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?


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:


What’s going on in Texas?

February 4, 2009

In administrative hearings at the federal level, it’s a crime to knowingly present false testimony to an agency which might rely on that information to make a decision.

In Texas?  The law is not so clear — but Discovery Institute’s John West celebrates false information used by the State Board of Education in considering science standards.  (This is one reason, I suspect, why creationists are not more active at the federal level — their tactics are not only unethical, but also illegal.)

Sadly, shockingly but not surprisingly, the false information was presented by SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy in theform of nuggets from the creationist quote mines.

Keep watching that space — with the help of Jeremy Mohn’s blog, which has most of the story in a post from his co-blogger Cheryl Shepherd-Adams.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Tony Whitson and Texas Citizens for Science.


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.]


Science wins: “Strengths and weaknesses” stripped from Texas science standards, 7-8

January 22, 2009

On a one-vote margin, the Texas State Board of Education stripped out of Texas science standards for public schools, creationist language that suggests there are weaknesses in evolution theory that make the theory sound like less than it is.

So far, that’s all the news I have, via the Quorum Report (January 22, 2009).  Tip of the old scrub brush to Annette Carlisle of Texas Citizens for Science.

Huge win for Texas Citizens for Science, the Texas Freedom Network, the National Center for Science Education, and the newly-formed Teach Them Science.org.  Huge win for Texas students, Texas high schools, Texas colleges and the Texas economy.

But of course, there’s still a chance to lose. Final More votes expected on the adoption of the standards, tomorrow; final vote in March.

Update – Not all news is good:  Among amendments adopted Thursday are amendments that call into question Big Bang in physics and common descent in biology.  Watch for update post.  Oy.

Resources:


Creationism outburst in Texas

January 22, 2009

Obama promised to put science in its proper place, in federal policy.

In Texas, however, evolution and science education are under assault today as the State Board of Education (SBOE) looks at revising science standards for public schools.  Creationists have been sharpening their knives for months, with a stiff-necked creationist heading SBOE as a fifth columnist.

SBOE votes today (perhaps already, but I can’t find the story of a vote).  At issue is the recommendations by scientists, educators and parents to teach evolution without creationist language that misleads students.  SBOE Chairman Don McLeroy has vowed to insert more religion into science classes.  The board is nearly evenly split between creationists and backers of science, so the vote could go either way.

Here at the Bathtub we’ll feature testimony from science supporters in a few posts, as we can snag them from witnesses.

McLeroy and his supporters at SBOE worked hard to stack the witness list, to prevent testimony from parents, teachers, scientists and educators who all favor new standards that eliminate a decade-old statement about “strengths and weaknesses” of evolution theory, hoary old creationist propaganda that has no place in a curriculum for the 21st century.  Several science witnesses were bumped from testifying, and the board was quite rude to some of America’s best scientists, appearing to fear what the scientists had to say.

It’s an ugly situation.  Say a prayer for Texas.

Resources:i


Is this list really the top 10 signs of evolution in humans?

January 18, 2009

Listverse has a list called “The top 10 signs of evolution in modern man.”

It’s a decent, well-intentioned list, but is it really the “top 10?”  What about DNA?  Shouldn’t our relationships to other creatures as demonstrated by DNA make at least the top 10 list?

Here’s the list:

10.  Goose bumps
9.  Jacobson’s Organ
8.  Junk DNA
7.  Extra ear muscles
6.  Plantaris muscle
5.  Wisdom teeth
4.  Third eyelid
3.  Darwin’s point
2.  Coccyx
1.  Appendix

I think there are some difficulties with the list, too.  There are minor problems, such as calling vestigial DNA “Junk DNA” when we know much of it still functions.  And there are major problems, like missing the ancestry aspects of DNA.  The appendix is known to play roles in the immune system, so some of the claims appear dated.

But I still wonder:   Are these the real top 10? How about our inablity to manufacture vitamin C?   How about the vagus nerve’s loop from the head down to the heart and back up?

What do you think, Dear Reader?  If we make a list of the top 10 signs of evolution in modern humans, what goes on that list?  Please include links in your post, if you have them (the spam filter will kick in at five links, so let me know if you’ve got more than five).

And, is there any value to such a list?

Tip of the old scrub brush to Gnomestrath.

Resources:


13 questions evolution can answer, intelligent design cannot

January 18, 2009

Stephen Bratteng, a biology teacher at Westwood High School  in Austin put this together.  I got the list from him when I heard him testify in favor of solid science in biology textbooks, in hearings before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003.

Here are questions that evolution can answer, but intelligent design cannot.

If intelligent design cannot offer any insight into these things, but evolution can, why should we allow intelligent design or any other flaccid “alternative” to evolution into science classes?  (Here’s the Institute for Creation Research, spending hundreds of words to fog over their inability to answer a single one of the questions!)

Why not teach our children the best we know, rather than junk we don’t know at all?

Mr. Bratteng’s 13 Questions

  1. Why does giving vitamin and mineral supplements to undernourished anemic individuals cause so many of them to die of bacterial infections?
  2. Why did Dr. Heimlich have to develop a maneuver to dislodge food particles from people’s wind pipes?

    Dr. Henry Heimlich

    Dr. Henry Heimlich

  3. Why does each of your eyes have a blind spot and strong a tendency toward retinal detachment? But a squid whose eyesight is just as sharp does not have these flaws?
  4. Why are depression and obesity at epidemic levels in the United States?
  5. When Europeans came to the Americas, why did 90 percent of the Native Americans die of European diseases but not many Europeans died of American diseases?
  6. Why do pregnant women get morning sickness?
  7. Why do people in industrialized countries have a greater tendency to get Crohn’s disease and asthma?
  8. Why does malaria still kill over a million people each year?*
  9. Why are so many of the product Depends sold each year?
  10. Why do people given anti-diarrheal medication take twice as long to recover from dysentery as untreated ones?
  11. Why do people of European descent have a fairly high frequency of an allele that can make them resistant to HIV infection?
  12. Close to home: Why do older men often have urinary problems?

    Cedar tree near Austin, Texas

    Cedar tree near Austin, Texas

  13. And why do so many people in Austin get cedar fever?

Of course, I don’t have the list of all the answers!  (Can you help me out, Dear Reader?  List what you know in comments.)

Resources:

American Red Cross poster on Heimlich Maneuver, from BusinessInsider

American Red Cross poster on Heimlich Maneuver, from BusinessInsider

Update November 2016: Actually, malaria death rates have been below a million/year worldwide since 2000; in 2015, fewer than 470,000 people died. At other posts on this blog you can learn that most of this great progress against malaria has been accomplished without DDT.  Mr. Bratteng’s question remains valid, despite the happy decline in malaria deaths.

Save


New Texas science education source, Teach Them Science

January 15, 2009

Joint project of the Clergy Project and the Center for Inquiry, Teach Them Science debuted on-line just a few weeks before the next round of science curriculum decisions by the State Board of Education.

Science education is at risk in Texas and across the country.
If you are a parent, educator, or concerned citizen, the information on these pages will help you understand the importance of a 21st Century science education. Particularly important in the 21st Century is a scientific understanding of evolution. These pages will also show you how you can help in Texas.

Center for Inquiry and The Clergy Letter Project are secular and religious communities who have come together to protect our children’s future in science. We call on you to help defend science education.

Joe Lapp, who I know through Texas Citizens for Science, played a big role in getting this site up and running.  Go look.  Pass the link on to all the science teachers you know, especially in Texas.

(Go see this wonderful, wry photo by Ralph Barrera of the Austin American-Statesman.)

Tip of the old scrub brush to Texas Citizens for Science.


Found, another missing link: Primitive feathers

January 13, 2009

Creationists must be brave indeed — or foolish, or non-comprehending — to steam on in the face of almost daily science discoveries.

Some discoveries are bigger than others.  Ed Yong at Not Exactly Rocket Science has a good, lay explanation of a recent paper documenting the discovery of a fossil with ancient, simple feathers –– a step in the evolution of feathers that was predicted but had not before been confirmed by fossils.

Until now, their existence was merely hypothetical – this is the first time that any have actually been found in a fossil. Other, more advanced stages in feather evolution have been described, so Beipaiosaurus provides the final piece in a series of structures that takes us from simple filaments to the more advanced feathers of other dinosaurs to the complex quills that keep modern birds aloft.

Beipaiosaurusfossil.jpg

The simple feathers were discovered by Xu Xing, the famous Chinese palaeontologist who discovered such species as Microraptor and Dilong, among many others. The filaments are longer and broader than those possessed by other dinosaurs and Xu calls them “elongated, broad, filamentous feathers” or EBFFs.

Each is about 10-15cm long and 2mm wide – not exactly thick, but still 10-20 times broader than the simple feathers of Sinosauropteryx. They are also unusually stiff, for despite the rigours of death and fossilisation, very few of them are curved or bent.

In other species of extinct dinosaur, simple feathers probably helped to insulate their bodies. But Beipaiosaurus’s feathers were too patchily distributed to have provided much in the way of insulation and they certainly weren’t complex enough for flight.

Instead, Xu thinks that the animal used them for display – their length and stiffness are well-suited for such a purpose, and they’re only found on parts of the body that bear display feathers in modern birds. They provide strong evidence that feathers were used for display long before they were co-opted for flight.

So, what’s that?  243,694 “missing links,” now found?  243,694 for science, 0 for creationism.  Isn’t there a five-inning rule in science?

It will be interesting to watch the next round of hearings at the Texas State Board of Education, to see what sort of excuse creationists will invent for why this chunk of science isn’t exactly what it seems to be.


Quote of the moment: Stephen Jay Gould, evolution a question that thinking people ponder

January 4, 2009

Stephen Jay Gould, Massachusetts Academy of Sciences portrait

Stephen Jay Gould, photo from New York Times obituary

Q. Why is your work so popular?

A. It’s the subject more than anything else. I often say there are about half a dozen scientific subjects that are immensely intriguing to people because they deal with fundamental issues that disturb us and cause us to wonder. Evolution is one of those subjects. It attempts, insofar as science can, to answer the questions of what our life means, and why we are here, and where we come from, and who we are related to, and what has happened through time, and what has been the history of this planet. These are questions that all thinking people have to ponder.

Stephen Jay Gould, interviewed by Daniel S. Levy, for Time Magazine, published Monday, May 14, 1990


Creationism vs. Christianity

December 20, 2008

Several weeks ago I responded to a lengthy thread at Unreasonable FaithThe original post was Garry Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” cartoon of the guy in a doctor’s office, just diagnosed with an infection.  The physician asks the guy if he’s a creationist, explaining that if he is, the doc will treat him with old antibiotics in honor of his belief that evolution of bacteria doesn’t occur. [Time passes: You may find the Doonesbury cartoon here, at Nature.com, in an article discussing issues with creationism.]

Point being, of course, that evolution occurs in the real world.  Creationists rarely exhibit the faith of their claims when their life, or just nagging pain, is on the line.  They’ll choose the evolution-based medical treatment almost every time.  There are no creationists in the cancer or infectious disease wards.

At one point I responded to a comment loaded with typical creationist error.  It was a long post.  It covered some ground that I’ve not written about on this blog.  And partly because it took some time to assemble, I’m reposting my comments here.  Of course, without the Trudeau cartoon, it won’t get nearly the comments here.

I’ll add links here when I get a chance, which I lacked the time to do earlier.  See my post, below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »