Four Stone Hearth #63: Bathing in the warm waters of ancient knowledge

March 25, 2009

Welcome to the 63rd edition of Four Stone Hearth (4SH), the only blog carnival on the planet dedicated entirely to the four stone foundations of modern anthropology. We’re happy to invite readers in for a soak at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

It’s spring, and in spring a young anthropologist’s fancy turns to thoughts of . . . grading papers, maybe love, getting ready to dig over the summer, finishing up the term, love, getting the snow tires off the car, the Texas State Board of Education, if not love then maybe a good dinner companion, finishing the paper up for publication (where?), how to finance next semester, how to stretch the grant, love in the future, where to get the next grant . . . almost everything but submitting entries to that history and social studies guy at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.

Need some cowboy coffee?

Need some cowboy coffee?

Interesting entries this edition, but in onesies and twosies, not by dozens.  Trusting that the enterprise is blessed by the patron saints (St. Damasus I, or St. Helen, for archaeologists; is there a patron saint for anthropology or linguistics? In a pinch we can just invoke St. Francis de Sales, the patron saint of writers and authors), we push on.

The Four Stone Hearth name pays homage to four areas of anthro:  Archaeology, socio-cultural anthropology, bio-physical anthropology and linguistic anthropology.  Shorter form: What humans did, and a bit of what we do.

So, grab a cup of cowboy coffee (the favorite of diggers and backpackers, and sheep herders).  In no particular order, and in no particular theme, here’s what caught our fancies over the past couple of weeks:

Globalization — love it or hate it — how does it really affect us? The Spitoon comments on newly-published research that reveals people are choosing mates from farther abroad than before. At least, that’s what our genes show.  People don’t marry people from their own village so much.  Unanswered:  How does this affect human evolution?

Digital Archaeology: Colleen Morgan at Middle Savagery, demonstrates the clash between the earthen and the electronic — she spoke on a panel at SXSW (“South By Southwest”), the massive, hip music conference and riot in Austin, Texas.  Topic:  The Real Technology of Indiana Jones.  It starts out with a promising description:  “Archaeologists no longer rely on whips and fedoras . . .”  The panel also featured Bernard Frischer of the University of Virginia, and Adam Rabinowitz, University of Texas at Austin.  “Notes and tweets” from the panel.

Cover to Goldschmidts book, The Bridge to Humanity, Oxford Press

Cover to Goldschmidt's book, The Bridge to Humanity, Oxford Press

Does morality have any connection to evolution — Appropriate for the opening day of hearings and voting on Texas public school science standards, Greg Downey at Neuroanthropology looks at the evolution of altruism, with a review and commentary on Walter Goldschmidt’s book, The Bridge to Humanity. Goldschmidt notes that selfish genes don’t explain everything, and that there’s probably a good function to a baby’s being very cute.  (Goldschmidt must hang out at our PTA meetings:  “It’s a good thing the kid’s so cute, or he’d have been dead long ago.”)  “Affect hunger” is not a common phrase in daily conversations, and it deserves a solid explanation.  Altruism cannot form naturally, many education officials in Texas believe, and so they oppose teaching evolution in public schools.  They’ll be too busy to read this article before they vote on Friday — but they should read it, and maybe the book, too.

Martin Rundkvist at Aardvarchaeology offers a lighter but critical note, on putting ice cream sticks in museums. Archaeological museum weirdness.  What should a museum be?  In the past 14 months I’ve had the pleasure of spending time (on someone else’s dime!) at the Abraham Lincoln Presidential Library and Museum in Springfield, Illinois, and at the greatly expanded museum and visitor center at Mount Vernon, Virginia, George Washington’s estate.  In these places there is a concerted effort to make museums more informative, more inviting, and more focused on education missions.  Both museums feature multimedia presentations designed to kick off anyone’s visit with a punch, holographic images in Springfield, and theater seats that kick and get snowed on at Mount Vernon.

Tuamatuan Conception of the Cosmos, by Paiore. Inspiration for Margaret Meads fieldwork in American Samoa.  Running After Antelope

Tuamatuan Conception of the Cosmos, by Paiore. Inspiration for Margaret Mead's fieldwork in American Samoa. Running After Antelope

RafRaf Girls notes that someone is collecting images used to illustrate anthropology, linguistics and social theory.  It’s a form of on-line museum, and Martin’s concerns are well directed:  How much of this stuff should be preserved, especially if the preservation perpetuates odd ideas or misinformation?  Browse the images, see for yourself.  Nice to know it’s there, if you need it.   (Is all this stuff from Running After Antelope?)

Again at Neuroanthropology, Daniel Lende offers what a reader in comments calls “the best damn article on alcoholism” in “The Insidious, Elusive Becoming:  Addiction in Four Steps.” I thought it ironic that the post is illustrated with a diagram showing how to tie the famous knot, the bowline, in four steps.  Every Girl Scout and Boy Scout knows the bowline is the “lifesaving knot,” a knot that is used to tie loops used to hoist people from danger.  The bowline will not slip, and so will not suffocate the victim upon lifting.  Addiction is no bowline.  Falling into addiction involves four steps Lende outlines, basing the title on a line from Caroline Knapp’s Drinking:  A Love Story.

But we do know much more about the process of becoming than we used to. Here I will outline four important factors that shape the terrible becoming – vulnerability, training, intention, and meaning. My focus will be on understanding the subjective transformations, and I will use Knapp’s own words and experiences to help us grasp how this happens. In a forthcoming post, I will address a core biological process—competitive plasticity—that acts as the complement to this description, a process that has also helped me see the interactions in new light.

A Primate of Modern Aspect (formerly Zinjanthropus?) offers what I thought to be a fascinating story about studying the inner ears of fossilized primates, “Navigating the Bony Labyrinth.” It’s a continued exercise in pulling paleontology out of the usually-imagined realm of dusty reconstructions in badly-lighted corners of musty museums.

Fossil primates can pose some especially interesting questions to a paleoprimatologist.  Because they live in trees, many different kinds of locomotion are possible.  We can look at limb proportions to see if the little guys were clinging to vertical supports and then leaping from them, or perhaps walking on top of thick, horizontal branches, or maybe even swinging below these brances.   We can look at the shape of the scapula to see whether the animal kept its arms underneath itself or used them to reach out to the side or above itself.  We can look at the fingers to see if they were grasping branches or balancing above them.  In species known only from cranial bones, we can also look at the ear bones to see how these guys positioned themselves while in the trees.

It’s spring, I know, and we are hopeful.  Politics and war push on, however, and they push into the fields of science we love. Some things we would like to confine to dusty corners of musty museums, like war.

Afarensis notes that the coup d’etat in Madagascar threatens lemurs in the forests of the island.

It’s on the fringes of blogging, but well worth knowing about:  San Diego City Beat tells a story of guerrilla archaeology, beating the construction of the border fence between the U.S. and Mexico to get a dig done, “Hush hush archaeology.”

It’s spring, and students in American schools look forward (ha!) to the standardized tests they must take under the New Regime.  I was interested to see Kris Hirst has started a weekly quiz, this week about bog bodies — just the sort of stuff I need for my classroom to take out the tension and get kids to think.  Now, if only it were on PowerPoint, or in a form I could just print off to open a class . . .

Wish us luck here in Texas this week.  Science standards, especially evolution studies, are on the grill before the State Board of Education, where creationists hold sway. If  you know someone in Texas, you may want to persuade them to call their representative on the state board.  No scientist is an island, as John Donne would have said had he thought a bit longer about it.  How Texas goes will affect us all.

Four Stone Hearth #64 returns to the hands of people who know a bit about the topic, at Quiche Moraine.

Thanks for reading.  Remember to send your nominations for the next edition to Quiche Moraine, or to Martin.

Friends of Four Stone Hearth, sites that link to this edition (if you’ve linked and I missed it, please note it in the comments):


Fighting cargo cult science

March 13, 2009

Creationism is not taught at any major university, as science.  It’s difficult to find creationism taught in any curriculum, including theology schools, because it’s not a part of the theology of most Christian sects.  And yet, creationism continues to pose hurdles to good science education in almost every state (especially Texas).

The hard work of spreading creationism is long entrenched, and continuing, though largely out of the view of most observers of cultural and scientific trends.

For example, consider this blog by a guy who teaches creationism at Bryan College.  It’s been discovered by supporters of science education — but what can anybody do about it?  P. Z. Myers at Pharyngula noted the non-scientific contents of the stuff being taught.  That’s not really enough.

We need to more aggressively promote good science teaching in public schools.

Here’s one thing we might do, as I noted in the comments at Pharyngula.  We need to create institutions to aggressively promote good, powerful science teaching.  Here is what I wrote there, essentially.

Notice that this is Bryan College that Todd Wood preaches at, the college set up to honor William Jennings Bryan, the creationist prosecutor from the Scopes trial. This is part of the evidence that scientists and other lovers of science and good education slept too long on some of these issues (“While Science Slept” might be a good essay somewhere).

Remember Scopes lost his case, and was fined; the overturning on appeal was due to a technical error in the fine, not due to other obviously major flaws in the law (which was signed and promoted by Gov. Austin Peay, who also has a college named after him).  The law against teaching human evolution remained effective in Tennessee until after 1967, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Epperson v. Arkansas — which finally persuaded the Tennessee legislature to repeal the act.

Some people thought H. L. Mencken’s mocking judgment on the Scopes trial was final. Not creationists. While the rest of the world went on, fundamentalists developed a powerful, out-of-the-major-media network to spread and promote their ideas. Part of this network was the establishment of Bryan College, and to some degree, I think Austin Peay State University (though, as a state university with serious intentions on educating people, APSU is in the evolution camp in curricula).

Why is there no Clarence Darrow College? Why is there no John T. Scopes Institute for Teachers (say, at the University of Chicago, where Scopes went back for his advanced degree)?

Unless we get out there and fight in the trenches of education and religion and culture, evolution will continue to face silly opposition. Feynman warned us of the dangers of cargo cult science. (Honestly, though, Wood’s stuff looks like cargo cult cargo cultism, it’s so far removed from real science — doesn’t it?)

In the end it’s odd that a progressive-on-most-issues guy like Bryan would be memorialized by naming a college after him to preserve his most profound errors. It’s effective propaganda. I’d be willing to wager Bryan would have come around to evolution with the evidence stacked as it is now. His error was emotional and theological, I think. Education can prevent and correct such error.  Bryan College doesn’t do that in evolution — something else needs to be done to fight what Bryan College does.

The John T. Scopes Institute for Teachers could run in the summer months, it should have a thousand teachers of science from primary and secondary education in every session, and it should emphasize the best methods for teaching the best science we have. We really need such an agency — or agencies — now. Our children lose interest in science between fourth grade and graduation, their achievement in science plunges in comparison to other nations.

Our economy suffers as a result.

Creationists have Bryan College to help them spread their versions of cargo cult science, with that mission specifically in mind. We can fight fire with fire, but we have to fight ignorance with education. And, my friends in science education, we are behind.


Bacteria had sex before fish did

March 11, 2009

Greg Mayer, who blogs at Jerry Coyne’s place, Why Evolution Is True, explains that fish didn’t start sex, regardless what the headlines say (what do copy editors know, anyway?).

Bacteria started sex, Mayer says.  Probably about 7th grade, but it got worse in high school.

Mayer also discusses the Neanderthal genome study.

Now we know why creationists don’t study these areas of evolution:  Too much sex.

You probably should bookmark that blog.  I’ve added it to the science blogroll here.


Texas expects every Texas scientist to do her or his duty

March 9, 2009

Science needs your help, Texas scientists.

Last month science won a victory when members of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) agreed to strip creationist, anti-science language out of biology standards.

In the lightning round that followed the vote, however, some bad stuff was proposed.  The National Center for Science Education asks every Texas scientist to contact your representative on the SBOE to urge them to vote against the bad stuff at a meeting near the end of March.

Don’t take my word for it.  Below the fold, the full rundown of bad stuff, copied from NCSE’s website.

Details are available from Texas Citizens for Science.

New Texas Science Standards Will Be Debated and Voted Upon March 26-27 in Austin by the Texas State Board of Education — Public Testimony is March 25

Radical Religious-Right and Creationist members of the State Board of Education will attempt to keep the unscientific amendments in the Texas science standards that will damage science instruction and textbooks.

THE TEXAS SCIENCE STANDARDS SHOULD BE ADOPTED UNCHANGED!

The Texas Freedom Network has good information, too.

Also check out Greg Laden’s Blog.

Even Pharyngula’s in — Myers gets more comments from sneezing than the rest of us — but if he’s on it, you know it’s good science.

Read the rest of this entry »


Creationism, at the Bad Idea Blog

March 9, 2009

Bad himself has gone silent for a while.

But in a thread he started, originally on Ben Stein’s world tour of crackpottery, we’ve got a creationist minister who argues that evolution can’t be shown, is impossible, and that the science backs creationism.

Go give it a look.

I may post some of the stuff over here, eventually.  In the meantime, go discuss.  Maybe Bad can be convinced to come out of retirement.

Definitely related post:


Critics of evolution will damage the economy of Texas and the nation, Tyson says

February 20, 2009

I had work to do, and I missed it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson casts spells over the audience at the University of Texas at Arlington, on February 17, 2009 - UT-Arlington photo

Neil deGrasse Tyson casts spells over the audience at the University of Texas at Arlington, on February 17, 2009 - UT-Arlington photo

America’s living-room astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson came to Texas.  Last Tuesday he spent a day trying to inspire college kids to study physics,  or to stick with physics, and then he spent the evening with 3,000 close friends in an auditorium at the University of Texas-Arlington, talking about how much fun physics is, and how the use of real science and reason could improve our lives.

According to the on-line press release from the University Tyson covered a lot of topics, deftly and smartly:

The greatest scientist of all time was Isaac Newton. “Hands down. Darwin and those other guys pale by comparison. Newton is the reason we have seat belts, because he proved objects in motion stay in motion. If you ask people in cars who are not wearing seat belts if they ever took a college class in physics they say no, every single time.”

About using math illiteracy to distort truth, Tyson said he was called for jury duty and the defendant was charged with possession of 6,000 milligrams of a controlled substance.

“Why would you say that? Six thousand milligrams is 6 grams, about the weight of a dime,” he said. When a newspaper headline proclaims half of the children at a school are below average on a test, he said, no one stops to think that’s what average means.”

On the importance the media places on celebrity news, Tyson showed a newspaper cover with a near full-page cover story on entertainer Michael Jackson and two important news stories teased in small boxes above the fold. Tyson said the country suffers from a “warped sense of what is important.”

Great scientific discoveries have not come about because people are interested in science, Tyson said. Just like the voyage of Columbus, funded by Queen Isabella of Spain, discovery is spurred by wars, cold wars and economic gain, he said. The only other inspiration for counties to spend lots of money is to celebrate royalty or deities, like with the Pyramids or the great cathedrals in Italy.

“We live in a country where people are afraid of the number 13. It’s delusional,” Tyson said, pointing to a book titled, “How to Protect Yourself from Alien Invasion” and the hysteria a few years ago with the Mars Hoax, with lots of science fiction circulating because Mars came closer to Earth than it had in 60,000 years. The widely circulated reports overlooked the fact that Mars was just a few inches closer and that was completely insignificant, Tyson said.

And then, according to the blog Politex, from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (one of America’s legendary newspapers now facing the crises that seems to afflict all our better news organizations) someone asked him about creationism:

During the Q&A, an audience member asked Tyson about conservative members of the state Board of Education who want to teach the “weaknesses” of the theory of evolution in Texas high school classrooms.

“I think they should stay in the Sunday school,” Tyson said. Calling intelligent design theory a “philosophy of ignorance,” he argued that a lack of appreciation for basic scienctific principles will hurt America’s scientific output, which has been the largest economic engine in the country’s history.

“If nonscience works its way into the science classroom, it marks…the beginning of the end of the economic strength this country has known,” Tyson said.

Tyson, who spent time in Washington, D.C. after being appointed to committees by then-President George W. Bush, went on to say that he always knew a Republican judge in Pennsylvania would ultimately side with evolution backers in the high-profile Dover education case in 2005. The judge understood that respecting science is good for the US economy, Tyson said.

“What I learned from my tours of duty in Washington is no Republican wants to die poor,” Tyson said.

He’s right about Republicans ( said the former employee of Orrin Hatch/William Bennett/Lamar Alexander).  I hope it’s true for Texas Republicans, especially those on the Texas State Board of Education.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Ediacaran, on the Fort Worth side of the Metroplex.  Another tip to Physics Today from the American Institute of Physics.


Faith in evolution? Gallup, not so much

February 14, 2009

I worry about pollsters.  Gallup will tell you they carefully design their questions, as all the good pollsters do.  Sometimes, though, you gotta wonder.

Here’s the Gallup press release headline for February 12:  “On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution.”

Excuse me?  I’m a Christian.  When someone asks me if I believe in evolution, I reply that, as a Christian, I believe in God, and I believe in Jesus as my savior.  But I understand how evolution works, and I find it to be good science.  I usually add, “I find it to be true science.”  Then I point out their question assumes a faith response in science, while a faith response would be anti-science itself.

Gallup hasn’t figured that out yet?

The results are good — “belief” in evolution is rising slowly, over the years, comparing Gallup polls.  Most polls show just under 90% of Americans call themselves Christian — were the fundamentalists to have nearly so much sway as they wish, 40% rejection of their messages on evolution would not be possible.  After more than 100 years of preaching that Darwin is evil, only 6 in 10 Americans accept that message.  That’s not bad.

But what would the response be were Gallup to ask these questions:

  • “Faced with a diagnosis of cancer, would you rely solely on prayer, or would you take advantage of evolution-based medical treatments?”
  • “Because DNA demonstrates family relationships so accurately, we use it to establish paternity in court proceedings.  Do you think we should stop using evolution-based science like DNA analysis to establish paternity?”
  • “DNA evidence is based on evolution theory.  Do you think we should stop using DNA evidence in court, in rape and murder cases, or do you support such uses of evolution theory?”

What do you think the polls would show?


Texas legislators get the message: Creationism hurts science and jobs

February 14, 2009

On Darwin’s birthday, two Texas legislators wrote about the stakes in the tussle between creationists on the one side, and educators, scientists and economic development on the other, in the Houston Chronicle.

Somebody gets it!  Will Gov. Rick Perry and SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy get the message?  McLeroy was reappointed as chairman a week ago — but the appointment must be approved by the State Senate.  Is a fight possible?

State Board of Education must be held accountable

By STATE SEN. RODNEY ELLIS and STATE REP. PATRICK M. ROSE
Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle

[Can a newspaper copyright the words of public servants doing their jobs?]

Feb. 12, 2009, 12:14AM

As scientists and educators across Texas and the nation mark the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin with calls for a renewed commitment to science education, the State Board of Education continues to engage in narrow theological debate about the validity of evolution. If Texas schoolchildren are to succeed in the 21st Century economy, the SBOE must focus less on internal philosophical differences and more on improving science instruction.

Last month, the board once again got bogged down in a bitter dispute over this issue. Members tentatively approved new science curriculum standards that protect teaching of evolution in one area, while creationists succeeded in watering it down elsewhere. Sadly, it was just the latest battle in the “culture war” being fought by a board that decides what more than 4.7 million Texas children learn in their public schools.

Families should be the primary educators on matters of faith, not our public schools. Regardless of board members’ personal beliefs on creationism and evolution, science classrooms are not the place for resolving such disagreements about faith. Those classrooms should focus on science.

Despite one’s personal stance on evolution, its teaching is critical to the study of all the biological sciences.

Scientists from our state’s universities have expressed this to the board, and have warned that watering down science education would undermine biotechnology, medical and other industries that are crucial to our state’s future.

Last session, the Legislature committed to investing $3 billion over the next 10 years in making Texas the global leader in cancer research and finding cures. This historic investment is certain to bring economic and academic opportunities to our state.

Sadly, even as our state takes one step forward, the SBOE moves us two steps back by continuing to support a diminished standard for science education. Texas’ credibility and its investment in research and technology are placed at risk by these ongoing, unproductive debates.

This is a critical issue and a critical time. Study after study has demonstrated that states which do well in science education have the brightest long-term economic future. According to Gov. Rick Perry’s Select Commission on Higher Education and Global Competitiveness, despite improved scores in math and reading, Texas’ students continue to lag alarmingly behind other states in science proficiency.

The National Assessment of Education Progress revealed that only 23 percent of Texas 8th graders achieved proficiency in science, compared with 41 percent of students in the top-performing states — the states with which we compete for jobs.

Yet the board continues to undermine high-quality science instruction, allowing our students to slip further behind.

To ensure that the SBOE works as it should, we have filed legislation to place the board under periodic review by the Sunset Advisory Commission and hold them accountable for their performance, just as we do the Texas Education Agency and other state agencies.

The decisions of the SBOE not only impact millions of young lives on a daily basis, but impact the economic progress of our state as well.

For these reasons and many others, the public has a right to full disclosure and oversight.

The board has escaped such scrutiny for far too long. The disregard for educators, instructional experts and scientists can’t continue. It’s time to take a closer look at the operations and policies of the State Board of Education.

Our state, and especially our kids, deserve better.

Ellis represents the Houston area and parts of Fort Bend County; Rose represents Blanco, Caldwell and Hays counties.

Thank you, Houston Chronicle.

Resources:


Cecil Adams’ forum honors Darwin!

February 12, 2009

Interesting compilation:   In honor of Darwin’s 200th anniversary, take Steve Bratteng’s 13 questions evolution answers that intellligent design cannot; add to that some almost-recent polling data on creationism among Republicans, and kick off a discussion.

Someone posting at the Cecil Adams’ site, Straight Dope, did just that.  Go join the discussion.

Trying to flatter me, of course, they linked to this blog — but  it’s all Steve Bratteng’s work.

His questionnaire deserves a much broader audience.  So, Welcome Straight Dopers.

Update:  Goin’ viral now — A forum at Free Republic picked up on the quiz, too (from Straight Dope?).  Go check out the discussion there — lots of concern that the malaria question is answered by the existence of Rachel Carson, which means those who propose that don’t understand evolution and haven’t read Rachel Carson, either.  Welcome, Freepers.


Lincoln and Darwin, both born 200 years ago today

February 12, 2009

Is it an unprecedented coincidence?  200 years ago today, just minutes apart according to some unconfirmed accounts, Abraham Lincoln was born in a rude log cabin on Nolin Creek, in Kentucky, and Charles Darwin was born into a wealthy family at the family home  in Shrewsbury, England.

Gutzon Borglums 1908 bust of Abraham Lincoln in the Crypt of the U.S. Capitol - AOC photo

Gutzon Borglum’s 1908 bust of Abraham Lincoln in the Crypt of the U.S. Capitol – Architect of the Capitol photo

Lincoln would become one of our most endeared presidents, though endearment would come after his assassination.  Lincoln’s bust rides the crest of Mt. Rushmore (next to two slaveholders), with George Washington, the Father of His Country, Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and Theodore Roosevelt, the man who made the modern presidency, and the only man ever to have won both a Congressional Medal of Honor and a Nobel Prize, the only president to have won the Medal of Honor.  In his effort to keep the Union together, Lincoln freed the slaves of the states in rebellion during the civil war, becoming an icon to freedom and human rights for all history.  Upon his death the entire nation mourned; his funeral procession from Washington, D.C., to his tomb in Springfield, Illinois, stopped twelve times along the way for full funeral services.  Lying in state in the Illinois House of Representatives, beneath a two-times lifesize portrait of George Washington, a banner proclaimed, “Washington the Father, Lincoln the Savior.”

Charles Darwin statue, Natural History Museum, London - NHM photo

Charles Darwin statue, Natural History Museum, London – NHM photo

Darwin would become one of the greatest scientists of all time.  He would be credited with discovering the theory of evolution by natural and sexual selection.  His meticulous footnoting and careful observations formed the data for ground-breaking papers in geology (the creation of coral atolls), zoology (barnacles, and the expression of emotions in animals and man), botany (climbing vines and insectivorous plants), ecology (worms and leaf mould), and travel (the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle).  At his death he was honored with a state funeral, attended by the great scientists and statesmen of London in his day.  Hymns were specially written for the occasion.  Darwin is interred in Westminster Abbey near Sir Isaac Newton, England’s other great scientist, who knocked God out of the heavens.

Lincoln would be known as the man who saved the Union of the United States and set the standard for civil and human rights, vindicating the religious beliefs of many and challenging the beliefs of many more.  Darwin’s theory would become one of the greatest ideas of western civilization, changing forever all the sciences, and especially agriculture, animal husbandry, and the rest of biology, while also provoking crises in religious sects.

Lincoln, the politician known for freeing the slaves, also was the first U.S. president to formally consult with scientists, calling on the National Science Foundation (whose creation he oversaw) to advise his administration.  Darwin, the scientist, advocated that his family put the weight of its fortune behind the effort to abolish slavery in the British Empire.  Each held an interest in the other’s disciplines.

Both men were catapulted to fame in 1858. Lincoln’s notoriety came from a series of debates on the nation’s dealing with slavery, in his losing campaign against Stephen A. Douglas to represent Illinois in the U.S. Senate.  On the fame of that campaign, he won the nomination to the presidency of the fledgling Republican Party in 1860.  Darwin was spurred to publicly reveal his ideas about the power of natural and sexual selection as the force behind evolution, in a paper co-authored by Alfred Russel Wallace, presented to the Linnean Society in London on July 1, 1858.   On the strength of that paper, barely noticed at the time, Darwin published his most famous work, On the Origin of Species, in November 1859.

The two men might have got along well, but they never met.

What unusual coincidences.  Today is the first day of a year-long commemoration of the lives of both men.  Wise historians and history teachers, and probably wise science teachers, will watch for historical accounts in mass media, and save them.

Go celebrate human rights, good science, and the stories about these men.

Resources:

Charles Darwin:

Abraham Lincoln:


Gov. Perry to Texas, biologists, educators, students, Hispanics, and parents: “Drop Dead”

February 7, 2009

That hissing sound you hear is hope leaking out of Texas scientists, educators and students.  Those trucks you hear are the moving trucks of science-based industries, leaving Texas for California (!), Massachusetts, Utah, New York, Florida and other states where science is taught well in public schools and assumed to be an educational priority.

In his year as chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy has sown strife and discord among board members, professional staff, and educators across Texas.  He insulted Texas Hispanics and did his best to eliminate Hispanic heritage from Texas literature studies.  He repeatedly dismissed the advice of legally-required advisory committees of teachers and educators.  He insulted top scientists who offered advice on science education, and he ignored education experts in the development of curricula and standards for Texas public schools.  He promises a religious crusade to gut biology education in Texas.

On Friday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry reappointed McLeroy as chairman of SBOE, to a term that ends on February 1, 2011.

The Texas Senate must confirm.

Resources:


Looking for answers, here they are

February 1, 2009

Answers to Steve Bratteng’s quiz, “13 things evolution can answer that intelligent design cannot,” are back up, at that post.


Darwinian medicine works; should we tell the children?

February 1, 2009

The indomitable  and always informative Coturnix at Blog Around the Clock pointed to this excerpt from an interview Richard Dawkins did with Randolph Nesse.  Randy Nesse is one of the most visible exponents of Darwinian medicine.  Nesse argues that much of modern medicine, especially the treatments and cures, is incomprehensible except in the light of evolution theory.

In short, Nesse is saying that the ability of physicians to diagnose and treat disease depends on accurate understandings and applications of evolution theory.

Does this sound familiar?  Sure — this is just a deeper understanding of the principles behind Austin biologist Steve Bratteng’s 13 Questions.

Creationists are working to be sure that Nesse’s points are kept from Texas high school students in science classes.  From this interview,  you can see why scientists ask the State Board of Education to ask Texas educators to teach science instead.  Actions of creationists are directed at preventing information such as this from getting to Texas students, to keep them in the dark.

Texas Citizens for Science, the Texas Freedom Network, and Teach Them Science.org are three organizations working to make sure Texas students get straight science that they need.

Resources:


Joe Lapp’s “flat earth” testimony to the Texas SBOE

January 23, 2009

[Another in a series of posts highlighting testimony supporting evolution offered to the Texas State Board of Education this week.]

Joe Lapp, Testimony to the Texas SBOE, January 21, 2009 - click picture for link to original image at Teach Them Science.com

Joe Lapp, Testimony to the Texas SBOE, January 21, 2009 - click picture for link to original image at Teach Them Science.com


Dick Neavel’s Testimony on evolution, to Texas Education Board

January 22, 2009

Testimony of Richard Neavel, PhD, to the Texas State Board of Education January 21, 2009

I oppose the inclusion of strengths and weaknesses in the TEKS and I’m going to do a show and tell about why.

At the last public hearing, Board member Gail Lowe asked me whether I was familiar with “polystrate fossils.” I had to admit that I wasn’t.

I Googled the term, and found creationist Paul Ackerman writing: “Polystrate fossils in numerous places around the world are one dramatic piece of evidence that the [young earth] creationists may be right [about earth’s history].” (Footnote [1])

Now I know why I wasn’t familiar with them. Geologists don’t refer to polystrate fossils – creationists do.

Ms. Lowe questioned me about the Lompoc whale fossil that was supposed to be “standing up” within many strata, that is layers of rock. How could this happen, she asked if the strata accumulated over millions of years. (See Figure 1 – next page and Footnote [2].)

That’s the kind of question a student might  ask to demonstrate weaknesses of  geologic theories.

I didn’t have an answer, so I researched it and here’s what I found.

The fossil is found in Miocene-age rocks about 10 million years old near Lompoc, California.

Creationists have cited it as an anomaly ever since it was uncovered.

Creationists explain it by saying a catastrophe, such as Noah’s flood, buried the whale very quickly.

Here’s what really happened.

Lompy, the whale, is eating plankton in a lagoon off the California coast 10 million years ago.

The ones he doesn’t eat die and their shells drift down to make a silica-rich, oozy sediment.

OH!. OH!    Heart attack. Lompy dies, rolls over and sinks to the bottom of the lagoon. (Figure 2)

He rots away, and his skeleton gets covered with more sediment.  (Figure 3)

The sediments harden to rock. Along comes a mountain-building force and the rocks are tilted up.

A company mines the rock, called diatomaceous earth, and uncovers Lompy’s skeleton.   (Figure 4)

Creationists go wild – it’s a miracle – a whale on its tail.

I’m a PhD geologist and I didn’t have a ready answer to Ms. Lowe’s questions about polystrate fossils.

Do you think a high school science teacher would be able to answer a student’s questions about Lompy?

Members of the Board: Do you really want students to waste time discussing this kind of creationist nonsense in science class? Not weaknesses – just nonsense.

Every other creationist so-called “scientific weakness” can be explained just like this by real scientists — but not necessarily by high school teachers.

PLEASE! PLEASE! DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS EDUCATION.  IT’S TOO IMPORTANT TO AMERICA’S FUTURE.

PLEASE BE PATRIOTIC.        THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS, CLASS?

[Pictures coming when I can get them to stick in the file!  — E.D.]