Please Note! ScienceBlogs is taking a break while we upgrade the system. Read on for more...
John M. Lynch is an Honors Faculty Fellow at Barrett the Honors College at Arizona State University. He's also affiliated with ASU's Center for Biology & Society. When he's not an historian of anti-evolutionism, he's an evolutionary morphologist. Much to his surprise, in 2007 he was named the Arizona Professor of the Year. No doubt his students were surprised as well.
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
January 9, 2009
Category: Bits and Pieces
Our masters over at Mission Control will be upgrading our blogging platform (finally!) starting 1:00PM today. The site will still be available for you to read although no new comments or posts will be allowed. We expect to be back live sometime Saturday evening. Enjoy the silence.
Posted by John Lynch at 11:00 AM • 0 Comments
Category: Friday Felid
Caracal, Caracal caracal Schreber 1776
<source>
Posted by John Lynch at 6:40 AM • 0 Comments
January 8, 2009
Category: Anti-evolution • Science Education
PZ is reporting that Mississippi is considering one of those inane textbook disclaimer bills (HB 25), the sort of thing that occurred in Alabama and Georgia.
AN ACT TO REQUIRE THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION TO INCLUDE CERTAIN LANGUAGE EXPLAINING THAT EVOLUTION IS A THEORY IN THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF CERTAIN PUBLIC SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
The disclaimer would read:
The word 'theory' has many meanings, including: systematically organized knowledge; abstract reasoning; a speculative idea or plan; or a systematic statement of principles. Scientific theories are based on both observations of the natural world and assumptions about the natural world. They are always subject to change in view of new and confirmed observations.
This textbook discusses evolution, a controversial theory some scientists present as a scientific explanation for the origin of living things. No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered a theory.
Evolution refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced living things. There are many topics with unanswered questions about the origin of life which are not mentioned in your textbook, including: the sudden appearance of the major groups of animals in the fossil record (known as the Cambrian Explosion); the lack of new major groups of other living things appearing in the fossil record; the lack of transitional forms of major groups of plants and animals in the fossil record; and the complete and complex set of instructions for building a living body possessed by all living things.
Study hard and keep an open mind.
Veteran creationism watchers will recognize most of the verbal tics that are present here: misuse of the concept of "theory", creation of a "controversy," conflation of evolution with abiogenesis, creation of doubt regarding the fact of evolution due to "unanswered questions," and the ever popular mentions of teh Cambrian Explosion and complexity.
Posted by John Lynch at 8:43 PM • 0 Comments
Category: Books • History and Philosophy (often of Science)
John hasn't read Origin. Not *this* John. And certainly not this one. It's this one - and what he proposes to do is blog while he reads the first edition of that work. I have to say I approve of the use of the first edition - subsequent editions are a little murkier and lack the freshness of expression that makes the first such a wonderful read.
John expresses some slight shame at having not read Origin before. I don't think that's really a problem (or surprising). Biology students rarely read Origin and similarly physics students rarely crack open Principia; scientific education rarely encompasses exposure to the classic scientific texts (although I have argued in the past that they should). The important point is that we have moved beyond Darwin and, though appreciative of what he started, we need to realize that evolutionary theory has become much richer and much better established than in Darwin's day. It is only the cdesign proponentists who seem not to realize this.
Lastly, John worries about being a "Darwinian." I will just once again state that I am not a Darwinist, or for that matter, a Darwinian. The theory I use may be, but I am not. (Parenthetically, a session that I'm involved with for an upcoming conference seems to be gelling around discussing who the "Darwinians" actually were in the aftermath of the publication of Origin. The answer, it appears, is far from simple.)
Posted by John Lynch at 1:49 PM • 6 Comments
January 7, 2009
Category: Conference Blogging • Intelligent Design • Pseudoscience • Science Education
Jim Lippard is organizing SkeptiCamp Phoenix 2009. A SkeptiCamp is "a conference whose content is provided by attendees. Where BarCamp is focused on technology, SkeptiCamp instead focuses on topics of interest to skeptics, including science, critical thinking and skeptical inquiry." The event is planned for February 21st and I've already agreed to talk on "Academic Freedom" and the Intelligent Design movement. If you are an Arizona skeptic, or even from further afield, wander on over to the Camp Wiki and sign-up either to attend or present.
There's a FaceBook group as well, by the way.
Posted by John Lynch at 3:02 PM • 0 Comments
Category: Humor
... if I laughed at this?
Posted by John Lynch at 2:47 PM • 4 Comments
Category: History and Philosophy (often of Science) • Intelligent Design
Just a quick update on the book I mentioned last night. It appears that it will be published by Dembski's vanity press (for which Flannery is in charge of publicity and marketing). The work is not an edited series of papers, but a re-issue of Wallace's World of Life (available for free here) with an introduction by Flannery and foreword by Dembski.
So nothing interesting here, I'm afraid, beyond perhaps some breathless claims that "OMG! Wallace would have been one of us!!!!" or "Teach the controversy over Wallaceism!!!!" This one will die a natural death. Move on.
From Charles Smith's Wallace bibliography (links go to scanned versions):
S732. The World of Life; A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose. Chapman & Hall, Ltd., London, Dec. 1910; pp. (i)-xvi, 1-408; 110 illus. [reprints: 2nd ed. (1911); 3rd ed. (July 1911); 4th ed. (1911); 5th ed. (1911) / New and Cheaper Edition (Oct. 1914) / G. Bell & Sons, Ltd., London (1911)] / Moffat, Yard & Co., New York, Jan. 1911; pp. (i)-xvi, 1-441; 110 illus. [reprint: 1916 (with portrait front.)]
Posted by John Lynch at 1:53 PM • 3 Comments
January 6, 2009
Category: History and Philosophy (often of Science) • Intelligent Design
Dembski just announced a forthcoming book for which he is apparently writing a foreword: Michael A. Flannery (ed.) Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism. Flannery (MA, MLS) is associate director for historical collections at Lister Hill Library of the Health Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham and claims to have "published extensively on the history of medicine, pharmacy, and bioethics" [pdf] and is a recipient of the Edward Kremers Award for outstanding scholarship in pharmaceutical (rather than biological or evolutionary) history by an American. I have never encountered his historical work but will note that (see the pdf link above) that he appears sympathetic to ID. Witness (again from the pdf):
Actually, ID is not creationism. It makes no claim about the nature of the designer. All ID says is that there are certain features of living systems that are best explained by reference to an intelligent cause rather than an undirected natural process. It states no more and no less. It is, in fact, so minimalist in its claims that it can be embraced by a wide spectrum of belief systems from Judeo-Christian to Moslem and many more.
Indeed, Flannery suggests "either teach both [design and naturalistic evolution] in the science classroom or, recognizing the metaphysical premises of each, teach neither and reserve them for humanities classes in history or philosophy."
I can find no other information on the book so I cannot comment on who has provided papers. I will be surprised if any of the notable experts on Wallace (Peter Raby, Martin Fichman, or Charles H. Smith) are involved. We have known that Wallace's version of evolution differed from Darwin's for quite a while now. Why we need Flannery and Dembski writing about it, I don't know.
Posted by John Lynch at 10:20 PM • 8 Comments
Category: History and Philosophy (often of Science)
John Wilkins has a nice post up regarding the deification and demonization of Darwin. With regards the latter, he particularly discusses something I have intended to blog since I heard about it through a Wall Street Journal article - Roy Davies' book, The Darwin Conspiracy, which repeats the historically inaccurate (and unfortunately perennial) claim that Darwin plagiarized Wallace. Davies is a retired TV producer. Wilkins is an historical philosopher. Jim Lennox - who has replied to Davies' claim - is a Professor of History and Philosophy of Science. I'm not saying that Davies has to be wrong regarding Darwin, but he is definitely wrong here.
Posted by John Lynch at 9:49 PM • 5 Comments
Category: Intelligent Design • Science Education
NCSE is reporting that the first anti-evolution bill of 2009 will be from Oklahoma.
Senate Bill 320 (document), prefiled in the Oklahoma Senate and scheduled for a first reading on February 2, 2009, is apparently the first antievolution bill of 2009. Entitled the "Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act," SB 320 would, if enacted, require state and local educational authorities to "assist teachers to find more effective ways to present the science curriculum where it addresses scientific controversies" and permit teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." The only topics specifically mentioned as controversial are "biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning."
Where have we seen that wording before, I wonder? Oh yeah, Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Michigan, Missouri and South Carolina. And the DI was behind every attempt.
See also the Oklahomans for Excellence in Science Education who I am sure would welcome some support in defeating this bill.
February sees me in Oklahoma for a week, teaching a seminar on Darwin and giving a public lecture on Darwin's birthday.
Posted by John Lynch at 5:24 PM • 6 Comments
Ed reports on a putative new species of iguana that has been found on the Galapagos archipelago. Darwin saw two species (one marine and one land). We now have two additional land species, the Barrington land iguana Conolophus pallidus and this new one which is found only Volcan Wolf, the northernmost volcano of Isabela Island.
Paper is in press with PNAS (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0806339106).
Posted by John Lynch at 12:12 AM • 0 Comments
January 5, 2009
Category: Intelligent Design
From here:
Casey also chides Miller for not doing any knock-out experiments on blood clotting systems. This is heavily ironic as no ID proponent, not even Behe, has done any experiments on the blood clotting system. As I point out in my post Behe vs Lampreys, it's the evolutionary biologists that have been doing all the heavy lifting in regard to understanding the clotting system. In fact I issued a challenge to the ID proponents, the Amphioxus genome had just been published at http://genome.jgi-psf.org/Brafl1/Brafl1.home.html. Amphioxus is a primitive chordate, more primitive than lampreys, that clot their haemolymph. I challenged the ID proponents to predict which coagulation factors are present in Amphioxus, search the Amphioxus genome database and report on whether the genes found match their predictions.
Since then, silence. I can tell you one thing for sure. The Amphioxus has no gene for fibrinogen, the final step in the modern clotting cascade, yet it still clots its haemolymph. So the very basis of the "Irreducible Core" that Casey goes on about is absent in these animals, and one of Behe's iconic pathways is exposed as reducible.
Of course, we expect none of this to have any effect at all on Luskin and the DI. They will still spout the same-old-same-old in an effort to animate the undead corpse that is intelligent design. Luskin is, after all, a lawyer.
Posted by John Lynch at 12:14 PM • 0 Comments
January 4, 2009
Category: Intelligent Design
Over at PT, Nick piles on Luskin:
One aside: the fact that Behe wrote a chunk of Pandas is important in several ways apart from pure history. First, this makes Pandas, rather than Darwin's Black Box (or really, a few of his web articles), the first published expression of Behe's IC argument. Second, it means that Behe, like all of the other major players in the ID movement, pretty clearly endorsed the ID movement's get-into-the-public-schools-first, do-the-scientific-research-later philosophy and practice. Third, it nukes Luskin's indignancy about Miller failing to distinguish the blood-clotting treatments in Darwin's Black Box and Pandas; these are really just two closely related versions of the same argument, by the same person, Behe 1993 and Behe 1996. It gets even worse for Luskin once you realize that Behe defended both treatments as correct in his Kitzmiller testimony, as we will discuss below.
And
Luskin is apparently unaware of the fact (which Miller mentioned) that whales/dolphins have a pseduogene for Hageman factor. (Or if he is aware of the pseudogene, then he thinks The Designer created whales/dolphins from scratch, complete with a pseudogene for a protein they don't use, which furthermore is closely related to the corresponding functional artiodactyl Hageman factor gene! The pseudogene is direct proof that their ancestors had Hageman factor, but lost it. [4] Fish never had it, so this is in no way a case of convergence. What we do have here, however, is an excellent case of someone, namely Casey Luskin, inserting the miraculous intervention of a "common designer" where he has gaps in his knowledge. This is exactly the problem with ID/creationism - invoking God into gaps in knowledge is pretty troublesome, but creationists do something even worse. They insert God into gaps in their own knowledge, assuming, usually without even a vaguely serious attempt at a literature search (!!!), that whatever tidbits of biology they happen to have picked up represent the sum total of scientific knowledge on a topic. This is, I think, why they so often stay ignorant, even when, as Luskin did, they have had the whole thing explained to them before.
Read more here.
Posted by John Lynch at 11:04 PM • 2 Comments
Category: Poetry
John Wilkins has reminded me of Philip Larkin's poem Aubade:
I work all day, and get half-drunk at night.
Waking at four to soundless dark, I stare.
In time the curtain-edges will grow light.
Till then I see what's really always there:
Unresting death, a whole day nearer now,
Making all thought impossible but how
And where and when I shall myself die.
Wander over to John's place to read the rest of the poem which strangely works well with my first post today.
Posted by John Lynch at 8:51 PM • 0 Comments
Category: Intelligent Design
Ken Miller has offered the final portion of his discussion of Luskin, Behe and clotting. He ends with the following:
The only relevant question at this point is why the Discovery Institute keeps highlighting its own failings in this way. Why are Casey and his employers now -- three years after the Dover trial -- trying to rehabilitate the tattered credibility of both Michael Behe and Pandas? What mischief are they planning now? The only conclusion I can draw is that they must be maneuvering for the next round of state board hearings or legislative sessions -- and I'm concerned. These folks are a whole lot better at politics and public relations than they are at science, and that means that everyone who cares about science education should be on guard.
Indeed. 2008 saw the adoption of "academic freedom" as the flag under which the ID movement marches. Forget any theory of design or design detection - they are just smoke and mirrors. Forget claims to be teaching evolution better by considering both sides. We're going to be hearing a lot of noise that K-12 teachers have the "academic freedom" to "teach the controversy" even if a controversy doesn't exist within the scientific community. I can see such appeals working at the state and local level. And that is worrying.
Posted by John Lynch at 4:46 PM • 2 Comments
Category: History and Philosophy (often of Science)
Every position of permanent agreement or harmony between reason and life, between philosophy and religion, becomes impossible. And the tragic history of human thought is simply the history of a struggle between reason and life - reason bent on rationalizing life and forcing it to submit to the inevitable, to mortality; life bent on vitalizing reason and forcing it to serve as a support for its own vital desires. And this is the history of philosophy, inseparable from the history of religion.
From Del Sentimiento Trágico de la Vida (The Tragic Sense of Life) by the Spanish existentialist, Miguel de Unamuno. I was made aware of this quote by Robert Richards who uses it in his own wonderful - and highly recommended - biography of Ernst Haeckel, The Tragic Sense of Life (Harvard, 2008). Unamuno's work was included in the Index of Forbidden Books. As Wikipedia notes, Unamuno summarized his personal creed thus: "My religion is to seek for truth in life and for life in truth, even knowing that I shall not find them while I live."
Discuss if you wish ...
Posted by John Lynch at 12:20 AM • 2 Comments
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $19.95. If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
