A Newer, Sexier Charles Darwin

According to the Guardian, the new trailer from the film Creation is a tad racy. Anna Pickard writes that:

There are so many plusses to the idea of Creation: The Movie. For a start, it brings Darwin to life as a fully-rounded person. More than that, by getting Paul Bettany to play him, Darwin is also very sexy. And making Darwin sexy is, for a generation who are used to thinking of him as old and with a ginormous beard, a very exciting step.

But then, there's also the opportunity to plug into both sides of a social, academic and religious argument that gets more and more heated by the day. Could they have made a perfect trailer that would attract both sides of the argument to see the film?

Sounds like a movie to see.


----------------
Now playing: William Ackerman - Pacific I
via FoxyTunes

Was A Shanidar Neandertal Killed by a Modern Human?

Steve Churchill thinks that the person represented by Shanidar 3 may have been killed by a modern human. According to a story in FoxNews:

"What we've got is a rib injury, with any number of scenarios that could explain it," said study researcher Steven Churchill, an associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University in North Carolina. "We're not suggesting there was a blitzkrieg, with modern humans marching across the land and executing the Neandertals [aka Neanderthals]. I want to say that loud and clear."

But he added, "We think the best explanation for this injury is a projectile weapon, and given who had those and who didn't, that implies at least one act of inter-species aggression."

As Churchill, himself, says, though, the evidence is scant. In other areas, it appears that they coexisted for quite some time and, of course, anytime you get two groups of people together, there are bound to be skirmishes.


----------------
Now playing: Paul Winter - Sun Singer
via FoxyTunes

Clothes Make the Man

Although it might seem self-evident (and, therefore, probably isn't), the adoption of clothing has had a pronounced effect on our ability to adjust to our surroundings and, consequently, to deflect the effects of natural selection. An article in DNAIndia reports that research is being carried out to study the effects of clothing on evolution:

In his study, Gilligan wants to understand the physiological, psychological and prehistoric aspects of clothing.

"I'm interested in clothing in a fundamental, novel sense, particularly its prehistoric origins and why it came into being. The reason that it is so important struck me very early on. Clothing is the thing that separates us from nature, literally and symbolically," he said.

"It's the one invention that we have with us almost all the time. It's not just a passive reflection of our personality and our culture. It actually affects us in the way we perceive ourselves and our environment. It's a large part of what distinguishes modern-day humanity from everything else," he added.

In addition to distinguishing humans from other things, Gilligan argues that clothing separates humans from our environment and from our physical selves.

It isn't clear when clothing first was used, but the capacity for it probably dates back well beyond Neandertals, since it is clear that they would not have survived without it in Europe or Russia. It is further likely that any hominid making the trek out of Africa would have needed some covering, suggesting that the very early Homo erectus hominids from Dmanisi probably had something to cover themselves because even at the gates of Europe, it would have gotten cold.

----------------
Now playing: Synergy - Falcons And Eagles
via FoxyTunes

AU Tells Board That Creationism Should be Banned in Louisiana

American United for Separation of Church and State (now cryptically going by the acronym "AU") has contacted school board officials in Louisiana in an effort to convince them to revise guidelines so that creationism is banned in public schools. According to a story on their site:

The AU missive also recommends that the board streamline its process for dealing with challenges to supplemental materials that promote creationism. AU says the board should put such decisions in the hands of professional educators in the Department of Education rather than create an unwieldy process that, AU asserts, is really designed to be an “opportunity for a show trial to promote the merits of ‘intelligent design’ or other forms of creationism.”

While I agree with the sentiment, I have always been a bit leary of Barry Lynn's organisation because I find its theological stances to be too liberal for my understanding of scripture.

----------------
Now playing: Jean Michel Jarre - Oxygene (Part VII)
via FoxyTunes

Raining on Other Writers' Parades

Josh Rosenau wonders why people who write books about evolution are both critical of a book lamenting the state of U.S. science education. PZ Myers and Jerry Coyne are both critical of Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens our Future, by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum, despite agreeing with the premise. He writes:

I find it odd that the author of a book intended to bring already published information to a new audience would criticize another author for publishing material already available in the technical literature in a way more accessible to the general public.

I find it doubly odd that PZ would echo this criticism. Not only did PZ rise to fame by rendering the technical literature in developmental biology accessible to those outside his field (adding not argument, but clarity), he is now famous for plowing the fields of atheism with arguments not dissimilar to those already made famous by recent writers Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Chris Hitchens, Vic Stenger, etc. He is (I believe) writing yet another book in that vein. It is a well-worked vein, with works touting evolution as an attack on theism dating back to Darwin's day, and no discernibly novel arguments in these popular atheist writings since that time. As one student of the field writes: "There's really only a handful of arguments for atheism in the first place."

This kind of squabbling is not helpful at a time when it is becoming clear that the average person knows little about science, even less about biology and next to nothing about evolution. That is exactly the way that groups like the Discovery Institute, the Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis want it. Why are we trying to help them? A book that is well-written and sourced that is supportive of evolution should be trumpeted.

Furthermore, I have no sympathy for arguments for atheism by evolutionary biologists in the first place. All they do is cement in the eyes of the general public the already perceived link between evolution and atheism. This just makes it harder for everyone concerned who think that evolution and faith can coexist.


----------------
Now playing: Genesis - It.
via FoxyTunes

New Global Model for Speciation

ScienceDaily has a report on work done that is adding support to the idea that geographical isolation need not be present for speciation to occur. The article notes:

In a new study just published in Nature, Les Kaufman, Boston University professor of biology and associate director of the BU Marine Program along with a team of researchers from The New England Complex Systems Institute, have collaborated and found a way to settle the debate which deals with the origin of species independent of geographic isolation.

They demonstrated, using a computer model, how diverse species can arise from the arrangement of organisms across an area, without any influence from geographical barriers or even natural selection. Over generations, the genetic distance between organisms in different regions increases, the study noted. Organisms spontaneously form groups that can no longer mate resulting in a patchwork of species across the area. Thus the number of species increases rapidly until it reaches a relatively steady state.

"Our biodiversity results provide additional evidence that species diversity arises without specific physical barriers," the study states.

The computer simulations, the authors, note showed the distribution of species formed patterns similar to those that have occurred with real organisms all around the world.

This is a boost for the sympatric speciation model, although it is likely that both take place all over the world in different populations.



----------------
Now playing: The Moody Blues - Veteran Cosmic Rocker
via FoxyTunes

More on The Dawkins Dogma

New Scientist has a post by Fern Elsdon-Baker, the author of The Selfish Genius, in which she lambastes Richard Dawkins for his narrow perspective concerning evolution and genetics. Focusing mostly on that topic, Elsdon-Baker writes:

Take heredity. If you only read Dawkins, you might think that the case has long been closed on how it works. In fact, there are competing perspectives stretching back over 150 years. Darwin himself was a pluralist and proposed a theory of heredity that allowed not only for the inheritance of latent characteristics but also for the environment to play a role in it. According to Darwin and many who followed, the environment could even have an impact on the germ cells: in other words, the gene line is not necessarily "immortal".

Research reflecting this plurality survived outside the mainstream throughout the 20th century. Today, building on the legacy of work by researchers such as Conrad Waddington or Barbara McClintock, increasing numbers of biologists find it hard to doubt the environment has a powerful impact on gene expression during an organism's lifetime.

According to the author, there are other areas of evolution in which Dawkins' influence has resulted in a skewed public understanding of how things work in the biological world. Read the whole thing.


----------------
Now playing: The Moody Blues - Ride My See-Saw
via FoxyTunes

Gail Lowe: Damned With Faint Praise

The Dallas Morning News has an editorial on the selection of Gail Lowe to head the Texas State Board of Education. The author (whoever it is) writes:

Skirmishes over teaching creationism and defining reading standards have been among the latest meltdowns. Contentious fights have been such a problem that the Texas Senate refused this year to confirm Don McLeroy, a social conservative ringleader, as the elected body's chairman.

Enter Lowe. While we would have preferred someone from the moderate-Democrat side, we fully expected Perry to select a social conservative.

He apparently has picked one of the least objectionable members of that faction. Lowe voted against teaching creationism in science classes. And interestingly, Pat Hardy, a Republican member of the moderate-Democrat side, speaks favorably about Lowe, praising her intelligence and preparation.

She will not have a fun time of it, that's for sure. While Rick Perry didn't select Cynthia Dunbar, she is still on the board, along with several other creationists.


----------------
Now playing: The Alan Parsons Project - Eye Pieces (Classical Naked Eye)
via FoxyTunes

Neandertal Population Size: The Cause for Extinction?

The Max Planck institute has released findings that suggest that Neandertals became extinct because they were below effective population size. Live Science reports that:

Neanderthals are of course extinct. But there never were very many of them, new research concludes.

In fact, new genetic evidence from the remains of six Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) suggests the population hovered at an average of 1,500 females of reproductive age in Europe between 38,000 and 70,000 years ago, with the maximum estimate of 3,500 such female Neanderthals.

"It seems they never really took off in Eurasia in the way modern humans did later," said study researcher Adrian Briggs of the Max-Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

The research, which will be published in the July 17 issue of the journal Science, suggests the small population size of our ancestral cousins may have been a factor in their demise.

It wasn't for lack of intelligence. As the story notes, Neandertals were far from stupid:

Rather than the dumb cavemen characters starring in Geico car insurance ads, accumulating archaeological and genetic evidence shows Neanderthals were pretty sophisticated. They apparently hunted with blades and spear tips rivaling those of modern humans, ate marine mammals like seals and dolphins and sported brains that grew like ours. Their bodies likely looked similar to ours, and some Neanderthals showed off red locks on their heads.

I am still of the mind that Neandertals did interbreed with the arriving moderns, based on evidence at Arcy Sur-Cure where you have Aurignacian and Chatelperronian tool industries interdigitated, suggesting a somewhat fluid landscape for these hominids. The evidence at Lagar Velho, in Portugal, also suggests interbreeding. But if that didn't happen all over, or if there were conflicts regarding land or food resources, it is easy to see that there may have been a time of admixing and replacement, subsequent to which the Neandertal genome disappeared in the wake of selective pressures for that of modern humans.


----------------
Now playing: Alan Parsons - Blue Blue Sky
via FoxyTunes

Dissent From Darwin: So, Who Are These Geologists?

The Dissent from Darwin list, which has been hawked ad nauseum by the Discovery Institute has one lone palaeontologist on it. It does, however, have nine geologists on the list. Who are they?

Fred Schroeder - Columbia University. Columbia University has no listing of such a person. No published record since 1993, when he was working for Exxon as a petroleum geologist.
Seth Edwards - Associate Faculty at the University of Texas El Paso - UTEP has no listing of such a person - whereabouts unknown. Checks of Google Scholar and Web of Science turned up no papers by a Seth Edwards.
WJ Hedden - Missouri University of Science & Technology - There is is no faculty listing at this university for a WJ Hedden. A check of Google Scholar and Web of Science turned up one paper, written in 1980.
Richard Erdlac - He is a structural geologist with a specialization in geothermal energy. He has had most of his experience in the private sector and with government contracts, especially with the Department of Energy. Web of Science and Google Scholar list twelve publications in the last thirty years, with the most recent in 1994. The Clean Technology Conference and Expo lists him as a an energy consultant and the University of Texas at Austin no longer has a listing for him.
Susan L.M. Huck - Clark University. She is listed as a geologist although she has taught in geography and sociology. Neither Google Scholar or Web of Science lists papers by this person, although several papers in political activism can be found. Clark University has no listing for her and I cannot find her at another university.
Scott T. Dreher - listed as being at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks, is now at the University of Durham in the UK. He is a specialist in isotopic geology and petrology. Web of Science lists nine papers dating back to 2000, with the bulk of them coming in the last five years.
Peter William Holyland - University of Queensland (Australia) - His speciality is mineral exploration. No papers found in Google Scholar, three papers found in Web of Science, most recent being 2000. By this time, he was working for Terra Sancta Inc. in Western Australia. Worked at one time for the Center for Strategic Mineral Deposits in Western Australia.
John H. Whitmore - Listed as being at Cedarville University, is now at the University of Minnesota's Department of Forest Resources after a short stint at the University of Ottawa. By 2006 was publishing in The Journal of Creation. It is clear from his writings (here for example) that he accepts the biblical flood model. To paraphrase Bill Murray, that's a big no.
Terry W. Spencer - Dr. Spencer is a seismologist, dealing mostly with wave propogation and compressive strength of rock. As such, this would not take him into the fossil record much, if at all. He does, however, seem to be a bona fide scientist.

So, what can we conclude from the above list and the relevance of each signatory to evolution? Only two are active, practicing geologists (one could say the same thing about me based on my output, though) but none have a specialty even close to palaeontology and one is a practicing creationist (and hence, not a practicing geologist). Therefore, like the physicists and medical doctors, their signatures are meaningless because they have little to no familiarity with the fossil record or evolutionary theory.

Once again, the Discovery Institute is blowing smoke in the hopes that no one will notice that there is nothing behind it. As with the new Zogby Poll, they can't go out and try to get palaeontologists and biologists to sign the Dissent from Darwin statement because they know good and well that very few will.
----------------
Now playing: Mannheim Steamroller - The Sky
via FoxyTunes

A New Poll from Zogby on Intelligent Design and Darwin

A new poll from the Zogby Institute has surfaced dealing with Intelligent Design and evolution. The poll was commissioned by the Discovery Institute and their report is provided here. The poll originally consisted of 44 questions, but only four were chosen from the report. Those that were chosen are very slanted, consisting of either false dichotomies or questions phrased in such a way that those who teach evolution are seen as being against "academic freedom." The first question that the DI focuses on states:

7. Now, I am going to read you two statements about the development of life. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: The development of life came about through an unguided process of
random mutations and natural selection.
Statement B: The development of life was guided by intelligent design.
Statement A 33%
Statement B 52
Neither 7
Other/Not sure 8

It is disturbing that only seven percent saw through that one. This is a false dichotomy. The DI refuses to admit that there might be people out there (despite having some of them in their own midst) that are Christians who accept evolution (although it is questionable these days just how much Michael Behe accepts. His two anti-evolutionary books, Darwin's Black Box and The Endge of Evolution have been so horribly received in the scientific community. See here for a a review of the latter) and who reject both options. There is no evidence for either of the first two options. The second question that they focused on goes like this:

4. Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?

Strongly agree 54%
Agree 80%
Somewhat agree 26
Somewhat disagree 6 Disagree 17
Strongly disagree 11
Not sure 4

Although it is a badly worded question, the problem lies in the interpretation of the question, as opposed to the actual results. As numerous scientists have stated, you always want to address the weaknesses of any scientific theory, no matter how sound it may be. But the Discovery Institute is using the answer here to insinuate that there are problems with the theory and that scientists are trying to quash that.

The third question that they picked is this:

5. Charles Darwin wrote that when considering the evidence for his theory of evolution,

“…a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with Darwin’s statement?

Strongly agree 45% Agree 76%
Somewhat agree 31
Somewhat disagree 6 Disagree 18
Strongly disagree 12
Not sure 5

As Ed Babinski notes, in this instance, Darwin is talking about his theory of natural selection and the fact that many more years of work would be needed to verify his observations and theoretical construct. Here is the complete quote:

This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements...I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

What one discovers, when reading more is that Darwin had no trepidation about his theory:

I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species.

He knew that much evidence was lacking but was convinced that one day it would be found. He was right. As Prothero, Shubin, Strahler and thousands of others have shown, there is plenty of evidence for it.

The last question picked goes like this:

6. I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view—Statement A or Statement B?
Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
Statement A 14%
Statement B 78
Neither 5
Other/Not sure 2

Once again, if you ask John or Jane Q. Public which one should be taught, you will get results like the ones above. On the other hand, if you aim that question towards biologists, palaeontologists, and geologists which viewpoint they have, the overwhelming answer would be "A" because they know that there is no evidence against evolution that survives even the most cursory critical scrutiny. This is like asking your average person whether or not string theory is adequately supported by the available evidence. Most people don't know anything about string theory so they can't make an informed choice.

The simple fact is that, over the course of the last twenty years, the Discovery Institute has failed to produce ANY papers that provide evidence against evolution. In fact, the DI has pretty much abandoned the idea of writing papers that counter evolution and focused its attention on getting the courts and school boards to either gag teachers who teach evolution or get the schools to teach Intelligent Design or Creationism alongside it. This isn't science, it is politics, just like this poll.

This is a massive smokescreen to try to make it seem to the average person as if there is a conspiracy against people who don't accept evolution. There isn't. This is no different from their Dissent from Darwin list, which contains ONE palaeontologist. The DI doesn't dare ask the questions in this poll to practicing geologists, palaeontologists and biologists because they won't get the answers they want to hear. How is this approach different from young earth creationism?

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - 1984 Part 2
via FoxyTunes

The Genesis Enigma and the Evolution of the Eye

A new book that has been described as "Jaw dropping" has been produced, called The Genesis Enigma. Christopher Hart of the Daily Mail reports that the author is convinced that, although written down 3 000 years ago, the book of Genesis accurately records evolution. The story notes:

The revalation [sic] came to Professor Andrew Parker during a visit to Rome. He was in the Sistine Chapel, gazing up at Michelangelo's awesome ceiling paintings, when a realisation struck him with dizzying force.

'A Biblical enigma exists that is on the one hand so cryptic it has remained camouflaged for millennia, and on the other so obvious one cannot miss it.'

The enigma is that the order of Creation as described in the Book of Genesis, and so powerfully depicted in the Sistine Chapel by the greatest artist of the Renaissance, has been precisely, eerily confirmed by modern evolutionary science.

Yet how on earth could this be possible? And why had nobody noticed it before?

How indeed did this come about? Writers for the last 1500 years have been addressing how Genesis can be read in some way that corresponds to the natural world. It has resulted in concordism, in which the creation story is seen as being written from the viewpoint of someone on the earth, and accomodationism, in which much of the creation story is not taken literally. How has Parker done it? A very simple way:

On the fourth day, Genesis famously becomes confusing. On the first day, remember, God has already created light, and made Day and Night. But it isn't until day four that he makes the lights in heaven, the greater light to rule the day and the lesser the night.

Hang on - so he made 'Day' three days before he made the Sun? Houston, I think we have a problem. Yet the writers of Genesis were just as well aware as us, surely, that the sunrise causes the day. You don't need a degree in astronomy to work that one out. What on earth did they mean? Here, The Genesis Enigma comes up with a stunningly ingenious answer. For Parker argues that day four refers to the evolution of vision.

Until the first creatures on earth evolved eyes, in a sense, the sun and moon didn't exist. There was no creature on earth to see them, nor the light they cast. When Genesis says: 'Let there be lights... To divide the day from the night,' it is talking about eyes.

'The very first eye on earth effectively turned on the lights for animal behaviour,' writes Professor Parker, 'and consequently for further rapid evolution.' Almost overnight, life suddenly grew vastly more complex. Predators were able to hunt far more efficiently, and so prey had to evolve fast too - or get eaten. The moment that there were 'lights', or eyes, then life exploded into all its infinite variety.

I remains skeptical that the answer can be that simple and it is far from clear that creation of eyes is what the original writers of Genesis meant. Something else to put on my reading list.

----------------
Now playing: Yes - Don't Go
via FoxyTunes

Dinosaur National Monument Waiving Entrance Fees for Weekend

Dinosaur National Monument is waiving its fees for the weekend to boost visitorship. If you're in the area, stop by.

----------------
Now playing: Genesis - Twilight Alehouse
via FoxyTunes

The Evolution of Turn-Taking

ScienceDaily has a story on research done at the University of Leicester on the evolution of turn-taking. How this happened is far from clear:

Professor Andrew Colman and Dr Lindsay Browning carried out the study due to appear in the September issue of the journal Evolutionary Ecology Research. The study has helped to explain the evolution of cooperative turn-taking.

Professor Colman said: “In human groups, turn-taking is usually planned and coordinated with the help of language. For example, people living together often agree to take turns washing up the dishes after meals or taking their children to school. But turn-taking has also evolved in many other species without language or the capacity to reach negotiated agreements. These include apes, monkeys, birds, and antelopes that take turns grooming each other, and mating pairs of Antarctic penguins that take turns foraging at sea while their partners incubate eggs or tend to chicks.

But how it evolved in the animal world is, according to these researchers, another matter:

Using evolutionary game theory and computer simulations, Professor Colman and Dr Browning discovered a simple variation of “tit for tat” that explains how turn-taking can evolve in organisms that pursue their individual self-interests robotically.

The researchers state: “Turn-taking is initiated only after a species has evolved at least two genetically different types that behave differently in initial, uncoordinated interactions with others. Then as soon as a pair coordinates by chance, they instinctively begin to play ‘tit for tat’. This locks them into mutually beneficial coordinated turn-taking indefinitely. Without genetic diversity, turn-taking cannot evolve in this simple way.

I find this a bit fuzzy and it is easy to see how a group like the Discovery Institute would pounce on it and say that this behavior is part of design in nature. They might argue that evolutionary explanations are arbitrary because the researchers approach the problem from an evolutionary perspective only, especially when it is described as an evolutionary "invisible hand" that is behind the turn-taking behavior.


----------------
Now playing: Alan Parsons - The Time Machine (Part 1)
via FoxyTunes

Dachsunds, Corgis and Stumpy Feet

The Australian is reporting that the reason that Dachsunds, corgis and other short-legged dogs are the way they are is a mutation in a growth gene. The story notes:

A team from the American National Human Genome Research Institute, in Maryland, examined DNA samples from 835 dogs from 76 breeds, including 95 animals with short legs.

The scientists found that dogs from all the short-legged breeds had an extra copy of a gene that produces a growth protein called FGF4, which is known to be implicated in dwarfism in humans. The extra gene is a mutant of a type known as a retrogene, which lacks parts of the normal DNA code.

The extra retrogene leads to an overproduction of the FGF4 protein, which appears to alter the times at which bones grow in embryonic development. This, the scientists believe, causes the legs of small dogs to remain short and out of proportion to their bodies. The findings are published in the journal Science. As the same gene is shared between all the short-legged breeds of dog studied, the mutation is likely to have emerged early in the evolution of dogs.

Most dog breeds are the result of selective breeding using artificial selection. It is interesting that particularly well-known breeds of dogs arose in this way. This also serves to show that mutation plays a large role in the diversity of a species.
----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - Lost And Found
via FoxyTunes

Josh Rosenau on Francis Collins

Josh Rosenau of Thoughts from Kansas has a post on the appointment of Francis Collins as head of NIH. His reaction to the move is mostly positive. He writes this:

Collins favors stem cell research and evolution. He's [sic] won't be pushing for research on intercessory prayer or other religious hokum masquerading as science. He's a good scientist, a good administrator, and a good politician. He'll work hard to keep NIH funding flowing smoothly, and he won't let his personal beliefs interfere with his agency's work.

As Rosenau points out, Collins walks a fine line between the anti-evolutionary crowd and the anti-religious crowd. He will likely get slings and arrows from both.


----------------
Now playing: Dan Fogelberg - When You're Not Near Me
via FoxyTunes

Tampa Teacher's Workshop

Tampa Online notes that local teachers will be able to attend a workshop on how to navigate "Controversial Issues in the Science Classroom." The story, by Ronnie Blair, has this to say:

Speakers will guide science teachers through such topics as "The Glorious History of Creationism in Florida," "Cognitive Biases and Misconceptions of Students" and "Controversial Issues Outside of Evolution."

Among the groups participating are the National Center for Science Education, Florida Citizens for Science and the Coalition for Science Literacy.

As much as this is laudable, the problems typically stem from the school boards and the parents, both of which, typically, have very little biological education and couldn't spot the theory of evolution on a map. This is especially true when science standards are being drafted, such as last year:

At that time, the state Board of Education held hearings throughout Florida to seek public input. Much of that input focused on the fact evolution was mentioned by name in the science standards for the first time.

After the standards were approved, the Legislature weighed in both this year and last with bills that tried to challenge the validity of evolution.

One bill would have prohibited school officials from punishing teachers for using "scientific information" to challenge evolution. Another would have required schools to teach "critical analysis" of evolution.

The bills didn't pass.

The YEC lobby is well organized and most legislators are not equipped to refute their arguments, so the bills get drafted. It is then up to the teachers and scientists to hold the line.


----------------
Now playing: Steve Hackett - Firewall
via FoxyTunes

Dating Hominids Based on What the Animals at the Sites Ate

ScienceDaily has a story on how to date fossil hominid sites based on the dental remains of the animals that lived around them. As the story relates:

Florent Rivals is the main author and a researcher from the Catalan Institute for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), attached to the IPHES in Tarragona. "For the first time, a method has been put forward which allows us to establish the relative length of the human occupations at archaeological sites as, up until now, it was difficult to ascertain the difference between, for example, a single long-term occupation and a succession of shorter seasonal occupations in the same place", he explained to SINC.

In the study, recently published in the Journal of Human Evolution, the researchers analyze the dental wear of the ungulates (herbivorous mammals) caused by microscopic particles of opaline silica in plants. These marks appear when eating takes place and erase the previous ones. This is why they are so useful.

This almost qualifies as a taphonomic technique and to have it as an extra tool in trying to figure out how these people lived and what they ate is good news.



----------------
Now playing: Lyle Mays - Highland Aire
via FoxyTunes

Creation Opens Toronto Film Festival

According to Jane Stevenson of the Toronto Sun, the movie about Charles Darwin and His Wife, Emma, called Creation, will open the Toronto Film Festival. The store notes that Organizer, Cameron Bailey stated:

"We fell in love with one film that we found to be moving, beautifully crafted, and full of ideas that may be 150 years old but have never been more current. We love it when our films get people talking and this one promises to do just that.

"It's especially interesting to watch real-life couple Paul Bettany and Jennifer Connelly play husband and wife here."

Creation, described as "part ghost story, part psychological thriller, part heart-wrenching love story," is directed by Jon Amiel (The Core, Entrapment, The Man Who Knew Too Little) and comes on the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth.

I will admit that my trepidation at seeing this film is a bit higher than normal because Christianity is rarely portrayed correctly in cinema (even Christian-based cinema). On the other hand, I am much more inclined to see this film that I was Expelled, which I knew was going to be agenda-driven. We shall see. And ever since I saw Jennifer Connelly in Dark City, I have been a fan.



----------------
Now playing: Pat Metheny Group - The Way Up: Part Two
via FoxyTunes

Creationism in Pennsylvania

Chambersburg, PA has taken on the debate. In a story for the Chambersburg Public Opinion, Rob Luff writes that adoption of the new biology textbook has not happened without a fight. The story notes:

The creationism-versus-evolution debate may have hit Franklin County late last month, when Chambersburg Area school board divided on whether to buy evolution-heavy high school biology textbooks.

School board President Stanley Helman voted against the textbook proposal on June 24, comparing the material in the recommended book to "science fiction movies."

The board's seven remaining members (Norman Blowers was absent) voted in favor of the purchase, which includes science textbooks for all of the district, in several subjects.

The majority vote gives administrators permission to buy "Biology" by Kenneth Miller and Joseph Levine.

Helman voted against the previous biology textbook in 2000, the last time the district bought science textbooks, for largely the same reasons: Inconsistency in the textbook regarding whether evolution is a theory or a fact, and the failure to present any alternative theories.

That might be because there are no competing theories. The last time there was a competing theory to evolution was in the 1860s. As for why Helman is concerned about the adoption of the Miller/Levine textbook, Luff writes:

Helman does believe in evolution within a species. It is something he has become familiar with as a dairy farmer, seeing how cows have been artificially bred over the last century to improve their milk production. The new textbook refers to that practice as artificial selection.

As for evolution between species, Helman doesn't buy it. He believes all species were created as they are.

Creationism. Hook, line and sinker. How do these people become school board heads without understanding the least bit about biology?

----------------
Now playing: Stanley Clarke - Life Is Just A Game
via FoxyTunes