November 23, 2007
The right-wing nominally Catholic journal First Things features another assault on the quest for reason in its October issue.
Pope John Paul II said evolution is a scientific understanding of creation and should be studied by people, with no claim that it conflicts with Christianity. Since his death, and since the installation of Pope Benedict, Benedict and several cardinals have been backpedaling as fast as they can. When they get called on some of their more radical statements, they claim that “radical atheists” have forced them to their public relations firms and far-right magazines. So far, Pope Benedict has not directly claimed Pope John Paul II to have been in error about evolution. He seems happy to let others make that inference explicitly, however.
I am particularly troubled by Cardinal Dulles’ citing of an article by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, the archbishop of Vienna, published on July 7, 2005, as an op-ed in the New York Times. Schönborn’s view sounded oddly as if it squared completely with the fundamentalist Christian view espoused from the Discovery Institute in Seattle. It turns out that Schönborn had not written the piece at all, but instead was asked to sign his name to a piece written by one of the Discovery Institute’s commercial public relations groups.
It is probably not fair yet to say that Pope Benedict has been purchased by the Discovery Institute. But it would be good if Catholic officials were to stick to Catholicism and leave the petty, erroneous science politics and destructive education politics to the Discovery Institute; it would be better still if the Discovery Institute were to abandon such things, too.
Tip of the old scrub brush to a commenter at Telic Thoughts. [And, yes, this sat for a while in my draft box.]
* Isaiah 1:18
The verse is almost always cited out of context. In this verse a prophet Isaiah recites words he’s been given from God, by his account. This opens an invitation, from God, to the people of Judah, to discuss their actions. God was particularly concerned about injustices and inequities practiced by the people; for example, in the verses immediately preceding, Isaiah quotes God (CEV): “No matter how much you pray,/I won’t listen./You are too violent./Wash yourselves clean!/I am disgusted with your filthy deeds./Stop doing wrong/and learn to live right./See that justice is done./Defend widows and orphans and help those in need.” It is my view that Cardinal Dulles is missing that context here. The scriptures call us to see that justice is done, first. Slamming evolution and the rest of science is not such action.
Other sources
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Leave a Comment » | 
Academic freedom, Accuracy, Biology, Charles Darwin, Creationism, Education quality, Evolution, History, Intelligent Design, Natural history, Religion, Science, Textbook Selection | Tagged: Catholic church, Evolution, Religion, Science | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
November 18, 2007
PBS’s ombudsman takes note of worries that Memphis did not get the NOVA program on the Dover, Pennsylvania trial of intelligent design. “Judgment Day” was not aired in the normal NOVA timeslot.
Station management pleads that they made no decision to censor, just a decision to run supporting program for Ken Burns’ massive film project, “The War,” instead. (HD viewers could see the NOVA program).
Let’s hope that’s accurate.
In the meantime, the letters to the ombudsman give a clear probe into the minds of viewers; favorable reactions were many; more numerous, unfavorable reactions seemed to come mostly from the reason-challenged side of humanity. It’s worth a read.
Sample of the unfavorable:
After tonight’s program on Intelligent Design it proves that PBS has a “design” of its own — it’s one that is driving the country to destruction — your bias is completely counter to history, to the very foundation of our nation and history of nations. Every part from beginning to end had its own objective; completely counter to the Truth which is proven in the rise and fall of nations.
Daryle Getting, Winter Park, FL
It doesn’t take a “Rocket Scientist” to figure out that if we, as humans, evolved from monkeys . . . THEN WHY? . . . Are there STILL Monkeys??? We were “Created” by God!!! Pull up AOL now and you’ll notice the Gov. of Georgia praying for rain, (No Doubt to GOD). When 9/11 happened what did every good neighbor do? PRAY. Not to monkeys . . . To our “Creator”!!! It shouldn’t take tragic and desperate circumstances for people to realize this fact!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! In GOD We Trust!!!
Sonya L. Johnson, North Port, FL
Sample of the favorable:
I just watched your program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial.” Fantastic! I don’t remember recently watching such an informative and well put together program. PBS deserves to be awarded for this stellar program. Thank you so much for actually airing a program that was intelligent, well put together, and fun to watch. Superb. Atlanta, GA
Am I unfair in labeling some “reason-challenged?” Certainly fact challenged. Read the rest of this entry »
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
3 Comments | Biology, Darwin, Evolution, Famous trials, First Amendment, Jurisprudence, Law, Natural history, Religion, Science and faith, Separation of church and state, Voodoo science | Tagged: Darwin, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Kitzmiller, NOVA, PBS, Religion, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
October 8, 2007
My general predictions about Nobel Prizes are way off after the first announcement today.
The London Telegraph announced it:
The Nobel prize for medicine is shared today by Mario Capecchi, Martin Evans and Oliver Smithies for their work on stem cells and genetic manipulation that has had a profound impact, from basic medical research to the development of new treatments.
Although stem cells are one of the hottest fields in science today for their potential for growing replacement cells and tissue for a wide range of diseases, the prestigious 10 million Swedish crown (£750,000) prize recognised the international team’s work for genetically manipulating stem cells to find out what genes do in the body and to provide animal versions of human disease to help hone understanding and test new treatments.
Capecchi was born in Italy and is a US citizen. Both Evans and Smithies are British-born. Sir Martin is known for his pioneering work on stem cells in mice, while Capecci and Smithies showed how genes could be modified.
The Nobel Committee press release gives their formal identification and affiliations:
Mario R. Capecchi, born 1937 in Italy, US citizen, PhD in Biophysics 1967, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA. Howard Hughes Medical Institute Investigator and Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics and Biology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Sir Martin J. Evans, born 1941 in Great Britain, British citizen, PhD in Anatomy and Embryology 1969, University College, London, UK. Director of the School of Biosciences and Professor of Mammalian Genetics, Cardiff University, UK.
Oliver Smithies, born 1925 in Great Britain, US citizen, PhD in Biochemistry 1951, Oxford University, UK. Excellence Professor of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
My usual (and still standing) prediction is that most Nobel winners will be Americans, and educated in America’s public schools. Of the three announced today, one is Italian born (but a U.S. citizen now), and the other two are British.
Update: Turns out that Dr. Capecchi moved to the U.S. from Italy at the age of 9. Does anyone know where he went to elementary, junior high and high school?
Capecchi’s success belies his very difficult upbringing in war-torn Italy during World War II. At the age of four, he was separated from his mother, who was taken by the Gestapo to the Dachau concentration camp. For the next four-and-a half years, he lived on the streets, fending for himself by begging and stealing. The two reunited when Capecchi was nine, and they soon moved to the United States, where he began elementary school without knowing how to read or write or how to speak English.
More prizes to come.
Sources:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
1 Comment | Biology, Education, Education success, Science | Tagged: medicine, Nobel Prizes, Public education, stem cells | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
October 7, 2007
News reports say Craig Venter will announce the creation of the first artificial life form sometime this week.
Interesting to me that the post that alerted me to the issue is in the Religion Blog part of the Dallas Morning News blog stable. But then, the religion section was just downgraded. The paper killed its award-winning science section completely.
But it does seem the religious people are more worried about the impact of this sort of science on believers and reasons to believe, than scientists are interested at all.
DMN religion reporter Jeffrey Weiss points to an article in the Guardian:
Craig Venter, the controversial DNA researcher involved in the race to decipher the human genetic code, has built a synthetic chromosome out of laboratory chemicals and is poised to announce the creation of the first new artificial life form on Earth.
The announcement, which is expected within weeks and could come as early as Monday at the annual meeting of his scientific institute in San Diego, California, will herald a giant leap forward in the development of designer genomes. It is certain to provoke heated debate about the ethics of creating new species and could unlock the door to new energy sources and techniques to combat global warming.
Mr Venter told the Guardian he thought this landmark would be “a very important philosophical step in the history of our species. We are going from reading our genetic code to the ability to write it. That gives us the hypothetical ability to do things never contemplated before”.
Expect more comment from religion pages of newspapers than other sections. Evolution and other science deniers will be greatly stressed by such an announcement — if the Guardian story is accurate, as early as this next week.
See also this longer piece in the New York Times about the methods used — from last month’s editions.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
Leave a Comment » | Biology, Creationism, History, Religion, Science, Science and faith | Tagged: artificial life, Craig Venter, Evolution, life in a test tube, research ethics | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
October 1, 2007
Encore Post
On the road for a day and a half. Here is an encore post from last October, an issue that remains salient, sadly, as creationists have stepped up their presence in Texas before the next round of biology textbook approvals before the Texas State Board of Education. I discuss why intelligent design should not be in science books.
Flying pig image from Flying Pig Brewery, Everett, Washington. (Late brewery? Has it closed?)
[From October 2006]: We’re talking past each other now over at Right Reason, on a thread that started out lamenting Baylor’s initial decision to deny Dr. Francis Beckwith tenure last year, but quickly changed once news got out that Beckwith’s appeal of the decision was successful.
I noted that Beckwith’s getting tenure denies ID advocates of an argument that Beckwith is being persecuted for his ID views (wholly apart from the fact that there is zero indication his views on this issue had anything to do with his tenure discussions). Of course, I was wrong there — ID advocates have since continued to claim persecution where none exists. Never let the facts get in the way of a creationism rant, is the first rule of creationism.
Discussion has since turned to the legality of teaching intelligent design in a public school science class. This is well settled law — it’s not legal, not so long as there remains no undisproven science to back ID or any other form of creationism.
Background: The Supreme Court affirmed the law in a 1987 case from Louisiana, Edwards v. Aguillard (482 U.S. 578), affirming a district court’s grant of summary judgment against a state law requiring schools to teach creationism whenever evolution was covered in the curriculum. Summary judgment was issued by the district court because the issues were not materially different from those in an earlier case in Arkansas, McLean vs. Arkansas (529 F. Supp. 1255, 1266 (ED Ark. 1982)). There the court held, after trial, that there is no science in creationism that would allow it to be discussed as science in a classroom, and further that creationism is based in scripture and the advocates of creationism have religious reasons only to make such laws. (During depositions, each creationism advocate was asked, under oath, whether they knew of research that supports creationism; each answered “no.” Then they were asked where creationism comes from, and each answered that it comes from scripture. It is often noted how the testimony changes from creationists, when under oath.)
Especially after the Arkansas trial, it was clear that in order to get creationism into the textbooks, creationists would have to hit the laboratories and the field to do some science to back their claims. Oddly, they have staunchly avoided doing any such work, instead claiming victimhood, usually on religious grounds. To the extent ID differs from all other forms of creationism, the applicability of the law to ID was affirmed late last year in the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Read the rest of this entry »
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
58 Comments | Bill of Rights, Biology, Bogus history, Charles Darwin, Creationism, Hoaxes, Intelligent Design, Textbook Selection, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: Bill of Rights, Biology, Creationism, Curricula, Evolution, Hoaxes, Intelligent Design, Politics, Religion, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
September 9, 2007
Scott Lanyon is director of the University of Minnesota’s Bell Museum of Natural History in Minneapolis. He writes regularly in the museum’s newsletter, Imprint. His latest column addresses the reluctance of scientists and teachers to use the word “evolution” even when their topic hits directly on it.
Evolution Avoidance Syndrome
By Scott Lanyon
Summer 2007
We have yet another invasive species in the Upper Midwest to worry about these days with the discovery of viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSv) in inland waters of Wisconsin. VHSv follows in the proud tradition of the zebra mussel, sea lamprey, a variety of carp species, Eurasian watermilfoil, purple loosestrife, curl-leaf pondweed, buckthorn, amur maple, a variety of thistle species, earthworms, gypsy moths, West Nile virus, soybean rust, and other pests that have been introduced to our region and that are causing great harm to our natural areas and our economy.
Read the rest of this entry »
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
8 Comments | Accuracy, Biology, Education, Ethics, Evolution, History, Research, Science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
September 9, 2007
The University of Minnesota distance learning site has a game students can play to create the ecosystems for a successful prairie.
The prairie is one of North America’s great ecosystems and a vital habitat for many plants and animals. Over 98% of the prairie has been lost in the past 150 years—but some people are trying to bring it back, hectare by hectare. Restoring a prairie is a great challenge, requiring knowledge of biology, ecology, climatology, and even economics.
Are you up for the challenge? If you choose the right plants and animals, you can watch the prairie come to life before your eyes! Let’s begin!
North America’s prairie is divided into the tallgrass ecosystem and shortgrass ecosystem (plus an area in between—the “mixed grass” prairie). Which one do you want to restore?
This game fits neatly into geography curricula for a number of states, and also covers parts of the 7th grade social studies standards for Texas — if your state is covered by the tallgrass or shortgrass prairies as shown on the accompanying map, it’s likely your state standards include students’ learning about prairie ecosystems.
The game is fail-safe; it does not allow incorrect selections. It’s not a sim, really, but a basic introduction to what makes a successful prairie. Students should be able to master the game in 15 minutes.
Though developed way up north in Minnesota, the game and species are close to Texas prairies, too. The emphasis on soil points to some of the key errors made by farmers (encouraged by developers and the U.S. Department of Agriculture) which led to the Dust Bowl; this is a good enrichment exercise for Dust Bowl lesson plans. These games cover many of the requirements for Boy Scout merit badges, too: Environmental Science, Wildlife Management, and Soil and Water Conservation, and others.
This game comes out of the Bell Museum at the University of Minnesota; be sure to check out the Watershed game, too.
Update, October 2011: No, I can’t find the game now, either. It appears the Bell Museum took the site down, and trusting (and hoping) they wouldn’t do that, I didn’t pirate any of the images, nor especially the game.
Here’s hoping someone will put the thing back on line, somewhere. If you find it, will you let me know? I’d like to renew the links. Several school systems went through this site to get to the game for classroom activities. It was a good thing.
Update October 30, 2011: Try the game here.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
4 Comments | Biology, Boy Scouts of America, Conservation, Dust Bowl, Education, Environmental protection, Geography - Economic, Geography - Physical, History, Lesson plans, Natural history, Natural resources, On-line education, On-line learning, Technology in the classroom | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
September 5, 2007
Anti-science and anti-evolution groups’ desperation erupts in odd ways. When scientists get together and discussion turns to the political movement known as intelligent design (ID), they express frustration at the sheer volume of supercilious ideas and claims that surge out of ID advocates. At its heart, this frustration has an almost-humorous puzzle: Scientists cannot tell what is a real claim from ID advocates, or what is a parody of those claims.
Neither can anyone else.
I stumbled into a mackerel-in-the-moonlight* example to show the problem: Jonathan Wells, a minister in the Unification Church of Rev. Sun Myung Moon, wrote a slap-dash screed against evolution published by right-wing cudgel publishing house Regnery, called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Amazon.com invites authors to set up blogs, and Jonathan Wells has one. The only post there is reproduced in full below the fold — a list of . . . um, well . . . a top ten list of something (Wells just calls it a “top ten list”). It consists of amazing flights of fancy surrounding the issue of teaching science in public schools. I promise, I am not making any of this up — when I quote Wells, it will be his words entirely, completely, in context, uncut and unedited. If I didn’t tell you this was not parody, and if you have half your wits, you’d think either I was making it up, or somebody at Amazon was.
Point by point criticism, in brief, below the fold. I promise, I am not making this up.
__________________________________
* John Randolph is reputed to have said of Henry Clay: “Like a rotten mackerel by moonlight, he shines and stinks.” Read the rest of this entry »
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
2 Comments | Biology, Bogus history, Charles Darwin, Creationism, Hoaxes, Intelligent Design, Justice, Natural history, Religion, Voodoo history, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
August 29, 2007
Texas creationists have lost a key case in their campaign against biology textbooks. No, not in the courts.
They lost their case in nature. In the wild.
Colors changed in peppered moths because of natural selection, a new study confirms. This strikes a serious blow to one of the chief creationist complaints about how evolution is discussed in biology textbooks. Photo at right showing two moths, of the light and dark forms, against pollution-colored tree bark; photo by John S. Haywood, from Kettlewell’s paper, via Encyclopedia Britannica.
British moth researcher Michael Majerus reported that a seven-year research project has confirmed the 1950s work of Bernard Kettlewell: Changes in the coloring of peppered moths is a result of natural selection at work. Majerus is the researcher whose work was mischaracterized by creationists as having questioned or disproven Kettlewell’s work, which showed that natural selection was responsible for a change in the color of most peppered moths in Britain.
Majerus reported his study at a biologists’ meeting in Sweden on August 23. “We need to address global problems now, and to do so with any chance of success, we have to base our decisions on scientific facts: and that includes the fact of Darwinian evolution. If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
5 Comments | Accuracy, Biology, Education, Evolution, Intelligent Design, Research, Texas, Textbook Selection | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
August 27, 2007
[This post has been edited to correct links to go to their new URLs, I hope. Please note in comments any links that don’t work.]
Some are Boojums is back — that’s good news for truth seekers, science error debunkers and historians who care about accuracy.
Masthead photo for Jim Easter’s blog, Some Are Boojums
Some are Boojums author Jim Easter guts the anti-Rachel Carson case in his relaunch post.
Pay particular attention to what Jim writes in conclusion:
That’s right. The 1972 DDT ban did nothing to restrict the chemical’s use against malaria, but had the effect of eliminating the single most intense source of selection pressure for insecticide resistance in mosquitoes. As the rest of the world followed suit in restricting agricultural use of DDT, the spread of resistance was slowed dramatically or stopped. By this single action, William Ruckelshaus — and, credit where it’s due, Rachel Carson — may well have saved millions of lives.
Steven Milloy is invited to add that to the DDT FAQ any time it’s convenient.
Particularly notable is Jim’s work to make available the much miscited administrative law ruling by Judge Edmund M. Sweeney. It is now available on-line, so the critics can now provide accurate citations to the decision, if their intent were to inform the public, instead of maligning the truth and misleading the public.
Mr. Easter’s applied history work in this effort is notable. The internet misses much of near-recent history, especially from the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. Much of today’s political discussion could benefit from information that would be available in libraries, had libraries not suffered from great budget and priorities cuts in the last 20 years. Jim Easter’s contribution to making a more complete record of the history of DDT and the history of the EPA deserves applause.
Save
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
4 Comments | Accuracy, Biology, Bogus history, Conservation, DDT, Environmental protection, Historic documents, Rachel Carson, Science, Voodoo history, Voodoo science, War on Science | Tagged: Bogus history, DBQ, DDT, EPA, Historic documents, Jim Easter, Judge Edmund Sweeney, Rachel Carson, Some Are Boojums | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
August 24, 2007
Front page headline in the Dallas Morning News this morning: “Intelligent design? Ed board opposed.“
And the subhead: “Even creationists say theory doesn’t belong in class with evolution.”
Remember, this is the state school board that is dominated by creationists, and whose chair, appointed just about a month ago, is the famous creationist dentist Dr. Don McLeroy. Just what is going on? According to the article by Terrence Stutz:
Interviews with 11 of the 15 members of the board – including seven Republicans and four Democrats – found little support for requiring that intelligent design be taught in biology and other science classes. Only one board member said she was open to the idea of placing the theory into the curriculum standards.
“Creationism and intelligent design don’t belong in our science classes,” said Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, who described himself as a creationist. “Anything taught in science has to have consensus in the science community – and intelligent design does not.”
Mr. McLeroy, R-College Station, noted that the current curriculum requires that evolution be taught in high school biology classes, and he has no desire to change that standard.
“When it comes to evolution, I am totally content with the current standard,” he said, adding that his dissatisfaction with current biology textbooks is that they don’t cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
Really noteworthy:
First, McLeroy chooses to act as a more of a statesman than he has in the past — this is good. Chairing a board like this is an important job. Such leadership positions require people to rise above their own partisan views on some issues. McLeroy has demonstrated such a willingness.
But, second, and important: McLeroy uses the campaign line of the Discovery Institute and all political activists against evolution and science: “Cover the weaknesses of the theory of evolution.” That’s a line invented by Jonathan Wells, the great prevaricator ID advocate, and what it means to him is fuzz up the facts, fog the books and the debate to the point that learning actual science and what the actual theories of evolution are will be impossible.
“Teach the weaknesses of evolution” should be heard as “keep the kids ignorant of the real science.”
Today’s article holds a spark for the fire of hope, and a gallon of cold water on the idea that the board will strongly support science.
Read the rest of this entry »
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
4 Comments | Biology, Creationism, Education, Religion, Science, Science and faith, State school boards, Texas, Textbook Selection, Textbooks | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
August 17, 2007
Some people have a flair for writing. P. Z. Myers is one of those, though his flair may be wasted a bit because he’s a practicing, teaching biologist (there probably is something to the oft-observed fact that so many great writers are scientists in their first professions, including people like Arthur Conan Doyle, Oliver Sacks, and Hans Zinsser).
Myers wrote this today, and I just wanted to memorialize it, so you, too, can admire the craft and skill that went into it:
If you want to take a look at one of the sources of creationist thought, the workshop where the red-hot anvil of pseudoscience and the inflexible hammer of theology are used to forge the balloon animals of creationism, The Journal of Creation (formerly the Creation ex nihilo Technical Journal) is now online . . .
“The workshop where the red-hot anvil of pseudoscience and the inflexible hammer of theology are used to forge the balloon animals of creationism.”
In just a few words, he captures the essence of the thing so perfectly!
File it under “Quotes that Should Be Famous.”
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
5 Comments | Accuracy, Art, Biology, Creationism, Quotes, Voodoo science | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
August 11, 2007
Among other reasons people shouldn’t inject religion into biology is that knowledge of biology can protect one from harm. From Dorigo, at A Quantum Diaries Survivor, in this case, a little mycological knowledge is not only useful to prevent illness, it allows appreciation of beauty:
This morning while following the trail to Malga Nemes, above Passo di Montecroce Comelico, we found a spot of the woods very densely populated with specimens of Amanita Muscaria, a venomous mushroom which has a very esthetic appearance. The intense red color of the cap, covered with white warts, is very distinctive.
Here is a trio which was particularly good looking:
Definitely NOT Texas.
Dorigo is a physicist, and usually very interesting. Don’t take my word for it — go check out his blog.
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.
4 Comments | Biology, Food history, Science, Travel | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 