PBS wants you to THINK Wednesday, especially about your inner ancestors!

I confess, I don't watch PBS on a regular basis anymore (or TV in general really because I don't have cable- instead I opt to follow specific shows). However, it was probably the channel I watched the most as a kid- while I have nostalgia for Hey Arnold! and Rugrats like others of my generation, I have even stronger memories of The Magic School Bus, Wishbone, and of course, Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Perhaps on the tailwind of COSMOS, PBS recently started a lineup called "Think Wednesday", a three-hour primetime block from 8-11 PM of science, nature, and technology AWESOME. The first two hours are filled by PBS standbys NATURE and NOVA, and the third is reserved for special programs. Currently, that third slot is filled with Neil Shubin's "Your Inner Fish", a three-part miniseries based on his book of the same name. The first episode (which you can view here) aired last week and continues tonight with "Your Inner Reptile".

Neil is a fish paleontologist based at the University of Chicago and teaches Anatomy & Physiology to a bevy of med students. Some may wonder what someone who does their fieldwork with a shovel instead of a scalpel knows about the way our bodies function, but it actually makes sense- as precursors to tetrapods, you see many similarities between their morphology and ours. While Haeckel's "Ontology recapitulates phylogeny" is a historical footnote in modern biology, side-by-side comparisons of tetrapods at early embryological states are remarkably alike. At a more molecular level, shared expression gradients like Sonic hedgehog indicate relatedness of animals.

No, not that one. Source: Wikia

The graphics are slick, and not as jarring as many other "3D Ancient Life POW!" specials have been. I especially enjoyed seeing prehistoric animals crawl around Neil's locations, half-translucent so their bone structure could be visible.

Neil is a great guide, too- not just another talking head. We follow along with the Tiktaalik discovery, we visit friends (and learn things in the process).

Incidentally, I found out my ear pits are actually a developmental error showing a remnant of my first gill arch.

I am the 1%! Though your odds may be higher if you live elsewhere.

I hope PBS continues this structure beyond the life of "Your Inner Fish"- it's nice to have engaging science content distributed throughout the week (and especially when it doesn't have to fight with other shows in the same timeslot like COSMOS does with The Walking Dead and now Game of Thrones). Props to PBS! Hopefully this is the start of a new age in edutainment.

Review: Flight of Dodos

Apologies for the dust. Unfortunately I never got around to writing an appropriate eulogy for Dr. Waldvogel; I may get around to that at some point.

Another year brings another Darwin Day, this time being the 201st birthday of the Bearded One. The Biological Sciences Club along with Dr. Kelly had a viewing of filmmaker Randy Olson's 2006 documentary "Flock of Dodos: The Evolution-Intelligent Design Circus", which is a film I've been wanting to see for a while since I saw its name tossed about last year in my browsing.

Olson uses humor and animated graphics to capture the attention of a general audience, and his interviews are conversational (in fact, one of his meetings with scientists is actually a poker game) He highlights both sides as potential (if not already) 'dodos'- ID populists who insist on 'teaching the controversy' as well as erudite scientists so far removed in their ivory towers that they've lost how to connect with the general public.

This being 2006, he takes his camera to Kansas to talk to the Kansas Board of Education members still reeling from Evolution War II (as opposed to Evolution War I which was a more obviously creationist attempt to wedge 'alternate views' in the 90s), one of whom coincidentally lives across the corner from his mother. He also talks to intellectuals around the country including Michael Behe (who despite his views I still regard as some kind of scientist, even if his 'theory' doesn't hold water).

Olson makes the interesting observation that the Intelligent Design movement is a more marketable approach, with buzz phrases 'Teach the Controversy', 'there are flaws', 'where's the proof?' etc. and friendly supporters you could easily have a beer with (or at least lemonade and brownies). The scientific establishment, however, can't seem to communicate effectively and are somewhat argumentative (or at least during a poker game with alcoholic lubrication).

The neighborly barmate analogy he borrowed and used from the 2004 Presidential campaigns, and unfortunately the same attraction seems to appear today in the form of the Tea Party movement along with its darling, Sarah Palin. Folksy populism and mild sex appeal are great advertising, shiny wrappers. However, Sarah, the Tea Party, and Intelligent Design all share the same lack of substance beneath the glitz and glamour. Intelligent design, as previously discussed in this blog lacks testable research and actually discourages finding natural explanations beyond 'somebody did it.' Likewise, for all the outrage and screaming they've been whipping up, the Tea Party is still largely that- angry people who misappropriated historical events for their outrage (the original Boston Tea Party was more in protest of the British East India Company becoming a monopoly on tea, etc. etc. like a nightmarish WalMart). But I digress.

My seemingly irrelevant tangent to modern politics merely restates the documentary's message- science needs to better communicate information, research, and models to the general public, educating them with interesting things to combat attractive anti-intellectuals with ad company slogans. In my personal opinion based on my background, I feel one step would be to better promote public television programs if children must be parked in front of the boob tube. Relatable icons like Bill Nye the Science Guy and the characters of The Magic School Bus captivate attention and effectively promote scientific literacy.

As a postscript, I'll sadly note that the majority of the audience for this viewing were students largely there for extra credit in their Biol 102 course, uninterested in a discussion afterwards. Olson's humor was appreciated though, and hopefully brought his points across. This was a much more digestible film than Ben Stein's Expelled last year.

Liveblog/notes- Evolution: What About God?

Opens with a Ken Ham lecture in... Ohio? I love looking at the crowd to see a few bored kids... but at the same time it's very disconcerting to see so many young kids singing along with such a vile song.

I find the idea that 'if the Bible is factually wrong, then we should discard its morality too' disgusting. It's like saying 'a pineapple's covered in spikes, let's not even bother eating the thing'. You do not need a literal interpretation of the Bible to take meaning from it. I mean, Jesus himself used parables to convey morality tales (would that make the Bible Jesusmeta then?).

On a more shallow note, is Liam Neeson narrating this?

SERIOUSLY disturbs me how many young kids are listening to Ken Ham, along with his cartoon illustrations. Figures they'd use folksy music as another medium to push their message.

Wheaton College... hm. I didn't think there were that many conservative Christians in the Chicago area, but then, I don't know much about the Midwest. Oh, it's a Christian campus? Ah, ok.

~sigh~ Nathan Baird's family thing is somewhat familiar to me. My family didn't go to church on a regular basis, but recent discussions with my mom indicate she feels she failed by not taking my brother and me to church and thinks something's wrong with me for thinking science is God's touch on the universe (funny how this conversation never came up in my previous 18 years at home). Apologies for the offtopicness, but this does feel a little close to home.

Hee, I like Baird's grandma- echoes my dad's sentiment that I should be able to reason out what I believe. Baird's dad bothers me... guh. I'm afraid that's how my conversation with my mom'll be when I finally sit down and talk to her about what I do and don't believe.

"I don't know how to make sense of that". Simple, Emi- don't take the Bible literally. Oh, Seventh Day Adventist? Ah, ok. There was a private seventh day adventist school next to my middle school.

Indeed, this is pretty much the basis of the debate- the special place of humans in God's eyes. Wait, the faculty has to sign a statement affirming belief in a historical of Adam and Eve? Separ- oh wait, it's a private college. Separation of Church and State doesn't necessarily hold then, I think...?

The letter declaring she'd rather see her daughter dead than lose her faith at college is HARSH. To make the choice between education and faith... to me it seems worse to be blind and faithful.

A student asks Keith Miller about reconciling being made in the image of God with evolutionary theory- Keith says he personally thinks Adam and Eve were specially chosen out of the humans by God. Interesting.

Oh no... not another musical thing for Go- oh, Simple Gifts. I don't think the Shakers had any perspectives on evolution... I didn't catch this anthropology major's name, but he mentioned if he had to make a choice, he'd pick Young Earth creationism because he grew up with it, he's comfortable with it.

Beth S.- grew up in Zamibia(?), open to ideas regarding Bible & science.

Emi Hayashi makes a good point- it's silly for an ignorant fundamentalist to point out 'flaws' in science as it is for a nontheist to point out flaws in Christianity without any theological background.

OH NO NOT KEN HAM AGAIN. "God said it, I believe, that settles it." Hm. Does this video predate the Creation Museum, I wonder? That diorama looked like it'd fit in with that thing.

End of class, will be continued on Thursday.

AHA IT IS LIAM NEESON.