Jerry Coyne On Why Science and Religion Cannot Be Friends

Jerry Coyne, author of Why Evolution is True, has written a column for USA Today, in which he opines that science and religion cannot coexist. He begins:

Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones.

Gee, Jerry. Don't hesitate to tell us what you think. He is, of course, focusing on the "God of the Gaps" model of the universe, assuming that this is a valid picture of Christianity. For some, it might be. It is not for most. He continues:

But faith will not go gentle. For each book by a "New Atheist," there are many others attacking the "movement" and demonizing atheists as arrogant, theologically ignorant, and strident.

Can't imagine why that would be. I remember having a conversation with my pastor after "the talk." He had gone out and picked up something by Richard Dawkins. While he did not have the background to understand the arguments on evolution, what came out clear as a bell was the "strident" (he used that word) and arrogant wording of Dawkins in all things religious. Unlike the NCSE, of whom Eugenie Scott at least held religious belief in respect, if not something she believed herself, Coyne is insulting and disdainful in his view of religion. A bit later, he tips his hand, though:

Science and faith are fundamentally incompatible, and for precisely the same reason that irrationality and rationality are incompatible. They are different forms of inquiry, with only one, science, equipped to find real truth. And while they may have a dialogue, it's not a constructive one. Science helps religion only by disproving its claims, while religion has nothing to add to science.

He is correct. They are different forms of inquiry. The thing is that while others regard religious inquiry as valid, he does not. That is not a failing of religious inquiry, it is a reductionistic view on his part. That he does not find this level of inquiry does not mean, nor should it mean that others do not.
----------------
Now playing: Susan Ashton - Waiting To Be Found
via FoxyTunes

The Charles Darwin Two Pound Coin

Great Britain has released a coin that has Charles Darwin's head and that of a chimpanzee looking at each other. It is in honor of his 200th birthday. Here is an image of it.



Unless you live in a large city, my guess is you will have to order it online. I know I will have to.


----------------
Now playing: They Might Be Giants - Mammal
via FoxyTunes

Jay Richards Asks "Can You Be a Darwinist and a Theist?"

Jay Richards, editor of the new book God and Evolution, has given us a short taste of what the book is about in a video posted on the DI website. In it, he hopes to strike a logical blow against the idea of theistic evolution (or evolutionary creationism, if you prefer). In it, he states:

When English speakers use the word “evolution” they usually mean neo-Darwinian evolution which means that all the adaptive complexity you see is the result of random genetic mutation acted on by natural selection and they mean that as an impersonal and purposeless process. But when they say “random,” that’s not just some mathematical term that’s perfectly compatible with a view of God’s providence. They mean “purposeless” and that’s the problem. Not even God can direct an “undirected” process.

This is classic Discovery Institute sleight-of-hand. Mr. Richards focuses on the idea that mutations are random and then extrapolates this idea to the entire evolutionary process, which he argues cannot logically be incorporated into a view of a providential God.

But by equating mutation with selection, he glosses completely over the fact that selection is not random. It is directional and depends on the kind of environment in which the organism lives. Environments change over time and are different depending on where they are on the planet. Selection acts in populations based on these different biomes. If evolution is random, then the appearance of these biomes in different areas and at different times is random as well.

Oddly, he also fails to address the validity of incorporating the randomness of mutations into the view of a providential God. If mutations drive evolution, as Richards states, and evolution is random, then mutations must be random as well.

I plan to rent this as soon as it is available and it is possible I will arrive at a different conclusion once I have seen it. Given the DI's track record, however, I suspect that the four minute video is representative of the whole.

Richards argues that “neo-Darwinian” evolution is incompatible with belief in a providential God and that this is something that theistic evolutionists don’t want to face. This is only true if evolution works the way that Richards thinks it does. It does not. Evolution, properly understood, does not address the existence of God, no matter how much the Discovery Institute would wish otherwise.

----------------
Now playing: Mike Oldfield - Incantations Part Two
via FoxyTunes

Richard Dawkins Interview in the Houston Chronicle

On Sunday, Eric Berger of the Houston Chronicle sat down with Richard Dawkins. Given the stridency with which Dawkins has attacked religious belief and championed evolutionary theory, the results were a bit surprising (to me at least). First the non-surprising part:

Q. Are you surprised that, in the 21st century, we're still debating evolution in the public square?

A. Yes, I'm very surprised. I'm not quite sure why of all the sciences, it is evolution that should be singled out for this remarkable treatment. Amateurs who know nothing of science don't attempt to dictate what goes into chemistry or physics textbooks, as far as I am aware. But in the case of my own subject, biology, it's a free-for-all where anyone can say what they think as a personal opinion. These are not matters of personal opinion, these are matters of fact. And matters of fact are determined by the evidence. And it is the evidence that should define what goes into textbooks.

I had this discussion with my pastor way back when. I asked him, “Don't you think it is odd that every other major science discipline has figured out how the world works but biologists have gotten it completely wrong?” He admitted that this was puzzling and worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, it is also behind the many “academic freedom” bills that have littered state legislatures in the past few years, since the Dover decision. While there is lip service to the idea that all scientific disciplines should be examined for their strengths and weaknesses, no one seriously doubts that the entire thrust of these bills is aimed solely at evolution.

Dawkins does say something somewhat startling, though. When asked:

Q. From your perspective is there any credible evidence for the existence of a God?

He replies:

A. No, not to my mind. But I think it's a respectable thing to have an argument about. It's something we can have an intelligent argument in which intelligent people can make points on both sides.

This strikes me as being a bit of a lurch from his “Age of Reason” program in which he castigated parents for imparting religious values to their children. If the religious people are “intelligent” people, why can they not pass on these values to their children?

A bit later, however, Dawkins reminds us that a good evolutionary biologist can be a very bad sociologist. The question posed is this:

Q. Do you fear the United States is on its way to becoming a theocracy?

Unaccountably, Dawkins answers the question thus:

A. I think that when George W. Bush was president it was starting to look that way. I was of course hugely encouraged by the election of Barack Obama, so I don't think the United States is on its way to becoming a theocracy. But it's something we need to watch. I think there are countries in the world that are theocracies, and they're terrible, terrible examples. Looking at Saudi Arabia, we really, really don't want my part of the world or your part of the world to go anywhere near that.

This is patent nonsense. The United States has never even come close to a theocracy, nor will it ever come close. He comments that during George Bush, it was "starting to look that way." No it wasn't. It was during the presidency of George Bush, for example, that anti-Christmas campaigns got going in earnest. There were no freedoms curtailed, there was no religious dictate from on high. There was nothing. One of the people who commented on the story also wrote:

It's hard to take seriously anything else the guy says when he says something that dumb. I'd love to know what Bush policy he's referring to. Is he talking about Bush's faith based initiative program? If so, he doesn't know his facts since Obama has continued the program.

Like I said, great evolutionary biologist, mediocre theologian and sociologist at best. Read both the interview and the comments, if you have time.

----------------
Now playing: Mike Oldfield - To France
via FoxyTunes

The Future Evolution of Humans

Futurepundit has an article on "How Will Humans Evolve?" Much of this sort of thing is pure speculation, although there are some trajectories can be plotted. He (Randall Parker) writes:

Starting some time in the next 10 years genetic testing will enable embryo selection that will start off the trend toward healthier, sexier, and smarter offspring. That trend will accelerate in the 2020s and 2030s. Therefore in the 2040s and beyond we (at least those of us who live long enough to get rejuvenation therapies that make us young again) will witness a trend toward higher attractiveness. People will become more perfect-looking and more able. Parents will generally want children capable of achieving more success. This will tend to select for intelligence, looks, height, stamina, and motivation. The choices made to get these desired traits will select against genetic diversity in the humans species.

It is safe to say that this sort of speculation has been around since the 1960s, when the progress of DNA modification was first thought to have potential. I even remember encountering it in an Archie comic once.There are problems, of course, with this simplistic assessment of future evolution. First, traits such as "intelligence" are polygenic, and much is unknown about how intelligence forms. It has been, after all, only a short time since the Forkhead Box P2 gene was discovered that seems to help drive language capabilities. Other genes are pleiotropic, affecting a range of traits. How do you influence one and not others? Even sophisticated gene therapy has a hard time homing in on one trait, and that is if it is not pleiotropic or polygenic. Second, people are remarkably funny about what they want. In many polls, it has been found that the women that men find most attractive usually winds up not being the one they will marry.

It is possible that we might be able to decrease the genetic load of the population but even this will be slow. Many diseases, such as MS and Parkinsons, are post-reproductive and their genetic basis is still largely a mystery. All of these factors (and others I am sure) have largely been responsible for the fact that humans don't look appreciably sexier, aren't healthier and don't have more motivation than their precursors 50-60 years ago.

Textbook Trouble in Florida

In the first of three articles on the subject, the Orlando Sentinel reported on some trouble that a science textbook publisher has found itself in. In the September 30 paper, Leslie Postal wrote:

The publishers of a marine-science textbook that critics say contains pro-creationism material has agreed to remove two offending pages from editions sold to Florida schools, state officials said.

An advisory group, made up mostly of educators, that reviewed the book on CD-ROM last week recommended that "Life on an Ocean Planet" be approved only if the pages were cut, a participant said.

The Florida Department of Education said the publisher has agreed. Current Publishing, in California, did not respond to a request for comment.

The second article, which ran later the same day, also by Postal, had a bit more information about the controversy:

The book, Life on an Ocean Planet, was one of 22 reviewed by a group (made up mostly of educators) asked to recommend high school life sciences materials. The two participants I spoke with said the book stood out because of those two pages, which seemed intent on misinforming students or rehashing discredited ideas.

Both said that book was in stark contract to the others they reviewed –most for various high school biology courses . The other textss [sic], they said, were top-notch and dealt with evolution head on, as required under Florida’s new science standards. The Florida Department of Education said last week that the book’s publisher had agreed to remove the pages that raised red flags, but I never heard back from Current Publishing to confirm that.

In the third article, which ran October 4,the textbook company, Current Publishing, defended their position. Postal writes:

The criticized “sidebar” passages in a marine science textbook proposed for Florida high schools were meant to be a “critical thinking exercise for students” and not a way to undermine the teaching of evolution, said a vice president with Current Publishing, the text’s publisher.

The textbook Life on an Ocean Planet was developed for Florida’s marine science courses in 2005 and revised recently to meet the state’s new science standards, said Dean Allen, the company’s vice president and general manager.

The book doesn’t attempt to mislead or undermine the teaching of evolution, he insisted.

The odd thing about all three stories in the Sentinel is that no part of the sidebar information is either extracted or referenced. Those reading the story have no idea what was in the sidebar that was offensive. For that we have to go to the NCSE, which replicates the sidebars. They write:

The sidebar makes a variety of historical and scientific errors. For example, it claims that in the Origin of Species "Darwin proposed that life arose from nonliving matter"; it equates microevolution with genetic drift; and it contends that selective breeding demonstrates genetic drift. Moreover, although the sidebar acknowledges that "the vast majority of biologists (probably more than 95%)" accept evolution, it also airs, without attempting to debunk, a variety of creationist claims (which are attributed to unnamed "skeptics"). Among these claims: that the fossil record "does not contain the many transitional species one would expect," that "evolution doesn't adequately explain how a complex structure ... could come to exist through infrequent random mutations," that transitional features could not be favored by natural selection, and that "the hypotheses that ... chemicals can lead to abiogenesis are highly debatable."

It is difficult to believe that some of the committee that wrote the textbook did not put these passages in on purpose in the hopes that they would not be noticed. The bullet points in the sidebar are ID "talking points" and are straight out of the "academic freedom" playbook championed so heavily by the Discovery Institute. It would also be naive to think that this is not the only place they will show up. The bad thing here is that the writers of the textbook should have known better. The good thing is that the misinformation was caught.

----------------
Now playing: Peter Gabriel - Red Rain
via FoxyTunes

Ah, the Life!

The Tribune Newspaper of Swartkrans has an article about a former factory manager who is now hunting for fossils in South Africa. According to the story by Robyn Dixon:

[Morris] Sutton, 47, an archaeologist, was a Memphis, Tenn., factory manager who grew tired of the flat horizon of commerce and manufacturing and of laying off fellow employees. So he quit to pursue his hobby: hunting for fossils and Stone Age tools. He went back to college to study archaeology and later moved to South Africa, where he is a postdoctoral researcher with the Institute for Human Evolution at the University of the Witwatersrand.

Now that would be fun! Swartkrans is a site that was first excavated by Robert Broom in the 1930s and revealed Australopithecus robustus remains, including some almost complete skulls, such as the one on the left, and a complete vertebral column, showing without a shadow of a doubt that these creatures with small, ape-like skulls were walking upright like modern humans.



----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips - Summer Ponds And Dragonflies
via FoxyTunes

Stone Tool Use on Flores Was Earlier Than Previously Thought

Mike Morwood and Adam Brumm, who have working on the island of Flores have discovered tools that are around one million years old. According to a story by Anna Salleh on ABC Science:

The tools came from an entirely new site in the Soa basin, to the east of Liang Bua cave, where the 18,000-year-old 'hobbit', Homo floresiensis was found. The tools, which could only have been made by early humans, were in the very bottom sediment layers of the site, just above the bedrock.

Back in 1994, I was shown a cast of a hominid that had been found in Indonesia, by the late Grover Kranz, in which he argued that the placement of some very primitive crests on the base of the skull placed it either in late Australopithecus or early Homo habilis. This is similar to an argument that has been made by Don Tyler at the University of Idaho, who posits that there was a hominid form in Indonesia he dubs Meganthropus that was more primitive than the later Homo erectus forms. If it does turn out that the tools were made by a hominid form other than Homo erectus, it would add credence to these arguments. We do know that a very primitive form of Homo erectus/ergaster was knocking at the gates of Europe around 1.8 million years. It is not out of the question that such a form would made its way to Indonesia between 500 and 800 k years later.

----------------
Now playing: Todd Rundgren & Jeff "Skunk" Baxter - Something to Fall Back On (Re-Recorded)
via FoxyTunes

Mammals Not So Extinct After All

A story out of Wired reports that many mammals that have been traditionally thought to be extinct may not be. Brian Switek writes:

In order to determine how often extinct species had been rediscovered, University of Queensland scientists Diana Fisher and Simon Blomberg created a dataset of 187 mammal species that have been reported extinct, extinct in the wild, or probably extinct since 1500, as well as those which have been rediscovered. They also looked at historical data on the threats that caused species to become extinct — or brought them close to it — including habitat loss, introduced species and overkill by humans.

It turns out that rumors of the extinction of more than a third of these species have turned out to be premature, the scientists report in Proceedings of the Royal Society B Sept. 29. At least 67 species — a little more than a third of those presumed to be extinct — were later found again. And in most cases, these were animals that had been hardest hit by habitat loss.

This is encouraging, but that doesn't mean you should pull out your elephant gun:

Humans and invasive species have been significantly more efficient killers. It’s rare that a species reported extinct due to one of these causes has been seen again.

“If you think that a missing species is extinct and the main cause of decline was introduced predators such as feral foxes, cats or rats, then you are very likely to be right,” Fisher said. But, she added, “If the main cause of decline was habitat loss, you are quite likely to be wrong if you say that it’s extinct, unless it was restricted to a very small area.”

Now the catch is if we can stop habitat loss in countries that need to survive and yet need to preserve their biodiversity. Not an easy thing to do in this day and age.

----------------
Now playing: Steve Hackett - Prayers and Dreams
via FoxyTunes

Complexity Can Evolve Without High Cost

Was R.A. Fisher wrong? It has always been thought that with complexity comes a general lack of evolutionary adaptability. The consensus about human evolution is that early primates were able to exploit their environments because they had a generalized bauplan and could adapt to whatever came down the road. This was true from the teeth to the skeletal structure. Now, in an article for Phys.Org, research by Jianzhi "George" Zhang and colleagues has challenged the idea that the evolution of complexity carries a high cost:

When Fisher first wrote about the cost of complexity, he argued that random mutations---which, along with natural selection, drive evolution---are more likely to benefit simple organisms than complex organisms.

"Think of a hammer and a microscope," Zhang said. "One is complex, one is simple. If you change the length of an arbitrary component of the system by an inch, for example, you're more likely to break the microscope than the hammer."

Looking at pleiotropy, the idea that individual genes can affect a range of traits, the authors found something surprising:

For simplicity, mathematical models of pleiotropy have assumed that all genes in an organism affect all of its traits to some extent. But Zhang's group found that most genes affect only a small number of traits, while relatively few genes affect large numbers of traits.

What's more, they found a "modular" pattern of organization, with genes and traits grouped into sets. Genes in a particular set affect a particular group of traits, but not traits in other groups.

In addition, the researchers learned that the more traits a gene affects, the stronger its effect on each trait.

And how does this relate to the topic of this blog? The author writes:

The new findings help buffer evolutionary biology against the criticisms of intelligent design proponents, Zhang said. "The evolution of complexity is one thing that they often target. Admittedly, there were some theoretical difficulties in explaining the evolution of complexity because of the notion of the cost of complexity, but with our findings these difficulties are now removed."

One of the general complaints that has been made against those who espouse ID is that there is either a persistently simplistic model of evolution employed or an incorrect one. Recent works by Michael Behe, William Dembski and Stephen Meyer have focused on the presumed inability of evolutionary models to account for "specified complexity." They also make the specious argument that there can never be an increase in information under these models. Studies like these, which operate out of a predictive model, show otherwise.

----------------
Now playing: They Might Be Giants - Whistling In the Dark
via FoxyTunes

Neandertals as Advanced as Early Modern Humans?

This is something that I have thought for years. In contrast to the preceding story that I posted, it has been advanced that Neandertals were every bit as capable as modern humans. In Science Daily, the author quotes anthropologist Julien Riel-Salvatore and writes:

Riel-Salvatore identified projectile points, ochre, bone tools, ornaments and possible evidence of fishing and small game hunting at Uluzzian archeological sites throughout southern Italy. Such innovations are not traditionally associated with Neanderthals, strongly suggesting that they evolved independently, possibly due to dramatic changes in climate. More importantly, they emerged in an area geographically separated from modern humans.

"My conclusion is that if the Uluzzian is a Neanderthal culture it suggests that contacts with modern humans are not necessary to explain the origin of this new behavior. This stands in contrast to the ideas of the past 50 years that Neanderthals had to be acculturated to humans to come up with this technology," he said. "When we show Neanderthals could innovate on their own it casts them in a new light. It `humanizes' them if you will."

There are three "adaptive" technologies found in Europe at the Neandertal/early modern nexus: the Uluzzian, in Italy, the Szeletian in Hungary and the Chatelperronian in France. These have traditionally been interpreted as attempts by Neandertals to acculturate the technologies of the incoming moderns. Recent evidence has suggested, however, that, at least in the case of the Chatelperronian (also Castelperronean), the Neandertals and modern humans either coexisted at the site or occupied the same site at different times. The technology is sort of a modern/Neandertal hybrid. Interestingly, the same problem occurs in the Near East, where it is clear that the Neandertals and early moderns in the area were using the same tool types—the Levantine Mousterian. The only difference between the sites is that the early moderns appear to have used a higher percentage of knives.

As more information continues to come to light, including the recent revelation that Neandertals contributed to the modern human genome, it becomes harder to relegate them to the class of intellectually inferior species. It also becomes clear that the reasons for their disappearance (volcanoes aside) are complex.

----------------
Now playing: Todd Rundgren - Where Does The Time Go?
via FoxyTunes

Volcanoes Responsible for Neandertal Extinction?

National Geographic has picked up a story in which it is argued that the European populations of Neandertals became extinct because of the environmental degradation caused by a number of large volcanoes that erupted over a very short period of time around the Würm interglacial. The author, Ker Tan writes:

The researchers examined sediments layer from around 40,000 years ago in Russia's Mezmaiskaya Cave and found that the more volcanic ash a layer had, the less plant pollen it contained.

"We tested all the layers for this volcanic ash signature. The most volcanic-ash-rich layer"—likely corresponding to the so-called Campanian Ignimbrite eruption, which occurred near Naples (map)—"had no [tree] pollen and very little pollen from other types of plants," said study team member Naomi Cleghorn. "It's just a sterile layer."

The loss of plants would have led to a decline in plant-eating mammals, which in turn would have affected the Neanderthals, who hunted large mammals for food.

The authors argue that the only reason modern humans did not become extinct is that they had "fallback" populations in Africa and Asia.

Some problems:

• The most recent Neandertal remains at Zafarraya Cave are dated to around 26 ky BP, which means that Neandertals managed to hang around for between 15 and 20 thousand years after these eruptions. This does not argue for an extinction event of any kind, unless the Neandertal populations just dwindled away.
• There are Neandertal and modern human remains pretty continuously throughout the tale end of the Early Würm glaciation and the Late Würm glaciation (the Würm interglacial was between 34 and 37 ky BP), suggesting that, while the volcanoes may have erupted around this time, their impact may have been limited.

I will be curious to read the Current Anthropology article when it comes out in October. CA is one of the rare journals that not only publishes articles, it also publishes commentary on those articles.

----------------
Now playing: Todd Rundgren - An Elpee's Worth Of Tunes
via FoxyTunes

British Humanists Want Legal Action to Keep Creationism Out of the Classroom

The British Humanist Association is concerned that, while the government has pledged that there will be no creationism in the classrooms, there are no safeguards to see that that happens. They write on their web site:

BHA education campaigns officer James Gray said: 'While we welcome any public statement that the coalition government opposes the teaching of creationism, these assurances do not go nearly far enough. We need clear safeguards, such as legislative change and statutory guidance, to ensure not only that evolution is placed at the heart of the science syllabus for all ages but also that is not contradicted by religious instruction.'

'We know that in some 'faith' schools pupils' understanding of evolution is already being undermined by highly doctrinal and insular RE lessons that present religious myth as scientific fact. If this is happening now in maintained schools, it does not bode well for the new religious 'free schools' which do not have to follow the National Curriculum and are outside local authority control.'

Recent actions by state legislatures and school boards such as those in Texas and Louisiana, are full of so many loopholes that, often, creationism sneaks in the back door.

----------------
Now playing: Yes - Mind Drive [Studio Track]
via FoxyTunes

The Lack of Correlation Between Anti-Global Warming Advocates and ID

As of late, supporters of ID have argued that they have been persecuted for their positions and that the support of such is no different than the persecution that has befallen anti-global warming advocates. They (Casey Luskin in particular)have argued that both the supporters of evolution and those of global warming have things to hide and that they are both resorting to silencing their critics. Johnathan Pearce of Samizdata has a refreshingly clear-headed article on why this simply is not so. He writes, correctly:

AGW skeptics fall into various camps: those who simply want to trash any suggestion that AGW is a problem; those who say that AGW is a problem but who are unsure about its effects, and those who realise that AGW is probably happening but who debate whether it can be mitigated, reversed or adapted to, and who want to know about the pros and cons (think of the likes of Nigel Lawson, or Bjorn Lomborg, etc). A lot of AGW skeptics pore over immense amounts of data to highlight their doubts; and some of them, such as Lawson, employ powerful economic and related arguments that draw on known facts.

But ID advocates do not have the same kind of facts, as far as I can see, to conclusively press their case. What they have instead is a sort of "We cannot explain X so in the absence of a better idea, we'll assume a Creator got involved". Not terribly convincing, is my reaction. I accept that some scientists might be sympathetic to ID without losing any integrity, but what Booker's article signally fails to address is whether any ID advocate has given a plausible explanation, with proof and evidence, of how a particularly complex phemomenon of nature came to be "created". All they do, it seems from Booker's article, is to state that because there are "gaps" in fossil records, etc, that therefore the gap must imply that some outside agent (like a God), caused X or Y. But his article does not go beyond that to explain what sort of processes these ID folk imagine happened. And the reason for that is simple: they don't know.

This has long been a sticking point in the path that ID has chosen. There simply are no "smoking gun" tests that can be done to show that God created x in exactly that way. Consequently, ID supporters have resorted to attacking the science of evolution with programs to "teach the controversy," "cover all range of scientific views," and other seemingly tolerant academic ideas. The persecution link to anti-global warming advocates has only been the most recent attempt to gain legitimacy for their positions. Such legitimacy will not come in this fashion.

----------------
Now playing: Yes - To Be Over
via FoxyTunes

Science and Religion: Always in "Mortal Combat?"

Matthew Reicz of the Times Higher Educational Supplement has an interesting article on the conflict between religion and science.He writes:

One person who has looked closely at this issue is Elaine Howard Ecklund, assistant professor of sociology at Rice University in Texas. She surveyed nearly 1,700 natural and social scientists in elite American universities - "Arik" is a pseudonym for one of the academics she interviewed in depth - and she presents the results in her new book, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think. By asking them about how religion and spirituality have had an impact on their lives, she hopes to offer "a balanced assessment of information gathered scientifically from scientists themselves".

Although they are undoubtedly less religious than the American public as a whole, the scientists Ecklund interviewed are far from a uniform band of militant atheists. Only 34 per cent say they concur with the statement "I do not believe in God" (and 30 per cent confess to agnosticism), 71 per cent believe "there are basic truths in many religions" and 18 per cent attend religious services at least once a month. Close to half could be said "to have a religious tradition" in some sense, and the age data in Ecklund's survey suggest that levels of faith among US scientists are rising.

This is similar to the numbers that Neil De Grasse Tyson was quoted as using and is encouraging, if nothing else because scientists are normally thought to be outside the norm of mainstream religion in the US. This has especially become a problem as of late with the GOP's more moderate members embracing the party line of the Discovery Institute while the evangelical base of the party leans toward the young earth creation perspective.

Reicz quotes Karl Giberson of the BioLogos Institute, who has a special dislike for young earth creation groups. Of people in the United States, he writes:

Many, notes Giberson, are left with "the impression that there is a religious objection to every scientific advance. Yet the most aggressive critics of the Creation Museum are more moderate Christians, not militant atheists. They believe young-Earth creationists have to be rejected, for turning Christians into anti-intellectual hillbillies."

Atheists, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, typically ignore the YEC groups and go after the mainstream population, pointing out how ridiculous these groups are. Increasingly, as the GOP continues to go down this path, these atheists will point out how ridiculous it is to be a Republican. As long as those of us who are EC are considered by many evangelicals (including people like Ken Ham) to be apostate, the battle will be an uphill one.

The article is long but very illuminating. As Glenn Reyolds would say: "Read the whole thing."

----------------
Now playing: Anthony Phillips & Harry Williamson - Gypsy Suite - Movement IV: The Crystal Ball
via FoxyTunes

Huge Fossil Find in California

BBC America is reporting on a find in California that will be a boon for researchers in the area. According to the story:

The fossil haul includes remains from an ancestor of the sabre-toothed tiger, large ground sloths, deer, horses, camels and numerous small rodents.

Plant matter found at the site in the arid San Timoteo Canyon, 85 miles (137km) south-east of Los Angeles, showed it was once much greener.

It will also give us a window into mammal development in the North American continent. Neat.

Freshwater Documents up at NCSE

The National Center for Science Education has all of the documents concerning the John Freshwater case up on their site here. It is quite an interesting read.

----------------
Now playing: Oystein Sevâg - Children's Song
via FoxyTunes.

Richard Dawkins' Problem

It is that none of his opponents seem to be coming to his lectures. As Andrew John in Digital Journal writes:

Of his travels in the USA’s Bible Belt, he said that no one who disagrees with his view “ever comes to my lectures – or, if they do, they keep very quiet afterwards.” And the often mild-speaking professor doesn’t always keep his cool when confronted by those who refuse to believe the scientific evidence. But, in his defence, he quoted a favoured sentence once written by the Independent’s feature writer, Johann Hari: “I respect you as a person too much to respect your ridiculous beliefs.”

Gee, can't imagine why nobody is coming.

----------------
Now playing: Pat Metheny & Lyle Mays - It's For You
via FoxyTunes

Christine O'Donnell: Trouble For Science Education In Delaware?

New York News and Features has an article on Christine O'Donnell, the woman who surprisingly upset GOP favorite Mike Castle to win the primary in Delaware. In what has become tiringly predictable, the author writes:

In a discussion moderated by anchor Miles O'Brien, O'Donnell squared off against Michael McKinney, a University of Tennessee professor of evolutionary biology. Not only was O'Donnell in favor of teaching creationism alongside evolution, but she wasn't even sure evolution was real. According to a transcript, via Nexis:

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL, Concerned Women for America: Well, as the senator from Tennessee mentioned, evolution is a theory and it's exactly that. There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests. The tests that they put — that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory. But creation —

Great Googlymoogly! Yet another person in elected office for whom science education has completely failed. Where do people learn this nonsense? O'Donnell, all at once, doesn't seem to know the difference between theory and hypothesis or between conclusion and fact. Theories don't ever become facts in this sense. They become very high probabilities. It isn't a fact that when I drop something it will land on the floor but the probability of it doing so is so great that we consider it a certainty. Where does she get the idea that these "tests" of evolution don't have consistent results? Not from any science textbook, that's for sure. To get an idea of where it does come from, we get to this:

CHRISTINE O'DONNELL: Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that.

This is a woman who's only exposure to biological and geological sciences has been the ICR and AIG. No wonder she doesn't know the difference between theory and hypothesis. She also states that scientists use carbon dating to prove something was "millions of years old." Uh, no. They don't. Radiocarbon dating can stretch back 60-70 thousand years at the outside.

This lack of basic knowledge is truly troubling for someone who, as an elected official will have an influence on the education policies for the state of Delaware. Now this interview was conducted in 1996 and it is possible these views have changed since then. I applaud her conservatism as it applies to fiscal responsibility but it is hard to support this kind of ignorant Christian folk science.

----------------
Now playing: Pat Metheny - Phase Dance
via FoxyTunes

Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debates

Research and Markets has expanded their holdings to include a new report called Evolution Wars: A Guide to the Debate. If you have access to this database, check it out. Otherwise, they will be happy to sell it to you for 155 pounds.