thinkevolution.net

What: Second annual Darwin Day and Teach-In

Where: University of Pennsylvania Museum

When: 1:00 to 4:00 PM on Sunday, February 10, 2008

Why: It’s Charles Darwin’s 199th birthday.

Who: You! The event is free and open to the public.

Next month the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archeology and Anthropology will host its second annual Darwin Day, in celebration of Charles Darwin’s 199th birthday. This event is part of International Darwin Day, which recognizes “the enormous benefits that scientific knowledge, acquired through human curiosity and ingenuity, has contributed to the advancement of humanity.”

In addition to cake (first come first served), this Darwin Day celebration will have a “teach-in” lecture series. Speakers include Dr. Louise Krasniewicz, who will talk about about origin myths around the world, and attorneys Eric Rothschild and Steve Harvey, who were plaintiff’s counsel for the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board case. Don’t live near Philadelphia? Check here for other Darwin Day celebrations around the globe, or get tips on starting your own event.

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…)

On the January 14 Colbert Report, Stephen Colbert interviewed Neil Shubin. He’s an evolutionary biologist and one of the discoverers of Tiktaalik, that fish with legs that crawled out of the ocean 375 million years ago.

Stephen Colbert: Your book has a provocative title. It’s called Your Inner Fish: A Journey Into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body. Now what the hell does that mean! I do not have a fish inside me.

Neil Shubin: Actually your body is organized a lot like a fish.

Stephen Colbert: What is it with evolutionary biologists that they just can’t let people think what they want about themselves?

Neil Shubin: Well, we’re constrained by the data!

Shubin has also published a thoughtful guest post on Pharyngula discussing his experience going on national TV.

Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) has just launched the Science, Health And Related Policies (SHARP) Network. It’s a website interface that allows citizens to track their representatives’ positions on science policy as well as contribute new information via an interactive wiki. The network can be explored by browsing by category: Committee, People or Issue. Each committee, issue and people page contains a static top portion with basic information, and an editable wiki below.

For example, the SHARP profile of Senator Arlen Spector (R-PA) provides a summary of his voting record on energy, global warming, health, and other topics. There’s nothing yet on Specter’s record on teaching evolution in public schools, but if you’re a SEA member you can log in and edit the wiki.

Radio Times host Marty Moss-Coane interviewed Michael Shermer again today. In his new book, The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics, he argues that the emotional decisions we make about money can be explained by evolutionary psychology—or by a new science called “evolutionary economics.”

In the interview, Shermer discussed how decisions about money often violate the expectation of straightforward financial gain. These decisions may appear ethical: in 1983, the US International Trade Commission imposed a 45% tariff on imported motorcycles to protect the employees of the American-based Harley Davidson company. Or they may be irrational: a stockholder may refuse to sell a declining stock because desperation makes him hope the original value will be regained. The interview included virtually no discussion of evolution or how research in evolutionary biology supports the psychology Shermer describes. I haven’t read the book, but it seems to me that “evolutionary economics” is really “why we put our money where we put it.” But of course, anything with “evolution” in the title is going to get much more attention!

Michael Shermer is the founder and publisher of Skeptic magazine, columnist for Scientific American and founder of the Skeptics Society. Marty Moss-Coane is the host of Radio Times, a daily radio show from NPR radio station WHYY, 90.9 FM in Philadelphia, PA. You can listen to this show from the Radio Times archive.

Over on Hullabaloo, tristero writes that a candidate’s response to the evolution question is “a litmus test.” Governor Mike Huckabee was one of three Republican candidates to disavow evolution in a previous debate. In this clip he is asked whether he believes the story of creation. Huckabee retorts that it’s an unfair question because it “asks in a simplistic manner… whether there is a God or not.” So I guess the religious beliefs of presidential candidates… are not anything the voting public should care about?

Of course, Huckabee is very invested in our knowing that he believes in God. And to him, it’s straightforward: “A person either believes that God created this process, or that it was an accident.” He’s unequivocal: accepting evolution is rejecting God. Huckabee gets so much more wrong in this two minute response, beyond distorting the question into a test of faith. Conflating the theory of evolution with the origin of life is a blunder that confuses major scientific disciplines—but for Huckabee that’s not relevant, because to him research into the origin of life and evolutionary biology are wrongheaded and only within his sphere of interest as threats to Christian faith. His suggestion that evolution is a purely random (accidental) process is so misguided that it’s staggering that a presidential candidate would promote it with such confidence. Which leads us to the real problem. Huckabee says (not for the first time) that this question has no business harassing a presidential candidate—the question of evolution is for someone writing “an eighth grade science book.” Huckabee’s dismissal is alarming, and tristero’s right: if a candidate doesn’t recognize that a government must rely on basic science research to develop responsible and ethical policies, that candidate has no business in the White House.