The American Insitute of Biological Sciences has a released a policy statement harshly condemning the actions of the Texas Education Agency with regard to the resigning of Christine Comer. They write:
According to a memo from TEA officials calling for Comer’s dismissal that was obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”
This is the rejoinder to that decision by AIBS president and SUNY Stony Brook professor Douglas Futuyma:
“When it comes to science education, we absolutely cannot remain neutral on evolution. Evolution is the unifying principle of modern biology. Within biological science, the reality of evolution is not controversial. Creationism and its thinly veiled relative, ‘intelligent design,’ continue to pose a real threat to science education and the public understanding of science throughout the United States. It is the responsibility of science educators at all levels to stay well-informed, and to inform their students on the major principles in every area of science. With biology, evolution is the leading principle. We must remain vigilant.”
He is correct. "Neutrality" in this instance was simply appeasement to the creation camp.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Feminism Contributed to the Demise of the Neandertals??
Well, this is a new one. CanWest is reporting a story that addresses radical feminism. In addition to what can only be called a stinging indictment, the article (written by a woman) states:
No one knows exactly why Neanderthals became extinct 30,000 years ago, but a new theory recently reported in the Boston Globe suggests that once able-bodied women, the "reproductive core" of their small population, began hunting with the men, it was game over.
No one knows exactly why Neanderthals became extinct 30,000 years ago, but a new theory recently reported in the Boston Globe suggests that once able-bodied women, the "reproductive core" of their small population, began hunting with the men, it was game over.
Already in survival mode, their combined forces were no match for the perils of climate change, ferocious beasts and interloper Homo sapiens, according to the theory. Worse, while a few Neanderthal men might be expendable, reproductive women were not.
I suppose it's possible. Here is the original Boston Globe article.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
A Debate on Science
Josh Rosenau reports on a call for a debate between presidential candidates on science. Here is the National Academies press release:
February 4 -- The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine are joining the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Carnegie Institution, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations and universities in an effort to co-sponsor a presidential candidate debate on science, technology, health, and the economy. "This would provide a nonpartisan setting to educate voters on the candidates' positions on key science, technology, and health challenges facing the next administration, while giving the candidates an opportunity to discuss issues that are often overlooked in presidential candidate debates but that are critical to U.S. competitiveness," the presidents of the NAS, NAE, and IOM said in a statement.
"A discussion focused on such issues as how to spur innovation, improve science and math education, confront climate change, and guide advances in biotechnology would do much to inform the American electorate," the statement adds. The NAS, NAE, and IOM are independent, nonprofit organizations that provide advice on policy issues to the government and public under an 1863 congressional charter.
Science, for whatever reason, tends to scare people, including politicians. A great idea has been born.
Atheists Celebrate Darwin Day
The South Florida Sentinel-Sun is reporting of a group of atheists who are going to celebrate Darwin Day:
"So many aspects of science are under attack," said Ken Loukinen, president of Atheists of Broward County, a co-sponsor of Darwin Day. "I am committed to speaking out until intelligent design, abortion and stem cell research are not subjects of discussion anymore."
Two questions: 1. Given that Darwin wasn't an atheist, what is the connexion? 2. What does a socio-political issue like abortion have to do with Darwin Day?
"So many aspects of science are under attack," said Ken Loukinen, president of Atheists of Broward County, a co-sponsor of Darwin Day. "I am committed to speaking out until intelligent design, abortion and stem cell research are not subjects of discussion anymore."
Two questions: 1. Given that Darwin wasn't an atheist, what is the connexion? 2. What does a socio-political issue like abortion have to do with Darwin Day?
Friday, February 01, 2008
Common Ancestry for Blue Eyes
World Science is reporting on a study indicating that blue eye color was a mutation that took hold some 6 to 10 000 years ago.
“Originally, we all had brown eyes,” said one of the researchers, Hans Eiberg. But a mutation affecting a gene called OCA2 “resulted in the creation of a ‘switch’ which literally turned off the ability to produce brown eyes.”
A bit further comes this gem, which shows the power of evolution in populations.
The mutation of brown eyes to blue is neither positive nor negative, Eiberg said; rather, it’s one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither raise nor reduce a person’s survival chances. “It simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome,” he said, “creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes.”
Neat.
“Originally, we all had brown eyes,” said one of the researchers, Hans Eiberg. But a mutation affecting a gene called OCA2 “resulted in the creation of a ‘switch’ which literally turned off the ability to produce brown eyes.”
A bit further comes this gem, which shows the power of evolution in populations.
The mutation of brown eyes to blue is neither positive nor negative, Eiberg said; rather, it’s one of several mutations such as hair colour, baldness, freckles and beauty spots, which neither raise nor reduce a person’s survival chances. “It simply shows that nature is constantly shuffling the human genome,” he said, “creating a genetic cocktail of human chromosomes and trying out different changes.”
Neat.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Peer-Reviewed Creationism?
Nature News has reported that Answers in Genesis has launched Answers Research Journal, a "peer-reviewed" journal on creationist research. Now, here is what they mean by "peer-reviewed":
Papers will be peer reviewed by those who “support the positions taken by the journal”, according to editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling, a geologist based in Brisbane, Australia.
If the data do not fit the facts, they must be disposed of!! The article goes on to state:
“There have been these kinds of publications in the past,” says Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, who follows creationism. For the most part, he says, the work is ignored by the scientific community. But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.
Therein lies the real problem, as we have seen in Florida.
Papers will be peer reviewed by those who “support the positions taken by the journal”, according to editor-in-chief Andrew Snelling, a geologist based in Brisbane, Australia.
If the data do not fit the facts, they must be disposed of!! The article goes on to state:
“There have been these kinds of publications in the past,” says Keith Miller, a geologist at Kansas State University in Manhattan, who follows creationism. For the most part, he says, the work is ignored by the scientific community. But those without a science background, including some policy-makers, may not be able to judge the difference in value of a paper in ARJ and a genuine science journal.
Therein lies the real problem, as we have seen in Florida.
Texas Higher Education and the ICR
The American Statesman reports that the new proposal to offer degrees in science education by the ICR has been met with a flood of emails, both for and against. The article notes:
The American-Statesman, under the Texas Public Information Act, obtained printouts of the e-mails, which fill nearly 300 pages. [education commissioner] Paredes' recommendation on the proposal for an online master's degree program is expected to carry considerable weight, but the final decision is up to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which oversees certain aspects of public and private postsecondary education.
Oh boy.
The American-Statesman, under the Texas Public Information Act, obtained printouts of the e-mails, which fill nearly 300 pages. [education commissioner] Paredes' recommendation on the proposal for an online master's degree program is expected to carry considerable weight, but the final decision is up to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, which oversees certain aspects of public and private postsecondary education.
Oh boy.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Florida Moves Forward
State educators in Florida are set to vote on new standards that look promising, replacing the phrase "biological changes over time" with the big "E" word. The article notes:
In March 2006, a review committee found that the discussion of divine origins in a ninth-grade Biology I book was "unacceptable for inclusion in a biology textbook." After almost a month of heated public debate, the Brevard County School Board voted to strike any mention of intelligent design from texts.
Frank Brunn, a tax accountant and father of a first-grade pupil at Meadowlane Primary School, said he thinks evolution is a theory that cannot be proven and that students must be exposed to other possibilities.
Yup. Not a biologist, a tax accountant. That is why this problem persists in public schools.Friday, January 25, 2008
Problems in South Carolina
The Brown Daily Herald writes of a textbook controversy in South Carolina over a book written by Brown Professor Kenneth Miller.
One professor's critique of the presentation of evolution in a textbook written by Professor of Biology Ken Miller '70 and Joseph Levine almost prevented the book from appearing in South Carolina classrooms.
The textbook "Biology" was up for approval by the South Carolina Board of Education when retired Clemson professor Horace D. Skipper wrote a four-page review of the book, critiquing its treatment of evolution.
"In the view of this retired professor, what was wrong with our book was that we presented evolution to be true," Miller told The Herald.
The most astounding thing is what the retired professor actually said:
"The textbook under review fails to provide the necessary evidence (for the Darwinian theory of evolution). It seems reasonable to offer additional theories including creation and intelligent design, since all theories on origin are outside the scientific method."
Outside the scientific method? Dr. Skipper, it turns out, is a retired microbiologist, specializing in weed grass and turf. The fact that he views evolution as a "threory of origins" indicates that he is talking through his hat. For a textbook to get derailed by the criticisms of someone outside the discipline is ridiculous.
One professor's critique of the presentation of evolution in a textbook written by Professor of Biology Ken Miller '70 and Joseph Levine almost prevented the book from appearing in South Carolina classrooms.
The textbook "Biology" was up for approval by the South Carolina Board of Education when retired Clemson professor Horace D. Skipper wrote a four-page review of the book, critiquing its treatment of evolution.
"In the view of this retired professor, what was wrong with our book was that we presented evolution to be true," Miller told The Herald.
The most astounding thing is what the retired professor actually said:
"The textbook under review fails to provide the necessary evidence (for the Darwinian theory of evolution). It seems reasonable to offer additional theories including creation and intelligent design, since all theories on origin are outside the scientific method."
Outside the scientific method? Dr. Skipper, it turns out, is a retired microbiologist, specializing in weed grass and turf. The fact that he views evolution as a "threory of origins" indicates that he is talking through his hat. For a textbook to get derailed by the criticisms of someone outside the discipline is ridiculous.
Dissent From Darwin
A bit back, the Discovery Institute promoted a list of scientists that "dissented from Darwinian evolution." Over time, the list has grown but recently, the DI has trotted out the list again to poke at evolutionary biologists. Mike Dunford at Questionable Authority takes issue with this. He quotes the DI:
This is a persistent problem for creationists of all sorts. The grandfather of the recent creationism movement, Henry Morris, was a hydraulic engineer with no training whatever in biology.
Signers of the Dissent List have signed the list because it is their professional opinion that the evidence is lacking for the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less.
He then asks:
It's their professional opinion? Based on what, exactly?
What basis does Douglas Keil, who is listed as having a PhD in "Plasma Physics" have for forming a professional opinion on evolutionary biology? How about Jeanne Drisko, "Clinical Assistant Professor of Alternative Medicine" at the University of Kansas School of Medicine? Or Aaron Miller, who has a PhD in physics? Or mathematician Gary Dilts? Or "research meteorologist" John Brown? Or Baylor physical chemist John Burba? or Why on earth would I think that any of those people is in any way, shape, or form competent to form a professional opinion on a topic that falls outside their claimed area of professional expertise?
This is a persistent problem for creationists of all sorts. The grandfather of the recent creationism movement, Henry Morris, was a hydraulic engineer with no training whatever in biology.
"Board Opposes Evolution Being Taught As Fact"
Tampa Bay online reports:
SEBRING — Four of five members of the School Board of Highlands County [Florida]oppose the proposed change in the state's science standards that would present evolution as fact to students.
Some school board members across the state have opposed the proposed revisions to the science curriculum that specifies that evolution be taught as "fact" as opposed to a "theory," School Board Attorney John McClure said at a recent school board meeting.Do these people even know what a theory is?
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Tony Campolo Gets it Wrong
Another Christian, with little or no training to do so, tackles evolution and gets beat up pretty badly. Josh Rosenau is the one who takes him to the cleaners. In a column in the Philadelphia Enquirer's Currents, Tony Campolo makes some baldly wrong claims:
Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist.
Interestingly, Darwin only mentioned humans once in this entire book, and not in this context. As Rosenau notes, he clearly meant species when he used the term races. This is an elementary mistake on Campolo's part.
The second mistake is the classic "without Darwin, there is no Hitler." He writes about Ernst Haeckel, a naturalist of the late 1800s and early 1900s, who clearly did believe in biological determinism and eugenics as well as the anti-semitism of Heinrich von Treitschke. He then writes:
Although these men's lives much predated Hitler's rise to power, their ideas were very influential as he developed the racist ideas that led to the Holocaust. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.
Nope. Hitler rejected evolution as it applied to humans. He felt that God had created humans separately and that the ascent of the Aryan nation was divine right. I have posted about this here and here. Hat tip to Josh Rosenau.
Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist.
Interestingly, Darwin only mentioned humans once in this entire book, and not in this context. As Rosenau notes, he clearly meant species when he used the term races. This is an elementary mistake on Campolo's part.
The second mistake is the classic "without Darwin, there is no Hitler." He writes about Ernst Haeckel, a naturalist of the late 1800s and early 1900s, who clearly did believe in biological determinism and eugenics as well as the anti-semitism of Heinrich von Treitschke. He then writes:
Although these men's lives much predated Hitler's rise to power, their ideas were very influential as he developed the racist ideas that led to the Holocaust. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.
Nope. Hitler rejected evolution as it applied to humans. He felt that God had created humans separately and that the ascent of the Aryan nation was divine right. I have posted about this here and here. Hat tip to Josh Rosenau.
New Human Remains in China!
Archaeologists have uncovered the almost complete remains of a skull in Xuchang, China that purportedly dates to around 100 000 years, although I don't know how they know that yet and Chinese dating is notoriously squirrely. Here is the picture from China Daily.
More than one creationist has called the Chinese Homo erectus remains fakes and they still have a hard time accepting that there are human remains in China. This'll help.
More than one creationist has called the Chinese Homo erectus remains fakes and they still have a hard time accepting that there are human remains in China. This'll help.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The Struggles of "Theistic Evolution"
The Chicago Tribune reports on the "New Theology" of scientists like Howard van Till, who (like me) accept evolutionary theory and Christianity at the same time. The story notes:
Evolution, they contend, is more than a soulless explanation for the development of life. It is a glimpse of a divine plan so subtle it's almost invisible. Some scholars call the idea "theistic evolution," though the term has been slow to catch on. Dr. Francis Collins, the leader of the U.S. government's Human Genome Project and a born-again Christian, prefers to call it "BioLogos," the union of biology with the word of God.
"BioLogos." Hmmm. Probably better than "evolutionary creationism."
The article also addresses the inadequacy of ID, a topic I have also addressed:
Intelligent design's shortcomings as science are immense, but its theological problems may be just as profound. The God of intelligent design is a master craftsman who leaves virtually nothing to chance. That's unsatisfying to Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, who says many of his objections to intelligent design stem from his Christian faith. "It's theology for control freaks, with God as an engineer."
van Till addressed the problems of ID in this article. In a related vein:
Darwin couldn't resolve his ambivalence about religion. But Georgetown's [John] Haught thinks he has a better answer to the dilemma that has bedeviled believers for nearly 150 years.
Don't think of God as a meticulous designer of life, Haught urges. A detailed design would have limited the paths that living things could take. Instead, he says, God's love led to a world that's always open to new directions for life, without the need for overpowering divine supervision. The chance-fueled nature of evolution doesn't disprove God's existence, Haught believes. It's what God wanted.
This is similar to what Kenneth Miller believes and has written about in Finding Darwin's God. Correctly, though, William Dembski points out a possible pitfall in this form of theology:
A theology of evolution risks turning God into an "attenuated deity," says William Dembski, one of the founding architects of intelligent design. Haught "sees God's hands in creation as fundamentally tied," says Dembski, a professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. Whether evolution can foster a spiritually satisfying picture of God ultimately depends on how ordinary believers receive the new evangelists of theistic evolution.
The problem as I see it is that it is extremely difficult to show that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, that the continents have not moved around, that plants and animals have not evolved and that the earth has not been subject to continual biogeographic and geological changes its entire history. We either choose to believe that God created it or we don't. As for me and my house...
Evolution, they contend, is more than a soulless explanation for the development of life. It is a glimpse of a divine plan so subtle it's almost invisible. Some scholars call the idea "theistic evolution," though the term has been slow to catch on. Dr. Francis Collins, the leader of the U.S. government's Human Genome Project and a born-again Christian, prefers to call it "BioLogos," the union of biology with the word of God.
"BioLogos." Hmmm. Probably better than "evolutionary creationism."
The article also addresses the inadequacy of ID, a topic I have also addressed:
Intelligent design's shortcomings as science are immense, but its theological problems may be just as profound. The God of intelligent design is a master craftsman who leaves virtually nothing to chance. That's unsatisfying to Cambridge University paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, who says many of his objections to intelligent design stem from his Christian faith. "It's theology for control freaks, with God as an engineer."
van Till addressed the problems of ID in this article. In a related vein:
Darwin couldn't resolve his ambivalence about religion. But Georgetown's [John] Haught thinks he has a better answer to the dilemma that has bedeviled believers for nearly 150 years.
Don't think of God as a meticulous designer of life, Haught urges. A detailed design would have limited the paths that living things could take. Instead, he says, God's love led to a world that's always open to new directions for life, without the need for overpowering divine supervision. The chance-fueled nature of evolution doesn't disprove God's existence, Haught believes. It's what God wanted.
This is similar to what Kenneth Miller believes and has written about in Finding Darwin's God. Correctly, though, William Dembski points out a possible pitfall in this form of theology:
A theology of evolution risks turning God into an "attenuated deity," says William Dembski, one of the founding architects of intelligent design. Haught "sees God's hands in creation as fundamentally tied," says Dembski, a professor of philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. Whether evolution can foster a spiritually satisfying picture of God ultimately depends on how ordinary believers receive the new evangelists of theistic evolution.
The problem as I see it is that it is extremely difficult to show that the earth is not 4.5 billion years old, that the continents have not moved around, that plants and animals have not evolved and that the earth has not been subject to continual biogeographic and geological changes its entire history. We either choose to believe that God created it or we don't. As for me and my house...
Monday, January 21, 2008
Going once, going twice??
Apparently, a Texas museum is having to auction off a remarkable mastodon skull just to stay in business. According to Foxnews:
The founder and curator of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum, which rejects evolution and claims that man and dinosaurs coexisted, said it will close unless the Volkswagen-sized skull finds a generous bidder.
"If it sells, well, then we can come another day," Joe Taylor said. "This is very important to our continuing."
I have mixed feelings about this. I hate to see anybody go out of business, but I also fail to see the value in supporting a creationist museum. I also don't have a hundred and sixty thousand dollars lying around and, if i did, would spend it on something more worthwhile, like paying off my house.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Another Take on Presidental Debates
Randy Scholfield of the Wichita Eagle has this to say about presidential debates. He suggests that the candidates be asked the following questions:
Is it realistic for the United States to achieve energy independence? How do we get there?
What is the government's role in fostering innovation and the new generation of alternative energy technology?
How can our schools better prepare students to compete in science and mathematics?
Should creationism and intelligent design be taught in our schools?
How do you assess the evidence for climate change, and are specific measures needed to control greenhouse gases?
What is the future of NASA's manned space program?
How can we continue to attract the world's best and brightest scientists to study and live here?
Democrats charge that under President Bush, scientists' advice has been censored and politicized. Is that true? If so, what would you do to restore the integrity of science?
Good questions.
Salon.com Sounds the Alarm
Shawn Otto, writing for Salon.com suggests that we need to inject more science into the political debate in advance of the election. He puts it thus:
But on the policy side of this cultural change, we haven't kept up. We have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the expectations we place on our elected officials; we have allowed the wrong issues to sidetrack political debates. No matter one's political flavor, this is a matter of increasing practical concern. In a science-influenced world, we need and deserve leaders who understand the basic rules of the game, or we're going to get shut out.
Already happening.
But on the policy side of this cultural change, we haven't kept up. We have been asleep at the wheel when it comes to the expectations we place on our elected officials; we have allowed the wrong issues to sidetrack political debates. No matter one's political flavor, this is a matter of increasing practical concern. In a science-influenced world, we need and deserve leaders who understand the basic rules of the game, or we're going to get shut out.
Already happening.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
The Precursor to Wales?
Indohyus, a small 48-million year old animal from India, may be the link between land animals and whales, according to researchers.
----------------
Now playing: Dan Fogelberg - Forefathers
via FoxyTunes
The key finding connecting Indohyus to the whale is its thickened ear bone, something only seen in cetaceans.
An examination of its teeth showed that the land-dwelling creature spent lots of time in the water and may have fed there, like hippos.
Also, the specific positioning and shape of certain molars connects Indohyus to the earliest whales, which are about 50 million years old, [Hans] Thewissen said.
Nifty.----------------
Now playing: Dan Fogelberg - Forefathers
via FoxyTunes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)