Post-Nova thoughts, and some podcast ponderings

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

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.

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.