Dover, Dover, Dover

I don't really have anything to add about this that hasn't been said better by others smarter than me. Well, OK, that's not true. I have plenty to add. But for now, I'm just going to point to someone who's gone to a lot of effort to collect a whole bunch of information on the Dover Intelligent Design case.

It's The Kitzmiller Carnival at The Questionable Authority.

Maybe I'll have more to say later, but for now all I'll say is outstanding work by Judge Jones. I'm not an attorney, but that was the most fun I've ever had reading a judicial ruling.

Busy day in the battle against scientific illiteracy

So, let's see what we have here.

The History Channel has a new show, Ape to Man: The Evolution of Evolution. Ostensibly, it's about the history of research into human origins. I tivo'ed it last night, guess I'll watch it some time this week. PZ Myers has a long critique of it up on his site.

Anthropologist John Hawks has posted a review, as well.

And, of course, The History Channel's forum has been overrun with creationists as a result. I just can't bring myself to go there.

The cover of this week's Time Magazine is about "The Evolution Wars." Good grief. Sensationalize much? Guess I'll be reading that one some time this week. Time has gone downhill in recent years, so I'm not holding my breath expecting a good article...

The Seattle Times weighs in with an editorial on the "philosophy" of Intelligent Design.

Father Andrew Greely, described on his website as

One of the most influential Catholic thinkers and writers of our time, priest, sociologist, author and journalist Father Andrew M. Greeley has built an international assemblage of devout fans over a career that spans five decades. He is the author of over 50 best-selling novels and more than 100 works of non-fiction and his writing has been translated into 12 languages. A Professor of Sociology at the University of Arizona and a Research Associate with the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, Father Greeley is a respected scholar whose current research focuses on the Sociology of Religion.

has a nicely written op-ed piece pleading for religion to stop meddling with science.

Last but not least, The London Times (free registration required) has the story of what's becoming a very public disagreement between Father George Coyne, an American Jesuit priest and a distinguished astronomy professor and Cardinal Christoph Shonborn over Intelligent Design. Some excerpts of Father Coyne's remarks (courtesy of Red State Rabble):

"God is working with the universe. The universe has a certain vitality of its own like a child does..."

(God) "... is not constantly intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves,"

"... [R]eligious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator or designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

"Perhaps God should be seen more as a parent or as one who speaks encouraging and sustaining words."

"This view is compatible with the Bible, which gives God human characteristics and presents divinity as "a God who gets angry, who disciplines, a God who nurtures the universe, who empties himself in Christ the incarnate word."

According to the Catholic News Service, Father Coyne criticized Cardinal Schonborn for saying that the scientific processes of "chance" and "necessity" cannot explain the presence of purpose and design in nature. He gave the example of two hydrogen atoms meeting in the universe.

"By necessity (the laws of chemical combination) they are destined to become a hydrogen molecule. But by chance the temperature and pressure conditions at that moment are not correct for them to combine. And so they wander through the universe until they finally combine."

"By the interaction of chance and necessity, many hydrogen molecules are formed and eventually many of them combine with oxygen to make water, and so on, until we have very complex molecules and eventually the most complicated organism that science knows: the human brain."

"Chance" and "necessity" are continuously interacting and must be understood as being tied to the scientific process of "fertility" by which the universe is constantly generating matter, he said.

"The classical question as to whether the human being came about by chance, and so has no need of God, or by necessity, and so through the action of a designer God, is no longer valid," he said."The meaning of chance and necessity must be seen in the light of that fertility," he said.

The universe contains trillions of stars and they "release to the universe the chemical abundance of the elements necessary for life," he said.

"There is no other way, for instance, to have the abundance of carbon necessary to make a toenail than through the thermonuclear processes in stars. We are all literally born of stardust," he said.

Evolution is a continuous process and "has a certain intrinsic natural directionality in that the more complex an organism becomes the more determined is its future," he said.

"It is precisely the fertility of the universe and the interaction of chance and necessity in the universe which are responsible for the directionality," said Father Coyne.

Teach Both Sides

I found this on Anne's Anti-Quackery & Science Blog:

Pretty funny.

Congressional Intimidation

It appears as if the Republicans in Congress are spending their time wisely, attempting to intimidate and discredit several prominent climatologists because of their roles in the climate change debate. Judging by their responses, it does not appear that the scientists are particularly intimidated.

Rep. Joe Barton, Chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, recently sent letters requesting "information regarding global warming studies."

Responses have come fast and furious:

• A statement from the EGU


• The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)


• A Nature editorial


• A letter from US scientists


• A letter from the head of the National Academy of Sciences


• A commentary from Tom Crowley in EOS


• The House Committee on Science and Henry Waxman


• Response of Michael Mann


• Response of Ray Bradley


• Response of Malcolm Hughes

Full discussion of the matter can be found on RealClimate.org:

Many in the scientific community would welcome any genuine interest in climate change from the committee, but the tone and content of these letters have alarmed many scientists and their professional organisations. In the words of Alan Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Barton letters "give the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings, rather than a search for understanding."

-- from RealClimate.org

Science Friday on Science and Religion, and other topics

Yesterday's Science Friday dealt with issues between science and religion, as well as Mars, Titan, and who knows what else:

Science and Religion Part 1: Physical Sciences
Science and Religion Part 2: Biological Sciences

I'm listening to the first part right now, and about the only comment I'll make is that I love listening to Steven Weinberg. He's just a no bullshit kind of guy. The other guest I'm finding fascinating to listen to is Varadaraja Raman, Professor Emeritus of Physics and Humanities, Rochester Institute of Technology. Oddly, even with the other two guests representing the "religion" side, there hasn't been much disagreement among the guests so far other than some relatively minor differences in religion's personal significance to each of them. Then again, this crew isn't exactly representative of the population in general... I feel certain once they start taking calls from listeners we'll hear some disagreement.

I'm looking forward to listening to the second hour (see link above) with Susan Jacoby.

Update! I knew it wouldn't last. The very first caller in Part I complained about scientists actively trying to disprove "religion," and that she, as a Christian, had arrived at a belief in Intelligent Design via application of logic. When questioned, she confirmed that really the only science she has a problem with is evolution.

Now this is just silly, and intellectually lazy. If evolution gives you problems, you should be honest and apply the same criteria to other areas of science. You'll quickly find many other things that give you problems. Again, this kind of honest comment reveals that evolutionary theory is being singled out by the proponents of Intelligent Design, and that it's not really about "balanced treatement" despite their claims to the contrary.

Realclimate.org

I've found RealClimate.org, a weblog started by several actual climatologists to combat the politically-motivated PR machine that questions the veracity of anthropogenic climate change. One of the primary authors of the site is Dr. Michael Mann, from the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences. One of the most vocal critics of anthropogenic climate change (ie, "global warming") is Dr. Patrick Michaels, also of the University of Virginia Dept. of Environmental Sciences. I wonder what they say to each other at the department coffee maker each morning...

Anyway,RealClimate.org is an interesting place to visit. A recent post is an in-depth critique of Michael Crichton's new fictional novel State of Fear. There's another lengthy post taking political columnist George Will to task for a recent column in which he enthusiastically and uncritically endorses the views contained in State of Fear.

Read it all and make up your own mind. Most of the critical comment seem to be along the lines of "You are all just a bunch of tree-hugging dumbass liberals." Not very helpful. One individual commented that she (?) thought George Will probably knows more about science than the scientists know about politics, so the scientists should just shut up and leave George alone. This comment only reinforces my personal opinion that the global warming debate is rooted more in politics than science; the science, while not entirely indisputable, is broadly supported within the scientific community in general and within the discipline of climatology in particular. The notable opponents seem to be motivated by a political agenda rather than the desire for "good science." Not that they will come out an admit it...

Climatologists vs Michael Crichton

I found some interesting reading regarding this whole Michael Crichton business. I'll try to post them tomorrow. Right now I'm tired and sick of staring at the computer screen, so I'm going to bed...

Georgia anti-evolution stickers

An amicus curiae brief has been posted by TalkOrigins.org. The brief was filed in support of the challenge to the anti-evolution stickers in the Selman v. Cobb County School District case.

Law Evolution Science and Junk Science has an excellent legal analysis of the brief.

Intelligent Design in the NY Times

The New York Times recently published an Op-Ed piece on the latest dust-up between biologists and the religious right. It's worth reading (free registration required).

If the link doesn't work, it was authored by Susan Jacoby and published on 19 January, 2005.

Scientist vs O'Reilly

I just don't even know what to make of this one. Actually, I do know what to make of it; there's so much wrong I don't know where to begin.

So, I'm not going to go into detail why this whole exchange depresses and outrages me, you'll have to follow the links.

Bill O'Reilly defended Intelligent Design recently on his nightly show, here's the transcript.

Evolutionblog has a detailed treatment of the exchange, as does The Panda's Thumb.

The only comment I'm going to make on this whole mess is in regard to this statement by the author of Evolutionblog:

As I said yesterday, these chat shows exist for the sole purpose of aggrandizing their hosts. What O'Reilly understands that many of his guests do not understand is that talking to his viewers is like to talking to babies: It doesn't matter what you say. All that matters is the tone you use. You will never be able to nail someone like O'Reilly because he works completely unfettered by any regard for the truth or the facts. All that matters is that he is the one talking most of the time and that his tone is one of complete confidence.

All of cable news and all of talk radio is like this. The only comforting aspect of this I can think of is that O'Reilly is by far the most successful cable host and he only gets about three million viewers a night.

Three million viewers a night?? While that might not be very many in the world of TV, that's a hell of a lot of people watching this guy shout down people who dare to disagree with him. "Only" three million viewers a night watching Bill O'Reilly does not make me feel any better.

more intelligent design, plus michael crichton bashing!

Salon.com has a lengthy article discussing the latest skirmish in the evolution vs. creationism battle in educational districts. You have to click-through a brief ad to read the whole thing, but it's worth reading.

Fundamentally, the problem is summarized by this excerpt:

This past December, Republican strategist Jack Burkman appeared on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country" to back creationism in terms of populist democracy. "Why should the state and the federal government have a monopoly on defining what constitutes science?" he asked. "I see no problem with presenting a creationist view in the schools, given that 70 percent of Americans want that. The law should reflect democratic desires. It should reflect public desires."

Of course, public desires don't determine the physical facts of the world. "The best argument that the creationists have got is that it's only fair to teach both sides," Matzke said. "The problem with that argument is that science is not a democracy and a lot of times there aren't two correct sides. There are people who believe that the sun goes around the earth. They're called geocentrists. That doesn't mean we should teach that."

In other words, there is a common misperception that all opinions and ideas are equal. Every issue has multiple equivalent viewpoints.

This is utter horseshit. Wishing won't make it so. You can close your eyes and pretend the world works differently, but that has nothing to do with whether bacteria cause disease, it will not make the universe 6000 years old, and it will not make evolution false. Some opinions are, in fact, just wrong. In the words of Scott (Dilbert) Adams, "Since when did ignorance become a point of view?"

This "balanced treatment" stuff is a crock. We might discuss the flat earthers in historical context, but we don't give their views equal weight in a science classroom. Because they are wrong. Like it or not, evolution is as true as gravity.

Science works because it ultimately rejects concepts that do not accurately describe the data. Yes, science is a human interpretation of the world, but it makes an attempt at predicting future events rather than just wishing things were so.

And now the Michael Crichton bashing!

Also of note on Salon.com is an interview with Jared Diamond. Diamond is a brilliant scientist, and an uncommon writer. His writings are universally reviled by right-wing reactionaries who deride anyone who disagrees with them as tree-worshipping Liberal weenies. Which should be enough of a reason for anyone with half a brain to want to read them.

To facilitate the Michael Chrichton bashing, an excerpt from the interview with Jared Diamond:

Have you heard of Michael Crichton's new book, "State of Fear," and its premise that a bunch of environmentalists are upset that their cause isn't getting the attention it deserves so they go around staging environmental disasters? Crichton has said publicly, as well as in his heavily footnoted book, that global warming is bunk -- which would be laughable were not the print run of his book one and a half million copies.

Everything you say is true. There are a couple of things to be added to it. One is that my previous book, "Guns, Germs, and Steel," has sold more copies than Michael Crichton's one and a half million, so I think my new book will get to more readers. And the other thing is that Michael Crichton is a very skilled writer of fiction. And fiction is, by definition, the telling of stories that are untrue. He's very good at that. And I'm a writer of nonfiction, which aims to be the telling of stories that are true.

Except Crichton thinks he's a scientist. He thinks he can interpret extremely complex climatological data using sophisticated statistical techniques better than the world's brightest and most highly-trained climatologists. Crichton thinks the world's brightest and most highly-trained climatologists are so crippled by unstated political motives that they are, in effect, lying about the data. Either overtly, or without even knowing it. They don't know how to interpret their own data.

But not Michael Crichton. He knows better than all of those guys. He is, after all, a medical doctor. He's much smarter than those scientists, who just have PhDs.

No doubt his ideas on climatology will have as much effect as "Jurassic Park" has had on genetic research. Useful as a plot device, but of no actual scientific value. Just because he's rich and thinks he's smart doesn't make him right.

getting hot in here

Not that anybody in the Bush administration can be bothered with any of that scientific consensus crap, but here's the latest on global warming data:

Oceans to rise one meter by 2100 (Reuters)

Scientists find arctic warming quickly (AP)

Years ago, when I was in graduate school and taking various climatology and oceanography classes, the global warming deniers made much ado about the ambiguity in the data. No proof, they all said. The data don't support the global warming hypothesis, they all said.

They don't say that much any more. Now they just talk about why global warming will be a good thing.

More creationism silliness

This crap just won't go away.

Trial begins over evolution disclaimer (AP)

Wisconsin district to teach more than evolution (CNN)

Alternate evolution theory OK'd for teaching (FOX News)

Global warming makes Europe cold!

No, really, it might.

This is an article describing thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic.

Basically, cold salty water is denser than cool less-salty water, so it sinks, forming North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). This behavior releases massive amounts of heat into the atmosphere in the North Atlantic, moderating Europe's climate (all that stuff about Europe being warm because of the Gulf Stream is hooey).

Periodically, events have occurred that have curtailed or stopped the formation of NADW. Anything that increases the flow of freshwater into the North Atlantic can alter the thermohaline characteristics such that NADW formation ceases, less heat is released, and Europe gets colder than hell.

The Younger-Dryas Event is a well-documented example of this process. Oddly, and seemingly paradoxically, "global warming" can potentially result in Europe getting colder than hell: increased riverine output in Siberia (as a result of increased liquid precipitation in a warmed temperate or high latitude climate) will decrease the salinity of the North Atlantic, which will influence NADW formation. But of course, it's really way more complicated than that.

Neat. Global warming could make Europe colder. Try explaining THAT to Rush Limbaugh...

It's a test of your faith

Boy, the nutjobs are out today.

I'd get fired before I taught that crap in my biology classroom. Might as well ask me to teach that the world is flat, or the earth is the center of the universe, or that thing about the world being held up by elephants standing on some turtles, or that thunder is caused by Thor cracking someone with his hammer.