Florida Votes Today

In advance of the Florida School Board vote on textbooks, the News Press has a rundown of opinions of average Floridians. They are all over the map, although eventually, people are going to have to figure out what the word "theory" means.

----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Joy
via FoxyTunes

The Ancestor to the T-Rex is Found

Two dinosaur fossils have been unearthed in the Sahara which may have given rise to the carnivores that included Tyrannosaurus Rex:

The fossilised bones of the two dinosaurs were excavated during an expedition in 2000 but it is only now that scientists have been able to identify and name them as a newly discovered pair of carnivorous species that lived 110 million years ago.

The story also notes:

Until now little has been known about the early evolution of these two major groups of predatory dinosaur that dominated the southern continents. The latest discoveries reveal that Kryptops, Eocarcharia and another dinosaur – Suchomimus, a large, fish-eating dinosaur that walked on two legs – all lived together and would have made a fearsome troika for any plant-eater to face, Mr [Steve] Brusatte said.

Another piece of the puzzle uncovered.

----------------
Now playing: George Winston - Living Without You
via FoxyTunes

Cooking = Love?

Twincities.com is reporting a talk by anthropologist Greg Laden in which he will argue that cooking kept early humans together, rather than affection, companionship or hunting. This is the thrust of the argument:

"The earliest human ancestors, some kind of chimp-like apes, were living off raw plant foods and probably doing a bit of hunting like chimpanzees do now.

And then, somebody discovers the ability to control fire. Everybody argues about when this happened. We're saying it happened about 2 million years ago. Suddenly, all this food that was previously poisonous or indigestible becomes edible. We're talking about grass seeds, like wheat. And tubers. The amount of energy available to these early human ancestors goes up a huge amount. So, they get bigger. At the same time, their jaws get smaller, which is supported by the fossil record."

So where does the love come in?

Chimpanzee males are way bigger than female chimpanzees. But among early humans, males and females are roughly the same size. And we know that when males and females are roughly the same size, it's a sign of pair bonds, lifelong pair bonds. Male elephant seals are triple the size of females. Male gorillas are also much larger than females, and these animals are all polygamous. But male and female gibbons, for example, are the same size and have pair bondings. So, monogamy and same-sized males and females are linked throughout mammal species.

The same size? Not from what everybody else's research shows. Homo habilis and australopithecines were remarkably dimorphic. The dimorphism starts to even out with late Homo erectus, but not before. Time to run down some of the articles.

----------------
Now playing: Alex De Grassi - Turning: Turning Back
via FoxyTunes

We Demand to be Ignorant!

Carl Hiaasen of the Miami Herald has written a witty, tongue-in-cheek editorial about the Board of Education crisis in science education. He writes:

But forget the fossil record, OK? Forget DNA tracing. Forget the exhaustively documented diversification of species.

This battle is about pride and independence; about boldly going against the flow, in defiance of reason and all known facts.

In recent weeks, the Board of Education has been swamped by e-mails and letters from religious conservatives who advocate teaching creationism or intelligent design, and who believe evolution should be discussed strictly as a ``theory.''

For those who wish to see Florida standing still, if not sinking, this is a fantastic strategy. In fact, it could be expanded to revise other educational doctrines.

Let's start teaching gravity as a ''theory,'' too. And don't forget the solar system -- what proof do we really have, besides a bunch of fuzzy, fake-looking photos, that Mars really exists?

And a bit further:

If snubbing is to be done, Florida should be the snubber, not the snubee. Keep your elite biotech payrolls up North and out West -- we've got hundreds of thousands of low-paying, go-nowhere jobs that require little training and minimal education.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, "ouch."

St. Petersburg Times Editorial

There is a short editorial in the St. Petersburg Times on the Florida mess. The last paragraph caught my attention:

Twenty-first century businesses in biotechnology and other sciences are watching Florida's efforts to create an educated work force. Right now, our unwillingness to accept well-established scientific theory is making headlines - just the kind of thing that keeps us a low-wage, tourist-dependant state.

Yup.

Barry Lynn Responds

BBS News reports that The organization Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has responded to the brouhaha in Florida with a statement. As much as I dislike the organization, he is correct.

Florida Responds to the Science Standards

An article in Tampabay.com suggests that the new science standards for Florida fly in the face of what the majority of Floridians think is true about the world. The story notes pointedly:

Only 22 percent want public schools to teach an evolution-only curriculum, while 50 percent want only faith-based theories such as creationism or intelligent design, according to a new St. Petersburg Times survey.

A bit further down:

The Times survey - which included questions about evolution and a host of other education issues - was administered to 702 registered voters Feb. 6-10, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

It revealed a huge gulf between scientists and the public.

While the vast majority of scientists consider evolution to be backed by strong evidence, nearly two-thirds of those polled were skeptical.

To which a scientist replys:

"There is no justification for singling out evolution for special skepticism or critical analysis," wrote Richard T. O'Grady, executive director of the American Institute of Biological Sciences in a Feb. 8 letter to the Board of Education. "Its strength as a scientific theory matches that of the theory of gravitation, atomic theory and the germ theory."

The problem is that most people don't believe that. It doesn't matter how much evidence you show them. The association of evolution with godlessness has become so entrenched in our society that it is difficult to see how the two can be disarticulated. Many people out there without the necessary scientific background don't think about evolution, they feel about it. Because they feel about it, a mountain of evidence won't be enough. How do you address that?

Ben Stein's Expelled

Ben Stein has written a blog entry on the new movie 'Expelled,' which chronicles the problems of higher academicians who subscribe to Intelligent Design. He writes:

Choosing to believe in but one scientific theory that effectively negates the whole notion of an intrinsic intelligence, a higher power, an intelligent designer – is fine, if pessimism is what floats your boat.

But that is your choice – or at least it should be a “choice” - for there is ample scientific evidence accumulating under the theory of Intelligent Design that presents an equally compelling – and much more optimistic scientific perspective on life’s “origins.”

And what evidence might that be? Accumulating where? I am not quite sure why he finds evolution gloomy. I find it exciting and full of mystery. Stein has also bought into the age-old mistake (of which I have blogged) that when Darwin wrote The Origin, he was talking about human races. He wasn't. To him, a race was a species. We just did not know what a species was at that point.

Pharyngula is not amused. Neither is Josh Rosenau, but for different reasons.

A Rundown on What is Happening in the States

Stateline has an article that gives a good overview of the contentious battles ensuing in the states involving the E word.

How a Businessman comes to accept Evolution

Businesspundit has written a truly excellent article on how he came to see that he was wrong about creationism and evolution. Something to think about:

Metacognition occurs when you think about your thinking. It means that instead of just analyzing evidence at face value, you start to ask questions about why you favor certain facts over others. You think about whether or not you have emotions, cognitive biases, peer pressures, or other things that are affecting your thought processes. You ask yourself if you would think something different if the roles were reversed, if you had a better day, if you had not had such a bad experience last time. Metacognition has become somewhat of an obsession with me.

Florida Revs Up

A picture paints a thousand words and it is hard to come away from viewing the picture at the beginning of this article in the St. Petersburg Times without thinking "idiot." To be fair, I don't know what the esteemed Mr. Ellis actually was saying when that picture was taken but when you hold up two oranges and speak about evolution, it can't be good. The story notes:

Monday's hearing was in a hotel conference room at Orlando International Airport. Those who spoke did not break new ground, with both sides repeating arguments uttered by scores of people at four prior public hearings, and in thousands of comments on the Education Department Web site. But the sheer number of speakers - and the fact some were willing to travel 200 miles - spoke to how much the issue has touched a chord.

One man linked Charles Darwin to Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung. Another said evolution sanctioned murder. Still another held up an orange and said that because of evolution, he now had irrefutable evidence that an orange was "the first cousin to somebody's pet cat" and "related to human beings."

How does this happen in one of the most educated societies on the planet?

Addressing the Problem from Within

The Dallas Morning News has an article on clergy willing to address evolution openly from the pulpit.

As Texas debates creationism in the classroom, here's a different question: Should evolution be in the pulpit? Absolutely, say hundreds of clergy who will observe Evolution Sunday today. If there were more discussion of evolution in the pulpit, they believe, creationism would rightly recede from science classrooms. "Evolution Sunday offers an opportunity to educate our congregations that science is a gift," said the Rev. Timothy McLemore, senior pastor at Kessler Park United Methodist Church in Oak Cliff. "If we believe God is truth, we don't need to shrink from truth in whatever way it presents itself. We don't have to be threatened."

I think that if more clergy were willing to stand up and actually address the issue of evolution, rather than hiding their heads in the sand, like the church did in the early 1900s, progress might yet be made in this arena. The article finishes thus:

Evolution Sunday is an outgrowth of The Clergy Letter Project. Dr. McLemore is among more than 11,000 clergy who have signed an open letter calling for evolution to be taught in schools as settled science.

The letter says in part:

"We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as 'one theory among others' is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children." Must evolution push God from the picture? Far from it, Dr. McLemore said. For him, it only exalts God higher. "As I understand the complexities and intricacies of what has been produced through human evolution, not only does it not make me want to run away from God, it strikes a chord of wonder and awe that I can only describe as worship," he said.

It is always reassuring to know there are other people out there who think the way I do. Here is the address for the Clergy Letter Project. There are currently over 11 thousand signatures on it.

Meanwhile, Across the Pond...

Things seem to be heating up in Europe:

Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a Kentucky-based organization that is part of an ambitious effort to bring creationist theory to Britain and the rest of Europe. McLean is one of a growing number of evangelicals embracing that message — that the true history of the Earth is told in the Bible, not Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic Ocean with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.

In a country where the archbishop of Canterbury, the "Hairy Leftie," as he calls himself, has suggested that sharia law might not be a bad thing in England, they want to bring in Creationism? I have to confess, I am of two minds about this. As the article notes a bit further down:

Creationism is still a marginal issue here compared with its impact on cultural and political debate in the United States. But the budding fervor is part of a growing embrace of evangelical worship throughout much of Europe. Evangelicals say their ranks are swelling as attendance at traditional churches declines because of revulsion with the hedonism and materialism of modern society.

The church is England is largely dead and, ordinarily, I would welcome any and all efforts to revitalise it. The problem is that creationism is still creationism: a mix of bad theology and bad science, masquerading as the real thing. What happens when the children learn about real science? How will their theology then fare?

Right in Our Backyard

This is cool. The General Shale Brick Museum of Natural History in Gray, Tennessee has on display a 4 to 7 million year old rhinocerous. The museum is getting very good reviews:

The East Tennessee State University and General Shale Brick Natural History Museum and Visitors Center at the Gray Fossil Site opened in August. The 33,000-square-foot facility is filled with all manner of ancient animal sounds, dramatic displays and interactive exhibits. This kid-friendly spot offers lots of buttons to push, sand to dig in and entertainment for busy little hands.

Here is a photo of the rhino, courtesy of the Tennessee Department of Tourist Development.

The Battle Rages in Florida

The Miami Herald is reporting that legislators in Florida are massing to fight the teaching of evolution in schools as "fact." They prefer to have it taught as "theory." Each one of these intellectually-challenged people should have to open a book and find out what "theory" means. The story notes:

TALLAHASSEE --

Top state legislators say they're ready to join the fight over putting the word ''evolution'' in Florida's public-school science standards to ensure that it's taught as just a theory and not as fact.

Rep. Marti Coley, future House Speaker Dean Cannon and state Sen. Stephen Wise, all Republicans, say they're considering filing legislation this spring that would specifically call evolution a ''theory'' if the state Board of Education approves the proposed science standards Feb. 19 as currently written.

Hey, guess what? Evolution is a theory. That is why they call it "evolutionary theory." Just like they call it "gravitational theory" and "quantum theory." Do you suppose we can convince these guys to get up in arms about Dihydrogen Monoxide as well?

AIBS argues for Non-Neutrality on Evolution

The American Insitute of Biological Sciences has a released a policy statement harshly condemning the actions of the Texas Education Agency with regard to the resigning of Christine Comer. They write:

According to a memo from TEA officials calling for Comer’s dismissal that was obtained by The Austin American-Statesman through the Texas Public Information Act, “Ms. Comer’s e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker’s position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.”

This is the rejoinder to that decision by AIBS president and SUNY Stony Brook professor Douglas Futuyma:

“When it comes to science education, we absolutely cannot remain neutral on evolution. Evolution is the unifying principle of modern biology. Within biological science, the reality of evolution is not controversial. Creationism and its thinly veiled relative, ‘intelligent design,’ continue to pose a real threat to science education and the public understanding of science throughout the United States. It is the responsibility of science educators at all levels to stay well-informed, and to inform their students on the major principles in every area of science. With biology, evolution is the leading principle. We must remain vigilant.”

He is correct. "Neutrality" in this instance was simply appeasement to the creation camp.

Feminism Contributed to the Demise of the Neandertals??

Well, this is a new one. CanWest is reporting a story that addresses radical feminism. In addition to what can only be called a stinging indictment, the article (written by a woman) states:

No one knows exactly why Neanderthals became extinct 30,000 years ago, but a new theory recently reported in the Boston Globe suggests that once able-bodied women, the "reproductive core" of their small population, began hunting with the men, it was game over.

Already in survival mode, their combined forces were no match for the perils of climate change, ferocious beasts and interloper Homo sapiens, according to the theory. Worse, while a few Neanderthal men might be expendable, reproductive women were not.

I suppose it's possible. Here is the original Boston Globe article.

A Debate on Science

Josh Rosenau reports on a call for a debate between presidential candidates on science. Here is the National Academies press release:

February 4 -- The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine are joining the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Carnegie Institution, the Council on Competitiveness, and several other organizations and universities in an effort to co-sponsor a presidential candidate debate on science, technology, health, and the economy. "This would provide a nonpartisan setting to educate voters on the candidates' positions on key science, technology, and health challenges facing the next administration, while giving the candidates an opportunity to discuss issues that are often overlooked in presidential candidate debates but that are critical to U.S. competitiveness," the presidents of the NAS, NAE, and IOM said in a statement.

"A discussion focused on such issues as how to spur innovation, improve science and math education, confront climate change, and guide advances in biotechnology would do much to inform the American electorate," the statement adds. The NAS, NAE, and IOM are independent, nonprofit organizations that provide advice on policy issues to the government and public under an 1863 congressional charter.

Science, for whatever reason, tends to scare people, including politicians. A great idea has been born.

Atheists Celebrate Darwin Day

The South Florida Sentinel-Sun is reporting of a group of atheists who are going to celebrate Darwin Day:

"So many aspects of science are under attack," said Ken Loukinen, president of Atheists of Broward County, a co-sponsor of Darwin Day. "I am committed to speaking out until intelligent design, abortion and stem cell research are not subjects of discussion anymore."

Two questions: 1. Given that Darwin wasn't an atheist, what is the connexion? 2. What does a socio-political issue like abortion have to do with Darwin Day?

Common Ancestry for Blue Eyes

World Science is reporting on a study indicating that blue eye color was a mutation that took hold some 6 to 10 000 years ago.

“O­rig­i­nally, we all had brown eyes,” said one of the re­search­ers, Hans Eiberg. But a muta­t­ion af­fect­ing a gene called OCA2 “re­sulted in the crea­t­ion of a ‘switch’ which lit­er­ally turned off the abil­ity to pro­duce brown eyes.”

A bit further comes this gem, which shows the power of evolution in populations.

The muta­t­ion of brown eyes to blue is nei­ther pos­i­tive nor neg­a­tive, Eiberg said; rath­er, it’s one of sev­er­al muta­t­ions such as hair colour, bald­ness, freck­les and beau­ty spots, which nei­ther raise nor re­duce a per­son’s sur­viv­al chances. “It simply shows that na­ture is con­stantly shuf­fling the hu­man genome,” he said, “cre­at­ing a ge­net­ic cock­tail of hu­man chro­mo­somes and try­ing out dif­fer­ent changes.”

Neat.