This makes me sick to my stomach:

After 27 years as a science teacher and 9 years as the Texas Education Agency’s director of science, Christine Castillo Comer said she did not think she had to remain “neutral” about teaching the theory of evolution.

“It’s not just a good idea; it’s the law,” said Ms. Comer, citing the state’s science curriculum. But now Ms. Comer, 56, of Austin, is out of a job, after forwarding an e-mail message on a talk about evolution and creationism [...]

Her departure, which has stirred dismay among science professionals since it became public last week, is a prelude to an expected battle early next year over rewriting the state’s science education standards, which include the teaching of evolution [...]

The chairman of the panel, Dr. Don McLeroy, a dentist and Sunday School teacher at Grace Bible Church in College Station, has lectured favorably in the past about intelligent design.

Having gone to school in College Station, I am familiar with Grace Bible Church. It's a very, very family-friendly evangelical church. I knew a lot of kids who went there, and they were definitely the classic evangelical type. I suppose that's beside the point; the real question is: how the hell is a dentist and Sunday school teacher heading up the panel for the TEA's standardized science curriculum? Is there really no better qualified person in the entire state of Texas? A trained scientist perhaps?

From the article, it isn't clear the text of the email that Comer sent out. Was it like "FYI -- attached message" or was it like "FYI -- let's get these creationist nutjobs!" (the difference is huge; while the former would be lawsuit worthy, the latter would obviously be grounds for disciplinary action).

In any case, I'm nervous that Texas will retreat from the required teaching of modern biology in school. Words cannot express how angry it makes me that we still have to debate the single unifying core tenet of modern biology. It's like "debating" GR. Ugh.

Filed under biology · evolution · intelligent design · science · texas · textbooks

Posted by H. C. Hodges at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)

First, there was the controversial idea of hosting Bush's Presidential Library at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Now, SMU apparently got picked to host an "intelligent design" conference. My favorite quote from the SMU faculty:

Other biologists compared the conference to a presentation by Holocaust deniers. Would the university allow that to happen?

That is an interesting question. It is clear that official government censorship should never be tolerated, but a private university like SMU has the First Ammendment right, as well as a responsibility, to limit the groups with which it associates. Clearly the University would cancel its hosting of the event and return all fees, even at this stage, if it found out the group advocated Holocaust denial. It's telling that the University does not see fit to cancel hosting an event for a group led by the Discovery Institute, which is devoted to denial of serious academic research. It's rather disgusting actually...

Filed under biology · dallas · evolution · intelligent design · texas

Posted by H. C. Hodges at 7:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I was reading a blog today wherein a professor made a post about the scientific support for evolution, and the lack of such support for intelligent design. He pointed out:

[Y]ou can access the websites of any major scientific organization [...] to read their statements affirming evolution as the unifying theory of biology and the disaffirming of all forms of creationism including intelligent design.

Although news organizations seem to be recognizing the false controversy stirred up by ID proponents in order to advance their political goals, it is still easy to be given the impression that there remains some controversy amongst learned scientists on the issue. So I was curious how clear scientific organizations have been in condemning "intelligent design" as pseudo-science.

I checked the largest, most influential and most recognized scientific organizations; below are their official statements on intelligent design and evolution:

• The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) — publishes The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), official organization that advises the US President on matters of science and technology [ref]:

  Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science [...] Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. [...]
  
  No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course [...] Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

• American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — world's largest scientific organization, publisher of Science magazine, quite possibly the world's most widely respected peer-reviewed scientific journal [ref]:

  Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
  
  [...] AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education

• National Science Teacher's Association (NSTA) — the largest organization in the world committed to supporting science teaching, membership of more than 55,000 including science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, business and industry representatives [ref]

  The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) strongly supports the position that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 science education frameworks and curricula. Furthermore, if evolution is not taught, students will not achieve the level of scientific literacy they need [...] NSTA also recognizes that evolution has not been emphasized in science curricula in a manner commensurate to its importance because of official policies, intimidation of science teachers, the general public's misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, and a century of controversy. In addition, teachers are being pressured to introduce creationism, "creation science," and other nonscientific views, which are intended to weaken or eliminate the teaching of evolution.

• The American Physical Society (APS) — the APS is the leading American professional body of physicists, and represents over 46,000 physicists in academia and industry in the US and internationally [ref]

  Marvin Cohen, president of the American Physical Society (APS), has stated that only scientifically validated theories, such as evolution, should be taught in the nation’s science classes. He made this statement in response to recently reported remarks of President Bush about intelligent design, which is a type of creationism.

• The American Geophysical Union (AGU) — an organization of 43,000 Earth and space scientists; publishes a dozen peer reviewed journal series as well as scientific meetings [ref]:

  Scientific theories, like evolution and relativity and plate tectonics, are hypotheses that have survived extensive testing and repeated verification. Scientific theories are therefore the best-substantiated statements that scientists can make to explain the organization and operation of the natural world. Thus, a scientific theory is not equal to a belief, a hunch, or an untested hypothesis [...] "Creation science" is based on faith and is not supported by scientific observations of the natural world. Creationism is not science and does not have a legitimate place in any science curriculum. AGU opposes all efforts to require or promote teaching creationism or any other religious tenets as science. AGU supports the National Science Education Standards, which incorporate well-established scientific theories including the origin of the universe, the age of Earth, and the evolution of life.

• The American Astronomical Society (AAS) — membership of 6,500 scientists including physicists, mathematicians, geologists, engineers and others whose research interests lie within contemporary astronomy [ref]

  A small, but vocal, minority of religious individuals has been urging a major revision of how evolution is taught in U.S. schools. Based on the personal beliefs, they find fault not only with biological evolution, but also with modern astronomical ideas about the age, expansion, and evolution of the universe. They have been actively pressing their case in the political, media, and educational arenas, and their loud arguments sometimes drown out other perspectives, including science [...] Not only is evolution a unifying concept in biology but also describes the way in which the planets, stars, galaxies, and universe change over long periods of time [...] Research [...] has produced clear, compelling and widely accepted evidence that astronomical objects and systems evolve [...] Specifically, the scientific evidence clearly indicates that the Universe is 10 to 15 billion years old, and began in a hot, dense state we call the Big Bang.

• The American Chemical Society (ACS) — the leading, self-governed organization that consists of more than 160,000 members at all degree levels and in all fields of chemistry [ref]

  Evolutionary theory is not a hypothesis, but is the scientifically accepted explanation for the origin of species, and explains significant observations in chemistry, biology, geology, and other disciplines [...] Evolution cannot be dismissed or diminished by characterizing it as mere conjecture or speculation. Scientific explanations of the natural world have been reached through observation and experimentation, are testable through observation and manipulation of natural systems, and can be modified as a result of new information. The inclusion of non-scientific explanations in science curricula misrepresents the nature and processes of science.

• Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) — represents 22 professional societies and 84,000 scientists in disciplines that range from single molecules to public health [ref]

  [I]t is critical to preserve the integrity of science education by opposing the mandatory teaching in science classes of creationism, intelligent design, and other concepts not based on sound scientific principles [...] Proponents for non-scientific accounts of the development of life, including creationism and intelligent design, contend that evolution alone should not be taught in science classes. Arguing that evolution is "just a theory," rather than a fact, they insist that intelligent design should be offered as an alternative to evolution or given "equal time", and that schools should "teach the controversy" surrounding evolutionary theory. FASEB does not support these views. We also affirm that these positions seriously undermine science education [...]
  
  [E]volution is categorized with other scientific theories such as gravity or atomic theory, which, like evolution, are universally accepted among scientists.
  
  Evolution is among the most thoroughly tested theories in the biological sciences. It is supported by volumes of scientific evidence in numerous fields, including genetics, biochemistry, developmental biology, comparative anatomy, immunology, geology, and paleontology. Moreover, evolution lays the foundation for much of what we know about genetics, immunology, antibiotic resistance, human origins, and the adaptation of species to a changing environment. Removing evolution from the classroom, or misrepresenting evolution as a flawed theory, deprives students [...]
  
  In contrast to evolution, intelligent design and creationism are not science because they fail to meet the essential and necessary requirements: they are not based on direct observation or experimentation nor do they generate testable predictions. Therefore, offering these beliefs as alternatives to evolution or giving them equal time in science classes completely misrepresents the nature of science [...] Proposals that call for “teaching the controversy” or singling out evolution for criticism are equally objectionable. While there may be some disagreement about the details of evolution, it is not a controversial theory among scientists. Rather, there is overwhelming scientific consensus that evolution is a valid explanation for the development of species. Although students should be encouraged to think critically about all ideas, introducing false controversy into science classes will ultimately impair science education.

There are countless more scientific organization with similar statements. As is obvious, there is no controversy in the physical, chemical, or biological sciences; the debate is one-sided, constructed by the proponents of "intelligent design" in order to justify their views. Universities, schools, and other organizations involved in education do a disservice to their students and to the public by even passively supporting these views.

Filed under biology · evolution · intelligent design · science

Posted by H. C. Hodges at 4:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While a thought-provoking piece, this article from The Sun is total bullshit.

Dr Curry continues: “People of the year 3000 will have reached the peak of human enhancement, leading the longest, healthiest and most accomplished lives in the entire history of the human race.

“Improved nutrition and understanding of the human body will see people grow taller, with men reaching an average height of between six and seven feet, while lifespans will also be far greater, with humans living for up to 120 years.”

Dr Curry also claims men and women will also become better-looking by the next Millennium in order to attract a mate.

The coffee-colored thing is pretty obvious and probably true, but the expectation that we'll all be more attractive? Evolution cares only about relative differences in reproductive success, therefore humanity becoming "more attractive" or "sportin' bigger junk" is only possible if people with those traits squeeze out kids more often than those lacking said traits. From my perspective, it's not obvious that the attractive or the well-endowed are having more children...

As a result men are expected to exhibit symmetrical facial features, athleticism and the classic signs of testosterone such as a square jaw, deeper voice and larger manhood...

“Skills such as communicating and interacting with others will be degraded, leaving humans less able to care for others."

Horse shiat. Current pressures still select for the people who are sociable and outgoing. Ever try living the life of a sociophobe? It's impossible for a man to send forth his homunculi into the fertile land-o-plenty without a little social skill. What reproductive mechanism (short of mass-conception-by-donor-sperm) allows humanity to shed its need for social skills?

If we really want to breed "better" humans, humanity will have to develop a mechanism of encouraging the successful to have more children than the unsuccessful (whatever "success" means). Technology may have allowed us to decouple successful behavior from reproductive success, in which case our selection would also be inverted. If true, then natural selection ain't directly headed towards a future full of symmetrical, intelligent, coffee-colored athletes. For the purposes of our species, social pressures and access to technology are probably much more powerful predictors of reproductive success than most innate tendencies.

Filed under biology · culture · evolution · intelligent design · science

Posted by H. C. Hodges at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There's no escaping hatred of the scientific process. Even Berkeley now has a creationist club, although it's disguised as an "intelligent design and evolution awareness (IDEA)" group. Apparently, this club is hosting a talk by intelligent design tele-evangelist William Dembski here in a couple weeks. Dembski, you may know, is a mathematician (with little-to-no training in actual biology) who's out to prove his thesis of "specified complexity." I am predicting one of two possible scenarios:

• It'll be an outright circus, with scientists booing, hissing, giggling and shouting out during the talk to challenge Dembski, or
• A crowd more-or-less devoid of any real scientists.

While I almost want the former, I expect the latter. Personally, I think the finest reception Dembski deserves in Berkeley is one of indifference. In particular, there is no pressing need for biologists to be there at all, because as one of the MCB grad students said, "it's obviously not an MCB-sponsored event."

Filed under berkeley · evolution · intelligent design

Posted by H. C. Hodges at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Timescale of ævolution. Previously, I wrote about how plain old somatic cells spend most of their time in stationary phase. This got me to thinking about evolution, and how our everyday experiences give rise to a great lack of intuition of the rate of change in biological systems. This lack of intuition has particular relevance to the origin-of-life question.

I'll illustrate this as plainly as possible: first, consider any random animal that you see fairly often. If you're a land mammal (and I know I am), then you're most familiar with other species that, like you, don't live in the ocean, and are large enough you can actually see them. And because of this, chances are that the animal you think of probably doesn't reproduce until at least one year of age (or maybe even older if you thought of larger animals like us). I'll posit that the average generation lifetime on land is roughly ~1 year. Something on that order, at least.

But let's imagine that you were around for the early days soon after life arose. Minimalist, single-celled creatures swim about, budding off daughter cells every so often. If we assume that these singly celled creatures reproduced at roughly the same rate as fresh-water bacteria do now, roughly once every 100 hours, then we're already talking about genetic drift ocurring with incredibly higher frequency than land mammals. In this scenario, the single-celled organisms' generation lifetime is 87 times faster than the land mammals'.

87 means that for every kiddo one land animal brings forth, the first bacterium now will have 2⁸⁷ - 1 ≈ 1.5×10²⁶ daughter cells. That's enough bacterial mass to outweigh all the concrete in the Three Gorges Dam (the largest concrete structure in the world). In this one year alone, the bacteria would have tested approximately 10¹⁹ mutations, enough to mutate their entire genome 5×10¹² times over. The human, on the other hand produces one new offspring with about 175 mutations. Those mutations amount to about a billionth of one percent of its genome.

Yes, most mammals today speciate at a much slower rate than when life first arose. But this is because single-celled organisms vastly outdo larger animals in their ability to try out new solutions. They are so much better at it, and so much faster at it, that it just makes sense that all the common cellular machinery could have been perfected by them long before multi-celled species arose. (Lo, and behold, that we all share the same basic machinery, from E. coli all the way to H. sapiens!)

The larger animals' genomes have also had plenty of time to stabilize to current environmental pressures. In other words, if they're already well-matched to their environment, mutating provides no new advantage. In stable systems, things just tend not to spontaneously leave equilibrium states.

There are many misunderstandings about the feasibility of natural selection as a speciation mechanism. But there's not much missing in the big-picture model itself. Those who shun the natural world in favor of their traditions must be lacking in themselves an appreciation for the beauty of the natural world.

Surely God would not be too happy about that.

Filed under evolution

Posted by H. C. Hodges at 11:49 AM | Permalink