…and this is a 
Quote of the week
Category: Evolution
Posted on: March 25, 2008 8:13 PM, by PZ Myers
Mike the Mad Biologist wins a gold star for this quote that I'll be stealing:
The other thing we evolutionary biologists don't do enough of, and this stems from the previous point, is make an emotional and moral case for the study of evolution. Last night, I concluded my talk with a quote from Dover, PA creationist school board member William Cunningham, who declared, "Two thousand years ago someone died on a cross. Can't someone take a stand for him?"
My response was, "In the last two minutes, someone died from a bacterial infection. We take a stand for him."
Now that is good framing.
Comments
Good framing indeed. Maybe I have a quote to use in my personal statement for my med school application now. You may have stolen it first, but I'm stealing it now.
Posted by: shadow1515 | March 25, 2008 8:25 PM
As I recall, we there were a number of us who burst into applause at that comment--particularly the biologists who work in fields involving communicable diseases.
It is one of the good points to be made about the muddy middle too--different frames (utility of evo-theory vs. Creos as liars) for different audiences; different styles in different publics. Talking about the utility and necessity of evolutionary theory in dealing with things like MRSA, HIV, TB, Malaria, etc., will be more useful among in some audiences. Creos as liars works well when dealing with the EXPELLED! *jazz hands* issue.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 25, 2008 8:35 PM
To be completely fair to Matt Nisbet he has actually recently stated that the best way to 'frame' (that bloody F-word again) evolution to the general public is to describe it in terms of medical advances.
Posted by: Sigmund | March 25, 2008 8:49 PM
Ah, but I seriously doubt that Mr. Nisbet would be happy that scientific medical advances were being promoted as the counterpoint to Christianity.
Posted by: Sastra | March 25, 2008 9:13 PM
No, we'd better lay low and wait for the official go-ahead before using that line.
Ha.
Seriously, that is rather good; mostly because it's true.
Posted by: Pete | March 25, 2008 9:14 PM
Great quote indeed! It should be added that ALL of the sciences advance our ability to survive, thrive and excel. Religion had it's chance to advance human kind, and did a miserable job.
Why would anyone need to stand up for Jesus? If you believe what they say then, he did not even stand up for himself. If you believe what they say, he is powerful beyond all things. Such a being would not really need any protection. Not that I believe any of it, it's just that even if it were true, what would be the point?
All of the advances we have made as a species( cars, phones, space travel, medicine, stable food supply, clean water) come from hard work, curiosity, testing, and cooperation, not prayer, worship, submission or denial. I only hope that more of the same is where we go in the future.
Posted by: revmonkeyboy | March 25, 2008 9:33 PM
Mr. Mad Biologist, congratulations. You've just given birth to a healthy baby meme.
Posted by: Michael X | March 25, 2008 9:36 PM
Awesome.
Posted by: Bill | March 25, 2008 9:42 PM
Stand for something or you'll fall for anytard.
Posted by: danley | March 25, 2008 9:43 PM
I totally agree except for one little thing: the name of the Dover school board member is William Buckingham, not Cunningham.
Credit where it's due and all that.
Posted by: kshep | March 25, 2008 9:48 PM
There's an emotional and moral case argument for stem cell research too, which has only something like 60% support in opinion polls [1] ... A bit more than the 53% acceptance of evolution in the American public (but less than the 66% who believe creationism) [2]. Go figure...
Posted by: Marco Sch. | March 25, 2008 9:49 PM
Why would anyone need to stand up for Jesus?
Because he was a victim of torture, persecution, and execution for thoughtcrime? Like thousands of other, less well known victims of these practices in the Roman empire. But remember to stand up for Brian, the two thieves and everyone else who died because the empire (whoever it is at the moment) is scared of them or finds them inconvenient. Not but that I feel more competent to stand for someone who died of bacterial infection in the recent past than to right 2000 year old wrongs.
Posted by: Dianne | March 25, 2008 9:53 PM
we like mike.
Posted by: genesgalore | March 25, 2008 10:04 PM
Mike FTW
Posted by: Steven | March 25, 2008 10:08 PM
Damn, that's good. I'll be using that one, too.
Posted by: Carlie | March 25, 2008 10:11 PM
2,000 years ago a guy died on a cross then went to eternal paradise which he was already in because he was god in human form but also his own son or something along these lines.
My argument here is this "So?". I mean if he died and that was him dead then its a bit of a sacrifice but if he dies and then goes to eternal paradise then what is the big deal. He didn't really get a bum deal. I am assuming eternal paradise is a good thing. If I believed in such a thing. Isn't it like winning the lottery and banging Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Alba in a threesome all in the one day. I'd take a couple days of torture for that reward.
Jesus is a whiny bitch.
Posted by: Steven | March 25, 2008 10:13 PM
Sounds like Mike really nailed him on that one.
Posted by: daenku32 | March 25, 2008 10:15 PM
If this is madness, the world needs more of it. Kudos to Mr Mad Biologist.
Posted by: weemaryanne | March 25, 2008 10:17 PM
This isnt as good, but Ill share my inverse-evangelical-meme. In response to 'There are no atheists in foxholes' my stock response is 'Right. Thats because all the atheists are busy in research labs curing cancer and AIDS. Whats that tell ya?'
Posted by: ERV | March 25, 2008 10:26 PM
ERV, now come on.
"curing"?
As I say, job security, ad infinitum.
"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Hath smaller fleas that on him prey,
And these have smaller fleas that bite 'em,
And so proceed ad infinitum." - Jonathan Swift
Posted by: philos | March 25, 2008 10:50 PM
A good effort towards the "unsure" middle, but Xians like Buckingham, and religious fanatics generally, don't give a shit about people, only the clay-footed mental idols they worship, and whose only desire - they believe - is for servility (or blood).
Posted by: Sue Laris | March 25, 2008 10:54 PM
For all the ID advocates' cries of persecution and in some cases, theocratic hopes, they have yet to demonstrate how ID treated as science would actually be of any benefit to society.
What does Intelligent Design have to offer when it comes to studying the evolution of HIV or mutagenesis of cancer cells? What does ID have to offer as far as understanding antiobiotic and pest resistance goes?
If one were to take a pragmatic view on this, it is clear that ID does nothing except promote religious ideologies in the classroom. And history has taught us that religion does not lead to utopian societies.
Posted by: NP | March 25, 2008 11:07 PM
Come to think of it, if a god exists, it's been waging biological warfare against mankind for as long as we've existed. How could it possibly make any sense to love and honor such a monster?
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 25, 2008 11:20 PM
Blasphemous joke of the day: Did you hear that Jesus Christ wasn't able to get into graduate school? He really got nailed on his boards..
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 25, 2008 11:21 PM
That's either a bad joke or the most nauseating example of projection I've encountered from the religious for quite some time.
Posted by: Azkyroth | March 25, 2008 11:23 PM
Little story here: Friend of mine, born in 1942, said that in 1960, he was working his way through university doing landscaping. Somehow he jammed a dirty garden fork into his palm. Couple of days later, the pain was intense and strange white marks were crawling up his forearm. So he goes to the doctor, who prescribes a course of penicillin and tells him to come back in two weeks. Friend goes back, gets clean bill of health, doc sits friend down and tells him the following:
"Mel, fifteen years ago, if you had come to me in your condition we'd have had your arm off at the elbow by 7 that night -- and at that you'd only have had a 50% chance of living. Don't talk to me about the 'good old days' -- you can keep them!" My friend said that was the proof of science which had the greatest impact on him. (He went into botany.)
Posted by: Hairhead | March 25, 2008 11:29 PM
A Gold Star?!? What's the conversion rate between gold stars and Schrute Bucks?
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/511118678_f2d315c18d.jpg
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | March 25, 2008 11:29 PM
This has got to be one of the most odious assertions made by creotards, religiobots and other assorted nutbags: "Them scientists could have cured cancer a long time ago but they won't because then they'd be out of a job".
Get yourself a clue pal. 'Cancer' is a catch-all term for a huge variety of conditions that lead to run-away cell division/replication - it is not one disease. Great progress has been made in the treatment of cancer, although admittedly no-one has come up with your cure-all panacea that also buffs up your car hubcaps yet. Medical research is hard, rigorous and [generally] badly paid work. This lazy slur is a slap in the face for the thousands of people who undertake this work and devalues the man-millenia of work that have been undertaken (with results).
I suspect that the naked self-interest projected onto "them scientifists and there book larnin'" tells us all a lot more about you than you care to admit.
Posted by: justasitsounds | March 25, 2008 11:30 PM
I'll stipulate that someone dies every two minutes from a microbial infection although most of them are savages choosing to live in squalid conditions and so are pretty much getting what they asked for. But let's be clear, there is no biblical conflict, and there has never been a conflict, with micro-evolution. And we're getting burn near tired of reminding you of that.
Those people are dying from micro-evolutionary processes and you science types should be taking a stand to help them. It is only Christian that you do so.
Besides, that's why you get paid the big money.
We've simply got a big problem with you doing crazy experiments trying to prove your fantasy, like preserving wildlife areas where you swear evolution is supposed to flourish but nothing looks any different in them today than they did a hundred years ago, or trying to create new species by mating chimps with humans.
Posted by: Hipple, Rev. Paul T. | March 25, 2008 11:39 PM
How are we to detect whether or not cancer is the intended design of the Intelligent Designer or an anomaly? If it's the former, do we have the right to question or muck around with his design? If it's the later, shouldn't we question his title as a supposed "intelligent" designer?
Posted by: Eric | March 25, 2008 11:49 PM
It strikes me that we can build a house, cook a meal, gaze at the stars and, in fact, continue quite comfortably on our ways without contemplating the probability of evolution. In the same way, our observational sciences of chemistry and toxicology could, did and probably would still discover antibiotics without Darwin's comments on galapagos finches. So both the mad biologist and the frustrated creationist educational overseer were off-point. Education happens when simplistic dogma from either side is left behind. Neither is Hubris a competent replacement.
Posted by: ScottB | March 25, 2008 11:49 PM
I've started to take a different approach. Science has produced real, verifiable MIRACLES. Check out my blog for examples:
Depth Deception
I think it may be important to start adapting the religious language of IDiots and other anti-science forces just as they have commandeered, misrepresented, and mutated the language of science. We've got to start appealing to the experiences and sensibilities of the religiously misinformed if we are ever to break through their willful ignorance to persuade their minds.
Posted by: Jay | March 25, 2008 11:50 PM
You really haven't been paying attention, have you? More odious than blaming biology for the [expletive deleted in case Mooney is reading] Holocaust? philos' little whine is really pretty tame.
With respect to the original post, I'd like to pedantically insist on pointing out that the prospect of medical advances is not and should not be the prime motivation. The scientific/naturalist viewpoint is first and foremost an immediate consequence of intellectual honesty, in that "maybe the cartoonish stories of our distant ancestors are not a good way to describe the world" is a pretty obvious conclusion to anyone not contaminated by cultural traditions. The eventual benefits to our quality of life are not essential to the scientific endeavor.
Posted by: Friendo | March 25, 2008 11:55 PM
Imagine what the rest of the world is dealing with in regards to your learning impairment then. You goofs cling to the micro-evolution without even an understanding of what you are talking about.
idiot, I mean really your an idiot and the sad thing is among your community you probably pass as educated.
Posted by: JimC | March 26, 2008 12:04 AM
Rev Hipple my apologies, after looking at your blog I see the satire. It's just so hard to tell these days.
Posted by: JimC | March 26, 2008 12:09 AM
most of them are savages choosing to live in squalid conditions and so are pretty much getting what they asked for
You blithering idiot.
Nobody chooses to live in poverty, they live that way because either 1) they don't know how to make a better living, or 2) the local kleptocracy keeps them from improving their circumstances.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | March 26, 2008 12:17 AM
Rev. Hipple-
I just checked out your website after JimC's comment. Absolutely hilarious! I'm glad I'm done drinking coffee for the day or I surely would have spilled it.
Posted by: Sam | March 26, 2008 12:23 AM
Perhaps it would be prudent to establish some satire / irony / sincerity / righteous indignation codes for posts?
Posted by: Bill | March 26, 2008 12:26 AM
Rev. Paul T. Hipple said: ...someone dies every two minutes from a microbial infection although most of them are savages choosing to live in squalid conditions and so are pretty much getting what they asked for...
And Rev. Paul T. Hipple's boss said:
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Paul, you gotta pay better attention.
Posted by: Noni Mausa | March 26, 2008 12:29 AM
sam said: Rev. Hipple-I just checked out your website after JimC's comment. Absolutely hilarious!
Nevermind.
Noni
Posted by: Noni Mausa | March 26, 2008 12:33 AM
Why stand up for Jesus?
If he existed as a regular ordinary human being, whats the point of standing up for one person who has been dead for a couple thousand years?
If he is/was god or the son of god or his own grandpaw or however the hell that works, can't he sorta stand up for himself? What good is a god who's too chicken to stand up to a couple of geeky scientists?
I don't get it. Someone make it make sense.
Posted by: craig | March 26, 2008 12:46 AM
We've simply got a big problem with you doing crazy experiments trying to prove your fantasy, like preserving wildlife areas where you swear evolution is supposed to flourish but nothing looks any different in them today than they did a hundred years ago, or trying to create new species by mating chimps with humans. - Hipple, Rev. Paul T.
I KNEW there was a camera in my bedroom! She wasn't a chimp, she's Greek!
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | March 26, 2008 12:58 AM
Oh, snap!
Posted by: tim | March 26, 2008 1:23 AM
That HIV is part of God's plan to punish Teh Gayz.
Posted by: Chris Noble | March 26, 2008 2:11 AM
Quote of the year, possibly. Awesome. I can almost hear the collective gasp as Mike verbally eviscerates the bible thumper.
Posted by: sacredchao | March 26, 2008 3:00 AM
@ #4: "Ah, but I seriously doubt that Mr. Nisbet would be happy that scientific medical advances were being promoted as the counterpoint to Christianity."
But that is EXACTLY what they are - see the row in Britain ay present, because the Catholic church is rallying its' brainwashed follwers into opposing c research using possible chimaeras ......
Posted by: G. Tingey | March 26, 2008 4:43 AM
Paul Hipple may be joking around, but that "microevolution" argument he used in jest is most definately used by creationists seriously. Paul's comment is exactly what YECs like Sarfati and Ham would say.
Posted by: Reynold Hall | March 26, 2008 5:29 AM
The thing that has always struck me as odd is that in the world view of the ID proponents...
Communicable diseases are too complex to have evolved and must have been designed by the Creator. And it is mean atheist biologists who use the theory of evolution to cure and eradicate the diseases.
Posted by: Ashley Moore | March 26, 2008 5:37 AM
Discovering antibiotics is one thing. Understanding how best to apply them to minimize the risk of resistance evolving in the target population is quite another.
Posted by: MartinM | March 26, 2008 5:39 AM
Stand up for Jesus?? I thought the whole point of Jesus existance was that he was vilified, tortured and killed. If this hadn't have happened no-one would know who he was and christianity would never have existed (hmm- maybe we should wish that someone had stood up for him and stopped the whole thing in its tracks). But then we would still have probably ended up with a different kind of intolerant religion. I think personally that The Romans and Greeks had it right with a god for everything, who all behaved like spoilt children.
Posted by: paleogirl | March 26, 2008 6:13 AM
1. "That HIV is part of God's plan to punish Teh Gayz." (nr 44) Seriously now, move your troglodyte sputterings in an environment it belongs (trash bin's the one i have in my mind). If it's God's scourge aimed at gay people, then why are millions of kids dying of it in African countries?
2. In reference to the "frame". Why stand up for Jesus? How about because he stood up for something greater than himself - just a suggestion.
3. No, the idea that all atheists are busy finding cures (nr 19) for diseases is just self-congratulatory chest-beating. Come off the pedestal!
4. Why oh why are people insisting on divorcing spirituality from science? How can you contemplate the wondrous creation that is human biology and not stop to think that maybe it's not meant to be only some organs functioning at the same time?
Spoonfed religion makes me cringe, but to say that there's nothing to our lives beyond biology, scares the hell out of me!
Posted by: andreeapl | March 26, 2008 6:19 AM
Well, there's also chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology... But what I really want to say, andreeapl, is that life doesn't care whether you are scared or not. So get over it.
Posted by: maxi | March 26, 2008 6:55 AM
andreeapl (#51) wrote -
1. "That HIV is part of God's plan to punish Teh Gayz." (nr 44) Seriously now, move your troglodyte sputterings in an environment it belongs (trash bin's the one i have in my mind). If it's God's scourge aimed at gay people, then why are millions of kids dying of it in African countries?
* * *
Spoonfed religion makes me cringe, but to say that there's nothing to our lives beyond biology, scares the hell out of me!
What scares the heck out of me are folks who are so humor-impaired they don't realize #44 is a joke.
Posted by: Jud | March 26, 2008 7:04 AM
@29 Hipple said Those people are dying from micro-evolutionary processes and you science types should be taking a stand to help them. It is only Christian that you do so.
Besides, that's why you get paid the big money
I was under the impression that's why they get Trophy Wife (tm) with Ninja Action
But wot do I know.
Posted by: firemancarl | March 26, 2008 7:23 AM
Jud: andreeapl is from Romania, so maybe there is a language barrier that needs crossing?
Posted by: maxi | March 26, 2008 7:23 AM
Posted by: Andreas Johansson | March 26, 2008 7:24 AM
maxi (#55) - You're right; I guess, to extend the metaphor, I may have shoved him over the barrier?
Andreeapl, to the extent that shove may have been rather rude, my apologies.
Posted by: Jud | March 26, 2008 7:38 AM
first! katie.blogsite.org
:D
Posted by: Katie | March 26, 2008 7:39 AM
#4 Sastra wrote:
Taken in context, Mike was countering the argument of someone who falsely framed the issue as evolution vs. Christianity. I can't recall a single point in the talk where Mike framed the problem as medicine vs. religion; his message was real science vs. creationism, and how to impress upon the public the value of evolution in medical research.
Posted by: James F | March 26, 2008 8:01 AM
Beautiful!
Posted by: LisaJ | March 26, 2008 8:03 AM
Beautiful!
Posted by: LisaJ | March 26, 2008 8:09 AM
andreeapl #51 wrote:
You're "framing" the issue wrong. Meaning and purpose are not a kind of thing handed down to someone because they were created for a reason. Meaning and purpose have to do with what the individuals themselves care about. It doesn't matter at all whether human beings came about as the result of mindless, purposeless forces or not. Our purposes are always self-created, and we extend them beyond our biology and origins.
Even if God exists, God only matters if first we care about God.
Posted by: Sastra | March 26, 2008 8:36 AM
"Discovering antibiotics is one thing. Understanding how best to apply them to minimize the risk of resistance evolving in the target population is quite another."
It is indeed unfortunate therefore that this is precisely that which has not been accomplished. However, even minimalizaiton of risk is not the absense of risk. Understanding how best to shuffle and distribute a deck of cards or a pile of genes does not require a fundamental change in either.
Humans have caused population change throughout recorded history - its called breeding. The Red Angus herd garnered through patience and intentional breeding choices from an original population of Black Angus is more fortuitous than causing superbugs to overpopulate through indiscriminate use of antibiotics but the method is the same - human interference.
What is required is good education in statistics and (in this case) its use to understand epidemiology and the dynamics of phenotype expression within the target populations.
Posted by: ScottB | March 26, 2008 8:39 AM
James F #59 wrote:
I can see that, but it's very easy to take that quotable quote out of context and get the opposite message. So I can also see Nisbet getting huffy about the way it looks like the Mad Biologist is suggesting it's either "stand up for Jesus" or "stand up for evolution (and medical advances.)" Doesn't seem to take much to get Nisbet huffy.
Posted by: Sastra | March 26, 2008 8:43 AM
Advertising/PR types seem to be better than this than scientists - with some notable exceptions. Richard Dawkins is a master of the vivid metaphor, "selfish gene" and "blind watchmaker" are the obvious ones but just recently there was that rhetorical flourish with which he opened his review of Expelled: "The blogs are ringing with ridicule."
This may not come easy to the scientific mind which tends to be attuned to the extended, detailed argument but it's a powerful weapon in any public debate.
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | March 26, 2008 8:50 AM
#64 Sastra wrote:
Point taken. I would not want to bet money against Nisbet et al. taking that view! Not slamming you; it's just frustrating to contemplate that it's totally not what Mike was implying.
Posted by: James F | March 26, 2008 9:02 AM
You probably remember the Bastard Fairies song "We're all going to Hell" from a few posts ago. Now there is Mrs. Betty Bowers with "You're going straight to Hell".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsBZCq4hp14&feature=related
Her other video is quite good too.
Posted by: bernarda | March 26, 2008 9:11 AM
ScottB:
Your post makes me sad, as both an evolutionary biologist and a science educator.
What you are describing are, indeed, evolutionary processes. Why is that difficult to accept? And why dismiss the natural environment as a source of selection, while so readily accepting the environment created by humans? Logically, it just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: blue | March 26, 2008 9:25 AM
*Cheers*
Mike the Mad Biologist - we are not worthy!
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | March 26, 2008 9:28 AM
In the same way, our observational sciences of chemistry and toxicology could, did and probably would still discover antibiotics without Darwin's comments on galapagos finches. So both the mad biologist and the frustrated creationist educational overseer were off-point. Education happens when simplistic dogma from either side is left behind. Neither is Hubris a competent replacement.
Part of the point was that evolutionary theory helps a great deal in understanding, "Why doesn't this work any more?" when things like MRSA pop up.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 26, 2008 9:28 AM
Mike ended his Boston Skeptics in the Pub talk with that quote, to quite a rousing response from the audience. Very inspirational.
Audio of that talk is coming soon!
Posted by: Rebecca | March 26, 2008 9:29 AM
What does evolution have to do with discovering the cure for a bacterial infection? I'm a Christian - and we raise money for cancer research. We support new housing in impoverished areas of the world. We send food and clothing and medical supplies to people affected by natural disasters. And, I'm all for the study of - and the treatment of - bacterial infections. I don't understand why I have to pinpoint the origin of the bacteria in order to fight it. From a Christian point of view, the struggle against sickness and disease is a morally upright, righteous struggle.
Posted by: NCN | March 26, 2008 9:29 AM
Penicillin was discovered by ACCIDENT, not research.
Some of the bonehead lab rats here need to spend less bench time and
read a book or two instead of 'saving the world'.
Research on most things is useful, but others, not so much.
http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/CinA/Issue59/TOC11_Pzifer.htm
Posted by: philos | March 26, 2008 9:42 AM
Knowing the origins of the bacteria you're struggling against is useful, in much the same way that knowing the earth is round is useful when mapping the earth. Knowing your own evolutionary origins is also handy. Know your enemy, and know yourself.
Posted by: Stephen Wells | March 26, 2008 9:44 AM
NCN,
Do you like spouting shit you're clueless about?
Evolution isn't about where bacteria came from. It's about how they change. Look up things like antibiotic-resistant Tuberculosis or MRSA. Resistance comes about through evolution.
Maybe you should learn something about what evolution is and how it helps our understanding before spouting off. Maybe you should have listened to a biologist who actually studies evolution and bacteria to find out how they fit together. Too much work? Doesn't fit with what your pastor told you?
Keep wallowing in your willful ignorance. Must be a fun place.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | March 26, 2008 9:49 AM
"From a Christian point of view, the struggle against sickness and disease is a morally upright, righteous struggle."
From anyones point of view fighting disease is a good thing.
You are not special.
Posted by: spurge | March 26, 2008 9:51 AM
NCN:
And that's what the New Atheists just 'don't get'
In order for you to be in science, and to be CREDIBLE, you may not wish to proclaim your faith, otherwise, you may get fired if a New Atheist was your superior.
Not too (none, actually) many in the name of Atheism-run organizations "raising money for cancer research, supporting new housing in impoverished areas of the world, or sending food and clothing and medical supplies to people affected by natural disasters"
I'm agnostic, as Darwin was, and I can see the politics.
Pathetic.
You have to agree with the New Atheists or they'll stomp their feet and if they're in charge, shout incompetence - then you'll be on the street.
Posted by: philos | March 26, 2008 9:52 AM
NCN it is quite simple really. Evolution lets you understand and make sense of the relationships between organisms, at whatever level. So say you discover that compound X is active against microbug Y. How do you make use of this information further? do you randomly test it against any sort of bug? or do you use your understanding of the complex* relationship amongst microbugs to intelligently suppose it might be more effective against this group than that group, do a series of experiments to confirm that (simpler and easier than testing everything, also quicker and cheaper).
Then you can give the medics accurate prescribing information. This is good not just so that they can give compound X only to those who need it, but if you give it against bugs that are resistant, you risk that resistance spreading. And it might be that tweaking compound Y will make it work against that class, call that compound Y-2. If the bugs are resistant to Y there is a chance they will be resistant to the related Y-2, but if you have exposed lots of those bugs to Y, then Y-2 will be useless.
*relationships amongst the protists can be very complex as there is a lot of lateral transfer of large chunks of genomes down there. So one bug can be related to a number of otherwise not related bugs, and what can matter when it comes to disease and vulnerability to antibiotics is individual genes and clusters of them.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | March 26, 2008 9:55 AM
Completely false. It was a chance event that allowed penicillium spores to fall on a petri plate, but that happens all the time; you've got fungi growing on your food right this moment. I don't see you (or me!) discovering new antibiotics from this event. Fleming was a smart fellow and a trained observer who noticed significant details of the pattern of growth in the plate, and then carried out detailed series of experiments and worked out mechanisms of propagating and enhancing growth of the particularly effective strains. That is research. It is not an accident.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 26, 2008 10:03 AM
To be fair, MAJeff, knowing about the origins of 'newer' diseases is useful and is definitely informed by evolutionary biology. For example, looking at the ancestry and close relatives of HIV (not a bacteria, I know) is an issue in trying to find effective means of combating the disease.
I'm an atheist. I give money to cancer research and to feed the poor. Many of my colleagues in evolutionary biology are religious. Many are also non-religious. We're pretty much all anti-disease.
Posted by: blue | March 26, 2008 10:04 AM
Did somebody suggest otherwise?
Posted by: MartinM | March 26, 2008 10:20 AM
Heh. Allow me to rephrase: did somebody suggest otherwise before you brought it up? Only one comment mentioned penicillin before yours, philos, and that one had nothing whatsoever to do with how it was discovered. Taking a swing at a claim no one had actually made, regardless of its merits, seems rather pointless. It's almost as if you just wanted to argue.
Posted by: MartinM | March 26, 2008 10:25 AM
No, it was an accident whilst doing other focused, unrelated research in the basement of Imperial College.
(A 1928 London basement for research? Argghh. Nice clean environment, to be sure.)
Fleming wasn't purposely looking to discover something to be called Penicillin.
If I'm a researcer studying Zebrafish and accidently spill a Coke can into my Petri dish that induces the Zebrafish to do something spectacular, that's an accident, although it's enticing to say "I did it on purpose" or something of that vein.
The point may be moot:
"However, several others had earlier noted the bacteriostatic effects of Penicillium: The first published reference appears to have been in 1875, when it was reported to the Royal Society in London by John Tyndall[1]. Ernest Duchesne documented it in his 1897 paper; however it was not accepted by the Institut Pasteur because of his young age. In March 2000, doctors at the San Juan de Dios Hospital in San Jose (Costa Rica) published manuscripts belonging to the Costa Rican scientist and medical doctor Clodomiro (Clorito) Picado Twight (1887-1944). The manuscripts explained Picado's experiences between 1915 and 1927 about the inhibitory actions of the fungi of genera Penic. Clorito Picado had reported his discovery to the Paris Academy of Sciences, yet did not patent it, even though his investigation had started years before Fleming's."
Posted by: philos | March 26, 2008 10:25 AM
"I did not invent penicillin. Nature did that. I only discovered it by accident" - Alexander Fleming
Posted by: philos | March 26, 2008 10:31 AM
philos, be sure and let us know as soon as someone connected with Intelligent Design discovers a powerful antibiotic via accident, accident followed by research, or any other method.
Posted by: Jud | March 26, 2008 10:34 AM
That's called modesty.
It's utterly inane to claim the research was an accident. If I spill Coke on a zebrafish and something weird happens, that's an accident, but it's not research. If I then determine what the active agent was, purify it, and determine the mechanism of its activity, that's research, but it's not an accident.
You really don't understand science at all, philos.
Posted by: PZ Myers | March 26, 2008 10:38 AM
philos: stop being obtuse. No one argues that the mould itself wasn't an accidental discovery. However, everything that followed that initial observation was certainly not an accident. It was science based critical thinking and the application of research principles that turned an accidental discovery into something useful.
Personally, I would give my right arm for such an accident to occur in my lab. I would give my left arm to have the brains to follow up on it.
Posted by: laserboy | March 26, 2008 10:42 AM
In order for you to be in science, and to be CREDIBLE, you may not wish to proclaim your faith, otherwise, you may get fired if a New Atheist was your superior.
Care to point out some instances of that happening? I can think of a few cases of the reverse off hand, so if it really is a likely scenario you should be able to point out a few examples, right? Or are you just being blatantly dishonest and projecting your own faults onto some other group to justify your rabid hatred of them for no reason other than they don't agree with you on some completely unimportant side-topic again?
How "Christian" of you.
Posted by: JT | March 26, 2008 10:42 AM
"Fleming wasn't purposely looking to discover something to be called Penicillin."
That's the best unintentionally hilarious comment I've seen in weeks. I'm now imagining a grant application that says "I intend to discover something Folpiclopine. There isn't anything called that yet, and it might well prove useful for getting bubble gum out of upholstery."
Posted by: MissPrism | March 26, 2008 10:52 AM
Oh damn. I need a new monitor and a new cup of coffee.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | March 26, 2008 11:01 AM
Simply clueless.
philos:
In order for you to be in science, a