Why is there a fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park?

Why is this fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park, in St. Louis, Missouri? Is it there for the firefighters in case an ant hill catches fire? A flower? If I used the logic employed by Creationists, I might simply say that God put that fire hydrant there. To the extent that anyone accepts such an explanation, there would be no need for further inquiry (nor any real possibility for further inquiry). To the extent that someone accepts the "explanation" that "God did it," he or she would miss out on a rich factual history, teaming with direct evidence upon which one can build an incredibly strong circumstantial case. One really can explain the presence of this hydrant, even without direct evidence (presumably, no one who saw this hydrant being installed is still alive). I'm working on a post regarding creationism (including its modern version, "intelligent design"). Yesterday's walk in the park reminded me that circumstantial evidence can be strong, indeed. In fact, circumstantial evidence can make for airtight cases. Circumstantial evidence can even be much stronger than authority (because authorities--e.g., the park police--are often wrong). Therefore, people who really want to know don't simply throw up their hands and declare that the hydrant is there "Because God put it there" even when a person in a position of authority tells them this story. hydrant-up-close1An inspection of this hydrant shows that it was manufactured in 1887 (or is that number 1881?). It was thus installed sometime after 1881. Why would it be installed in the middle of a park? Perhaps it wasn't just a park back then. Perhaps it was installed because that land was to be the location of a huge construction project: the 1904 World's Fair held in St. Louis. Perhaps, after the Fair was over, this hydrant was not removed. Perhaps there are some photos of the Fair that would include this little fire hydrant, a vestigial reminder that something much more elaborate once occupied this place. All of these questions can be answered if one takes the time to examine real evidence that is currently available. If one looked further for evidence, one would find tons of corroboration, including a huge "Flight Cage" that now houses a bird exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo, also an original part of the 1904 World's Fair. Of course, one could also find numerous books filled with photos, names, dates and interviews. Notice that I'm referring to corroborative written materials--many sources that overlap--not simply reading one book over and over until one is more and more convinced. Creationists are happy to employ these open-minded investigative methods almost always, in almost every aspect of their lives. This method of asking questions and then following the evidence wherever it leads is actually an extension of common sense. It's a shame that when it comes to one particular incredibly important aspect of their lives, determining what kind of beings we are, creationists refuse to use this direct extension of common sense.

Continue ReadingWhy is there a fire hydrant in the middle of Forest Park?

What you can say when creationists invite you to debate them

P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula reported on an invitation sent to University of Vermont biology Professor Nicholas Gotelli, as well as Gotelli's crisp response. Here's a piece of professor Gotelli's response:

Academic debate on controversial topics is fine, but those topics need to have a basis in reality. I would not invite a creationist to a debate on campus for the same reason that I would not invite an alchemist, a flat-earther, an astrologer, a psychic, or a Holocaust revisionist. These ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren't members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish.

Continue ReadingWhat you can say when creationists invite you to debate them

“Evolution is only a theory. It hasn’t been proven.”

Here's another brilliant video from AronRa dispelling the common misperception that because we call it the "theory" of evolution that it is somehow "unproven" and therefore can be rejected. This notion comes from a misunderstanding of what scientists mean when they use the word "theory". AronRa clears that up in a little over 10 information-packed minutes. AronRa's description of the video:

"The first of a two-part final installment to this series, explaining what the words, hypothesis, fact, law, and Theory actually are, rather than what creationists want us to think they are. Hint: a scientific theory isn't a guess, but an explanative study of real phenomenon."

Continue Reading“Evolution is only a theory. It hasn’t been proven.”

What does it mean to be a primate? One of many paths through the phylogenetic tree.

Strap on your seat belt and learn about the reality of primates:

“Primates” are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

See here for the full transcript. This video constitutes a highly condensed summary of some of the basic principles of evolutionary biology so often overlooked by creationists. The author goes to pains to point out that scientists don't just make claims about evolutionary development because they want to make these claims. Rather, the conclusions of evolutionary biology are compelled by an elaborate well-documented scheme of development based on massive collections of evidence, verified by thousands of scientists over hundreds of years, including more than a few scientists who were conservative Christians. Using this evidence, we can trace the development of a species from antecedent related species , but the phylogenetic tree of life . . . can be just as objectively confirmed from the top down when re-examined genetically. This is why it is referred to as a “twin-nested hierarchy.”

Continue ReadingWhat does it mean to be a primate? One of many paths through the phylogenetic tree.

Equal opportunity creationism bashing

The December 12, 2008 issue of Science Magazine (online only to subscribers) suggests that creationism is a growing movement in many Islamic countries. The author, Salaman Hameed, writes that: The Koranic narrative of creation includes a six day account of creation. The length of each day, however, is not clearly…

Continue ReadingEqual opportunity creationism bashing