We have a nice brewery run by the Schlafly family in our town. A town already renowned for beer. But a relative by marriage is more famous than the beer because of her stance against women’s rights and against progress through knowledge. Yes, Phyllis Schlafly is in the local news with a new controversy. In brief, this Washington University Alumna has been offered an honorary degree, and the faculty is in an uproar.

Why? After all, my own commencement speaker (honoree of the year) at that institution was Bob Hope. He claimed to be the most degreed high school dropout in the world at that time. The link above goes to the article containing the full text of a scathing letter by the faculty about the choice of Schlafly, specifically from the Law School. The flap is because the faculty thinks that honoring an outspoken anti-intellectual with another degree would demean an institution of learning. At least Bob Hope says silly things on purpose.

Our own Erich had put a response up there, but I found the post it by browsing news involving Creationism, another educational priority of Ms. Schlafly. Quoth he:

The problem is that if Ms. Schlafly completely had her way, core values of true academics, including skepticism and tolerance, would be extinguished. Under those conditions, Washington University would cease to exist.

According to this article, essentially copied from the AP, Adnan Oktar, who writes as Harun Yahya, has been convicted of fraud. His extensive organization has the goal to persuade the world (or at least the schools therein) of the Truth of Young Earth Creationism, as revealed in the Bible. In his case, he began by defending Islam against that Christian Evolution Conspiracy. But he also publishes books for the YEC Christian market in which he substitutes the return of Jesus for the coming of Mahdi.

I’ve read that he does produce beautiful books in support of his ideas. I expect him to get out on appeal of his apparently politically motivated incarceration. Then he and his followers around the world will continue to produce high class anti-science textbooks the like of which the Discovery Institute only wishes they could produce.

I don’t want no god on my lawn
Just a flower I can help along
‘Cause the soul of no body knows
how a flower grows… Oh how a flower grows . . .

“Longer Boats,” by Cat Stevens (now known as Yusuf Islam).

Why are so many religious people uncomfortable with so many scientists? I can think of several reasons.

According to many Believers, scientists are arrogant know-it-alls. Believers see scientists as emotionally sterile lab-dwellers who flaunt their white coats and their fancy lab equipment.

Scientists exacerbate the situation by speaking and writing using esoteric language that makes science-phobes feel ignorant. By using such difficult concepts and language, scientists have raised the bar, which excludes many folks from joining scientific discussions.

It’s not like the “good old days,” where people were generally informed enough to join many conversations regarding science (or social science). Things are different now. Those who want to join a discussion regarding evolution, stem cells, or cosmology (to take a few examples) would be well-advised to first spend at least a week in the library reading several reputable books on these topics. This is a far greater time commitment than it takes to go to church. It’s a lot easier to accuse scientists of being “elitist” or to hurl Bible quotes than it is to take the time to responsibly prepare so that one can meaningfully participate in scientific discussions. Those who put their trust in their church leaders on matters of science are often not willing to make such an investment, however. They prefer the opinions of non-scientist preachers over those of real-life scientists. In doing this, they engage in religionism (see definition #3 here).

Making matters worse for Believers, scientists and other intellectuals have had the audacity to disprove a steady stream of religious claims. The Earth is obviously older than 6,000 years. The Shroud of Turin is a fake. The clumps of 60 cells we call blastocysts are biologically incapable of thinking or feeling (despite claims of “souls”), and not all of the words of the Bible are authentic. The list goes on and on. Almost every time scientists focus their methods on religious claims (the ones that are amenable to testing, anyway), those religious claims tend to crumble. Methodical and rigorous evidence-based analyses keep making fools of religious folks, especially literalist Believers.

It makes it even more painful for Believers that most world-class scientists have no patience with religion and they are getting more vocal about it every day. A new wave of books, including Daniel Dennett’s 2007 effort, “Breaking the Spell” rallies the troops of scientists to put religion itself under the microscope.

In the minds of Believers, the scientists have no plans to stop until they have completely destroyed everything that is sacred or moral. Look at all of the damage that they’ve already done by promoting the works of Darwin, who has A) “demoted” humans to the level of animals; B) promoted the idea that nature’s great function and beauty randomly happened; and C) made a formidable argument that nothing is truly immoral anymore because there is no longer any need for God.

Worse yet, Believers can plainly see that the scientific establishment has gained command of magic that really works (as opposed to religious magic). Those damned scientists have figured out how to build airplanes that really fly and they’ve designed diagnostic tests that really show why a person is sick. Contrast these undeniable accomplishments to the track record of Believers: prayers that don’t really heal, predictions of the end of the world that fail and promises of heaven that have absolutely no basis in fact.

That’s how many (though certainly not all) Believers see the situation. Many religious faithful are thus become motivated by what Nietzsche termed ressentiment: the transfer of the pain that accompanies feelings of inferiority onto an external scapegoat, coupled with an urge for vengeance against those who are noble.

But it gets even worse for Believers. What gripes them more than anything else is that so many scientists act like they know it ALL when they don’t really know it all. They don’t really know that there is no heaven! They can’t disprove that I talk with God in my prayers! They weren’t there when the universe was created. So why are they so certain that they are right where scientific facts collide with religious factual claims?

To many religious folks, scientists constantly threaten social traditions in an arrogant and ignorant way. Therefore, many members of conservative religions don’t merely disagree with scientists on particular issues. No, they disparage all of science (except the science that helps them disparage science, such as the science that allows them to possess those marvelous computers on which they rant about “arrogant” scientists). When this level of frustration festers, it can even culminate in the election of a President who gains immense support when he, himself, disparages science.

If the above descriptions are even half-true, no wonder scientists are the targets of so much animosity these days!

Is there anything we can do about this sad state of affairs? Perhaps there is. It would involve a reframing of what it means to be a scientist. It has to do with publicly recognizing serious limitations of science. It involves a recognition that science is a “sacred” endeavor.

I have just finished reading a provocative new article by Stuart Kauffman: “Breaking the Galilean Spell.” Kauffman is a professor of biological sciences, physics and astronomy. He is actively involved at the Santa Fe Institute and he is the author of a book on complexity that inspired me: At Home in the Universe: the Search for the Laws of Self Organization (1995). Kauffman’s writings are both rigorous and poetic.

I sense that Kauffman feels the rampant distrust that many people have regarding scientists. Although Kauffman doesn’t mention the fever-pitched ressentiment felt by many Believers, I suspect that this ressentiment motivated Kauffman to write “Breaking the Galilean Spell.” (more…)

I’ve been following the reviews of the Ben Stein “Expelled” movie since it was first shown. Many of them properly criticize it for its many inherent cinematic flaws. Others angrily take it to task for its clear violations of sense or sensibility. There is also ExpelledExposed.com, the not-mentioning of which I get chided for every time I post about this movie.

Then there are some who applaud it for “speaking the truth” and “opening conversations”. On my second post about this movie, I asked people to send me links to any non-negative review coming from sources outside of the Discovery Institute (Answers in Genesis, EvolutionNews.org, etc). I suspect that there is now an effort afoot to produce as many positive reviews as there are negative ones, in order to keep things “fair and balanced” online.

After the initial spate of bad reviews by reputable critics, various Christian columnists have been lauding it for exposing the religious suppression of the “Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design” and especially the efforts of reviewers (and scientists, and “W” appointed conservative judges) to associate this “scientific theory” with the openly religious (and mostly equivalent) ideas of Creationism. Bad intellectuals, bad experts.

But, what is this Scientific Theory? Well, an idea has to have 3 elements to qualify as a scientific theory :

1. Explain all currently and previously observed facts in the category of interest in terms of natural laws.
2. Describe what facts, if discovered, would prove it false.
3. Make predictions about future (as yet undiscovered) measurements or discoveries, and suggest how these might be found.

As near as I can tell the Scientific Theory of Intelligent Design misses on all three counts. (more…)

Yall might could be tiring of my babbling on about Bible study in science classes. But I shall continue. According to this article, Louisiana has, and Florida still may pass amendments to their education codes to give free reign to teachers who choose to use texts other than (and conflicting with) science books to teach biology in science classes. Although these remarkably similar bills don’t actually mention the Bible, Creationism, nor their apparent origin from the Discovery Institute, their intent is clear.

I’ve been following this issue for a while (here’s one of my earlier posts), and continue to find it disturbing.

The main argument they make is that nothing is “proven” in science. Dedicated and well educated scholars have been trying diligently for over 200 years to disprove evolution. Yes, the battle predates the birth of Chas. Darwin! So far, no luck. Every piece of evidence and each new tool reinforces this theory. But with shrewd political action, the anti-science crowd could win enough popular support to hide the actual science from American kids. Theocracy, here we come!

If Pope Urban VIII (nee Cardinal Mafeo Barberini) had the political clout of American Fundamentalists, the Copernican/Galilean theory of heliocentrism might still be challenged in schools.

I previously wrote that I bought a little camera that I try to take everywhere. Having that camera nearby forces me to look more carefully at the startling sights that are everywhere. Many of those sights are the postures and expressions of people, but privacy concerns keep me from freely photographing or sharing the photos of strangers (I haven’t given up somehow accomplishing this!). To this point, I’ve focused on taking photos of nature and architecture. This morning, my wife Anne and I took a walk in Forest Park (in St. Louis, Missouri). In the morning light, we came upon some startling bursts of color, causing me to take out my little camera.

When I look at biological wonders, I sometimes imagine standing with Charles Darwin and learning from him. That’s how I felt a few weeks ago at an orchid show at the Missouri Botanical Garden. Even before Darwin published his findings there were various levels at which one could appreciate nature (it’s beautiful, it’s functional, it inspires poetry). Darwin added an explosive new level, however. Such was his impressive legacy. Before I appreciated Darwin’s contributions, my attention to plants was limited. But now I see functionality embedded in the beauty–there is now so much more to behold [I was also inspired last year when I viewed David Attenborough's Private Life of Plants and Life in the Undergrowth (focuses on bugs). These are both spell-binding must-watch collections].

There are life and death wars going on out there among the plants and bugs. The thing that first caught our eye this morning was this flowering fruit tree. It was truly exploding with blossoms in its effort to propagate.

It’s beauty was “fractal,” in that it offered similar views from different distances. Anne especially enjoyed the contrast between the blossoms and the blue sky behind them. She took the photo below.

I was most fascinated by the sex organs of the trees (see below photo–parental discretion advised).

As we strolled away from this tree I noticed the expansive patches of clover that were lit up by a huge ball of nuclear explosions 93 million miles away. I took this picture to illustrate a quirky story: I have repeatedly seen something (actually many things) that I can’t explain. This particular story has to do with my wife Anne. She has the uncanny ability to spot a four-leaf clover while walking briskly. I’ve seen her do this several dozen times. When walking, she will stop suddenly, maybe back up a step or two and then reach down to pick up a four leaf clover. The first few times I witnessed this, I suspected that it might be a trick, but it wasn’t. She can really do it.

What makes it more amazing (or, perhaps, more believable) is that Anne’s mother can also do this. They are both gifted with incredibly sharp long-distance vision, but that really doesn’t explain this ability. For most people, finding a four leaf clover requires getting down on one’s knees and carefully and slowly fingering through the individual plants. When I ask Anne how she does it, she says “I just see them. Four leaf clovers stand out. (more…)

The new Ben Stein movie, “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” opens today. It is only showing in Wehrenberg Theaters farther out from the city. (Movies.com link). Before today, it has only been seen by fundamentalist congregations, hand-picked audiences, and selected legislatures.

If you’ve read my earlier post and long comment thread about it, you know that I am not suggesting that you go and pay them for producing this piece of nominally documentary film.

In brief, the movie is about the theological Darwinist conspiracy to keep seekers of truth out of academia. There are plenty of clips of Nazi atrocities interspersed with quote-mined interviews with actual scientists. It apparently makes Michael Moore productions seem fair and balanced.

It has been shown to closed door presentations to legislatures as bills were being discussed to include or allow “alternate theories” to scientifically established ideas in science classes in several states, including Florida, Texas, and my own Missouri.

If ever there was a Dangerous Intersection between faith and society, this film is on that cusp.

In 2009, many of us will celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his publication of On the Origin of Species.

In these modern times, where Darwin is vilified by millions of people who cherry-pick their apocryphal holy books, it is refreshing and humbling to review the many accomplishments that make Charles Darwin such an noteworthy thinker and scientist.

Professor of integrative biology Kevin Padian has taken the time to come up with ten of Darwin’s most notable accomplishments. Padian’s list was published in the February 7, 2008 edition of Nature (only available to subscribers online). As Padian notes, Darwin’s contributions “can scarcely be reduced to a simple list, but the following 10 topics and at the magnitude of the man’s legacy.”

• Darwin conceptualized the diversification of species as coming from a single stock and springing forth in a tree-like pattern of descent. Padian notes that this “unity of life” approach was independently confirmed by geneticists more than a century after Darwin published his Origin.
  
  Above is Darwin’s 1837 sketch of the treelike diversification of species from a single stock (republished in the Nature article).

• Darwin’s tree of life implied a genealogical relatedness among all life forms.
• Darwin recognized ubiquitous gaps in the great chain of being. “The living world is a patchwork of possible forms, with most transitional stages and features removed.” Padian explains that these gaps are why it is so easy to separate living things into discrete major groups and why it’s sometimes are difficult to link life forms.
• Darwin calculated geological time paste upon the wearer of rock formations in England. He concluded that “Deep Time” was necessary to explain the changes in life forms, and this passage of time was much more than the 6,000 years proposed by Bible scholars.
• Darwin was the first to recognize understandable biogeographical distributions of species. Living things were not distributed serendipitously
• Darwin recognized the importance of sexual selection, the process by which many species developed characteristics that would give them advantages in reproduction rather than immediate survival.
• Through his study of orchids, Darwin recognized the importance of co-evolution: “species of very different origins have evolved mutual ecological relations through time they have come to affect critical aspects of their morphologies. Other good examples are vertebrates and their parasites and lichens (composed of algae and fungi).
• Darwin’s idea of the “economy of nature” was the birth of the science of ecology.
• Darwin recognized that change was gradual, not necessarily in a slow and smooth way, but in a (from the Latin gradas, meaning “step”) step-like way. This method of conceptualizing change was further developed by Stephen Jay Gould through his concept of punctuated equilibrium.

Padian characterizes Darwin’s most notable accomplishment as moving the study of biology “from a paradigm of untestable wonder at special creation to inability to examine the workings of that natural world, however ultimately formed, in terms of natural mechanisms and historical patterns.”For his numerous of competences, Darwin was honored by being buried in Westminster Abbey.

Check out this current website from Tylenol.   You’ll see that McNeil (maker of Tylenol) has heroically and voluntarily removed all of these medicines from the market:

Concentrated TYLENOL® Infants’ Drops Plus Cold
Concentrated TYLENOL® Infants’ Drops Plus Cold & Cough
PediaCare® Infant Dropper Decongestant
PediaCare® Infant Dropper Long-Acting Cough
PediaCare® Infant Drops Decongestant (containing pseudoephedrine)
PediaCare® Infant Dropper Decongestant & Cough
PediaCare® Infant Drops Decongestant & Cough (containing pseudoephedrine)

Why remove all these children’s medicines?  According to Tylenol, it’s because:

[W]e have become aware of rare instances of misuse leading to accidental overdose, especially in children under the age of two. Therefore, we are voluntarily withdrawing [these] concentrated cough and cold medicines from the market.

Really? Does the manufacturer of Tylenol really believe that it is removing these drugs only because consumers are misusing Tylenol products?  Or could it be something else, perhaps this relatively recent and damning press release by a reputable group of pediatricians:

Cold and cough medicines given to infants and toddlers work no better than dummy pills and can be dangerous, pediatricians seeking to curb their use told government health advisers Thursday.

The doctors told the Food and Drug Administration advisers that the over-the-counter medicines shouldn’t be given to children younger than 6 because they don’t help them and aren’t safe. Such a prohibition would go beyond last week’s drug industry move to eliminate sales of the nonprescription drugs targeted at children under 2.

The group petitioned the FDA seeking in part a government statement saying the medications shouldn’t be used in older children as well. The expert advisers began a two-day meeting to consider the issue. The FDA has yet to act, in part pending a recommendation expected late Friday from the joint panel of outside experts in pediatrics and nonprescription drugs, said the agency’s Dr. Joel Schiffenbauer.

The medicines have been marketed for use in children for decades, with drug companies spending $50 million a year on heart-tugging ads in parenting magazines and elsewhere. Still, it has long been acknowledged there is little or no data from studies in the very young to show the medicines are safe and work. Worse, some studies suggest the medicines are no better than dummy pills in treating cold and cough symptoms in young children, the petitioners said.

“When a treatment is ineffective, its risks — if not zero — always will exceed its benefits,” said Dr. Michael Shannon, a Children’s Hospital Boston pediatrician and Harvard Medical School professor who was another of the petitioners.

It’s quite amazing that the drug companies might be selling chemicals that don’t really do what the drug manufacturers say they do.  It’s most amazing because it happens so incredibly often.  

What do I mean?  Consider the recent news regarding the scam regarding Prozac and other modern antidepressants.   And remember Vioxx, the “miracle” drug that created 100,000 widows and widowers?   Not only are some of these drugs dangerous; another aspect of the scam is that many of these medical “miracles” don’t function any better than placebos for many patients.  

But back to Tylenol.  This isn’t the first time Tylenol has been caught scamming the public.  If you Google “acetaminophen” and “liver,” you’ll see hundreds of sites that talk about the danger of taking a too much Tylenol (which might surprise you, given the common belief that there is considerable tolerance built into the product and given the existence of Extra-Strength Tylenol).  Follow this link to see that the makers of Tylenol have fought hard, at least since 1977, to keep the public from knowing that overdoses of Tylenol can cause liver failure.  

How else would you explain that the FDA and the pharmaceutical makers delayed giving liver failure warnings for decades?  Since 2003, Tylenol has carried a liver toxicity warning, but it makes you wonder how many lives it cost when it delayed giving that warning.  It cost more lives when consumers use the cup that comes with Children’s Tylenol (see above photo) with the concentrated formulas of cough and cold concoctions (now discontinued) that should be administered with a dropper. You see, the discontinued formulas had higher concentrations of acetaminopen.  A parent mistakenly using the little plastic cup (that comes with children’s Tylenol)  instead of the dropper (that came with the (now-discontinued infant formulas) could destroy childen’s livers.  According to the manufacturer, it’s the consumer’s faut, even though swapping the cup for the dropper was entirely foreseeable.  But now, the maker of Tylenol can blame the consumers for the need to take these products off the market rather than admit (because the pediatricians were correct) that these products didn’t really work.

Aside from the risk of liver toxicity (which exists only when the consumer more than the recommended dose of Tylenol), isn’t Tylenol an important and effective way to reduce your child’s fever?  Is fever always a bad thing?

Mass marketing has programmed parents to fear all fevers and to feel a deep need to prove their dedication to their children by pouring bright red chemicals into their children’s mouths at the first sign of fever. 

I have a different understanding of fever than most American consumers.   I believe that Tylenol’s multi-billion dollar budget (more money is spent per year on Tylenol than on Coca-Cola) is geared to making people needlessly anxious about fevers.   A low grade fever is not always dangerous.   In fact, it is rarely dangerous. Here are some guidelines as to when to treat a child’s fever.  

The maker of Tylenol (and those who manufacture other fever-reducing products) have successfully convinced the public that something absolutely must be done to bring down all fevers in young children.  Is that good medical advice?  Usually not.  The pediatrician treating my children made it clear to my wife and me that even a fever that spikes up to 106 is not a problem in a young child as long as that child is hydrating (drinking fluids and peeing regularly).   At some point, of course a sustained fever should give a parent concern.  But a few days of 102 or 103 is usually nothing to be worried about—unless you watch a lot of television commercials that tell you that you MUST get that fever down by pouring those bright red chemicals into your child’s body (chemicals that are potentially harmful to your child’s liver). 

Here’s one other thing to consider.  (more…)

I will be in the Cincinnati area this weekend for fun and business. My only dilemma is to decide whether to spend the time and money to actually visit this edifice of counterknowledge?

I’ve written about this place on D.I. since before it was completed. (List of mentions of it on our own blog). Plenty of other bloggers have been there and reported on it with pictures and video. The hotel we are staying in is so close that they keep a block of rooms and a special discount rate for visitors to the museum.

Do I want to give these people my money, and tacit support, just to have better credentials to refute their claims? Do I want to miss out on some hours of dancing (and/or selling) in order to do this?

I have just finished reading Neil Shubin’s new book: Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5 Billion Year History of the Human Body (2008). Shubin is one of those writers who writes to you as though he is speaking to you.  He manages to keep his sentences short yet friendly while he takes you on a mind-blowing journey from single-celled organisms up to his detailed explorations of human animals. Shubin is Provost of the Field Museum in Chicago, as well as a professor of anatomy at the University of Chicago.

The audience that really needs to read Shubin’s book will actively avoid reading it, of course.  Just think of the frustration that creationists already have with their idea that evolution teaches that “humans descended from monkeys.”  I hear this wrongheaded claim repeatedly and it gets quite tedious explaining to the creationist ignoramuses that no modern believer in evolution believes that humans descended from “monkeys.”  The irony of correcting creationists, however, is that the story of how the Earth’s creatures evolved is actually incredibly more interesting and challenging than the creationist’s simplistic version of evolution.  For instance, human ancestors include not only primates; they include fish too, and reptiles and worms.  Neil Shubin takes us on this awesome journey and there is much to share along the way.

I previously wrote about one of the incredible transitional forms discussed by Shubin, tiktaalik, an ancient fish that crawled out of the water. Tiktaalik, however, is only one of numerous transitional forms.  In fact, if there is a deep lesson to learn from reading Your Inner Fish, it is that every form, every plant and every animal, is literally and truly a transitional form.  Each of the earths living organisms is on a journey from what it used to be, heading toward what it is becoming.  Those who are on this journey include human animals, of course.  We can’t easily see where we are going, but the information provided by fossils, DNA and other objective evidence tells us where we’ve been.

One of the many transitional forms Shubin describes is the trithrledont, part mammal and part reptile, the telltale mark being tiny bumps and ridges on its teeth that included tooth-to-tooth occlusion (70). Shubin doesn’t only work in labs and classrooms.  He had a major part in finding some of the incredible fossils he describes, including trithrledont.   I especially enjoyed his description of how one develops an “eye” for finding fossils. 

Over time, I began to learn the visual cues for other kinds of bones: long bones, jawbones and skull parts.  Once you see these things you never lose the ability to find them.  Just as a great fisherman can read the water and see the fish within, so a fossil finder uses a catalog of search images that make fossils seem to jump out from the rocks.

Looking for fossils is hard work, but Shubin reminds us what is at stake:

Early mammals were small.  Very small.  Their teeth were not much more than 2 mm long.  To spot them, you had to be very careful and, more often, very lucky.  If the tooth was covered by a crumb of rock or even a few grains of sand, you might never see it…. occasionally… I’d hit the jackpot and see a deep connection for the first time…. I was seeing some of the first evidence of our pattern of precise chewing, only in a tiny mammal 190 million years old.  The power of these moments was something I’ll never forget.  Here, cracking rocks in the dirt, I was discovering objects that could change the way people think.  That juxtaposition between the most childlike, even humbling, activities and one of the great human intellectual aspirations has never been lost on me.  I try to remind myself of it each time I dig somewhere new.

There are many good lessons in Your Inner Fish.  For example, Shubin tells us about the non-obvious connections between teeth, breasts, feathers and hair: they all developed from skin (79).  He describes how worms are yet another good example of a transitional form. Evolutionarily speaking, it is from worms that we got our heads (96).  But don’t go thinking that we have evolved completely beyond the simple forms of worms.  In utero, each of us initially becomes a simple tube “with a fold of swelling at the head end and another at the tail” (101).  Those cells can unfold themselves into a large animal only by doing their extraordinary biochemical magic.  Most importantly, those tiny cells need to know how to talk to each other.  Such communication was a complex development that did not occur until halfway through the history of life on Earth.  Where is the halfway point?  Shubin illustrates how long it is taken for the human animal to get where it is:

Take the entire 4.5 billion year history of the earth and scale it down to a single year, with January 1 being the origin of the earth and midnight on December 31 being the president.  Until June, the only organisms were single celled microbes such as algae, bacteria and amoeba.  The first animal with a head did not appear until October.  The first human appears on December 31 (119).

We are reminded by Shubin of the many ways that we are still like single-celled organisms.  (more…)

Imagine that a neighbor walks up today and tells you that he really cares about you.   In fact, he loves you like a daughter/son and he wants to show his love.  You might be delighted to hear such an expression of affection. 

Then imagine that he tells you that he wants to prove to you that he cares for you.  He wants to prove it in a way that you will never doubt the depth of his caring.  

You would probably be thinking that he’s going to do something nice.  Maybe he will give a big donation to charity in your name.  Or maybe he will go buy you something nice, or take you to dinner at a good restaurant.  But then he surprises you.

He reminds you that he has an adult son named Bill (which you knew, because you know Bill).  He then tells you that he is going to let a mob of goons torture and murder Bill in a bloody spectacle, for you!

You are aghast, but he continues on.

He tells you that he is going to let that mob drive large nails through Bill’s hands and feet, for you, to prove that he cares about you.   For a grand finale, he is going to allow this sadistic crowd to jab a spear through Bill’s side, to make sure that every drop of blood has been drained from Bill’s body.

It would be patently obvious to you that decent people don’t “show their love” by allowing their loved ones to be murdered.   At this point you are thinking that your neighbor is nuts and probably highly dangerous, because your neighbor’s logic points to an eternal regress.  If he lets Bill (his beloved son) get killed to show his love for you, then someday he might allow you to be killed to “show his love” to someone else. Where might this ever stop? 

The much bigger problem, of course, is that being complicit in murder is not a healthy way to show love to anyone.   Decent human cultures prohibit gratuitous murder.  We deplore those who allow mergers to happen when they could intervene and stop them.  Facilitating murder is a warped and disturbing attempt to demonstrate love.  

Similarly, the claim that God sacrificed his Son to show his love for us appears to be a blatant non sequitur.  It shouldn’t make sense for anyone, anywhere.  Except that it does make sense to Christians. Christians make a jarring and nonsensical exception for God, who is supposedly the most intelligent and loving Being in the universe.  (more…)

The place is the Denver Museum of Nature and Science.

The outcome is predictable, but this video is nonetheless worth watching to appreciate the extent to which the creationists intentionally deceive themselves. Along the way, the creationist teachers work hard to avoid considering evidence that disproves their bizarre religious beliefs.

According to this ABC News report, the Denver Museum of Nature and Science allows private tours for children so that the displays can be properly interpreted to keep them from accepting the displayed, scientifically derived explanations as true.

Yes, the actual science displays are being specially interpreted to support Young Earth and Divine Creation theology. It certainly is cheaper than busing all those kids all the way to Kentucky for the Creation Museum tour.

The tour guides

dismiss much of what’s on display in the museum as “pseudo-science” and describe many of the graphic depictions of paleontology and evolution as merely “artwork.”

They get the children to recite that “Evolution is just a religion”.

The creators of this tour

“are now training other people around the country to hold similar tours at their local museums, and they are also putting together tour materials for Christian teachers.

Is it just me, or is something wrong with our education system, in general?

“There is no evidence whatsoever that flowering plants evolved.”  

Answers In Genesis

I can understand this resistance to believing that orchids evolved without the help of God-the-Artist.  I understood this resistance while strolling through an extraordinary display of orchids today at the Missouri Botanical Garden.   

It was like looking at fireworks.  Just when you thought you had seen it all, you would see yet another dazzling package of color and shape.  Why would “Nature” waste such time on crafting such masterpieces?  For those primed by a religious upbringning, the emotions would compel the thought that flowers of this type must be no less than “God’s” aesthetic gift to Humankind.

Such thinking, of course, is prevalent among creationists.  Prevalent and wrong.   Not that orchids sculpted by natural selection are any less stunning in appearance that those that might have been crafted by an omniscent deity.   They are what they are.  They are compelling beings, those orchids.  They are beautiful and they are alive.   And they can be appreciated by anyone, of any world view, who comes to view them.  I imagine that, today, many creationists lined up with those who are convinced by evolutionary theory, all of them appreciating the orchids. 

Viewing this orchid display reminded me of Darwin’s writings regarding the many versions of finches Darwin observed on his trip to the Galapagos.   Regarding those finches, Darwin concluded that, in geographical isolation, the various species of finches evolved from a small number of common ancestors so that each species was thus modified to suit “different ends.”  Darwin’s conclusion that the species of finches specialized due to geographical isolation was key to the development of his theory of natural selection.  

Darwin studied orchids carefully after publishing On the Origin of Species in 1859.  Darwin later published a book called On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects and the Good Effects of Intercrossing.  Rather than argue that the beauty of orchids was God’s effort to please humans, Darwin argued that the various species of flowers were honed by natural selection to attract specific types of insect cross-pollinators.   Incredibly, there are more than 22,000 known species of orchids.

The following excerpt, published by Nature (on the PBS site) notes the significance of orchids to Darwin:  (more…)

Here’s a clever video that challenges the commonly mentioned creationist claim (based on William Paley’s arguments) that evolution is impossible for the same reasons that it is impossible for the parts of a clock to assemble themselves into a functioning clock.

Here’s the main point made by this video: When discussing evolution, make sure you are comparing apples to apples (clocks are not living organisms). And beware straw man arguments.

It seems to me that Darwinism is to this election cycle as Family Values and Abortion have been to previous ones. There has been a recent rash of books and now a movie all pointing out how a conspiracy of elites are following the Darwin manifesto to create a facist atheist state.

Am I overstating it? Read this criticism (including their own release blurb) of Ben Stein’s new movie, “Expelled”. This movie about how bully tactics are what keeps the theory of evolution uncontested is scheduled for a mid-April release. But is already playing to mega-churches and closed-door sessions of school boards and state legislatures. Mainstream press has not yet officially had access to it.

Legislatures? According to NowPress.com in this short article:

The invitation to “Expelled” is just for legislators and their spouses, along with legislative aides. The press and public is excluded.

House Minority Leader Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, asked House general counsel Jeremiah Hawkes if that’s legal — since Florida law requires open meetings whenever two or more lawmakers meet to discuss pending business. Hawkes replied that, as long as they just watch the film and don’t discuss the issue or arrange any future votes, it’s technically legal.

Why? Because Florida just modified its education policy to require the Evolution to be mentioned in biology classes as a Scientific Theory. Two representatives have now introduced bills that would allow teachers to present discussion of “Intelligent Design” in science classes. The Florida Family Policy Council (one of the many branches of Focus on the Family) is the group sponsoring the showing.

(more…)

National Geographic has just published a terrific article summarizing the many ways in which animals think.   Here’s the article.  You can watch a short accompanying video on this topic of animal cognition here.

I like the approach to both the article and the video.  They are both centered around large beautiful portraits of many of the animals discussed, including Azy the orangutan, now-deceased Alex, the (famous) gray parrot, Kanzi, the (also famous) bonobo, Betsy the border collie, JB the giant Pacific octopus (an invertebrate that exhibits play behavior), tool-using New Caledonian crows, and an unnamed cichlid (a type of fish that is surprisingly savvy about social rank).  Even earthworms make a cameo appearance, based upon their ability to carefully select the right kind of leafy matter to block their tunnels.

I found the information to be clearly presented and startling, even though I was already familiar with many of these animal accomplishments.  Seeing these demonstrations of animal intelligence gathered in one article, accompanied by these wonderful portraits, brings home Darwin’s conclusion that the diversification of species has common roots; that there is, indeed, a biological unity of all life. 

The take-away message from the National Geographic article: “A whole range of animal studies now suggest that the roots of cognition are deep, widespread, and highly malleable.”

I can’t say enough good things about National Geographic.  In a perfect world, every household would have a subscription to National Geographic.

I am a wealthy person, but not in the way most people understand “wealthy.”  I don’t drive an expensive car (I drive a 9-year old Saturn).   I don’t own a vacation house.  I don’t expect to retire for many years. 

I am wealthy because I am a survivor.  I have repeatedly escaped adversity and I’ve repeatedly stumbled into enough lucky situations.   These unplanned events add up to an undeniable and compelling form of wealth.

When most people consider how “fortunate” they are, they engage in some form of ”accounting.”  For starters, they add up their savings and they subtract amounts they owe to others.   That gives them a financial base line.  There’s more to figuring wealth, of course.  

Some people consider their health when they assess their wealth.  If their bodies are in tolerable working order, that’s something well worth noting, especially for those over thirty.   Among people discussing age, I often assert that after thirty, “age” is mostly about health rather than chronological age.  Young adults snicker at this (I used to).  But imagine a room full of forty-year olds.  Everyone in the room is about forty, but just look how different they are!  Some of them look and act like they’re 25 and others are functional 75 year olds, often due to obesity, history of injury or illness, lack of exercise, poor nutrition, lack of sleep or various detrimental addictions.  The bottom line is that if you’re body is working even tolerably, that’s a big plus when figuring out your “wealth.”

Some people might want to stir misfortune and lost opportunities into their personal calculus.  They dwell on those big job promotions they didn’t quite get.  They remind themselves that they went to crappy schools and they weren’t able to make the right social connections.  I admit that there are lots of things that keep us from rising higher, socially and financially.   It’s tempting to obsess about those things, but it’s also important to remember that it’s unlikely that those sorts of missed opportunities and misadventures really pulled down one’s general level of happiness.   In short, there’s a poor correlation between money and happiness.

Here’s another source of real wealth you should consider when calculating your fortune:  the lack of bad things and the bucketfuls of near-misses.   For instance, most adult drivers have had dozens of close calls when driving.   Each time that an oncoming car veers over the center line, but then pulls back before striking your car, that made you very rich indeed!   How do I calculate that infusion of wealth?  It’s easy.  If that car actually hit your car, it would have sent you to the hospital, or at least, to the car repair shop.  You would have lost dozens or hundreds of hours and dollars recuperating or fixing the damage.   If you had been struck by that oncoming car and you were laid up in the hospital with a serious injury, what would you be willing to pay to have a magic little elf appear in your room and simply wish away all the pain and frustration, to make you healed and put your life back in order?  Presumably a lot of money. (more…)

In the January 31, 2008 edition of Nature, author Dan Jones reviews what evolution indicates about human killing humans.  As with many human behaviors, the evolutionists divide on whether killing of other humans is an adaptation (a change in organisms that allows them to live more successfully in an environment) or a “byproduct of urges toward some other goal.”  There are intriguing arguments for both sides. 

Some have suggested that individual murder is more likely a byproduct, whereas organized violence (such as the type we see in wars) is more often an adaptation.  What is the biological evidence pointing to something other than byproduct?  A 1997 study found that “the average volume of the orbitofrontal cortex between men and women accounts for about half of the variation in antisocial behavior between the sexes.” Combine this with Jane Goodall’s observations of gang violence in chimpanzees, where “the adult males of one community systematically attacked and killed the males of another group over a period of years, with the victorious group eventually absorbing the remaining victims.” 

It is incredibly hard to weed out the cultural factors from the biological, of course.  Here’s something I found interesting.  Interpersonal attacks leading to death have declined dramatically over the past few centuries.

After rising from an average of 32 homicides per 100,000 people per year in the 13th and 14th centuries to 41 in the 15th, the murder rate has steadily dropped in every subsequent century, 21.9, 11, 3.2, 2.6 and finally 1.4 in the 20th century.

Not that anyone is suggesting that human biological evolution could account for this decline in human killings.  This period of eight centuries is much too short a time period for evolution to have had any meaningful effect.  (more…)

It’s difficult to overcome the prejudice that having more choices is always better.   In The Paradox of Choice, Barry Schwartz made a convincing case that too much choice can overload and paralyze us.   I couldn’t help but think of the paradox of choice while grocery shopping yesterday.  

One of the major chains of grocery stores in the midwest is Schnucks (that’s right, 7 consonants and only one vowel).   Schnucks has done business in St. Louis since well before I was born.  I’m assuming that Schnucks is a typical grocery store and, therefore, that it stocks as many as 30,000 different products in each of its stores–a formidable number.

As I shopped yesterday, I took a few photos to illustrate the point made by Barry Schwartz.   Here, for instance, is the mustard aisle, offering you about 30 kinds of mustard:

And that’s just the beginning.  Here’s the pickle department.  I will occasionally eat a pickle, but if you told me that I could never again have a pickle, it wouldn’t upset me in the least.  Many people value pickles more highly than I do, apparently.  Here they are, dozens of types of pickles, ready for you to choose.

I was on a roll (and I was having some fun), so I moved over to the pasta aisle:

There were a lot more types of pasta than one could fit in a single photo.  

Was there any major product, I wondered, where you could simply choose between two or three types?  The answer is “no” regarding most of the things most of us purchase most of the time.  There were hundreds of types of liquor, tea, cheese, snacks, cookies, cake mixes, cereals and pizzas, all of this choice making it so incredibly difficult to whisk in and out of the store.   You can imagine a comment echoing across America every day:  “No, not that type!  I wanted you to buy the mini, mint flavored, instant, Brazilian, fiber-enhanced, artificially sweetened low-fat version with individual servings!”

Ready for another photo?  How many types of peanut butter can there possibly be?  After all, it’s only smashed up peanuts with a bit of sweetener, right?

Actually, there are many types of smashed up peanuts with a bit of sweetener (some types coming with no sweetener).  

I decided to end my little tour at the non-dairy creamer section, assuming that there would be only few types of this product (I’m not a coffeee or tea drinker, and I’ve never actually paid attention).

There they were.  Enough brands to start a fight in any well-behaved household in the country. 

I can’t find the statistics to support me at the moment, but it seems to me that grocery stores doing business when I was young (in the 1960’s) probably carried only 20% as many products as modern grocers.  It’s also funny to consider what “works” for modern buying clubs.  Costco seems to do very well with only a couple types of each food product.   If you want pretzels, you pick either this one or that one.   If you want a jar of Vitamin D tablets, here’s your only choice (unlike the mega vitamin selection you’ll find in a Walgreen’s–if you really want to have your head spun around by choices of vitamins or supplements, shop on the Internet.  For instance, the Vitamin Shoppe brags that it carries 20,000 distinct products. 

Choosing a tombstone can also be exhausting, according to Rock of Ages.  You’ve simply got to pick the right one, or