What? A physics Ph.D. doesn't give you perfect knowledge of biology?

Is there something about having certain kinds of degrees - mathematics, physics, computer science - that prevents one from easily accepting models such as evolution, which typically are not elegantly modeled via mathematics? Like, I always get the feeling that a lot of these professionals find the conclusions of biology too "fuzzy" to be real. Like, if you can't put it in a short little equation, it's better to believe that god or aliens did it.

PZ-

I just came in to find my hit counter spinning out of control. Thanks for the link.

Erm, Chet, let's not play into their divide and conquer strategy, shall we?

I think/hope that the majority of Phd holders are still somewhat sane.

Chet:

There are a few things I know for sure: there are stupid people with advanced degrees, and all of the stupid people with advanced degrees who poo-poo evolution are doing so for religious reasons. For them, it has nothing to do with science .

Is there something about having certain kinds of degrees - mathematics, physics, computer science - that prevents one from easily accepting models such as evolution, which typically are not elegantly modeled via mathematics?

Well, it's really only a small subset of us that engage in this sort of silliness. However, I will say that there is something about a mathematics doctorate (and presumably physics as well) that seems to lead to a certain kind of hubris. We tend to have this underlying belief that we have some special insight others lack, which we can then apply to fields outside our specialty.

I do think most of us learn to recognize and suppress that idea, though. The ones who don't become ignorant loudmouths, a la Berlinski.

My fave anti-global warming cobag: Lubos Motl, string physicist and Harvard junior faculty, and blogger. Maybe he is describing another dimension.

This professor isn't alone. The chair of the physics department at my undergrad institution was an ID fan. A very intelligent guy otherwise, but I'm still kind of ashamed to tell people that I have a bachelor's in physics because of that.

Well, at least he doesn't proclaim that engineers have the greatest capability to understand evolution and design. It has to be an improvement of a sort.

Being an arrogant mathematician, I'm going to dismiss out of hand the claim that mathematics makes people arrogant... But if I decide to be a creationist after I get my Ph.D. on account of that, please slap me silly.

Scratch someone who challenges evolution, and you KNOW the basis is religion, never anything else.

We tend to have this underlying belief that we have some special insight others lack, which we can then apply to fields outside our specialty.

Which is obviously absurd. It's us biologists who have a special insight on everything. :p

You don't have to be a physicist to be embarassed by scientists who are complicit with bamboozlement of the public. I was embarassed myself last year when my husband brought home a flier given to him by a student for a lecture on "Inteligent Design" by a high school chemistry teacher. I thought about going as a heckler, but I decided it would be a bit of a fish in a barrel experience so I didn't attend. Besides, who wants to sit through a lecture like that.

No doubt the creationist lobby will next recruit people with PhDs in biology to lecture against radiometric dating methods, psychologists will comment on Flood Geology, and mathematicians will review the fossil record (Dembski, are you listening?). Or failing these, a degree in anything will no doubt do.

It's my conviction that we are all crackpots, only on different subjects.

"What? A physics Ph.D. doesn't give you perfect knowledge of biology?"

Oh, I see, so I need perfect knowledge in biology to recognize ID to be a bullshit... Anyway do you have perfect knowledge?
And do you really think that his misbelief has anything to do with his physics phd? Nonsense.

Budding wingnuts with some academic acumen may steer towards fields other than biology in order not to challenge their religious preconceptions. Take for example Hannah Maxson, president of the IDEA Club at Cornell, who is an undergraduate triple major in physics, chemistry and math. That apparently qualifies her to co-teach an evolutionary biology course at Cornell.

Is it really necessary for you to make the dairy products references? Or for James Wynne to make the cheesehead references?

Really, I don't assume there's something "in the lakes" that causes Powerline to exist in Minnesota and then make cracks about the whole state... You're free to do so, you live there.

But the dairy and cheesehead shit? It ain't funny, PZ. It's juvenile. It has nothing whateoever to do with Sandra Gade's pitiful ignorance. Nothing.

Lighten up. James is from Wisconsin, and my son goes to school in Wisconsin—I hear the cheesehead jokes more often from Wisconsinites than anyone else. You won't find cheesehead foam hats in Minnesota...but cross the border and you'll find them in every truck stop.

"Is there something about having certain kinds of degrees - mathematics, physics, computer science - that prevents one from easily accepting models such as evolution, which typically are not elegantly modeled via mathematics?"

Well, in my experience, it's mainly physics theorists who are prone to being creationists. Dr. George Vahala, for instance, one of my old professors, is an acomplished physicist in the field of magneto-hydrodynamics, but goes on a tirade, every semester he teaches, about the dangers of extrapolation and interpolation, and throws in "when the universe began, 6000 years ago..."
Motl would be another point in that data set as well.

/experimentalist.

Humph. I would like to think a physics PhD would help a little with that critical thinking facility. Sucks to have a contradictory example.

But let's not get carried away. The majority of physicists are (in order by %) non-creationist, atheist, and liberal.

It's not really true to say that physicists (theoretical or experimental) are prone to being creationists. Very few of either kind are. My experience is that experimentalists are more likely to be religious than theoreticians, but they're both more likely to be atheist than anything else.

Heck, a PhD in physics doesn't give you perfect knowledge of physics. Hopefully it gives you most general physics to go with your speciality but there is no warranty.

It seems to be a common observation that many engineers and to some degrees some physicists believe that they can achieve understanding of other fields easily, increasing the usual percentage of crankhood any discipline has. This is IMO due to that they may professionally have to get into new fields without much prior knowledge and are mostly successful in this. I note that Gade has retired which is the point where some goes into crankhood.

I live in Wisconsin, but spent most of my life in Chicago. Due to the Packers-Bears rivalry, there is great hatred in Wisconsin for people from Chicago. The cheesehead thing started out as an insult from Chicagoans, but the folks in Green Bay, and soon the rest of the state, somehow saw it as a compliment. At any rate, PZ is right; no one takes it seriously.

I remember Prof Motl decided at one point that evolution was only as well tested as String Theory. Of course, his point wasn't to rubbish evolution so much as to have some of its lustre rub off.

Even so...somewhat nutty

Next, the Wisconsans will get all wound up in String Cheese theory, or something equally icky.

I really, really, can't get my head around the professor's worry that students will think

if you dig deeply enough in your back yard you will find all the fossils

It's as though he'd never heard of ... what is that word ... science? Or history? I doubt that my great-great-etc. grandfather fought at Cowpens, but it still deserves a place on the timeline of the Revolutionary War.

"String Cheese theory"

Or cheese hole theory - what remains after a mass of cheese collapses gravitionally.

The "Conservation of Energy" simply decrees that "The Second Law of Thermodynamics" is wrong.

The 2 L of T; that the C of E is wrong ?????????? Infinite Maypole dancing. But at the URL www.unifiedtheory.org.uk, I have rained on their parade and they remain dumb and unfounded.

The Fissickists do not have the brains to be terrified.

The Flaws of Fissicks cause war, famine, world poverty and Earth murder.

On physicists with excessive hubris: alas, I'm afraid that instances of such are merely results of particular physicists accepting for real the highly romanticized view of physicists a large portion of the general public seems to hold. It always amazed me, as I was going through the physics education process, how much laypersons would assume about the mental abilities of me and my peers upon mention of our area of study. It is almost as if they thought that every physicist is a genius. Knowing how very far that is from the truth, I always derived great amusement from such attitudes. I certainly never tried to correct them! Such perceptions can be very convenient and are rarely harmful, if you're aware of the true state of affairs. But it seems that in some cases physicists (and mathematicians) let the public persuade them of their own genius. . .and, alas, this is more likely to happen in the case of those who are not, in fact, geniuses.

chet, of course, there are short little equations in biology, too. Population genetics and all that, plus all of Woodger and other's axiomatics. (Not that this is used much these days ...)

Or cheese hole theory - what remains after a mass of cheese collapses gravitionally.

Ooh, so that's what happens to Swiss Cheese...

No doubt the creationist lobby will next recruit people with PhDs in biology to lecture against radiometric dating methods, psychologists will comment on Flood Geology, and mathematicians will review the fossil record (Dembski, are you listening?). Or failing these, a degree in anything will no doubt do.

Heh, why not. This is how the news media usually picks their "experts" on almost everything, why should ID people be any different.

chet, of course, there are short little equations in biology, too.

Yeah, I know. Am I way off base to suggest that biology as a whole seems to lend itself less well to deterministic mathematical models than other fields in science?

It's not a criticism of biology in any way. In my view, the fact that the biological world lends itself so poorly to mathematical simplification is what makes it the only real science.

At any rate, PZ is right; no one takes it seriously.

There was a guy several years ago who crashed in a light plane and credited the cheesehead hat he put on with saving him from head injury during the impact.

Chet: Well, every level introduces complications of a certain sort, but I don't see any intrinsic reason why biology is less amenable to exact hypotheses. (There are some philosophers who think there cannot be laws of biology because life is spatiotemporally bounded - but that's absurd, since it would also rule out (say) organic chemistry: no organic chemistry before there are carbon atoms, and those have only existed since stars made them first however many billions of years ago.)

wamba:

That may be true, but if the cheesehead had made sure there was fuel in the tank before taking off, he wouldn't have needed the hat.

There are a few things I know for sure: there are stupid people with advanced degrees, and all of the stupid people with advanced degrees who poo-poo evolution are doing so for religious reasons. For them, it has nothing to do with science .

Scratch someone who challenges evolution, and you KNOW the basis is religion, never anything else.

That is absolutely not true. There a plenty of non-religious people with advanced degrees who doubt evolution. Must I really counter this claim? Ok, well some of those listed in the below links are religious, but there are many who are NOT:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=do…

http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/scidoubtevol.htm#list

It's very sad when smart people need to resort to saying that people who doubt evolution are stupid, religious, or other. I really don't get it -- why do you need to resort to this name-calling and checking people's religious beliefs if evolution is absolutely true?

If it's true, then evolution will speak for itself in the facts.

What is all the backstabbing about? I understand it's frustrating when someone doesn't agree with you. But seriously, can't we all grow up a little?

Something like:
I've heard your position and I disagree, here's why...
I interpret those facts in a completely different way ...

There's nothing wrong with teaching a design theory in school if you take religion out of it. It's a theory, and SO IS EVOLUTION! From the same set of evidence, you could look at it and say:
1. It looks like something designed this
2. It looks like this evolved over a long period of time

Both are perfectly fair theories given the facts, yet for some reason, the non-religious feel threatened because "it's religion in disguise!". I fear many of you have lost your ability to think critically. You can't get rid of bias, it's how you see the world, and it affects how you interpret the facts -- I understand that.

How about we stick to the intriguing world of molecular machines or explaining the cutting edge findings in molecular biology and nanotechnology instead of making it into atheist vs. fundamentalist, educated vs. uneducated, kindergarten playground kind of fighting.

"Is there something about having certain kinds of degrees - mathematics, physics, computer science - that prevents one from easily accepting models such as evolution, which typically are not elegantly modeled via mathematics?"

Evolution can be modeled very elegantly, at least in computer science, where simple gentic algorithms are frequently used to solve very complex problems. The power of this approach lies in a remarkable reliability of (models of) evolution to somehow find a way. For me, this is one of the best approaches to proving the inherent power of simple variation and selection, aka evolution.

I personally know no computer scientist who has any problems with understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, but then, I live in Europe.

There's nothing wrong with teaching a design theory in school if you take religion out of it. It's a theory, and SO IS EVOLUTION!

Must we? I guess we must.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which is something completely different from the everyday meaning of the word 'theory'. A scientific theory is the most solid sort of science, and a theory only becomes so, after it has become generally accepted in the scientific community. Intelligent Design doesn't even rise to the level of a scientific hypothesis, as there is no science behind it.

Anyone who claims that ID is a theory, or that evolution and ID are both theories, doesn't know what the word means in a scientific context.

If it's true, then evolution will speak for itself in the facts.

What is all the backstabbing about? I understand it's frustrating when someone doesn't agree with you. But seriously, can't we all grow up a little?

Something like:
I've heard your position and I disagree, here's why...
I interpret those facts in a completely different way ...

The problem is, this was done already at Darwin's time, and have been done many time since. ID and Creationism doesn't provide any facts or hypothesis - they just try to find problems with evolution (without success I might add), and claim that it proves ID/Creationism.

Biologists like PZ keep pointing out why their arguments are wrong at best, and outright lies at worst, yet they keep continuing spreading the same false claims.
How are you supposed to debate nicely with such people?

Kristjan Wager :

Ok, I shouldn't have used the word 'theory' so lightly. ID certainly meets the criteria for a scientific hypothesis.

At least Darwin included problems with his hypothesis and other ways of interpretting the facts. That is what a real scientist does.

Please don't mix ID with creationism, they're NOT the same. ID and creationism don't just poke holes in evolutionary theory - that sounds like a claim someone would make who hasn't made an honest attempt to look into them.

You can debate nicely with anyone, it's quite easy and it doesn't take as much of a toll on you as getting bitter and angry. I haven't seen anything in ID that's an outright lie, or creationism for that matter. I'm sorry but in the 'evolution' of evolutionary theory, I'm quite sure scientists have been WRONG at various points. Is that not what scientists do - refine theories as new evidence comes to light? Given that ID is a relatively new idea, I think it is acceptable to be wrong on some things.

To be honest, what I see on this blog is mostly religion-bashing.

Evolution can be modeled very elegantly, at least in computer science, where simple gentic algorithms are frequently used to solve very complex problems. The power of this approach lies in a remarkable reliability of (models of) evolution to somehow find a way. For me, this is one of the best approaches to proving the inherent power of simple variation and selection, aka evolution.

I personally know no computer scientist who has any problems with understanding and accepting the theory of evolution, but then, I live in Europe.

I know several who have major problems with it.

Anyway, the vast complexity of evolutionary theory is very difficult to model, you might be able to do extremely simple variation. Do you have such a model available somewhere? How about just a single-celled organism?

ID is actually a very old idea, which dominated biology by default until Darwin came along. In its recently resurrected form has to its credit no results and no predictions, and in fact comprises nothing at all beyind a groundless (rationally speaking; psychologically it's grounded in Christian funadamentalism) negative attitude toward evolutionary biology combined with childish handwaving about things that "look" designed. Other than that it definitely looks very scientific- if the person looking at it happens to be totally clueless.

If you only see the religion bashing it must be because you're not capable of reading PZ's many outstanding science posts. Since they are models of clear explanation of science to laypeople, that incapacity is all anyone needs to know to evaluate the worth of your opinions about IDiocy.

Hey MPete:

Show me one ID experiement that has been conducted to test it's hypothesis.

http://pandagon.net/2006/07/25/crazies-go-after-kansas-bb-owner-for-fly…

And would you eat at this bed and breakfast?

Steve LaBonne:

ID is actually a very old idea, which dominated biology by default until Darwin came along.

Not in its current form.

In its recently resurrected form has to its credit no results and no predictions, and in fact comprises nothing at all beyind a groundless (rationally speaking; psychologically it's grounded in Christian funadamentalism) negative attitude toward evolutionary biology combined with childish handwaving about things that "look" designed. Other than that it definitely looks very scientific- if the person looking at it happens to be totally clueless.

I love these kind of ignorant statements. You obviously have not done any research or read any of the many peer-reviewed publications.

If you only see the religion bashing it must be because you're not capable of reading PZ's many outstanding science posts.

Clearly, I must be stupid if I haven't seen the science posts. I was referring to the subject of ID and creationism -- no intelligent discussion is going on here, it's simply ranting and an "altar call" to rally the troops to call everybody who disagrees a "demented fuckwit".

Since they are models of clear explanation of science to laypeople, that incapacity is all anyone needs to know to evaluate the worth of your opinions about IDiocy.

Are you seriously attempting to insult my intelligence? By your comments, friend, one might assume you have some sort of prideful complex whereby you feel compelled to belittle others to make yourself look better -- clearly a lack of self-confidence. Is that lack of self-confidence rooted in the "fact" that we are here purely by chance? If that were true then your brain and your thoughts are just a product of randomness. How could you possibly know what's true or not true? I would encourage you to look into the possibility that we are, in fact, products of will and design, and we're here for a reason.

MPETE:

Show us one EXPERIMENT done to test the ID theory.

Just one.