Another attempt at a wedge?

The New York Times today had this article about antievolutionists now adding global warming and climate change to their "Teach the Controversy" agenda. Denialists bother me, and it's disturbing to think that two kinds merging into some kind of horrific hybrid could descend upon schools with "Academic Freedom Bill" nonsense. I almost want to ask if alchemy and Stork theory can be included, but all facetiousness aside, this is frustrating. It also reminds me of the mock stickers Dr. Waldvogel showed us last year warning that books may contain information about gravitational theory, germ theory, etc.

Climate change may be the "new kid on the block" scientifically speaking, but the current consensus is that it is anthropogenic. Volcanos can account for only so much... but I'm not going to climb on that particular soapbox until I can do more research for a clearer, better-cited post.

Among the comments was this gem (oh Highlights feature, how awesome art thou) from a clergyman concerned with the rise of anti-intellectualism among the evangelical movement, who, like Randy Olson points out that science is terrible at public relations, that the man on his pulpit can reach into the hearts of people to guide them to Christ's light and that scientists need such a person to show people that proper science is by extension an indication of a creative God.

In my podcast last year, I highlighted this issue- that while I personally adore PZ Myers and his cephalopod love, having such a popular figure also tear down theism on a regular basis isn't likely to help "bring people into the fold" of scientific literacy. Dr. Ken Miller is an excellent example of someone who practices a particular belief and still understands and appreciates how science works.

I'd rather not tell you what to believe, to be all condescending and make decisions based on my particular world view. Instead, I opt for spreading critical thinking and rational thought in hopes of raising scientific literacy. Whether you see it as evidence of the existence of a higher power or not, I don't care so long as you can intelligently reason. As Queen Elizabeth I said, "I have no desire to make windows into mens souls"

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.

Temp. Memoriam Post

Dr. Jerry Waldvogel, professor for my Biol 210 course, passed away last Saturday of a heart attack at his home. Will write a lengthier post later, feeling glum and the dreary, rainy weather isn't helping much (though in a way it is because I sincerely love cold, wet weather).

A virtual memorial page was created by Prof. Kelly here: http://www.jerry-waldvogel.virtual-memorials.com/

Welcome to the family, Darwinius!

Big news item of the day: Darwinius masillae. New primate fossil, apparently found in Germany in 1983, but purchased by the lead scientist on this particular research cookie in 2006. Why not reveal it then? Because you have to figure out what it is and present it in a neat, crispy package fit for information consumption.

So here we are, roughly two-three years later, igniting a media frenzy of "Missing Link?!?" articles. Myers discusses and links to MOAR discussion about why this label is inappropriate here. Relevant points include the fact that EVERY fossil is a link between other fossils, and that this particular fossil, while important and undoubtedly fascinating, likely isn't going to shake the scientific establishment like an asteroid hurtling to Earth.

However, I'd like to bring up another interesting point which hasn't been brought up yet- such widespread coverage will hopefully attract more people to the pure awesomeness of biology. Much like a recent xkcd (which apparently won't fully show in this format, AGGH. Livejournal: 1, Blogger: 0. so here's the link)

Aha yes. Everyone will be under our will one day. MWAHAHAHA.

Commentary on "Running into the Brick Wall of Creationism" essay, extra credt #3

Danielle Tom
Biol 210: Evolution and Creationism
Dr. Jerry Waldvogel
4/21/09
EC #3
Commentary on “The brick wall of Creationism”
Reverend Penny Greer’s opinion that fundamentalism (religious movement) and scientific viewpoints are separate perspectives on the world agrees with lectures earlier in the semester on religion and science as different ways of knowing. Having a historical background will allow for better communication between opposing sides as it allows for greater understanding. It is interesting to see the positive attitudes towards science early in the movement, still prevalent today that an intelligent designer manufactured the rules that govern the natural world. It puzzles me that a hypothesis would be regarded as pure speculation, though, even with evidence. I guess the real reason would be at a glance the theory of evolution puts ‘chance’ in place of an omniscient deity even though a closer look at Darwin’s words would indicate that perhaps such a move towards complexity would be a sign of someone smart enough to create it.
I think her view that the dominant fundamentalist tenant is literalism may be too… stereotypical? Not the right word I’m looking for. Painting the whole one color, I guess, as we DID see earlier in the semester the chart of levels of acceptance of evolution. Fundamentalism is not solely confined to the Flat Earth Society fringe; not all are so vehemently opposed to the general theory (instead halfstepping it with “I believe in micro, not macro.”) Creationism isn’t a solidly brick wall; it’s segments here and there, much like how the Great Wall of China isn’t one long wall but various segments.
Although understanding the historical context of the division will improve communication, true reconciliation is likely impossible as both sides include staunch individuals unwilling to concede or listen to the other’s point of view (as evidenced by the fringes of Dawkins and Dembski). The Rev. has a sound rationale, which will work best in discussions between those closer to the center of the aforementioned chart. In most things, the middle mass tends to be the majority, so for everyday use basic understanding of the history behind fundamentalism and their points of view will be useful. Trying to persuade the fringes will likely be a fruitless task, much like mending the fraying ends of a blanket.

Reflection on the Essay

Regarding my essay here, a reflection... which is also on that site, in italics below the main body.

Weirdly enough, I'd written on religious and scientific points of view on my own blog, as copypasted into one of my journal entries. I wasn't sure how much personal discussion we could include in the essays, however, but at least I was in the right frame of mind. It's always a little bit difficult to find a topic you can love/discuss fully for several pages/paragraphs, and I still seem to approach such a task broadly at best.

I also could've used more sources probably, but procrastination tends to shrink the list. I have a large amount of library books that have been sitting around my desk for the last several months that will likely be used for the podcast if I open them, including some good ones on perspective. However, I'm not recycling my essay topic for the podcast so that's a useless purpose. The scrub jay example is incredibly minor, but works (although disregarded by a teenage[?] creationist a few years back when arguing online "It's just a bird; it didn't turn into anything spectacularly new!")

This essay topic was used somewhat for my persuasive speech in Comm 250, where I argued that Intelligent Design was a pseudoscience, using some arguments from this that the supernatural cannot be objectively analyzed and utilizing Behe's broad definition that would include things recognized as pseudoscience (astrology and the like).

Raw notes from the Tuesday speakers

4/14/09 Profs.
Dr. Hap Wheeler, Biological Sciences, Episcopalian.
-1982 convention- supports evolution. Catechism rejects literal creation, including ID.
-Most fall into theistic evolution.
-does not engage in religion-science debates, counterproductive.
-Main focus should be on preserving that creation, controlling our mastery.
Dr. Bob Kosinski, Catholic
-Agrees w/ Dr. Wheeler
-Catholic church;s position pretty clear.
Science relys on natural law. Why pick on evolution when there’s other bones of contention? Like gravity- law, or God pushing on it?
-One place where Catholics (and other religion) are kinda squicky- science does not believe in teleological explanations- natural system is trying to do something, following a plan or attaining a particular goal. “Earth turns to share the joys of sunlight with all her children!”
-Science seeks the simpler explanation; religion looks for teleological explanations, “God’s plan”, a purpose, etc.
Dr. John Morse- Baptist
-No such thing as a Baptist perspective or doctrine (well, Gogle seemed to pick up on that), so this is a personal perspective.
-Not much of a relationship between faith & science.
Broadly speaking, faith motivates social interactions… argh.
-TRUTH- uses all objective experiences AND subjective experiences.
-Faith starts with assumptions. Science believes world is ordered by principles, senses are reliable. Faith- assumptions of God’s existence, etc.
-our existence. Science has corroborating dating methods, hierarchy of life. In faith, consistent character of God
-100+ dating methods… radiometric, ice cores, coral reef layering, red shift, etc. etc.
-All these methods say the same story- age of life, the universe, and everything. Chance of all happening randomly is remote.
-Family trees (his specialty, hierarchy of life). Not one species occurs out of the tree.
-Choice- creation 6000 years ago (assumption that God made things seem older and related), or other? Is God’s character consistent
Dr. Peter Cohen, professor of philosophy, Jewish
-Cannot speak for all of Judaism, has a wide spectrum. God is ineffable- don’t know his character, so hard to understand.
-not necessarily a worldview of faith more of practice.
-last Wednesday, sun was at the same position it was during creation (every 28 years)
-Science is a part of the grand scheme, but we don’t know what it is.
Megha Kumar- Hindu
-again, too broad so personal view
-300 G=gods, but belief in all necessarily
-reincarnation mirrors natural view
-open to the idea that man and monkeys are cousins
-works with embryos, but taken aback by other grads. God in how you lead your life.
Basma Damiri- Muslim
- believes in both Christianity and Judaism at the same time
- The Bible, The Quaran And Science by Dr. Mauice Bucaille
- In Islam, Allah created everything, life came from water. Humans come from clay (Qur’an 21:30) Everything developed order not random, pushed by a power (Qur’an 41:11, 79:30, 39:5, 51:47)
- Origin of man… nutfah, looks like a leech/clot of blood. Then, a chewed piece of meat. Kept in three darknesses- belly, darkness, uterus. 7th century holds up well with 20th century science.
- Both work well, just need to believe, in an organized thing
Takashi Maie- Buddhist/Shinto
-Shin = god (OHHO SHINIGAMI I GOT IT)
-both very supernatural. In Shinto, preexisting gods create other gods.
-in Buddhism, depending on what karma you have here, you get placed in different levels of afterlife. BUT, reborn in another life. You become god when you escape the cycle. In principle, similar to Hinduism
-neither makes sense to him in terms of creation….just pursues science.
Dr. John Hains, Unitarian/universalists
- unterarian universalists are not Christians, but share things in spirit. In terms of phylogeny, after Judaism and before Catholicism in terms of alcoholic consumption… (joke)
- not bound by doctrine or dogma, free thinkers (includes Joseph Priestley, Louisa M. Alcott, John C. Calhoun, Bela Bartok, Dorothea Dix, Linus Pauling, Clara Barton… etc.)
- no problem with evolution, free thinking.
- In personal opinion, what separates them is to consider the possibility that they’re wrong about it, will reconsider if proper evidence is brought.
- Darwin was in this… called it a featherbed for fallen Christians.
Question time!
-how do universalists reconcile the miracle things, such as ressurection or virgin birth? Dr. Morse- “I have no clue. 1st Corinthians 13… if I’m still interested in these kinds of question when I get to heaven, I’ll ask”
John Hans- “youtube Father Reginald Foster, watch what he says about some of the stories from the Bible… miracles aren’t much different from magic”
Dr. Cohen- “…when I’m teaching, I look at the miracles as people’s reaction to events as miraculous. How people interpret is more important than how it actually occurred.. virgin birth wasn’t immediately accepted, political decision on a lot of levels in the early centuries… sociological reaction- what do people do with it, and where does it take them” Intro to world religions
Dr. Waldvogel to Basma Damiri- is evolution as a topic sidestepped or being addressed in a particular way in the education system? “The holy book explains many things… there IS an effect, things don’t happen randomly. It’s about what knowledge you know to explain, though- we can explain things in the Qur’an much better than past centuries. Now we can see things referenced before, like that Nutfah, etc. Science comes to explain things we don’t have any knowledge about”
DeWitt- answering Tomas’ question (ooh, former Christian? MAN I wish that thread still existed....)- it’s a supernatural mystery, the whole POINT is that it’s unexplainable. That’s how religion explains that… see what I’m saying?
Basra supplement- 7th century, when people asked Muhammed for a miracle, splitting the moon in half. He fretted, but then pointed, it split, then came back. Read in a magazine to prove religions and found someone who mentioned this miracle, ‘oh it’s crazy’…. But then watched tv and saw on the moon, the moon HAD split but changed back, split at some time, scienctifically. There is cause for everything,”
Meghra- “If I tried to look at all the Hindu miracles and tried to explain them, I’d probably kill myself. Kind of overboard to keep track all…”
Chris question- science isn’t necessarily responsible for answering religious questions, isn’t obligated to answer for virgin births and moon splitting, like taking a history class and expecting to learn science. Not addressed, but can be done
Dewitt- saw a movie- if you saw a miracle, how can you explain a miracle?