…and this is a 
Ben Domenech: creationist
Category: Creationism • Politics
Posted on: March 21, 2006 10:25 PM, by PZ Myers
Let us continue our Ben Domenech bashing. He's got this somewhat high profile gig at the Washington Post, and one has to wonder what his qualifications are. I think we can rule out "intelligence."
GWW made an interesting discovery: he's a creationist. I don't understand why the Right is constantly elevating these ignoramuses; there must still be a few conservatives who read this site (I can't possibly have driven you all away)…aren't you embarrassed by this kind of thing?
For instance, here's some dumb-as-a-post reasoning:
I personally don't have a problem with evolution being taught in public schools. I occasionally have a problem with the way it is taught - as a final, solid, unquestioned truth, as opposed to a still-changing theoretical approach that many scientists think best explains the way things came to be.
Yglesias speaks about Darwinistic evolution as if it was a solid, undebatable fact, like 2+2=4. But the whole thing's a lot more complicated than that. An academic survey a couple of years ago found that nearly a third of hard scientists believed in theories other than the typical evolutionary construct - either something involving genetic mutation, or intelligent design, or something inspired by Stephen Jay Gould, or the like.
Where to begin? We teach the facts and the evidence, and the phenomenon of evolution is a fact. And at the same time, there are missing bits and pieces of the whole story, and we teach those as well. I suspect that Mr Domenech has never actually taken a biology course, and doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. That second paragraph confirms it.
What exactly does he think the "typical evolutionary construct" might be? He seems to think that genetic mutation isn't part of it, which is bizarre. He thinks SJ Gould wasn't part of the evolution mainstream, which is an odd thing to say about a Harvard paleontologist. And to toss intelligent design in there—it's true that it isn't part of the "typical evolutionary construct" (he got one thing right!), but no, very few scientists believe in that. This whole thing is a crazy distortion of what biologists actually do.
All right, we could just assume he's uninformed, and doesn't know what he's talking about…but he goes beyond that to egregious dishonesty, with a fraudulent quote-mine.
Will Saletan is normally at least evenhanded. But his offhand dismissal of the reasons for teaching Intelligent Design in public schools is full of holes. He can't just dismiss intelligent design as "empy" or "full of lies or dogma," when no less prominent an evolutionist than Stephen Jay Gould has lent weight to the theories of Michael Behe and his brethren. This is not to say that one should accept the doctrine of intelligent design--but biological evolution in the macro remains a theory, by definition. It is not true that, as one W&M prof frequently remarks, "evolution is as real as Cincinnati." One can drive to see Cincinnati. One cannot drive to see the billions of years required by biological evolutionary theory.
Simply because Saletan disagrees with ID theory does not mean that the theory fails to meet the threshold required to be mentioned in a public school course. If that were true, half of what we teach in high school social studies class would be out. If public school curricula were determined by majority opinion, Saletan would be red in the face: only 10% of Americans agree with Saletan's view of evolution.
Wow. You read that, and it sounds as if Gould had endorsed Intelligent Design creationism—Mr Domenech is slinging around Gould's credibility and authority to rebut Saletan's dismissal of ID. Follow that link, though, and you won't find Gould saying supportive things about Behe or the work of the Discovery Institute: instead, it's a diatribe by one Robert Wright, against Gould, accusing him of doing such poor science that he is providing aid and comfort to creationists. Wright's article is a rather hacky hit piece, but it's clear that he has nothing but contempt for creationists, and there's nothing there to suggest that Gould had anything good to say about them, either. Domenech is blatantly misrepresenting the story.
The rest—the implication that evolution is weak because it "remains a theory", that you cannot see the evidence for evolution, and that ID somehow meets a standard sufficient to be taught in public schools—is just traditional creationist stupidity. Falling back on the argument from popularity is a theme common to this guy.
Like here, where he also confesses to being a creationist:
Nearly twice as many Americans believe in creationism as in evolution (the theory which Derb subscribes to — in my opinion, that positive belief is actually worse than the negative belief on creation). It's been that way for more than a decade. I don't necessarily subscribe to all Creationist theories, but I do take Genesis literally. And I believe the commonly taught theory of evolution is a total crock.
I'm not surprised to learn that he is the product of home schooling, which in its worst instances can foster an unfortunately narrow point of view, and usually means the kid is instructed by someone with absolutely no training in education. It seems to be only on the right wing that a frothing idiot like this guy can fall upward into a mass media job—where the first thing he does is chew out the mass media for being too liberal.
A must-read: Firedoglake summarizes all the joy and laughter we expect to get from little Ben's appointment.
Comments
I'm not sure what makes me more depressed-- how bad the public school system is, or the fact that a large percentage of homeschoolers seem to do so out of a desire to give their children a *worse* education than the one provided by the already awful public schools.
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41879
Posted by: Adam Ierymenko | March 21, 2006 10:43 PM
...nearly a third of hard scientists believed in theories other than the typical evolutionary construct - either something involving genetic mutation, or intelligent design, or something inspired by Stephen Jay Gould...
Hmm. OK. Ben, I've been thinking about how to phrase this at a level you'll understand, and I think I've got it. Play the tape:
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong...
Posted by: Sean Foley | March 21, 2006 10:52 PM
Of course, this post will get you the wreath of homeschoolers who actually do provide better education than the public schools (including many recent immigrants appaled that the stuff they learned in fourth grade is here taught in 8th or not at all). But I know WHICH homeschoolers you are talking about - the Fundamentalist Christians.
OT, I used the jigsaw-puzzle exercise teaching in lab last week and I wrote about my experience. This time around I think I have no closet Creationist in class (unlike last time), so I am more open than usual about evolution.
Posted by: coturnix | March 21, 2006 10:53 PM
PZ, this might brighten your day a bit. I am a fiscal conservative, with somewhat liberal social leanings. So, this means that the Feds/States/Muni's should balance their books. Their function is mainly to provide a stable infrastructure for the people. On the liberal side, I don't care if Howard Stern is uncensored on the regular radio. If you don't like, change the damend channel. Nor do I care if abortion is legally available. That is a tough choice for most women to make, and damned if some religious nut has a right to impose his rather warped sense of morality on her choice. However, given that I am in TN, and think that the public school system here sucks, and I went to parochial schools here, I think that is the best form of education available in my state. Hell, they didn't force belief in a religion down anyone's throat, but they did require everyone to at least take some sort of overview of religion to give them an idea of what the fuss was about.
So, I guess that makes me a confusing person to pigeonhole. I used to like the conservatives because they used to be more economically responsible, but now they have been hijacked by the evangelicals who appear to be running amok in society today. (Dammit folks, keep your religion to yourselves. Philosophically, no one can prove God doesn't exist, but by the same reasoning, you can't prove he does either. Get off the Bible soapbox. The damned thing wasn't finalized until the fourth century, so there was plenty of time to "rewrite" the actual history of Jesus.)
So, that leaves me with the option of voting for fiscally irresponsible democrats, who will burn through present and future cash flows, but who will at least leave most of my nasty habits alone. Of course, reviewing the news about the TN Waltz sting is facinating as well. But, of course, in the burning through money respect, Bush is an excellent democrat these days.
So, in closing, keep up the good work PZ, this "conservative" supports you.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
Posted by: Christian | March 21, 2006 11:02 PM
All six of them!
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | March 21, 2006 11:18 PM
Wow. The Post picked a real winner here. Why do they go out of their way to come up with extreme conservatives for their opinion pages? Krauthammer, Will, and now this guy... it is becoming harder to visit the site without running into some kind of idiocy on the front page. (And I hate seeing Krauthammer's ugly mug plastered there.)
Posted by: John | March 21, 2006 11:23 PM
Rick: LOL!
Posted by: Pete K | March 21, 2006 11:32 PM
John: these are the opinion pages we're talking about. If the views like Krauthammer's and Will's were excluded solely because they're "extreme conservative . . . idiocy," I'd be worried, even though I strenuously disagree with them.
Posted by: CL | March 21, 2006 11:47 PM
I hold no brief for Krauthammer and Will, but at least they've got some credentials, unlike this former Bush appointee hack.
Posted by: Linkmeister | March 21, 2006 11:49 PM
So, that leaves me with the option of voting for fiscally irresponsible democrats, who will burn through present and future cash flows,
Like who?
Posted by: Delicious Pundit | March 22, 2006 12:00 AM
Christian: the Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, but which party has seen massive expansion of the debt, since 1980? "Tax and spend" (or ideally, "Tax and invest") Democrats seem to beat "borrow and spend" Republicans, at least nationally. Maybe state GOPs are better, though part of Howard Dean's appeal for me was his providing health coverage in Vermont while balancing the budget.
> All six of them!
Uh, whatever.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0053.html
Table 5 notes religious reasons as a minority reason for homeschooling.
Posted by: Damien | March 22, 2006 12:08 AM
Since when are democrats fiscally irresponsible - they build up surpluses just to see them vanish whenever GOP is in power?! Only in RushLimbaughLand....
Posted by: coturnix | March 22, 2006 12:08 AM
Christian, speaking as an outsider in another country, over the past 30 yeas the U.S. seems to go deeper into debt when Republicans are in power. There is a graph at http://zfacts.com/p/318.html which displays this. I force myself to pay close attention to economic infomation like this because when the American economy sneezes, Australia gets covered in mucous.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | March 22, 2006 12:19 AM
i read the "genetic mutation" bit and fell over laughing. what a titanic, unbearable, ridiculous, douchenozzle this guy is. i mean...words fail....
Posted by: garth | March 22, 2006 12:50 AM
I can't possibly have driven you all away
Nope.
...aren't you embarrassed by this kind of thing?
By sneering derision directed against someone who doesn't really deserve it? Nah. It's up to you to feel embarrassment. My reaction isn't embarrassment -- it's contempt.
Heck, and I'm on your side on the evolution thing.
Posted by: Josh Trevino | March 22, 2006 12:55 AM
Like ... um... hmm.
Clinton?
I mean ... compare Clinton and Bush or Reagan.
One had a surplus ... two increased the debt.
I'm seeing the fiscal irresponsibility here, and it's not Clinton.
Posted by: Michael "Sotek" Ralston![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 22, 2006 1:03 AM
Yeah, I'm a little tired of this "tax-and-spend Democrat" riff. Not only is there absolutely no evidence suggesting that's the case, but the paper trail suggests quite the opposite is true. I'd ask anyone here to compare the budgetary status of some of the blue states in the north east to the red states in the south. The Clinton vs. Reagan vs. Bush thing speaks volumes too.
I'm sure the notion endures because, yes, we do like to tax people. What nerve we have, wanting to have such luxuries as roads and schools and public research. Of course, the difference between a Democrat's spending and a Republican's is that 1) the money spent in the public sector is on things that could be considered infrastructure and services (where there is no investment potential), not on bolstering the military industrial complex (thereby crowding out private investement) and 2) we don't rack up a monster deficit to do it. Guess who's less likely to cause inflation?
That said, I'm not sure who to hold in higher esteem (economically): Reagan or Clinton. Say what you will about him, but Reagan did reign in the stagflationary period of the early 80's, and that wasn't going to correct itself. Granted, his fiscal policy and the monitary policy of the fed at the time would have been more effective, by yards and miles, if Reagan didn't spend like a maniac on the military -- that would have translated to a quicker recovery, and fewer lost jobs in the correction (and before anyone tries to defend Reagan's spendthrift attitude as being responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union -- that's horseshit. The changes in the Soviet Union were due to Gorbachev and Yakovlev, and it's typical American arrogance to assume otherwise).
Clinton, on the other hand, despite being very pro-education, pro-technology, and pro-not-starting-a-war-and-killing-everyone-while-making-his-buddies-rich-because-of-it, still messed up with this free trade agreement with China. We kept hearing that it was going to open new markets to American products, when anyone could have seen that American products come at such a high price that there was no market for them in China. FTA with China is for cheap labor, and it's finally starting to hurt us, and it's going to besmirch Clinton's legacy for a long time.
What I am absolutely certain of, though, is that George W. Bush is, on every possible level, one of the worst presidents in the history of the union.
Posted by: Dustin | March 22, 2006 1:36 AM
So, that leaves me with the option of voting for fiscally irresponsible democrats, who will burn through present and future cash flows
"Fiscally irresponsible'?? What the fuck? This is a ridiculous myth. Compare the economy the way Clinton left it and compare that with what Bush has done to it. The GOP deserves no credit whatsofuckingever for sound economic policy. As we'll still be paying off BUSH'S deficit in 2040, you'll have plenty of time to ponder this for the rest of your life. Wake the hell up.
Posted by: george cauldron | March 22, 2006 1:45 AM
That's what I'm saying, george. You know what really burns me? I hate it when conservatives go on these diatribes against Keynes and then, in the same breath try to defend Bush's spending and tax cuts as "economic stimulus".
Orwell had a word for that.
Posted by: Dustin | March 22, 2006 1:56 AM
"An academic survey a couple of years ago found that nearly a third of hard scientists believed in theories other than the typical evolutionary construct - either something involving genetic mutation, or intelligent design, or something inspired by Stephen Jay Gould, or the like."
ROTFL
I have to admit Gould is a bit dry for my tastes, but I excuse myself because I'm really just a mathematician in a biologist's clothing. But I hadn't thought that all the work done here at UCL studying genetic mutation was in some way a variant from the "typical evolutionary construct".
It seems strange to me that being breathtakingly stupid is now an essential feature to getting a well-paid job in the right circles. I think it's time to impose the estate tax in a fairly severe way, to try to steer the US away from encroaching aristocratic principles and back towards something resembling meritocracy.
Posted by: Rick | March 22, 2006 5:26 AM
I am a fiscal conservative, with somewhat liberal social leanings.
You mean you're a mainstream Democrat?
Posted by: Francis | March 22, 2006 6:07 AM
Dustin wrote: Say what you will about him, but Reagan did reign in the stagflationary period of the early 80's, and that wasn't going to correct itself.
Actually, Paul Volcker, the Fed chair fixed that. He tells the story of going to Carter and telling him of his plan. "You know this will cost you the election." Carter told him to do it anyway.
Posted by: Mike | March 22, 2006 7:10 AM
Just to pile on: Republicans as "fiscally responsible" has been untrue since at least 1980. Which means something close to half of all voters have never, in their entire voting careers, had even the opportunity to vote for a GOP Presidential cadidate who was fiscally responsible.
Posted by: SHanley | March 22, 2006 7:58 AM
Stephen Jay Gould must be rolling over in his grave a lot, with the way anti-evolutionists seem to come up with his name to support their anti-science views.
For Mr. Trevino, why doesn't Mr. Domenech deserve ridicule? He works for the Washington Post. Is he immune from criticism because he's conservative? If someone writes things that are just plain wrong, they deserve to be corrected.
Also, I would like to see an example of a fiscally responsible Republican. All they seem to do is run up deficits and cause recessions. The only president to actually balance the budget was Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | March 22, 2006 8:21 AM
Deficit spending is kind of like cocaine for the economy: it might "stimulate" you and feel good for a while, but when you come down from it, you're even worse off. And then the dealer comes around wanting his money.
And then you discover you're addicted, and any time when you're not deficit spending starts to feel like a slump...
Analogies shouldn't be overstressed, of course.
To a point, the "tax and spend" label is correct; Republicans just don't mention that their alternative is "don't tax, but spend just as much or more anyway". The media doesn't call them on it, of course.
Posted by: Chris | March 22, 2006 8:29 AM
A minor defense for our dear Ben:
When he mentioned not being able to see billions of years of evolution, I think he was referring to our inability to actually witness historical events in evolution.
Now, Ben needs to understand this is not necessary to demonstrate that evolution, including "macro," occurs, and PZ pointed that out. But I would point out that when this argument is made, it's also quite valuable to point out the capabilities of the fossil record, genetics, and possibly age-of-the-earth evidence as he sounds somewhat young-Earthy. It sounds to me like he has the common Creationist lack of understanding and dismissal of the value of this evidence.
I wouldn't expect him to actually accept, or perhaps even grasp, the information, but it's worth mention.
Posted by: rrt | March 22, 2006 8:32 AM
Reading Ben Domenechīs bits of BS written here, I remembered something that Iīve seen before, and I see all the time coming from stupid people... they seen to believe that school should be a place where you learn just what you want to. I think that anyone with a 10% functioning brain understands that you go to school to know things you HAVE to, NOT things you want to... canīt they understand how dumb this idea is? I see it all the time from this kind of people, like when they claim "teach ID along with evolution, itīs fair to have both sides"... both sides of what? ID is a denial the other stuff, they also donīt understand you canīt prove A by disproving B. Itīs always the same BS coming from them, over and over. And itīs funny to see the ID people all the time mixing evolution theory with origin of life. In fact , they say SO MANY BS that I think itīs amusing they donīt die of shame from their stupidity... And another... they confuse their own blind faith in fairy tales with science. They think we "believe" in gravity, we "believe" in atoms, this kind of stuff... maybe itīs because they canīt get smarter, their brains are stuck on pre-historic times... I really despise this people, they make me sick.
Thanks for reading my rant. :-)
Posted by: Fernando | March 22, 2006 8:36 AM
So, does he think that two-thirds of scientists don't believe in genetic mutation?
Okay, so let's get this straight: WaPo decides to hire a conservative blogger to "balance" Dan Froomkin, who some people see as being tilted to the left.
Froomkin writes a summary of daily news. Domenech writes his personal opinion.
Froomkin is the previous politics producer for washingtonpost.com and served as its editor for three years. He worked as a beat reporter for ten years, has taught at American University and the Poynter Institute, is a former Knight-Wallace fellow at University of Michigan, and is a deputy editor for the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard.
Domenech is a twentysomething political hack.
Look, I'm as conservative as the next neo-Hegelian with a Straussian background (though old Leo did vote for Adlai Stevenson, so take that as you will), but these guys are totally alien to me.
Posted by: WatchfulBabbler | March 22, 2006 8:43 AM
Gives a new meaning to one million monkeys typing.
Posted by: Miracle Max | March 22, 2006 8:49 AM
I realize that the majority of homeschoolers (and homeschoolees) are religious idiots, but the smartest guy I've ever had the pleasure to know, Erik Demaine (http://theory.lcs.mit.edu/~edemaine/) was homeschooled by his father. (I was a postdoc in the department where Erik was working on his doctorate as a teenager).
Erik joined the MIT faculty at the ripe old age of 22 (the guy *has* grad students of his own at an age when I wasn't even a grad student!), and was a recipient of a MacArthur 'genius grant' in 2005. But it helps that his father wasn't such a bad mathematician in his own right. Maybe we should simply require homeschooling parents to be licensed and simply make the requirements hard enough to exclude the yucky YECs.
Posted by: Jonathan Badger | March 22, 2006 8:56 AM
Stephen Jay Gould was a diehard atheist. Once a woman asked him if the fact that he overcame cancer (of course this was before it came back and killed him) made him re-think his stance and become more spiritual, he said no, he knew it wasn't anything metaphysical that made him better, he may have died, or not, what did that have to do with god?
Also, he testified in one of those nutty "scopes"-type trials in the late 80's, I believe. Against teaching "Scientific Creation" (ID for the 80's)
Just found this site today. I love it!
I feel so inspired by fellow free-thinkers. Maybe that's the "Oceanic feeling" Freud was talking about (the one he never experienced)
Posted by: SaltyC | March 22, 2006 9:01 AM
Dear Dr. Myers,
Due to the unforeseen events of Katrina, my family and I ended up staying with relatives in South Carolina, and my children (for the year) are going to a small Christian school with their cousins (the public schools in this area are quite horrendous and we were trying to ease the transition as best as possible). They will be back in public school next year, but in the meantime have been exposed to some really silly creationist crap in the science classroom.
Can you recommend some reading material for the summer to "wash away" all the stuff they have been exposed to this year? We have diligently discussed all the fallacies of what they are being taught, but I am not a scientist and I would feel much better if they had some appropriate books to read over the summer.
They are aged 15 and 14.
This is a serious request, and I would greatly appreciate any advice you may have.
Thank you.
Posted by: Katrina Refugee | March 22, 2006 9:03 AM
Saying you are for "fiscal responsibility" is like saying you are "for education." No one is going to say "I am for fiscal irresponsibility."
What separates us is that Democrats want to be fiscally responsible but also provide programs for citizens. Republicans used to be for fiscal responsibility but cut off the tax payers from social programs with cuts.
Posted by: Matt O. | March 22, 2006 9:08 AM
How snarky. Anytime I need to think that the L. Left has calmed down a bit, I simply need come over here for another dose of cranky unreality.
And the echo chamber that passes for commentary here!!! No wonder the minds are all snapped shut. Everyone simply pats everyone else on the back and proclaims what a wonderful job you all are doing.
Homeschooling poorer than public schools? Check the test scores, Sherlock. You're all at sea here.
For what it is worth though, I have to agree with you on the irony of seeing the Republicans in this administration as fiscal concervatives.
Posted by: demoman | March 22, 2006 9:11 AM
I just finished a book by Larson about the history of the theory (or theories) of evolution.
One nagging question not covered: If evolution is a fact, why do we have no details about new species that are appearaing now (or that have appeared in the last 200 years)?
I would expect as species become extinct, there should be new species appearing. We hear about mass extinctions, and mutations. Why nothing published (that I know of) about all the new species appearing? Are new species that hard to detect? That rare, given all the species now out there?
Darwin's book talks about the origin of species - any books or articles out there about documented new species since 1859?
This does not convince me that one should teach creationism except in a history or religion class. Just that the evolution theories are still works in progress.
Posted by: cfw | March 22, 2006 9:14 AM
I suggest benny boy hop in his car and dive to 77th and central park west here in NYC.
I will personally show him the "billions of years of evidence required by biological evolutionary theory".
Some how I doubt he will be enlightened though. You can lead a wingnut to facts but....
Posted by: Dept. of vertebrate paleontology | March 22, 2006 9:14 AM
An academic survey a couple of years ago found that nearly a third of hard scientists believed in theories other than the typical evolutionary construct . . .
Uh, Ben, honey, can you give the cite for this survey? An investigator, an institution, a journal, a date, anything?
Thought not. (The Discovery Institute, possibly?)
Incidently--exactly how are you defining "hard scientists"? You're aware that programmers and engineers don't make the cut?
Posted by: Molly, NYC | March 22, 2006 9:33 AM
The world is my Onion.
Posted by: Troutnut | March 22, 2006 9:42 AM
"By definition"--whenever you see that phrase, you can be sure that the person stating it has no fucking clue what the definition actually is.
Posted by: Will E. | March 22, 2006 9:52 AM
"I would expect as species become extinct, there should be new species appearing. We hear about mass extinctions, and mutations. Why nothing published (that I know of) about all the new species appearing?"
The short answer is that there is a hell of a lot published about it, so you're just not looking in the right places.
Yeah, part of the problem is that the general news media don't find the latest example of speciation in X to be newsworthy, but the more spectacular ones do find their way into the news now and then; I'm thinking in particular of a pygmy elephant that appears to be a recent derivative of African elephants was just discovered awhile back and made the NYTimes. There are lots of examples of species that had to evolve fairly recently: bacteria that eat only synthetic polymers, parasites that live only on clothing (if you accept the premise that early humans didn't have clothes), fungi that live only in refined gasoline. Oh, and don't forget all the germs! Why do you think that you have to get a new flu shot every year?
Posted by: Carlie | March 22, 2006 9:53 AM
Not so fast. Let's look a little closer.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/homeschool/
(Table 4, specifically). While only 30% choose religious or moral reasons as the *most* important reason to homeschool, 72% pick religious or moral reasons as *one* reason they homeschool. So a majority of homeschoolers do so for at least partially religious reasons.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | March 22, 2006 9:54 AM
cfw> I'm pretty sure if you google specification (i think that's spelled right) you find examples. I think the site that has the scientific articles is called talkorigins.
Posted by: dave | March 22, 2006 10:01 AM
New species have been observed.
There are a couple of confounding problems, of course. We're in the middle of a major wave of extinctions, so we don't expect species losses to be balanced by new species appearing.
Another is that we only know a small fraction of the species present. About 10,000 new species are described every year...how would we know the difference between a recent speciation and merely recent discovery?
Speciation events will be subtle and gradual (usually...get some E&E people together, you could start a good fight over that). What do you expect to see? It could be as unobvious as a fruit fly population with a chromosomal rearrangement relative to another population.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 22, 2006 10:04 AM
"exactly how are you defining "hard scientists"? "
You sure you really want to now this? Does this eliminate female scientists in the survey?
Posted by: f*cker Karlson | March 22, 2006 10:09 AM
CFW:
I apologize for the brief and sparse response, Im away from home and unable to do thorough research and linking at present. However, try going to Talk.origins and run a search in their search engine for Observed Instance of Speciation. That should help you a bit. Keep in mind that these are just a SAMPLING of the published data, and that there is plenty more in the literature. Also note that you are somewhat correct in thinking that the pace and scale of evolution plays a role here. You shouldnt expect to see a radically different species of beetle diverge in lab or field studies, but rather a very slightly different one. Over a long time (in human scales), that new species (and the old one) may diverge quite radically, of course.
Katrina Refugee: See my above limitations, but one possible fun book (not at all comprehensive!) is, if you think theyre old enough for it (I highly recommend you review it first) is Olivia Judsons Dr. Tatianas Sex Advice to All Creation. Its a great book on the reproductive habits of the animal kingdom from an evolutionary perspective, written as if the author is a Dr. Ruth-style advice columnist. Also, much of Talk.origins in general is a great read, especially (if you want to shoot down misconceptions and falsehoods they were fed) the Index to Creationist Claims. TO has the advantage of being free and on the web.
Posted by: rrt | March 22, 2006 10:12 AM
Ben Domen-wretch: "Many scientists believed their dating of the Big Bang (another theory) to be dead-on - but new discoveries imply [imply means what it implies that it means, Domenech, you dingleberry] they were off by millions of years." Ooooh! Whoo-hoo! And my computer clock is off by...minutes! Ooh! Science is a lie! Trash the atomic clock! Bring back the sundials!
So how many millions in a billion, again? Duh, Duh-menech. Americans also believed in bleeding people to cure fevers longer than anyone else on earth, too. Why don't we bring that back, as well?
Posted by: Kristine | March 22, 2006 10:16 AM
Poor Steve Gould. I guess the creationists love to quote-mine him so much because he's no longer in a position to tell them that they're full of shit.
Posted by: darukaru | March 22, 2006 10:23 AM
Funny how the people who believe that they have the ear of an omnipotent God, Yahweh, are the same ones who seem to be terrified of letting their children and themselves be exposed to secular ideas and people. You'd think they would go out of their way to interact with the "ungodly" - to witness to them as their God-son supposedly commanded.
Posted by: jimvj | March 22, 2006 10:26 AM
> Not so fast
Interesting. But I note that the numbers in that table differ substantially from those in my link. Rapid change from 1999 to 2003, or poor replicability due to sampling difficulties?
Posted by: Damien | March 22, 2006 10:26 AM
Oh for pity's sake, this Domenech guy is a moron.
Evolution is a fact. The exact details of the way evolution happens, like most physical phenomena, is still being studied and argued over by the experts. That's all.
Even I get that, and I'm a humanities guy.
Posted by: The Green Knight | March 22, 2006 10:33 AM
Katrina refugee:
See Dr. Myers' reading list.
He has listed a variety of things for all ages.
Posted by: yagwara | March 22, 2006 10:42 AM
Oops, my comment crossed paths with PZ's new post.
Posted by: yagwara | March 22, 2006 10:43 AM
I should note as well that "2+2=4" is not really that simple. If you doubt this, then do me a favor and go through the exercise of PROVING that 2+2=4. It's actually quite complicated.
Posted by: Dan Isaacs | March 22, 2006 10:46 AM
"Funny how the people who believe that they have the ear of an omnipotent God, Yahweh, are the same ones who seem to be terrified of letting their children and themselves be exposed to secular ideas and people."
What is also funny is how these same people (especially a U.S. President and his minions) believe in an omnipotent God, but still think that they can keep information from the public, for example, that Katrina video, or Cheney thinking that his best friend was a bird rather than a bird brain. So, plugged those leaks yet, Fearless Leader? Who's the Leaker, George W.? Maybe Domenech should write a column about the consequences of God going into the Federal Witness Protection program.
Posted by: Kristine | March 22, 2006 10:46 AM
"... they also don't understand you can't prove A by disproving B."
Actually, you can prove A by disproving B. It's called reductio ad absurdum (RAA or proof by contradiction for short.) If A and B are the only possible alternatives and you show that B contradicts another theorem in the logical system, then A must be true.
RAA proofs can be a little tricky, because you have to be sure you've found a real contradiction. For example, you can use RAA to prove that Root(2) is irrational by supposing it to be rational. That leads you to the contradiction that 2 is both even and odd. Saccheri tried to use RAA to prove Euclid's parallel postulate, and came within epsilon of discovering noneuclidean geometries in the 17th Century. Unfortunately, Saccheri convinced himself he had a contradiction and didn't discover hyperbolic geometry after all.
Books for teens on evolution. I recommend Gould's collected essays from Natural History. Wonderful Life (Gould's history of the discovery of the Burgess Shale fossils) is simultaneously a great social history of paleontology and a good explication of the basics of evolution.
The real irony about ID-ers quoting Gould out of context is that he's the author of The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, which is the most comprehensive technical review of evolution written to date. (Not for high schoolers, though!)
Dennis
Posted by: Dennis | March 22, 2006 10:52 AM
I also highly recommend "Dr. Tatiana's Sex Advice for All Creatures," Katrina refugee. I'm not a biologist, but I certainly learned a lot about evolutionary strategies in that book. It is very readable for laypeople.
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | March 22, 2006 11:03 AM
"One can drive to see Cincinnati. One cannot drive to see the billions of years required by biological evolutionary theory."
You'd only see part of Cincinnati. Never enough to prove a sweeping hypothesis.
If hordes of people drove to Cincinnati over the course of centuries, and documented what they saw according to established principles, then critiqued each other's work -- then we could talk about seeing Cincinnati. Maybe that's what Domenech means.
Posted by: Gods From Outer Space | March 22, 2006 11:43 AM
I should note as well that "2+2=4" is not really that simple. If you doubt this, then do me a favor and go through the exercise of PROVING that 2+2=4. It's actually quite complicated.
I don't think most people would know how to start at something like this - and of those who would know how to start, many would disagree about where to start, since there are multiple consistent ways of formulating axioms which lead to arithmetic.
There's a great example of such a proof (and many, many others) on the web, though, at the Metamath Proof Explorer. Much of the complication when you dig down deep into this proof is just formalism necessary to make the result comprehensible to a computer, but the top level steps (associativity of addition, transitivity of equality, etc.) really are necessary.
Posted by: Roy Stogner | March 22, 2006 11:51 AM
Hello Dennis... about "Actually, you can prove A by disproving B. It's called reductio ad absurdum (RAA or proof by contradiction for short.) If A and B are the only possible alternatives and you show that B contradicts another theorem in the logical system, then A must be true.", woops, I got a little carried away. But I was thinking that ID is not even close to a possible alternative, so I completely forgot about proofs of contradiction... sorry, my mistake. :-)
Posted by: Fernando | March 22, 2006 12:01 PM
Homeschooling has apparently increased by a significant amount since 1999. (The 2003 study cites a 29% increase in number of students or a percentage increase from 1.7 to 2.2 percent of the overall student popuulation.) Perhaps either more religious people are getting into it. Another thought - perhaps more people have gotten serious about their religion since 1999.
But on the basis of the current data, I think it's incorrect to say that for most homeschoolers religion is not an issue.
Posted by: Rick @ shrimp and grits | March 22, 2006 12:08 PM
They think we "believe" in gravity, we "believe" in atoms, this kind of stuff...
I never thought of it that way, but you're right. It's a false equivalency. The only way the IDers could get something that really could stand up to evolution would be to go back to the evidence, starting with Darwin's notes, and come up with completely different conclusions consistent with known science and have them withstand peer review, etc. In short, re-tracing the scientific process from the beginning. Right?
I'm not a scientist, either, but it seems like they just kind of nibble around the edges and use the resultant fraying to offset the whole idea of evolution. Are they too lazy to do the work, or are they ignorant of the scientific process and its checks and balances?
Posted by: hamletta | March 22, 2006 12:47 PM
You dig into any wingnut drivel deep enough and usually you will find an acorn. Which they triumphally produce as "proof".
Punctured equilibrium was not immediately embraced by paleontologists any more than the Alvarezs' theory that mass extinctions were precipitated by large meteor strikes. I was in Berkeley in the eighties and saw some pretty strong language first hand. Both theories smacked too much of Catastrophism to gain immediate acceptance. But then neither did Einstein.
But I'll bet good money this ass clown has some quote where another paleontologist is critising SJ Gould in pretty strong terms while defending more incremental models of evolution. Which just goes to show he doesn't understand that science, like evolution, sometimes advances with messy lurches, and not everybody survives.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | March 22, 2006 12:55 PM
hamletta:
for some of them, the anwer is both.
for others, i suspect the answer is neither. They know full well what they're doing and they have another, shall we say, agenda.
Myself, I'm too lazy to do any work.
Posted by: mathpants | March 22, 2006 12:57 PM
The Post can hire whoever they want, I suppose, but this guy's a nutter. Bad move, WaPo.
However, with that said, I want to point out that I think the blogger AND most of you readers are parsing Ben Domenech's words incorrectly. The actual meaning makes much more sense, but is MORE troubling than the meaning you've all assumed.
BD is quoted as saying:
"An academic survey a couple of years ago found that nearly a third of hard scientists believed in theories other than the typical evolutionary construct - either something involving genetic mutation, or intelligent design, or something inspired by Stephen Jay Gould, or the like."
So far, everyone seems to think his list at the end of this sentence is supposed to represent "theories other than the typical evolutionary construct." I read it just the opposite -- these are things that he's trying to assign to "the typical evolutionary construct." And he's throwing Intelligent design in the mix, right there with genetic mutation and Stephen Jay Gould. So no, I don't think he's trying to co-opt Gould as one of his own.
Now, I consider the ID theory unknowable, as it's religious faith and not remotely science. But as I.D. tries to pretend it's science, as it does allow for speciation and genetic mutation as the method of God's handiwork. So I suppose it could be read, in broad terms, as "the typical evolutionary construct." Things outside that construct -- Genesis creationism, indigenous creation myths, or the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster -- don't bother with science.
That said, if BD has this much trouble with sentence structure, perhaps he shouldn't be writing for the venerable Washington Post.
Posted by: Mighty Pen | March 22, 2006 1:30 PM
Biggest "IF" ever.
Posted by: DJ | March 22, 2006 1:38 PM
nearly a third of hard scientists believed in theories other than the typical evolutionary construct - either something involving genetic mutation, or intelligent design, or something inspired by Stephen Jay Gould, or the like.
Almost all zoologists believe in mammals other than the typical barnyard sort -- either mammals with scales such as the pangolin, or unicorns, or egg-laying mammals like the platypus.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | March 22, 2006 1:56 PM
Stephen Jay Gould was a diehard atheist
From my reading (see Rocks of Ages, among other places): an agnostic, leaning to the atheist side (not that it makes a lot of difference). And he is on record as protesting the way his ideas were mis-represented by Creationists.
Posted by: lt.kizhe | March 22, 2006 2:06 PM
Not disagreeing with you outright, Mighty Pen, but how familiar are you with the common Creationist penchant for claiming Gould challenged/disproved evolution with Punctuated Equilibrium? Seems to me Ben's statement most easily falls into line with that. Although your version might help explain why he listed "genetic mutation."
Posted by: rrt | March 22, 2006 2:14 PM
Genesis literally? What exactly does he mean? There are two accounts of creation in genesis, which differ significantly in their specifics. Belief that both are true "literally" would require believing two contradictory things.
I am a Christian, and I believe God created existence, but anytime someone says they believe in biblical stories in this way - Literally - I wonder if they've read them? This was a debate that was hashed out in the 1800s (this is actually true - biblical scholarship has long since covered most of what's debated by pundits). C'mon people. Also, it's particularly frustrating when it's clear the person talking hasn't managed to read the first fricking book of the Bible. I'll be honest, I haven't read EVERY letter, and Judges was a blur, but it's GENESIS! And he's citing it as EVIDENCE! Maybe he could, you know, read it!
Posted by: MDtoMN | March 22, 2006 4:01 PM
Dennis: RAA doesn't hold in intuitionist logic due to the removal of the law of the excluded middle. Just being snarky, though :-)
Posted by: Marcus | March 22, 2006 4:32 PM
"Not disagreeing with you outright, Mighty Pen, but how familiar are you with the common Creationist penchant for claiming Gould challenged/disproved evolution with Punctuated Equilibrium?"
Well I am pretty much the Puny Pen in this debate, and learned what I know about "punctured equilibrium" from a college friend when I was a lot more concerned about political marriages in 9th century Wales (sue me). But as I understand it SJG suggested that periodic exterminations opened opportunities for surviving species to explode into new evolutionary niches. Which pretty much dovetailed into Darwin's original work in the Galapagos. Finches which had relatively little ecological spread ending up filling all ecological niches. Somebody has to eat the flying insects, somebody has to eat the borrowing insects, from the little I know Finches filled all those niches in the Galapagos. Because there were no other species to fill the gaps. Biologists feel free to school me on this one.
Posted by: Bruce Webb | March 22, 2006 5:09 PM
About those two homeschooling surveys: The US Census one gave statistics by percentage of families that homeschool. The NCES one gave statistics by percentage of children who homeschool. It is entirely possible that 33% of families who homeschool do it for religious reasons, but 50% (or whatever the number was) of children are homeschooled for religious reasons. That's because religious homeschooling families tend to have a lot of kids.
Regardless of their exact number, please be aware that there are a lot of homeschooling families who believe in evolution and i