Meanwhile, over in Oklahoma...

The University of Oklahoma (I interviewed there for a job once...) is sponsoring a "Darwin 2009 Project." Not everybody is happy. A story in the OU Daily by Cadie Thompson states:

House Resolutions 1014 and 1015, introduced by Rep. Todd Thomsen, R-Ada, assert that OU’s recent evolution-related discussions, part of the “Darwin 2009” project, have been unfair and biased because proponents of creationism and intelligent design have not been represented equally alongside evolutionary biologists.

“I am trying to promote free thinking,” Thomsen said. “I strongly oppose the Department of Zoology for their unwillingness to lead our state in this discussion and not have opposing views in this matter.”

This was met with a swift response:

“It’s breathtakingly stupid,” said Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. “Rep. Thomsen might as well be complaining students are being indoctrinated with the theory of gravity.”

Boston said he thinks Thomsen’s resolutions promote creationism and are a step toward implementing creationism instruction in schools.

Also lost in the kerfuffle is that Thomsen, in the same breath he is asking for discussion, wants Richard Dawkins banned from OU. Here is the relevant language from the bill:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE 1ST SESSION OF THE 52ND OKLAHOMA LEGISLATURE:

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representative strongly opposes the invitation to speak on the campus of the University of Oklahoma to Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, whose published statements on the theory of evolution and opinion about those who do not believe in the theory are contrary and offensive to the views and opinions of most citizens of Oklahoma.

THAT the Oklahoma House of Representatives encourages the University of Oklahoma to engage in an open, dignified, and fair discussion of the Darwinian theory of evolution and all other scientific theories which is the approach that a public institution should be engaged in and which represents the desire and interest of the citizens of Oklahoma.

Thomsen doesn't want open discussion of evolutionary theory. Like Don McLeroy in Texas and Kent Cravens in New Mexico, he wants it gone. As far as opposing views are concerned, telling him that there are no scientifically defensible young earth creation models would likely have no effect. As I said in an earlier post, when science is co-opted by politicians, nothing good can come of it. Thomsen, by the way, has no graduate training of any kind in the sciences. He graduated with a Bachelor's degree in 1989. He is manifestly unqualified to introduce this kind of legislation.

"Peking Man" Fossils Older than Originally Thought

The fossil hominid skeletal material from Zhoukoudian, the famous "Peking Man" fossils are now thought to date to as early as 780 kya. From Yahoo News:

The findings, published in the London-based science journal Nature, are sure to stir controversy among scientists, who have long debated the timing and routes of hominin migrations.

Up to now, the favoured theory was that a single exodus of homo erectus moved out of Africa some two million years ago, progressing across the Arabian Peninsula, the Indian subcontinent and coastal southeast Asia.

From there it was thought that some moved across land bridges during a glacial period to what later became the island of Java. The first erectus fossils were found on the Indonesian island in 1892, and have been definitively dated back some 1.6 million years.

Another group, the theory goes, made their way north, eventually settling in the region north and west Beijing.

But the revised dating of Peking Man -- combined with other recent studies -- points to a separate migration across Eurasia from another region inhabited by homo erectus some 1.8 million years ago, in modern-day Georgia.

I have contended that the cranial morphology of the Zhoukoudian remains suggests at least a separate population of Homo erectus in China; possibly a separate species, possibly an adaptation to some climatic stress.

Creationists have long contended that the remains are fakes because we no longer have the original remains. For the fascinating story of why that happened, go here. What is clear is that the remains were not fakes in any way. More information has come to light in other parts of China that paints a picture of different Homo erectus adaptations to different areas of China. By virtue of the discovery of other Homo erectus remains at the same site, including the remains of a skull cap and teeth in 1966, the creationist arguments, which were bad to begin with, are rendered irrelevant. It is amazing that they continue to make this claim despite the fact that virtually every palaeoanthropologist knew about the 1966 remains long before creationists cried 'foul'.

Don McLeroy, A Profile

The Austin American-Statesman has a profile of Don McLeroy, the head of the Texas State Board of Education. It is as balanced a piece as it probably could be and the author, Laura Heinauer, delves into his history and his work with the school board and the science standards.

McLeroy's amendments included adding a requirement that students analyze and evaluate the insufficiencies of the theory of common ancestry to explain gaps in the fossil record.

He has succeeded in rewriting the state's definition of science as it pertains to teaching to require "testable explanations" of nature. McLeroy said the change should allow the questioning of all scientific explanations and opens the door to the possibility that the universe was created by God. But he wants more.

As with many creationists, he is quite passionate and has enthusiasm for his work. The problem is that there is no support scientifically for his ideas. But problems remain:

University of Texas professor David Hillis helped form a group called the 21st Century Science Coalition to combat the effort to include the weaknesses of evolution in the public school curriculum.

"If Chairman McLeroy is successful in adding his amendments, it will be a huge embarrassment to Texas, a setback for science education and a terrible precedent for the state boards overriding academic experts in order to further their personal religious or political agendas. The victims will be the schoolchildren of Texas, who represent the future of our state."

How do you get someone like this up to speed in terms of biological education so that he even understands what he is railing against. His entire perspective is religious—giving little thought to the actual ideas of evolution.

Hat tip to LGF.

A Creationist Tackles the Smithsonian

The Washington Post has an article on a creation science teacher, David DeWitt, at Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia, who takes his science class to the Smithsonian Institution every year in the hopes of bolstering their YEC beliefs.

Like the Liberty students, avowed creationists across the country are making a practice of challenging the conventional wisdom at zoos (questioning the evolutionary explanation of giraffe necks), the Grand Canyon (dating the rock layers in thousands, not millions, of years), and cave parks (describing the formations as evidence of rapid drainage after the Great Flood).

In the upcoming issue of Answers, a leading magazine of the young-Earth movement, the list of "creation vacations" includes the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, the New England Aquarium in Boston and London's Natural History Museum.

"Why should we be afraid to test our worldview against reality?" asked Bill Jack, a Christian leadership instructor who leads groups across the country for a company called Biblically Correct Tours. "If Christianity is true, it better be true in the natural history museums and in the zoos."

Creationists have been popping up in enough mainstream institutions that one museum has produced a creation-vs.-evolution primer to help volunteer docents handle their sometimes-pointed questions. When the Museum of the Earth in Ithaca, N.Y., published its guide, more than 50 museums called looking for a copy, according to director Warren Allmon.

Bill Jack is correct in that if Christianity is true, it should be true in the natural history museums and in the zoos. But what do you say to your students when they ask you why NOTHING that they learn in class is reflected in ANY of the major museums in the country? How does he answer the serious geology questions—the complete lack of evidence for his views? Astounding.

Hat Tip to LGF.

The Great Dinosaur Home School Problem

I am holding in my hands a home school science resource called The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible. It is quite something. It is clear that the author, Paul Taylor did not consult even one book on palaeontology. There are no citations in the back of the book and the list of acknowledgements are to people that have no training in palaeontology—Henry Morris, Gary Parker and Lowell Wallen to name a few. It is not clear what Mr. Taylor's credentials are, since his biography only says he "did extensive research" with his late father, Stanley Taylor on dinosaurs and the Bible.

Stanley Taylor was responsible for the original Paluxy River film Footprints in Stone, for Films for Christ Ministries. The Paluxy site was eventually debunked and even John Morris stated that the tracks shouldn't be used as evidence for recent creationism. Amazingly, there are still creationists that endorse that particular argument. Anyhoo, back to the book.

Its principle endorsement is by Henry Morris. That is a bit of a giveaway as to the content of the book. He begins with a description of dinosaurs and then compares it to scripture:

The Bible's best description of a dinosaur-like animal is in Job chapter 40.

He then quotes from Job 40 the passage about the behemoth:

¹⁵ "Look at the behemoth,^"
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.

¹⁶ What strength he has in his loins,
what power in the muscles of his belly!

¹⁷ His tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.

¹⁸ His bones are tubes of bronze,
his limbs like rods of iron.

He follows this with:

The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born. Here God describes a great king of the land animals like some of the biggest dinosaurs, the Diplodocus and Apatosaurus.

Later, he writes:

After all the behemoth died out, many people forgot about them. Dinosaurs were extinct and the fossil skeletons that are in museums today did not begin to be put together until about 150 years ago. Today, some people have mistakenly guessed that the behemoth mentioned in the Bible might be an elephant or a hippopotamus. but those animals certainly do not have tails like the thick, tall trunks of cedar trees.

Okay. Lets parse this.

• How would you forget about an animal that was 75 feet long?
  
• Or an animal that was 45 feet long and ate people for lunch??
  
• if the flood was around 2300-3000 B.C., why are there no written records of these animals and their interactions with humans.
  
• Who was it, exactly, that forgot about them? If they died in the flood, that would have been Noah and his sons, who would certainly have passed on stories about them.
  
• If they did die in the flood, how does Job know about them? According to Buffetaut et al: The sauropod teeth from Lebanon are a significant addition to the very scanty dinosaur record from the Levant, which hitherto consisted mainly of very poorly preserved and not easily identifiable specimens¹. It is not likely that Job would have simply encountered the remains of one wandering the landscape.
• The NIV study notes from the chapter suggest that "tail" in this case may have meant "trunk" and that these animals were, in fact, hippos or elephants. Given what we know of the fossil record in the area, why is this not certainly as reasonable an interpretation of the passage?
• If this animal fed on grass like an ox, that would mean it is a ruminant. Two problems: sauropods lacked molar teeth and could not chew vegetation and they were not ruminants.
  

All of this suggests that these animals in Job were not dinosaurs but animals that the people knew about and that lived, if not locally, nearby.

He then writes about the aftermath of the flood:

Such a great event would surely have left evidence to be found today. For instance, one would expect to find billions of dead creatures buried by water in mud and sand (now hardened to rock). And that is exactly what scientists do find around the world.

Thousands of dinosaur bones can be found where they were washed together by violent flood waters and buried under mud, sand and rock. Many of the animals were torn apart and their bones broken and jumbled-up. The muds and sands hardened like concrete to form the great layers of fossil rocks we find today.

Quick flood burial would be the only way that so many dinosaurs and other things could have become fossilized in the way scientists have found them. animals and plants will fossilize only if they are buried quickly and deeply—before predators, decay and weather destroy them.

More problems:

• It is indeed true that we find animals in the fossil record—but they are perfectly sorted into species by layer. How would a flood do this?
  
• Why do the large sauropods exist three quarters of the way up the column when they should have sunk to the bottom because of their size?
  
• Dirt that is more than two thousand years old is still dirt—which can be dug up and examined, as is done in archaeological investigations. How would the dirt of the flood have hardened into rock in less than a year—especially with all of that water present?
  
• Many animal fossils show evidence of having been torn apart by predators and chewed up and gnawed upon, exactly what Mr. Taylor says didn't happen. This could not have happened in a world-wide, one year flood.

He ends the book in the following fashion:

Did any dinosaurs ever become terrible and ferocious? The answer to this question remains a mystery. At this point, there is no proof that any of the dinosaurs were as mean and dangerous as shown in picture books. It will take many more discoveries before anyone can say for certain how dinosaurs behaved in the the world before the flood or after. However, it is likely that more people killed dinosaurs than dinosaurs killed people. Bible-Believing Christians can be sure of one thing. When dinosaurs were originally created, they were peaceful and harmless just like all the other animals.

Does this look like a cute, cuddly animal?



This is a very poorly thought-out book and as such, is an incredible disservice to school children who are trying to learn about these majestic animals that lived so long ago. If you want to teach your children about dinosaurs, avoid it.

¹Cited article:
Buffetaut,E., Azar, D., Nel, A., Ziadé, K. and Acra, A. (2008)
First nonavian dinosaur from Lebanon: a brachiosaurid sauropod from the Lower Cretaceous of the Jezzine District. Naturwissenschaften. 93(9): 440-443.

Bob the Builder and Dinosaurs

Benny the Digger just dug up a plesiasaur on this morning's edition of Bob the builder on PBS. This is after Bob's friend Sandy Beach (yup, you read that right) digs up a trilobite and remarks that it was an animal that "lived millions of years ago in the ocean." Education at an early age. Yay.

The Discovery Institute on Charles Darwin's Birthday

Going back a few weeks, I know but the stupid surgery put me behind. Here is an article by Phillip Skell of the DI on Darwin's birthday. Despite being a member of the National Academy of Sciences, he manages to pack a good deal of ignorance into one column but seems to be becoming commonplace for the DI these days. In the article, which is largely a response to the one by Jerry Coyne, he writes:

Coyne seems to believe the major importance of biological science is its speculations about matters which cannot be observed, tested and verified, such as origin of life, speciation, the essences of our fossilized ancestors, the ultimate causes of their changes, etc.

Come again? Speciation certainly can and has been verified. Even some creationists are coming around to this perspective. As far as the fossils are concerned, while it is true that we always want more fossils, we have more than enough to draw pretty good pictures of how these creatures walked, flew and hunted. At the Lianing fossil beds in China, they are unearthing complete skeletons of dinosaurs, including those with feathers.

He continues:

Contrary to the beliefs of Professor Coyne and some other defenders of Darwin, these advances are not due to studies of an organism's ancestors that are recovered from fossil deposits. Those rare artifacts--which have been preserved as fossils--are impressions in stones which, even when examined with the heroic efforts of paleontologists, cannot reveal the details that made these amazing living organisms function.

Again, nonsense. We have complete fossils, which show tremendous details about how they lived and died—enough that we can draw relationships between them and other creatures that were coeval.

Here is the most blatantly ignorant part though:

Additionally, I have queried biologists working in areas where one might have thought the Darwinian paradigm could guide research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I learned that evolutionary theory provides no guidance when it comes to choosing the experimental designs. Rather, after the breakthrough discoveries, it is brought in as a narrative gloss.

The entire work of antibiotics is predicated on mutation and selection and how those work in the natural world. I was told recently by some of my nursing students that the Zithromax antibiotic doesn't work as well against bacteria anymore because, though mutations, they have become resistant to it. Here is a somewhat technical paper on antibiotic resistance and evolution by RE Lenski that helps.

Recently, Stuart Faulk has responded to the nonsense in Skell's paper here. He is not kind. He writes:

Given how easily Skell’s arguments can be dismissed, it is reasonable to ask why he would make them in the first place. He is just as capable of reading Scientific American as I am, and probably more qualified.The short answer is that this is not a debate about factual truth and science, but about public opinion and religion. What Skell neglects to mention (but any Web search will show) is that he has long supported creationist causes. His guest viewpoint is but one of many letters supporting “intelligent design” and opposing the teaching of evolution in public schools, which he equates to “indoctrination of students to a worldview of materialism and atheism.”Since the courts have blocked teaching of creationist ideology in public schools (in the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District), creationist strategy has focused on marginalizing evolutionary science: casting doubt on its validity, minimizing its usefulness, and discrediting its proponents. Skell’s assertions simply are repackaged versions of standard creationist arguments along these lines. They are made not because they are true, but because they have proven effective in casting doubt on evolutionary science.

The DI, doing what they do best. It reminds me of that old saying: if you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have either, pound the table!

Hat tip to LGF

An Atheist From Norfolk Speaks About the Evolution Survey

Cath Elliott, from Norfolk writes for the Guardian that:

I have to admit I was a bit put out when I realised there would be no atheist buses coming to my neck of the woods. I loved the campaign slogan, even with the inclusion of "probably," and once it became clear that enough money had been raised to convey the message to cities beyond London I was really looking forward to being able to ride on an atheist bus myself. Alas, it wasn't to be, but now at least I can understand why the organisers omitted to involve East Anglia in the campaign: they weren't deliberately ignoring us; they simply understood that this region had no need for atheist buses, because the east of England is already full of atheists anyway.

According to the map, 44% of people in the region believe that evolution removes the need for God. Oddly, the article is particularly devoid of mention of evolution or the theory itself. It is more of the viewpoint that atheism doesn't imply nihilism:

Of course what's particularly gratifying about the survey result is that it confirms what atheists have been trying to get across for years. That morals and ethics are not determined by or exclusive to any religion, and that those of us without a belief in the supernatural are just as capable of behaving decently and caring about our fellow citizens as anyone else. In fact we're probably more capable, because we do it of our own free will and we don't need any mythical gods or holy books to tell us right from wrong.

This is a bit of a straw-man argument. Christianity doesn't guarantee more moral or perfect people. It just means that someone "believes" in a higher being and tries to ascribe to the values that that higher being promotes. We often fail miserably at that, being the human creature that we are. Church isn't for perfect people, just people who want to be better than they are and see God as the agent of that change. As far as the church is concerned, the only difference between people that believe in God and people that don't is that the people that don't believe in God don't have a promise of eternity with God. As I read the literature, it becomes clear that religious people have very peculiar misinterpretations about atheists and atheists have very peculiar misinterpretations about religious people.

More on the Vatican Council from Top News

Top News has an article by Mohit Joshi on the recent Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican. He writes:

In September 2008 president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, also ruled out any apology to Darwin by the Vatican.

Ravasi was commenting on an appeal by the Church of England's public affairs head that the church should say sorry for initially misunderstanding the 19th century English scientist's work.

Evolution theory is "not incompatible from the outset with the teachings of the Catholic Church, nor the message of the Bible," Ravasi said, noting that the Origin of the Species was never placed on the Church's list of banned books.

On Tuesday, Levada said the Vatican believed there was a "wide spectrum of room" for belief in both the scientific basis for evolution and faith in God the creator.

The "non-apology" article can be found here. He did, however, get an apology from the Church of England.

Catholic Church Goes on Offensive Against Atheism

Yahoo news reports from the latest Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican. While it has become clear that the Catholic Church has—depending on who is speaking at the time—embraced evolution or has accepted a "Mexican Standoff" position with regard to it. They are quite clear on atheism, as practiced by people like Richard Dawkins, however:

But while the Vatican did not exclude any area of science, it did reject as "absurd" the atheist notion of biologist and author Richard Dawkins and others that evolution proves there is no God, he said.

"Of course we think that's absurd and not at all proven," he said. "But other than that ... the Vatican has recognized that it doesn't stand in the way of scientific realities."

The Vatican under Pope Benedict XVI has been trying to stress its belief that there is no incompatibility between faith and reason, and the conference at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University was a key demonstration of its efforts to engage with the scientific community.

Not nearly on the order of Vatican II but important nonetheless.

Catching Up: Carol Hill on the Genesis Flood

Nice thing about having access to the ASA backfiles: you can find real gems that you might have missed a few years back. Carol Hill wrote an article called "A Third Alternative to Concordism and Divine Accommodation: The Worldview Approach" in 2007 that is available as a pdf file from their site.

As nearly as I can tell, this view most closely mirrors my own and it is nice to find another person who has struggled with these issues and resolved them in this way. One thing that my wife and I have argued about for some time now is the historicity of the Primeval History. Her perspective is that if you don't take Adam literally, then there is no reason to accept the Lordship of Christ and his death meant nothing in an "original sin" sense. Given what I know of human evolution and the age of the earth, I have resisted accepting the literal existence of Adam. While I don't buy all of Dr. Hill's arguments in this article, she may be onto something. She writes:

I would like to offer a third alternative to “concordism” (Ross’s position) and “divine accommodation” (Seely’s position). I call it the “worldview approach.” The basic premise of the worldview approach is that the Bible in its original text accurately records historical events if considered from the worldview of the biblical authors. By “historical” I mean not only history and pre-history in a traditional sense, but also the historical, time-related, scientific disciplines such as archeology, geology, and astronomy. If the Bible is to be trusted for its theology, then it must also be trusted for its historical accuracy.

She correctly pours water on the concordist approach by pointing out something that scientists have know for years: that the march of evolution does not match the Genesis 1 account very well. Put simply, in the Genesis account, things are out of order. This, however is not important:

It means that our concepts of modern science are not contained in Genesis, and that we should not read our twenty-first century scientific worldview into the text.

Contrast this with the mission statement of Answers in Genesis, which reads, in part:

The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life, mankind, the Earth and the universe.

As far as Adam is concerned, she writes:

The “divine accommodation” position of Seely would say that Adam was not a real person and that this story is just a myth that God accommodates into his Bible. The “concordist” position of Ross would say that Adam was a real person and the biological father of the whole human race, so to be in concord with science Adam had to live 50,000 years or so ago (or almost 200,000 years ago if one is talking about the first Homo Sapiens found in the fossil record). The worldview approach does not ascribe to either position. It would say that Adam lived in the Neolithic (because the Bible puts him there in real time) and that he was not a mythical person, but a real historical person whom God made the spiritual father of the whole human race.

Of course, the drawback of this viewpoint is, what does one do with the anatomically modern humans that have been walking around since 160 kya? There is no evidence that their intellect was any less than that of you and I. If we ask the question "then why did they use primitive stone tools for thousands of years?" we might as well ask "why didn't people in the seventeenth century have computers?" Where populations are small, people use what works. When there are many people in an area, they bounce ideas off each other and compete with other. That is what drives technology. So, given that they were as intelligent as we are, did the people that lived during this time period simply not have souls? That is a little difficult to square with what is known of the personality of God. If they did, what was the final disposition of their souls? This was a question addressed by Davis Young in his article The Antiquity and Unity of the Human Race. In it, he writes:

Ironically, it would seem that trying to preserve the traditional confessional idea of the biological descent of the entire human race from Adam and Eve forces us to adopt positions which require abandonment of aspects of literal historicity of the early chapters of Genesis. Either we need to interpret the text so that Adam is not the father of Cain or we need to explain why the culture of Genesis 4 really does not include the elements therein mentioned. On the other hand, adherence to more literal exegesis of the text puts us in the position of redefining the traditional position on original sin.

He then suggests, as Carol Hill does in this article, that the solutions to these problems will require a closer look at the literary nature of the creation texts—an idea that is not new but seems to be lost of your average young earth creationist.

Then she tackles the flood, which she interprets to be local in origin:

The duration of rain (up until 150 days; Gen. 8:2) could have been caused by the stalling of a Mediterranean cyclonic front over the Mesopotamian area in combination with maritime air masses moving up from the Persian Gulf and Arabian Sea/Indian Ocean. This stalled storm would have been associated with southerly winds (the sharqi and/or suhaili), not with the northwesterly shamal wind, and these could have been very intense winds both in strength and duration.

In this perspective, Noah and his family are real people that survived a real flood in the Mesopotamian basin. There is one initial problem in this interpretation. The Gilgamesh epic involving Utnapisthim predates the biblical story of Noah and the flood and there are considerable parallels between the two. It is suggestive that there was a common story from which the two accounts worked that is shrouded in antiquity. This is essentially the argument put forth by Ryan and Pitman in their book Noah's Flood. The other problem with this interpretation is the "memory hole" problem. No one seems to remember Noah and his sons. This problem is especially acute (perhaps inexplicable) for promoters of a global flood. If, as she suggests, that Noah, Atrahasis and Ziusudra are the same person, that takes care of some of the issues but not the vastly different lives these people led. Ziusudra was the king of Shuruppak, while Noah led a humble life before the flood. People would have listened to a king. Nobody listened to Noah. They thought him to be a kook. Those issues need to be addressed.

She closes with a nod to Conrad Hyers:

To faithfully interpret Genesis is to be faithful to what it really means as it was originally written, not to what people living in a later time assume or desire it to be.

True words. There is more to be expounded on about this issue. I just need to sit down and do so.

Louisiana Science Education Act: The Downside Continues

New Orleans CityBusiness has an article on how the signing of the academic freedom has had an impact of business in the city. Subsequent to the passage of the act, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology pulled up stakes and moved to Salt Lake City for its annual conference. CityBusiness writes:

If allowing faith-based theories to make their way into the realm of state-sponsored education is part of the formula to create more jobs and prosperity in Louisiana, you would see the business community throw its full support beyond LSEA. It obviously wasn’t touted as an economic development initiative, but business interests are now learning that even the most innocuous measure can affect their livelihood.

What the governor and lawmakers need to realize is that while measures such as these may not appear to have a business impact on the surface, they could ultimately affect the state’s bottom line.

Let’s hope they keep this in mind before they make their next decision that puts their personal beliefs ahead of the overall interest of the state, its citizens and our economy.

Lets hear it for the law of unintended consequences.

More on the New Mexico "Academic Freedom" Bill

The bill being promoted by senator Kent Cravens on "academic freedom" has appeared on the radar. Kate Nash of the Santa Fe New Mexican has written a short article drawing attention to it. She writes:

A measure pending in the Senate Education Committee would protect teachers who want to talk about theories of a "controversial scientific nature," including but not limited to creationism, its sponsor said.

Gee, I wonder what scientific theory is thought to be "controversial?"

Cravens said the bill isn't meant to be an anti-Darwinian measure.

"It's not intended to be," he said, "It's just intended to give the teacher the ability to disclose that there may be another way to think about this, whatever subject they are talking about."

Such measures have been tried unsuccessfully in the Senate in the past. Its chances of passing this session seem slim; if it clears the education committee, it would go to the Senate Judiciary Committee before it could reach the Senate floor. Seventeen days remain in the session.

As far as being passed, we have seen this go both ways—nay in Utah, aye in Louisiana. More often than not, they do get passed. As far as the bill being anti-Darwinian, that may be what Cravens thinks. That is not what the backing organization, the Discovery Institute thinks. Their hand is all over this and the local folks know that.

More From Belfast

The Belfast Newsletter has printed an article on the poll that found that the highest percentage of creationists in the UK are in Ireland. They write:

The poll found that 42 per cent of those surveyed in Northern Ireland believed that God had probably or definitely created the world within the past 10,000 years, known as young earth creationism (YEC). The next most popular location for YEC was London with 39 per cent, the East Midlands with 37 per cent and Yorks and Humber and Scotland, both with 36 per cent.

The article then quotes from a professor of medical genetics, Norman Nevin, who, in the course of the quote shows that the badly conceived New Scientist cover has come home to roost:

Prof Nevin said that evolution depended on the idea that mutations in genes created beneficial effects for animals.

"But I have spent much of my life working with patients who are suffering from such mutations," he said.

"The vast majority of mutations are harmful, some are neutral and those which are considered beneficial do not prove that one species can evolve into another.

"We live in a finely tuned universe and we are not just the random consequences of a big bang."

He said that debating the age of the earth was "a sterile argument" and that Darwin's idea that all life came from a common ancestral tree had recently been disowned by the New Scientist magazine, with a front page cover titled Darwin was wrong.

What were they thinking... Darwin got it wrong only in that the tree was not bushy enough. And somehow "Bush of Life" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

Creation/Evolution Belief in the UK

A story by the Guardian indicates that four in five people in the UK reject creationism in its traditional form. The author writes:

The east of England may be the most godless region of the UK, according to a "belief map" published by a theology thinktank today. Almost half of adults there believe the theory of evolution makes God obsolete, and more than 80% disagree with creationism and intelligent design, which propose that humans were created by God in the past 10,000 years, and that life owes its complexity to divine intervention.

If you look at the interactive map, support for ID never gets higher than 16 percent, in Ireland. Ireland is also where the largest percentage of staunch creationists reside, 25 percent. On the other hand, it is clear that many people have no idea to what they are objecting:

The survey, which was conducted to mark the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, found that nearly half of the British adult population could not name the country's greatest naturalist as the author of On the Origin of Species, the 1859 book that introduced evolution through natural selection to a sceptical Victorian society.

"We don't know what it is, but we know its bad." Modern education at its finest. Interestingly, in all places except Wales, the percentage of people who think that evolution removes the need for God is larger than those who accept some form of theistic evolution.

Fossil Strengthens Bird/Dinosaur Connexion

A dinosaur footprint has been discovered that is causing some rethinking about how Dinosaurs walked. The article, in the L.A. Times by Thomas Maugh notes:

Steven Spielberg got it wrong. In his classic 1993 film "Jurassic Park," the director showed Tyrannosaurus rex, Velociraptor and other carnivorous dinosaurs walking with their forearms hanging down like a monkey's and their palms more or less parallel to the ground -- a posture derisively referred to by paleontologists as the "bunny position."
A growing body of evidence, however, has suggested that the creatures were physically unable to assume this position because their wrist bones would not turn in such a fashion.

Now, the first unequivocal handprint of a 198-million-year-old crouching carnivore confirms the speculation, providing clear evidence that the front limb struck the ground on its side, like a karate chop, and thus would have been of little use for walking.

This is cool. This is how science works. It is not that Spielberg didn't do his research, it is that he had the best information at the time. The author continues:

The extremely rare handprint from the St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site in Utah indicates that even early dinosaurs had forelimbs similar to those of birds, reinforcing the now widely held conclusion that birds are the only living descendant of the ancient monsters.

It is now thought that something like Eoraptor gave rise to the line that included birds.

"What this seems to imply is that, even from fairly early in their history, dinosaurs were entirely bipedal and weren't using their forearms to support themselves in any way," said paleontologist Tom Holtz of the University of Maryland, who was not involved in the research.

"Brain and Brain. What is Brain?"

According to a story in USA Today, the oldest fossilized brain has been found in Kansas (probably not ancestral to the brains of the people in the Kansas State School Board) that is 300 million years old. The brain belongs to an iniopterygian, an ancestor of the modern ratfishes. The author writes:

"Fossilized brains are unusual, and this is by far the oldest known example," said John Maisey, curator in the division of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

"Soft tissue has fossilized in the past, but it is usually muscle and organs like kidneys," Maisey said in a statement.

Neat.

Still More on the Vatican Conference

Ann Rodgers of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette has an article on the upcoming Vatican Conference. She writes:

Devout Christians often are portrayed as if they view evolutionary biology as an attack on the Bible's account of creation, and scientists are portrayed as atheists. While there are high-profile examples of both, a truce was reached long ago in most major Christian traditions, including some streams of evangelicalism.

The Vatican conference, which marks the 150th anniversary of Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," is one example of scientists and theologians working together to transcend the culture wars and forge a lasting peace.

I wish I could share here optimism. The recent Gallup and MORI polls suggest otherwise. She does point out some truths that ought to be self-evident to these same people that take the Genesis account literally:

The Catholic Church has never had a rigid reading of Genesis. The third century theologian, Origen, pointed out that the Bible says God created light three days before creating the sun, moon and stars.

"He concluded that the passage was speaking figuratively about realities other than scientific truth claims," said Bill Wright, who teaches biblical studies at Duquesne.

"These chapters in Genesis are an answer to fundamental questions about who God is and what a human being is, but they address those questions in symbolic and figurative language."

Read the whole thing.

More on the Vatican Conference

Francis Rocca of the Religion News Service has an article that appears in the WaPo about the upcoming Vatican conference on science. The conference has been organized by the Reverend Marc Leclerc. The story notes:

Leclerc, lead organizer of the upcoming Darwin conference, said last year that no proponents of creationism or intelligent design had been invited to the event.

Yet the Vatican's embrace of Darwin remains a qualified one. The conference is "not, even minimally, a 'celebration' in honor of the English scientist," Leclerc said. "It is simply a matter of taking stock of the event that has forever marked the history of science and has influenced how we understand our own humanity."

Even so, it is a step in the right direction in that a major denomination is explicitly tackling these issues and is being public about it. More on the conference can be found at the Catholic News Service, here.

Back on the Grid

The surgery went well. Recovery has been painful but not incapacitating, like I thought it might be. I hate catheters. I have actually been posting since yesterday afternoon. Yay.