thinkevolution.net

A scene from the Creation Museum’s biblical history exhibit.

When the North American Paleontology Convention was held in Cincinnati last week, a group international scientists visited the nearby Creation Museum and the New York Times covered their visit. In the article published yesterday, the scientists convey astonishment, amusement, and mild to moderate revulsion at the misportrayal of scientific knowledge. There’s also a gem of a quote by Dr. Arnold I. Miller, the University of Cincinnati geologist who organized the convention and suggested the trip to the museum:

Too often, academics tend to ignore what’s going on around them… I feel at least it would be valuable for my colleagues to become aware not only of how creationists are portraying their own message, but how they’re portraying the paleontological message and the evolutionary message.

In the culture war over science and religion, words are weapons. Dr. Miller’s words here—intentionally or not—are sharp and strategic. The assumption that the creationist message is separate from paleontological or evolutionary messages is subtle but eviscerating. The brand of creationism advocated by the museum—which is run by Answers in Genesis, the same people who attempt to fight science with the pseudoscientific publication Answers Research Journal—uses the language and imagery of science to assemble a biblical explanation. (As the Times article puts it, “same facts, different conclusions.”) Consequently, parsing the paleontological and evolutionary components of the museum from the creationist mission undermines the strategy of the $27 million Creation Museum.

The Evolution Directory posted this announcement today:

NCSE and The Panda’s Thumb are recruiting scientists named Steve, or Stephanie, or Stephen, or Esteban, et al. to join Project Steve, a tongue-in-cheek response to creationists. All members of Project Steve agree with the following statement:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

But you can only sign it if you have a doctorate and are named “Steve” or some variation thereof. At last count they had 895 members and are pushing to cross 900 so they can make new t-shirts that say “more than 900 Steves support evolution”. So please pass this message to any scientists or academics that you know named “Steve” (et al.) and urge them to join up.

For more information, go here!

Governor Tim Pawlenty defends intelligent design on this morning’s Meet the Press

This morning on Meet The Press, Tom Brokaw interviewed Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to discuss the McCain campaign. And, to my surprise, they talked about evolution.

McCain running mate Sarah Palin’s support of creationism has been picked up by the national media and I’m totally enthused by the idea that the Republican campaign may be forced to address this issue head-on and produce a coherent stance on evolution and creationism in public schools. Of course, there was absolutely no coherence in Governor Pawlenty’s response to Brokaw’s question about whether Palin was right to promote teaching creationism:

I saw her comments on it yesterday, and I thought they were appropriate, which is, you know, let’s–if there are competing theories, and they are credible, her view of it was, according to comments in the newspaper, allow them all to be presented, or allow them both to be presented so students could be exposed to both, and–or more, and have a chance to be exposed to the, to the various theories and make up their own minds.

As tipster commenter Andrew pointed out, Pawlenty begins by calling it “creationism” but then drifts into calling it “intelligent design.” (Just more proof that the Dover prosecutors got it right: intelligent design is just religious creationism dressed in an ugly labcoat.) He dodges the real issue of what should be enforced in school curricula by arguing for local power at each school district, but he happily outs himself as an anti-evolutionist:

Intelligent design is something that in my view is a plausible and credible and something that I personally believe in.

So there’s another one for the list. You can read the transcript or watch the Netcast of today’s Meet the Press here.

Lots of people don’t believe in evolution, and some of them are pretty influential. Here’s an update to the previous list of famous people who… you know.

Got a tip? Leave a comment!

Ron Paul, Congressman (R, Texas)

Video of the Spartanburg (SC) GOP Executive Committee meeting, November 1, 2007

Thomas Robb, national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan

“The Trap is Set,” blog post by Thomas Robb, April 24, 2008

Ben Stein, actor (Famous line: “Bueller? …Bueller? …Bueller?”)

“Ben Stein to Battle Darwin in Major Film,” World Net Daily, September 28, 2007

Claude Vorilhon, founder of the Raelian Church

Raelian Movement website

John Boehner, House Minority Leader (R, Ohio)

Judd Gregg, Senator (R, New Hampshire)

Rick Santorum, former Senator (R, Pennsylvania)

Letter to the Discovery Institute (PDF) asserting Congress’ position that students should learn about theories other than evolution, in reference to their support of the Santorum Ammendment to the No Child Left Behind Act

Ronald Reagan, former President of the United States

“God, Satan and the Media,” The New York Times, March 4, 2003

Reverend Sun Myung Moon, Founder and leader of the Unification Church

Chapter 1: The Principle of Creation, from the Divine Principle, the main theological text of the Unification Church

Ted Nugent, musician

“Vegans, Keep Out: It’s Hunting Season,” The New York Times, September 27, 2005

Grover Norquist, lobbyist

“Conservatives and Evolution,” The New Republic, July 7, 2005

Pat Buchanan, politician and The American Conservative co-founder

“Conservatives and Evolution,” The New Republic, July 7, 2005

Sherri Shepherd, The View co-host

The View television clip

(more…)

A donkeycorn in a water garden. Photograph by Mary Schwalm.

There’s been a lot of coverage of Richard Lenski’s citrate-metabolizing bacteria this summer, and it’s pretty entertaining. Lenski is a biologist at Michigan State and has been maintaining populations of E. coli bacteria in his lab for two decades. Bacteria rapidly divide, grow and die; they acquire random mutations, and lose them; it’s called evolution, and it happens. Over the years Lenski has published numerous papers on his experimental bacterial evolution project, all of which describe the populations, you know, changing over time.

Probably nothing would have happened if science writer Carl Zimmer hadn’t profiled Lenski’s work. Zimmer is one of the best science writers out there, transforming basic science research findings into fascinating tales of biological anomalies and unlikely plot twists, and he’s devoted a lot of attention to Lenski’s evolving bacteria. Last year he wrote about the work in The New York Times and he also described it in his book Microcosm, published this past May. Lenski was recently inducted in the National Academy of Sciences—a big honking deal: Congratulations, Dr. Lenski!—and his inaugural publication in the Academy’s scientific journal describes a discovery having to do with the bacteria evolving the ability to metabolize citrate. These results were also presented by graduate student Zachary Blount at the evolution conference in Minnesota this June, to an entertained audience who watched a video of what it took to analyze the 40 trillion cells in the experiment. Zimmer also wrote, eloquently, about this finding, and why it’s cool, in a June 2 post on his blog. (Recommended reading if you’re interested in the details of the actual science.) With an interested reception in the scientific community and national attention in the popular media, Lenski and his well-adapted cells were, obviously, ripe targets for an outraged rejection by the anti-evolution people.

(more…)

In the conflict between evolution and creationism, the weapons of each side are impotent in the hands of the other. The discipline of evolutionary biology uses the scientific method to observe, hypothesize about and test aspects of the natural world. Creationism, the literal translation of Scripture, requires faith. Creationists won’t find legitimate evidence of a young earth because adherence to the scientific method has only yielded data showing that our planet was formed billions of years ago. And likewise, scientists can’t “test for God” because science is unable to explore the supernatural.

Consequently, the whole “peer-reviewed journal” thing has always been a big sticking point in the evolution/creationism conflict. Scientific journals are reputable because the results published therein are reviewed (and often rejected, trust me!) by independent experts. The whole system sounds credible and reliable because for the most part, it is. It’s pretty much the reason why rational-minded folks accept and understand evolution.

Anti-evolution advocates try to fight science with science, but it doesn’t really work. Only pseudoscience, faulty science or scientific-sounding rhetoric has been presented as evidence for a young earth or an intelligent designer. But Answers in Genesis, the organization behind the Creation Museum, has added “peer-reviewed journal” to the creationist arsenal. Their Answers Research Journal “is a professional, peer-reviewed technical journal for the publication of interdisciplinary scientific and other relevant research from the perspective of the recent Creation and the global Flood within a biblical framework.” Three articles have been published so far. After the jump I discuss the wacky “science” employed in an article that investigates on which day the microbes were created.

(more…)

According to a May 2007 Gallup poll, 49% of Americans believe in evolution, 48% do not and 2% have no opinion. Still, I find it startling every time I hear about another person who doesn’t. Evidently I’m wrestling with my own issues of mulish blockheadedness. Anyway, although hearing about ordinary people who don’t believe in evolution makes me die inside, finding out about famous people who don’t believe in evolution is entertaining. So let’s start a list.

Got a tip? Leave a comment!

Chuck Norris, action hero

“On Chuck Norris ‘mania’ sweeping the net,” article by Chuck Norris, World Net Daily, October 23, 2006

Kirk Cameron, actor

The Way of the Master video

Jeffrey Dahmer, serial killer

MSNBC television interview, July 11, 2007

Deepak Chopra, guru

“Intelligent Design Without the Bible,” blog post by Deepak Chopra, The Huffington Post, August 23, 2005

Mel Gibson, actor

Interview in Playboy, July 1995

George W. Bush, president

“For Bush, His Toughest Call Was the Choice to Run at All,” New York Times, October 29, 2000

Elisabeth Hasselbeck, The View co-host

Interview in Today’s Christian, July/August 2006

Charlton Heston, actor

The Mysterious Origins of Man video (read Skeptical Inquirer review here)

Pope Benedict XVI

“Pope Weighs in on Creationism Controversy,” MSNBC.com, November 11, 2005

Sam Brownback, senator (R, Kansas) and 2008 presidential candidate

Mike Huckabee, governor of Arkansas and 2008 presidential candidate

Tom Tancredo, representative (R, Colorado) and 2008 presidential candidate

The May 3, 2007 GOP presidential candidates debate

John Thune, senator (R, South Dakota)

“The Gay War Rolls On,” Newsweek, July 26, 2004

Ann Coulter, maniac

Godless: The Church of Liberalism by Ann Coulter, published by Crown Forum

Apparently, images described earlier as depicting a baby jackalope and signifying the demise of modern scientific thought are actually of a Patagonian cavy, a mammal native to South America and a recognized member of the Caviidae family since forever.

Picture of the Patagonian cavy sign at the Southwick’s Zoo. Photograph by Mary Schwalm.

The “befuddled” graduate student who first failed to identify this non-controversial species, which has not shared a common ancestor with rabbits for 83 million years or with antelopes for 100 million years, is an idiot. “She’s an idiot,” her advisor said. “This is going in your file,” said the graduate chair, “and expect to revisit this issue at your next committee meeting.” Another faculty member passing by in the hallway declared, “graduate students are as dumb as a sack of hammers,” though it is not clear if the comment was addressing the subject at hand. The correction came three days after the initial misidentification, when the photographer, who is not a biologist but who did read the plaque at the zoo exhibit, contacted the student. “It’s a Patagonian cavy,” she wrote in an email.

In better news, the return of the jackalope to mythical status means that science is safe again. Champions of Intelligent Design, who had heralded the baby jackalope as irrefutable evidence for their theory, have returned to their think tanks. At the present time, the scientific establishment faces no real threats from the anti-science camps.

A statue in Wyoming constructed back when jackalopes were revered as majestic but mythical animals.

Shocking photos of an unusual hybrid-type animal confounded biologists today. Images of what zoo-goers agree look an awful lot like a baby jackalope were posted on the internet today, making evidence against the canonical view of evolution by common descent—which thoroughly rejects the existence of jackalopes, which would require the mating of two phylogenetically divergent and anatomically dissimilar organisms—available worldwide. Jackalopes, also known as “antelabbits” or “stagbunnies” according to Wikipedia, had long been rejected as imaginary joke animals that people from the southwest described to gullible roommates when they went away to college in the east. But the late-breaking images challenge all that. Intelligent design advocates are claiming victory, explaining that the existence of the baby jackalope violates all known biological laws and that the empire of scientific theory has been toppled. Admittedly, a graduate student in biology shown these pictures was befuddled.

Images of the baby jackalope with its mother, taken at the Southwick’s Zoo in Massachusetts. Female jackalopes don’t have antlers.

In the mad scramble to challenge this new challenge to evolution and possibly rewrite the laws of nature, an interesting ancillary fact has emerged. Apparently most evolution deniers and supporters of Intelligent Design also believe in the jackalope. “Of course I’ve always believed in jackalopes,” said one 17-year-old girl who rejects evolution as a materialistic conspiracy perpetrated by godless academics. “We know antelabbits are real, because full-size antelopes could never forage in narrow crevices or really dense underbrush and the circle of life depends on balance in nature. It’s simple logic,” explained her father, misconstruing the ecological niche concept. It’s unclear how the scientific establishment will weather this assault. In the past, major revisions to scientific theory have led to an ultimately more robust understanding of the natural world, like when Einstein dropped the cosmological constant from his field equations for general relativity after facing undeniable evidence that the universe is indeed expanding. But these findings may destroy science altogether, and lead to a total deterioration of knowledge and pursuit of rational thought.

“Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?”

So asks an essay published by Answers in Genesis, an organization promoting their soon-to-open Creation Museum. The museum directly challenges modern scientific understanding, so Answers in Genesis is justifiably concerned that the enterprise may be seen as “anti-science.” Their response to this concern includes the same empty rhetoric that evolution-deniers have been trotting out for ages: evolution isn’t relevant, because none of the scientific technologies of our time have anything to do with evolution.

Nonsense, of course. In medicine alone, the case for the importance of evolution has been made again, again, again and again. But why not have another go at it? This week in PNAS, researchers describe how they tracked the evolution of a deadly Staphylococcus bacterial strain in a single patient using genomics technology. The problem of antibiotic resistance and how it evolves is old news, but unfortunately it remains both grave and immediate. But that’s what’s so exciting about this article, which demonstrates a method of identifying adaptations in bacterial strains evolving in real time in real patients. By characterizing the pathogen as it mutated, these scientists were able to determine which new changes increased its lethality. Now, other Staphylococcus strains can be screened in other patients to predict how they will respond to antibiotic therapies, potentially increasing patient survivorship and constraining evolution of antibiotic resistance.

(more…)