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.

Read the rest of this entry »

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.

According to Salon’s Broadsheet blog, I’m not the only graduate student frustrated by portrayals of scientific discoveries in the popular media. Anthropology student Allison Sherrill indicts MSNBC for spinning news from an archaeological dig into an entirely new story. Discovery of a small female figurine dressed in clothing prompted the MSNBC journalist to cry, “Prehistoric women had a passion for fashion.” The truth, in Sherrill’s words:

This type of news coverage typically frustrates archaeologists. Unfortunately very common — in order to make a better story, the media frequently portray a very tentative conclusion as well-supported truth, and furthermore, those hypotheses are often twisted into a meaning that the archaeologist never intended. In this case, some figurines that portray women in some kind of costume have been spun into a sweeping conclusion about women’s innate love to shop. The article even mentions that the archaeologists felt that their most important find had to do with early copper production, but obviously, that headline does not look nearly as exciting (or maybe they just couldn’t think of one that rhymed?).

A post over at Movering reports something annoying.

Edmunds Scientific, a company that sells “the latest and most unique science related items available,” has a rather gendered perspective on their consumer market. They’ve got a pull-down menu from which online shoppers can select “Gifts for Girls” or “Gifts for Boys.” No surprise here: the girl options include make-your-own makeup kits and some kind of scientific spa apparatus, the boy options include lots of blammo-type weaponry. This company is not a typical toy store: they say they manufactured a critical component used to record the Apollo landings, and now boast high-quality scientific products for hobbyists of all ages.

I would have been one indignant 8-year-old if I had received the “Creative Cosmetics Kit,” but maybe it’s not entirely reprehensible that someone is manufacturing kiddie makeup as science. (Is it?) But why impose gender categories for things like a personal planetarium (boy) or a rock tumbler (girl)? As Emily on Movering says, it’s offensive, coming from a company invested in getting young people excited about science. Join us and write them a letter saying so.

This week The New York Times published an article by Nicholas Wade entitled “Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written in Our Genes?” It reads like a parody of science writing, it’s so full of flimsy logic. Of course it’s just the latest article among many (e.g. 1,2,3) that have inappropriately invoked adaptive explanations for complex human characteristics.

The article describes the views of Jonathan Haidt, a psychologist at the University of Virginia who researches human emotions and morality. Haidt proposes that our morality is rooted in two fundamental structures, one “ancient” and one “modern.” Through cross-cultural research, he has also concluded that human morality is based on five moral systems, which may vary in importance but appear fundamental across most cultures. Some cultures emphasize the rights of the individual, for example, while others reinforce group cohesiveness. All this sounds interesting and enlightening, until the argument is overextended… and these moral structures become adaptations. “Religious behavior may be the result of natural selection,” according to Haidt, and “‘Those who found ways to bind themselves together were more successful.’” Haidt also claims that the “ancient” and “modern” moral structures evolved independently in humans, at different points in our history: before and after the emergence of language. Interesting speculation, but where’s the evidence?

To be honest, I’m more frustrated with the NYT’s Nicholas Wade than I am with Haidt. I haven’t read Haidt’s research, so he very well may have been careful to explain the potential evolutionary implications to his anthropological and psychological findings. But consider the opening paragraph in the article:

Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.

What biologists? Wade does not cite a single biologist, let alone an evolutionary biologist, in the article. For shame! This is downright inaccurate reporting.

So what’s the big deal? Two points. First, evolutionary biology is an actual field, in which empirical data are collected and theory is developed. Science has a method, in which hypotheses are formed and tested; you can’t just make up your own, convenient as it might be. This process generates evidence, which can support a claim. Without evidence, it is not science. Second, evolution is contentious in the public sphere. And small wonder! Haidt’s claims on the role of religion in human evolution—such as they might be—are absolutely, positively, not science (and not the first we’ve heard, either). Yet to a lay reader, the claim that morality is an evolutionary adaptation, proposed by someone with an academic degree and covered enthusiastically in the NYT science section, may seem like a perfectly legitimate representation of contemporary evolutionary theory. It’s not! Let’s not confuse titillating speculation with science, lest the power of basic science research to explain the world around us be destroyed.

I just returned from Uppsala, Sweden and the 2007 European Society for Evolutionary Biology conference. A few high points of the trip:

Fighting vertigo beneath the spires of Scandinavia’s tallest cathedral during the daily assemblage of evolutionary biologists on the front steps of Uppsala University’s main building.

Michael Majerus’s plenary talk on the social history of the peppered moth, in which he excoriated fact-averse journalists (and Judith Hooper in particular) for destroying good science in the public consciousness, and which Nick Matzke has summarized nicely (and linked to the text of Majerus’s talk) on the Panda’s Thumb blog.

Sally Otto’s plenary talk on the costs of sex, in which she argued that the ability of recombination to reintroduce variation lost by drift does more to explain the paradox of sex than any other hypothesis. Fantastic talk. I hope to blog more about this later.

Marlene Zuk’s symposium talk on gender bias in science. Confession: I didn’t actually see this talk, but now wish I had. Another attendee told me about it afterwards, and I suspect it is pretty well represented by this lecture she presented last year. I hope to blog more about this later as well.