I think the previous two entries sufficiently cover my reaction to the documentary. It was well done, with lovely visuals (even though the darkness and the Law-and-Orderesque trial bumps were a bit theatrical). It was nice to see how the Rehms, Buckingham, Bert and others actually looked and sounded like after reading their words elsewhere.
Last Friday, I tagged along with a friend to an impromptu discussion on the evolution/creationism issue in the Jordan Room. This discussion spawned out of a Biol 103 class, apparently, and went from about 12-1:30 PM. The mix of people was evenly mixed perspectivewise, and I really wish I had my EvoCrea text with me (I may bring it tomorrow, if they do it again). What interested me was the perspective of the professor leading the discussion, who talked about believing in evolution (GAH semantics) as a missionary would to a would-be convert. Or at least, it seemed that way to me- I could be totally wrong on this. The topic came up of not accepting macroevolution based on evidence (or lack of quality evidence), and he seemed like, "Well, it's wonderful that you're basing your judgment on evidence instead of a religious bias, but eventually you'll be swayed by all of the data." This method rubs me the wrong way...
...and leads me to wonder whether it'd make a good podcast topic or not- the fringes of both ends of the spectrum, and the 'conversion' to one side or another. That, or macroevolution itself, as I'd like to convince people of its validity without feeling like some kind of missionary preaching the Origin.
Macroevolution hasn't explicitly been covered in the course yet, but it frustrates me so when people accept micro but don't make the next step to macro (oh god, I'm starting to sound like that prof...). Building off of the pepper moths, you can look at the honeycreepers of Hawaii (or any other endemic island bird population for that matter) and see how an incredible amount of diversification can arise with so few difference in genes (see cichlids in the African lakes). As the NOVA video illustrated, birds with an appropriate beak type will increase in population in the right areas, and eventually that WILL lead to new species.
I'll have to double check on the definition of a species (I'll go by genetic/fertile offspring, which makes sense in my mind...) before I dig into this, but it should be incredibly fun. Particularly if I get an opposing view. Whee!
~Danielle
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
NOVA Liveblog notes 2
Opening with what science is, semantics of the word theory.
Ah, so that;s why I;m sticking with my major- genetics, and how they're some of the strongest support for the theory evolution.
3/8 witnesses isn't many... interestingly enough, Scott Minnich is a professor at University of Idaho in the department I was considering.
Law and Orderesque bumps...huh.
The fact that Michael Behe is a biochemist makes his role as an ID advocate somewhat ironic. Also, I was not aware Behe quote-mined DeRosier's paper on the flagellum motor. Especially with DeRosier comparing the bubonic plague's 'syringe' to the motor complexes.
Ah, there's Miller's tieclip. :D
Rothschild's books may have been theatrical, but they proved a point.
Ah, Minnich. And the flagellum again...
The Dover paster reinforces the idea that Evolution takes away humanity's special spot as an image of God in the eyes of the fundamentalists. From a personal perspective, I believe God imbued humanity with free will, with souls- not explicit design, but that's where his 'fingerprints' lie. I wave my theistic evolutionary flag.
Meat of the matter- was the school board violating the establishment clause? The Creation Science catalog bit is indeed a smoking gun. By using the same definition, ID demonstrates itself to be a copy-paste job, that it is synonymous with creationism.
And Barbara Forest brings in The Wedge, recovered from the depths of the internet.
...splitting a log doesn't strike me as an innocent thingamajig. This does provide, however, evidence for an ideological agenda to push a particular set of morals/culture, etc.
Ah. There's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote, plus Creationism... oh god. He just said 'doncha know'... I shouldn't stereotype, but fundies like Buckingham and Sarah Palin in politics worries me.
'Pray for money'... guh. This whole thing REEKS of bad practice in education.
Oh boo. "A one minute statement"... "not asking [the science teachers] to become priests"... No. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but they're calling it a turtle.
Oh, 700 Club. You demogogue, Robertson, you.
He sent out his opinion by e-mail? Interesting.
...whut. Buckingham, calling Jones a clown? o________O;;;
Here ends the program.
Ah, so that;s why I;m sticking with my major- genetics, and how they're some of the strongest support for the theory evolution.
3/8 witnesses isn't many... interestingly enough, Scott Minnich is a professor at University of Idaho in the department I was considering.
Law and Orderesque bumps...huh.
The fact that Michael Behe is a biochemist makes his role as an ID advocate somewhat ironic. Also, I was not aware Behe quote-mined DeRosier's paper on the flagellum motor. Especially with DeRosier comparing the bubonic plague's 'syringe' to the motor complexes.
Ah, there's Miller's tieclip. :D
Rothschild's books may have been theatrical, but they proved a point.
Ah, Minnich. And the flagellum again...
The Dover paster reinforces the idea that Evolution takes away humanity's special spot as an image of God in the eyes of the fundamentalists. From a personal perspective, I believe God imbued humanity with free will, with souls- not explicit design, but that's where his 'fingerprints' lie. I wave my theistic evolutionary flag.
Meat of the matter- was the school board violating the establishment clause? The Creation Science catalog bit is indeed a smoking gun. By using the same definition, ID demonstrates itself to be a copy-paste job, that it is synonymous with creationism.
And Barbara Forest brings in The Wedge, recovered from the depths of the internet.
...splitting a log doesn't strike me as an innocent thingamajig. This does provide, however, evidence for an ideological agenda to push a particular set of morals/culture, etc.
Ah. There's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote, plus Creationism... oh god. He just said 'doncha know'... I shouldn't stereotype, but fundies like Buckingham and Sarah Palin in politics worries me.
'Pray for money'... guh. This whole thing REEKS of bad practice in education.
Oh boo. "A one minute statement"... "not asking [the science teachers] to become priests"... No. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but they're calling it a turtle.
Oh, 700 Club. You demogogue, Robertson, you.
He sent out his opinion by e-mail? Interesting.
...whut. Buckingham, calling Jones a clown? o________O;;;
Here ends the program.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Liveblog- Nova video
Commentary as I go.
After reading Monkey Girl by Edward Humes, it'll be interesting to see what Bonsell, Buckingham, and Miller actually look like. Shallow thought, I know, but there it is.
I thought Kansas came first? Or maybe that was defeated/in court before the Dover school district put up their one minute statement.
AHA millipede. I like millipedes.
Hm... yeah, my inner visuals of Padian and Miller were a little off... for some reason, Padian was like a fossil-hunting Steve Irwin. >_>;;;
Oh hey, the Dragonfly book! We used that in my high school. And there's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote... oh Buckingham. If I recall correctly, evolution wasn't OMGPERVASIVE.
If I recall correctly, the tortoises of Galapagos were more of a catalyst than the finches in forming the theory of evolution. This is an awesome visualization of the tree of life.
That's a disturbing statistic, 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans not accepting evolution. Especially post cold war, when the US enjoyed a push in science education.
I found Of Pandas and People in Cooper the other day. For a science text, it's pretty light. That reminds me, I need to get around to reading Johnson's book.
Oh this will be fun... We end with Tiktaalik.
After reading Monkey Girl by Edward Humes, it'll be interesting to see what Bonsell, Buckingham, and Miller actually look like. Shallow thought, I know, but there it is.
I thought Kansas came first? Or maybe that was defeated/in court before the Dover school district put up their one minute statement.
AHA millipede. I like millipedes.
Hm... yeah, my inner visuals of Padian and Miller were a little off... for some reason, Padian was like a fossil-hunting Steve Irwin. >_>;;;
Oh hey, the Dragonfly book! We used that in my high school. And there's the 'laced with Darwinism' quote... oh Buckingham. If I recall correctly, evolution wasn't OMGPERVASIVE.
If I recall correctly, the tortoises of Galapagos were more of a catalyst than the finches in forming the theory of evolution. This is an awesome visualization of the tree of life.
That's a disturbing statistic, 1/3 to 1/2 of Americans not accepting evolution. Especially post cold war, when the US enjoyed a push in science education.
I found Of Pandas and People in Cooper the other day. For a science text, it's pretty light. That reminds me, I need to get around to reading Johnson's book.
Oh this will be fun... We end with Tiktaalik.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Expelled: The Victim Card and Other Thoughts
Since Darwin's bones turn 200 this Thursday (and his influential tome 150 years), this week is Darwin Week at Clemson University (or at least, the Department of Biological Sciences is celebrating- everyone's welcome to the party, even Wallace fangirls like myself). Monday kicked off the celebration by showing Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein's documentary on intelligent design. I'd heard about it when it came out, but wasn't sure I wanted to actually pay money to see it/was too lazy to youtube it. So when this popped up on my facebook events, I jumped at the chance.
John Scalzi described the Creation Museum as a very expensive, very fancy temple to horseshit. Borrowing his analogy, Expelled takes fecal matter, mixes it in brownie mix, then bakes it to present as a visually appealing package with a less than pleasant nutrition content.
The film's approach can be summarized as
The name of the film refers to the handful of scientists interviewed who were, according to Stein, 'expelled' from the scientific establishment because of their connections to Intelligent Design theory. Maybe the interwebs have hardened me, but that segment makes me want to tell them, "BOOHOO, go cry elsewhere. :/" This site explores the actual reasons why these individuals were removed from their various posts, some, such as Gullermo Gonzalez's decreasing publication output and general level of success in his field, really do have nothing to do with touting Intelligent Design.
I love the first amendment. I can speak my mind (except calling out disasters in movie theaters), publish said free thoughts, practice (or not) my own odd duck deist perspective, gather in places and bother my elected officials, if I feel like it. America does too, for the most part, so any whiff of freedoms being tromped on usually gets our goat. So when Ben Stein accuses science of stifling dissenting voices, we're expected to sit up and do a double take. However, science ISN'T quashing anything; it's patiently waiting for them to provide acceptable evidence for theory status. Peer-review, testable, observable evidence. Until that shows up, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science.
Also, as PZ Meyers says, science is not a democracy. Hypotheses must be tested and demonstrated. They must be repeated and observed again and again, reinforcing their validity. Sure, y'all can say 'There must be an intelligent designer!", but until that can be feasibly demonstrated, it's not science.
Quotemining. It's evil. Don't do it. Cutting and pasting does not make the quote you want exist, even if it creates a nice little soundbite.
Another pet peeve is the assumption that evolution = how life was created. Evolution moves life through change and creates new variation, but the actual STUDY on the origins of life is abiogenesis. Minor point, but there it is. It's an exciting field whose theories for the most part go over my head, but its a gross oversimplification to cut them down to "growing on the backs of crystals" or "coming from outer space", which only makes it easier to point to Intelligent Design and say, "Hey! Our idea isn't so ridiculous now compared to these silly scientist folks, is it?"
The most irritating and offensive aspect of Expelled was the Cold War imagery and implications that evolution led to Hitler, Stalin, and the Holocaust. Social Darwinism is an ideology separate from the scientific theory of evolution (if I recall correctly, Malthus was musing over such before On the Origin of Species was published). It arose from the colonial period, the White Man's Burden type of thinking. Might as well blame Kipling too. The atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were not 'natural selection'; 'twas artifical selection by a government presumptuous enough to deem a certain archetype as the 'ideal' with horrific consequences.
In a less mature fit of internet giggles, I realize Expelled visualized Godwin's Law- decidedly more than halfway through the film's 97 minutes, imagery of Hitler popped up. Oh the lulz before the facepalm.
I'm going to have to find a copy of Bill Maher's Religulous to balance out my documentary content for the month.
Also, I cannot write an essay to save my life. I can try, but it usually ends up being regurgitated ideas with florid wording, needing more textual support. So I apologize for that abominable piece turned in Tuesday...
John Scalzi described the Creation Museum as a very expensive, very fancy temple to horseshit. Borrowing his analogy, Expelled takes fecal matter, mixes it in brownie mix, then bakes it to present as a visually appealing package with a less than pleasant nutrition content.
The film's approach can be summarized as
- Show victimized scientists persecuted by the Darwinist establishment
- Appeal to America's love affair with the First Amendment
- Discredit evolutionary theory by quote-mining, including the origin of life with the origin of species (equating panspermia with aliens, the crazy-complex evolving crystal thing, etc.
- Compare the scientific establishment to Stalin, Hitler, and other oogie boogies.
The name of the film refers to the handful of scientists interviewed who were, according to Stein, 'expelled' from the scientific establishment because of their connections to Intelligent Design theory. Maybe the interwebs have hardened me, but that segment makes me want to tell them, "BOOHOO, go cry elsewhere. :/" This site explores the actual reasons why these individuals were removed from their various posts, some, such as Gullermo Gonzalez's decreasing publication output and general level of success in his field, really do have nothing to do with touting Intelligent Design.
I love the first amendment. I can speak my mind (except calling out disasters in movie theaters), publish said free thoughts, practice (or not) my own odd duck deist perspective, gather in places and bother my elected officials, if I feel like it. America does too, for the most part, so any whiff of freedoms being tromped on usually gets our goat. So when Ben Stein accuses science of stifling dissenting voices, we're expected to sit up and do a double take. However, science ISN'T quashing anything; it's patiently waiting for them to provide acceptable evidence for theory status. Peer-review, testable, observable evidence. Until that shows up, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a science.
Also, as PZ Meyers says, science is not a democracy. Hypotheses must be tested and demonstrated. They must be repeated and observed again and again, reinforcing their validity. Sure, y'all can say 'There must be an intelligent designer!", but until that can be feasibly demonstrated, it's not science.
Quotemining. It's evil. Don't do it. Cutting and pasting does not make the quote you want exist, even if it creates a nice little soundbite.
Another pet peeve is the assumption that evolution = how life was created. Evolution moves life through change and creates new variation, but the actual STUDY on the origins of life is abiogenesis. Minor point, but there it is. It's an exciting field whose theories for the most part go over my head, but its a gross oversimplification to cut them down to "growing on the backs of crystals" or "coming from outer space", which only makes it easier to point to Intelligent Design and say, "Hey! Our idea isn't so ridiculous now compared to these silly scientist folks, is it?"
The most irritating and offensive aspect of Expelled was the Cold War imagery and implications that evolution led to Hitler, Stalin, and the Holocaust. Social Darwinism is an ideology separate from the scientific theory of evolution (if I recall correctly, Malthus was musing over such before On the Origin of Species was published). It arose from the colonial period, the White Man's Burden type of thinking. Might as well blame Kipling too. The atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were not 'natural selection'; 'twas artifical selection by a government presumptuous enough to deem a certain archetype as the 'ideal' with horrific consequences.
In a less mature fit of internet giggles, I realize Expelled visualized Godwin's Law- decidedly more than halfway through the film's 97 minutes, imagery of Hitler popped up. Oh the lulz before the facepalm.
I'm going to have to find a copy of Bill Maher's Religulous to balance out my documentary content for the month.
Also, I cannot write an essay to save my life. I can try, but it usually ends up being regurgitated ideas with florid wording, needing more textual support. So I apologize for that abominable piece turned in Tuesday...
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Spiritually homeless, but you probably knew that
Originally posted on Facebook Wednesday, January 14, 2009 at 12:51am, reposted here because it's somewhat relevant. While not a reflection on the course, it falls into the topic.
This note's been written and rewritten in my head the last few days, but it also falls into the "Should probably not discuss/post on facebook category". No, nothing of a perverse nature, just musing about my ambiguous religious stance. The three topics best avoided in conversation according to dad (and in no particular order) are religion, politics, and money. But I'm curious on your (the invisible web friends') opinion(s).
First, a bit of background. My dad was raised Methodist, but is nonpracticing at the moment (to my knowledge. Whenever I asked about what he believed in, he told me religion is a personal thing. Or at least, that's what I can remember.). Mom, born and raised in the South, undoubtedly attended a Southern Baptist church of some kind. Our family never went to church on a regular basis, but she'd take Alex and me to Vacation Bible School at Calvary Baptist during the summer until we grew out of it. In fourth grade, a friend of mine got me to start going to AWANA, and I did so for about two years. More about that later.
I've been a nerd for a long time, particularly when it comes to biological sciences. I remember going through interest phrases- for a time it was dinosaurs briefly shifted to Greek and Roman mythology, then turned to many-appendaged invertebrates (jellyfish and cephalopods). I preferred styracosaurus to triceratops because it had more spikes- probably not a normal thing for a first grader, but oh well. On a similar but unrelated note, I didn't know what the word booger meant until second grade, having used the word 'bae si' (for lack of better romanization) meaning roughly 'nose stuff' in Cantonese.
Now in AWANA, we'd periodically have speakers and such at the end. One that stands out in my memory was a woman who showed us an overhead of a Tyrannosaurus rex and talked about how dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden. When question time came, I raised my hand and asked, "But... can't scientific things like evolution be God's actions on Earth?" I don't recall the exact response, but it was in the negative. Uncomfortable, I kept quiet for the rest of the session. I didn't go back the next year, my main excuse being that I missed the signup date. But really, I found having to choose between science and religion disconcerting.
I do believe in God, admitting that no one is free from sin and believing that Jesus' sacrifice washed us clean. (I could toss 'confess' in, but that'd be trite). But at the same time, I see life mechanisms such as heredity, evolution, etc. as His methods- programs on the Holy Computer, if you will. I'll save my evolution soapbox for another post, but needless to say there's overwhelming evidence that this is how we reached such incredible diversity of life today.
I guess I fall into the category of theistic evolution. There's no "Church of Darwin" or whatever; it really irks me when in internet arguments people use the word "Darwinist". Hell, if you're going to describe me like that, call me a Wallacist. Or make the assumption that science and religion are incompatible (unless from a literal standpoint). Religion and science are two different windows on the same world.
So that's me. I don't have a 'home' church (if anything it'd be Southern Baptist, but I'm not sure if I can go back...), nor do I feel like going atheist (although I feel a bit heathenish with a lack of any major religious background). Mom said not long ago that she feels her biggest failure is not taking Alex and me to church on a regular basis. I think we turned out as ok people, but occasionally I feel like a religious hobo.
Meh. That's enough Teal Deer bellybutton inspecting. Do kick me in the virtual shins if you deem it necessary.
This note's been written and rewritten in my head the last few days, but it also falls into the "Should probably not discuss/post on facebook category". No, nothing of a perverse nature, just musing about my ambiguous religious stance. The three topics best avoided in conversation according to dad (and in no particular order) are religion, politics, and money. But I'm curious on your (the invisible web friends') opinion(s).
First, a bit of background. My dad was raised Methodist, but is nonpracticing at the moment (to my knowledge. Whenever I asked about what he believed in, he told me religion is a personal thing. Or at least, that's what I can remember.). Mom, born and raised in the South, undoubtedly attended a Southern Baptist church of some kind. Our family never went to church on a regular basis, but she'd take Alex and me to Vacation Bible School at Calvary Baptist during the summer until we grew out of it. In fourth grade, a friend of mine got me to start going to AWANA, and I did so for about two years. More about that later.
I've been a nerd for a long time, particularly when it comes to biological sciences. I remember going through interest phrases- for a time it was dinosaurs briefly shifted to Greek and Roman mythology, then turned to many-appendaged invertebrates (jellyfish and cephalopods). I preferred styracosaurus to triceratops because it had more spikes- probably not a normal thing for a first grader, but oh well. On a similar but unrelated note, I didn't know what the word booger meant until second grade, having used the word 'bae si' (for lack of better romanization) meaning roughly 'nose stuff' in Cantonese.
Now in AWANA, we'd periodically have speakers and such at the end. One that stands out in my memory was a woman who showed us an overhead of a Tyrannosaurus rex and talked about how dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden. When question time came, I raised my hand and asked, "But... can't scientific things like evolution be God's actions on Earth?" I don't recall the exact response, but it was in the negative. Uncomfortable, I kept quiet for the rest of the session. I didn't go back the next year, my main excuse being that I missed the signup date. But really, I found having to choose between science and religion disconcerting.
I do believe in God, admitting that no one is free from sin and believing that Jesus' sacrifice washed us clean. (I could toss 'confess' in, but that'd be trite). But at the same time, I see life mechanisms such as heredity, evolution, etc. as His methods- programs on the Holy Computer, if you will. I'll save my evolution soapbox for another post, but needless to say there's overwhelming evidence that this is how we reached such incredible diversity of life today.
I guess I fall into the category of theistic evolution. There's no "Church of Darwin" or whatever; it really irks me when in internet arguments people use the word "Darwinist". Hell, if you're going to describe me like that, call me a Wallacist. Or make the assumption that science and religion are incompatible (unless from a literal standpoint). Religion and science are two different windows on the same world.
So that's me. I don't have a 'home' church (if anything it'd be Southern Baptist, but I'm not sure if I can go back...), nor do I feel like going atheist (although I feel a bit heathenish with a lack of any major religious background). Mom said not long ago that she feels her biggest failure is not taking Alex and me to church on a regular basis. I think we turned out as ok people, but occasionally I feel like a religious hobo.
Meh. That's enough Teal Deer bellybutton inspecting. Do kick me in the virtual shins if you deem it necessary.
Where did January go?
So here I am, setting up yet another blog-type thing out of many. I'm curious as to see how this culture of putting ourselves out there on the web will affect future politicians when my generation comes to power.
Unlike my previous forays into the blogosphere, this one is intended (for the most part anyway) for recording reflections, thoughts, and other such things for my Biol 210: Evolution & Creationism class. I'll likely post thoughts on other things in the bio-world as well, but if you're looking for a rant on the use of chatspeak or summaries of my day, look for my facebook, myspace, or other personal blogs.
I might crosspost, though. Haven't decided yet.
Cheers,
Danielle
Unlike my previous forays into the blogosphere, this one is intended (for the most part anyway) for recording reflections, thoughts, and other such things for my Biol 210: Evolution & Creationism class. I'll likely post thoughts on other things in the bio-world as well, but if you're looking for a rant on the use of chatspeak or summaries of my day, look for my facebook, myspace, or other personal blogs.
I might crosspost, though. Haven't decided yet.
Cheers,
Danielle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)