost there, I don't feel at fault, though I should be sorry to think that anyone -- even a creationist -- believed himself traduced by something I said in good faith. I should be especially sorry in the case of Professor Behe, who strikes me as the least shifty of a very shifty bunch. At least he had the guts to show up and give evidence at Kitzmiller.
Mr. Bethell responds (in the same article):
Mr. Derbyshire's bitter hostility to intelligent design is so great that he is unable to think straight on the subject. Now he tells us that Michael Behe may have "misapprehended" his question. It is certain that he did, for no intelligent-design theorist is opposed to any scientific research. That research is all tending to support, not weaken the claims of intelligent design. It is convenient for JD to think otherwise, for he is determined to represent intelligent design as another name for "creationism." He has fixed that idea firmly in his head, because he believes that it is the best way to discredit intelligent design.
Here's the problem: where is the research? One paper doesn't do it. I have the paper. Time to see what it says.
If a graduate student came to you and said: 'You know, I've got this great idea for a possible evolutionary pathway for the bacterial flagellum. I think I could figure it out and I've got an idea for some experiments that would test this. Would you recommend me to go along with that?' And Michael said no. Which left me stunned. This is obscurantist.
Bethell responded thusly:
I sent Behe an e-mail. Could he verify this account? No, he could not. "John Derbyshire is imagining things," he wrote back. "I would never have said such a thing. I welcome experiments into evolutionary pathways. It has been my experience that the more we know, and the more experimental work is done, the less and less plausible Darwinian mechanisms become."
Chapman, also present, recalls no such exchange with Behe.
Derbyshire then responded:
So far as my exchange with Michael Behe is concerned, I reported it as I recall it. I distinctly recall his answering "No" to my question, as the answer startled me. I had not expected him to be so blunt. It is possible, I suppose, that he mis-apprehended my question -- there was some crosstalk going on at the time. I know what I asked, though, and I know what he answered. If anything got lost there, I don't feel at fault, though I should be sorry to think that anyone -- even a creationist -- believed himself traduced by something I said in good faith. I should be especially sorry in the case of Professor Behe, who strikes me as the least shifty of a very shifty bunch. At least he had the guts to show up and give evidence at Kitzmiller.
Mr. Bethell responds (in the same article):
Mr. Derbyshire's bitter hostility to intelligent design is so great that he is unable to think straight on the subject. Now he tells us that Michael Behe may have "misapprehended" his question. It is certain that he did, for no intelligent-design theorist is opposed to any scientific research. That research is all tending to support, not weaken the claims of intelligent design. It is convenient for JD to think otherwise, for he is determined to represent intelligent design as another name for "creationism." He has fixed that idea firmly in his head, because he believes that it is the best way to discredit intelligent design.
Here's the problem: where is the research? One paper doesn't do it. I have the paper. Time to see what it says.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Friday, September 07, 2007
The National Post of Canada thinks the criticism of John Tory is unfair and misleading. They note:
But there should be nothing controversial about the Conservative leader's position -- especially given that Mr. Tory says his comment referred only to religious studies, not science class. Indeed, creationist material is already included in the religious studies courses taught at publicly funded Catholic schools across Ontario. Any number of creation stories also are taught at the province's various independent Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and (insert your favourite faith here) religious schools. When it suits them, our political and media elites laud these schools and their curricula as hallmarks of our multicultural society. (The same goes for aboriginal creation myths, which many Canadian students learn about in their history courses.) Has political correctness advanced to the point whereby every story of creation is politically acceptable except the one that happens to originate with the country's Christian majority?
This tracks with what David Warren wrote in his caustic review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion about the opponents of Christianity stepping up their rhetoric.
But there should be nothing controversial about the Conservative leader's position -- especially given that Mr. Tory says his comment referred only to religious studies, not science class. Indeed, creationist material is already included in the religious studies courses taught at publicly funded Catholic schools across Ontario. Any number of creation stories also are taught at the province's various independent Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and (insert your favourite faith here) religious schools. When it suits them, our political and media elites laud these schools and their curricula as hallmarks of our multicultural society. (The same goes for aboriginal creation myths, which many Canadian students learn about in their history courses.) Has political correctness advanced to the point whereby every story of creation is politically acceptable except the one that happens to originate with the country's Christian majority?
This tracks with what David Warren wrote in his caustic review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion about the opponents of Christianity stepping up their rhetoric.
A new book is out by Donald Prothero entitled Evolution: What the Fossil Record Says and Why it Matters. It is an effort to answer the criticisms that the fossil record is spotty and does not support evolution. I think I will order mine today.
"Baylor University Denies Research Scientists' Academic Freedom." This is, sadly, a problem that occurs routinely in academic circles, especially where faculty and administration lean left, which is just about everywhere.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Another not-so-positive review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion. The author, David Warren, does note something somewhat chilling, though:
In my recent musings on Darwinism, I have been perhaps a bit coy about why I have been raising it at all. This is because it is "in the air," thanks partly to books by Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. But those books are themselves symptomatic of the intellectual moment in the West, when opponents of Christianity are moving beyond smug disapproval toward active persecution.
No one in the media quite seems to see that.
In my recent musings on Darwinism, I have been perhaps a bit coy about why I have been raising it at all. This is because it is "in the air," thanks partly to books by Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and others. But those books are themselves symptomatic of the intellectual moment in the West, when opponents of Christianity are moving beyond smug disapproval toward active persecution.
No one in the media quite seems to see that.
Lucy is getting people talking in Houston. According to the Houston Chronicle's Lisa Falkenberg:
The first public crowds to observe Lucy's 3.2 million-year-old bones on display at the Houston Museum of Natural Science responded with a wide range of human emotion: eye-rolling doubts, probing questions, witty jokes, tears of awe, and deep, philosophical dialogue weighing the spiritual, the scientific and what it means to be human.
For some, the lightbulb comes on, if dimly.
Still, [a visitor] said it was important to her to see the exhibit and expose her son to the idea of evolution for the first time: "All kids should know the evolution side and the religious side, because there's something to it or we wouldn't be finding millions and millions of years-old stuff."
Yes, there is something to it.
The first public crowds to observe Lucy's 3.2 million-year-old bones on display at the Houston Museum of Natural Science responded with a wide range of human emotion: eye-rolling doubts, probing questions, witty jokes, tears of awe, and deep, philosophical dialogue weighing the spiritual, the scientific and what it means to be human.
For some, the lightbulb comes on, if dimly.
Still, [a visitor] said it was important to her to see the exhibit and expose her son to the idea of evolution for the first time: "All kids should know the evolution side and the religious side, because there's something to it or we wouldn't be finding millions and millions of years-old stuff."
Yes, there is something to it.
John Tory has since clarified that teaching creationism would only happen in religion class. TheStar notes:
The clarification from the party office stated that the "Ontario curriculum does not allow for creationism (or any other religious theory) to be taught in science classes in Ontario's public schools," and that Tory "clearly stated that any school to be included in the proposal (for funding) must teach the Ontario curriculum."
Interesting politics north of the border.
The clarification from the party office stated that the "Ontario curriculum does not allow for creationism (or any other religious theory) to be taught in science classes in Ontario's public schools," and that Tory "clearly stated that any school to be included in the proposal (for funding) must teach the Ontario curriculum."
Interesting politics north of the border.
John Tory, running for election in Canada, has proposed teaching creationism in faith-based schools and using public funds to support such schools.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
