No Excuse of Scientific Illiteracy

Lawrence Krauss wrote an opinion piece for New Scientists and made an excellent point.  Freedom of religion provides no excuse for the promotion of scientific ignorance.  While you are free to believe what you want about God and religion in this country, one would hope that your beliefs would fall inline with the scientific information we have accumulated over the centuries.  

The University of Kentucky settled a religious discrimination suit with an astrophysicist named Martin Gaskell.  Gaskell wanted to become the director of the student observatory a believed himself to be the best candidate (don't all candidates think that about themselves?).  When he did not get the job, Gaskell claimed the school discriminated against him because he is a Christian.  However, he may not have been qualified for the position.  If you apply to become a science educator, then you should probably know about science and possess the ability to articulate scientific concepts to the public.  Gaskell seemed to misunderstand the nature of scientific theories and specifically seemed confused with evolution.  

I have stated many times that many scientists find no problem incorporating modern science into a modern belief system.  Religion does not demand scientific illiteracy and science does not require atheism.  Misunderstandings of science and theology pose serious problems for our national future.  You can believe what you want, but if you want to be a science educator you must actually understand the science.  Faith is what we believe in the absence of evidence, not in spite of the evidence.

Creationist Tricks Won't Change Science

Steven Newton wrote this interesting opinion article for The Christian Science Monitor.  He recounts the tricks that creationists continue to develop to push science out of the classroom.  Even with their tactics, the science of evolution remains.

Many creationists claim that the scientists don't even agree on evolution, therefore teachers must "teach the controversy" to high school students.  Or teachers should provide "supplemental materials" for the students to read (since the textbooks only teach science).  These new tactics come after a long line of defeats in the courtroom.  The first effort banned the teaching of evolution all together, which led to the famous Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee.  While anti-evolutionists actually won that trial, evolution soon took its rightful place in school  curricula.  Soon decision after decision from the Supreme Court to Dover ruled in favor of evolution and against Creationist complaints.  Creationists have invented creation science and Intelligent Design to sound scientific but have found zero success in the courts, curricula, or classrooms.

As Creationists exert enormous effort to undermine science eduction, they have had no impact on the actual science.  Scientific consensus agrees on the principle of descent with modification.  Our understanding of evolution continues to increase and refine with every new discovery.  No experiment or discovery has yet to disprove the original hypothesis.  New fossil discoveries fit nicely into pre-existing models or clarify classifications.  Genomic sequences provide molecular evidence of genetic similarities between species and identify differences that make species unique.

Science has decided- evolution wins.  Creationist's only hope to confuse the public and create controversy where none exists.  They continue their fight against science mostly because they do not understand it.  I have never encountered a Creationist arguing against evolution, only the confused caricatures of evolution in their collective mind.  This is why we must demand quality science education in our high schools from teachers who understand their subject and aren't afraid to teach it.

Creationist Influence on Science Education

Jennifer Welsh recounts a new study analyzing the teaching of evolution in high school classrooms.  The results offer a bleak picture for science literacy in the next generation.  Evolution serves as the central, unifying theory of the biological sciences.  To understand biology is to understand evolution and vice versa.  Unfortunately, only 28% of science teachers actively provide detailed evidence and explanations of evolution for their students.  While I am glad to find myself in the top of my profession, 13% of science teachers actually preach creationism to their classes.

Most science standards in the US weave evolution throughout the curriculum.  Evolution helps us make sense of structural and physiological adaptations, genotypic and phenotypic variations, and taxonomic and ecological relationships.  Biology students should be introduced to the historical narrative of Darwin's life, the early description of natural selection, and the evidence accumulated by other scientists since 1859.  I like to talk about the common examples, but prefer to find the more interesting cases from recent studies.  I also confront student misconceptions by having students write down questions about evolution which I answer during the evolution unit.  Most questions ask about "the human-monkey thing" or about Darwin's life and beliefs.

From an old study, but shows our rank
in the world of evolution understanding.

So what happens with the other 72% of science teachers?  Like I said, 13% actively teach creationism/intelligent design.  My own high school teacher did not believe in evolution and refused to talk about it.  We completely skipped that particular chapter in high school, so I never actually learned anything about evolution until my freshman biology course in college.  That happens way too much.

Another 60% of science teachers barely broach the topic of evolution.  Teachers fear repercussions of mentioning evolution and offending fundamentalist students or parents (a few cases have occurred in NC).  Too avoid these problems, the teachers cover just enough to prepare the students for the final exam without going into detail or answering any questions.  Apart from reprisals, many teacher do not feel that they possess adequate knowledge of evolution to teach the subject.  Some teachers taught both evolution and creationism to let the students decide for themselves.

As a nation, our position in science education continues to drop (along with math and reading) as almost 40% of Americans reject evolution.  I remain convinced that most negative reactions to evolution stem from misunderstandings of the topic.  To counter these misconceptions, we need qualified science teachers who aren't afraid to teach science.  If our teachers don't accept accepted science, you can expect our collective scientific literacy to continue in the negative direction.

Darwin and Sport

This article seems to have potential.  It discusses a connection between Charles Darwin and Sport Psychology.

Here are some of my ideas about the anthropology of sport, which I have been studying for the last 27 orbits of this planet:

1. Sports act as a metaphor for war.  We refer to athletes as soldiers, prepare offensive strikes and defend particular territory.
2. Sports establish local social hierarchies.  Sports allow people to physically dominate others.
3. Sports promote cooperation among the group.  Through teamwork, the group strives for a common goal.
4. Sports promote competition against "them".  We set up society as an us and them situation.  We will dislike the others for no reason other than they cheer for Dook, etc.
5. Sports prepare us for physical survival.  Our neuromuscular system can either leave us hopelessly uncoordinated or be honed into the physical prowess of performance.
6. Sports let us realize that we are all athletes.  Some of us have become detrained.  The 1.8 million years of human evolution left us with a lean fit body.  If we don't take care of our bodies, we lose those skills.  However, we can re-train our bodies, it just doesn't always feel good.

Bugging Creationists

John Hollier wrote this article for the Guardian Science Blog that may bug some Creationists.  The amazing biodiversity of life on Earth seems at odds with a global flood phenomenon roughly 5000 years ago.  Hollier looks at the specifics in diversity of insects throughout the world.  While we know of 1 million insect species, there could be as many as 30 million yet unidentified.  Even with the incredible numbers, there are only about 30 different orders of that class.  While they are all different, they share many more characteristics.

With this diversity we have a few choices:

1. Noah collected two of every insect species to put on the ark from around the world (either traveling himself or they were all in the same place already) and put them back
2. Noah collected two of every insect genus or even order (Bible uses the term kind, but doesn't define it) which diversified very quickly in 5000 years (far faster than the average rate of evolution).
3. All modern insects descended with slight modifications from a common ancestor over millions of years in different environments and niches.

Clearly, number three makes the most sense and more importantly fits the available evidence.  This scenario only focuses on the insect species and ignores the other classes of arthropods, the other phyla of vertebrates, or even the other kingdoms of life with their own unique traits and history.

A Little Perspective from Carl Sagan

This clip shows Carl Sagan's famous Pale Blue Dot speech.  He finds our place in the cosmos on a tiny blue dot in a small corner.  This planet is all we have and we must take care of it and of each other.  Sagan looks to the hope of space flight to solve our problems.

I could listen to him all day.  Enjoy!

What Does Your Horoscope Say?

In response to the changes of the Zodiac, Information is Beautiful compared the words found in 22,000 horoscopes.  Their results:

Recent astrological events and this compilation really make me question the validity of my horoscope.

The Case Against Young-Earth Creationism

Roger Morris recently posted this case against Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) at the Faith Interface.  He makes some great points and I would like to summarize them here.

First, YEC holds that the first chapter of Genesis must be read as a historical narrative detailing the events of Creation.  While the complete contrast to established scientific knowledge leads me away from YEC, Morris provides a more nuanced rebuttal based on several ideas I too have thought about.  This one sentence summarizes his (and my) feelings on this topic:

YEC is a fine example of the worst kind of isolationist intellectual disengagement to come out of Christian fundamentalism since the Roman Catholic church determined to stubbornly hold to Ptolemaic geocentrism in the face of clear evidence to the contrary from the likes of Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo. And, like YEC, all because of an erroneus and rigid interpretation of scripture.

Your Horoscope Is Wrong!

If you haven't heard, your horoscope is wrong.  In the 2000 years since the astrologists laid out the signs of the Zodiac, Earth has wobbled in such a way as to alter everything (maybe even the universe).  See your Zodiac sign is determined by what constellation the sun rises in front of on your birthday which is why your birthday determines your sign (and personality and future).  They have even discovered a new sign to screw us up even more- Ophiucus.

I think Jason Jones of the Daily Show is right:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Stars War
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

But there may be hope.  Millions of people complain about hating their jobs because their careers don't fit the astrological destiny.  And half of all marriages end in divorce because people choose mates from incompatible signs.  Now we can correct this mistakes and make society better.

Reality Check:  Our newspapers print an article about astrology each day and maybe one astronomy article a month.  What a sad indictment of our nation's scientific literacy.

Lost in Translation

I love teaching biology.  My one problem with high school science is that we are forced to simplify our topics so much that it sometimes feels like I am lying to the students just to help them understand.  Right now, I am teaching genetics and discussing dominance and independent assortment.  In the next chapter, I will break all of the rules of genetics that I just taught them.  Most genes do not have a simple dominant or recessive allele and genes located on the same chromosome are linked together in nature and in the statistics.  


In DNA, the story is far more complicated that time and End-of-Course Test will allow.  Our version of protein synthesis presents as follows:  DNA holds the code for making proteins which is transcribed into mRNA and taken to the ribosome to be translated into an amino acid chain.  However, this process skips a few facts and steps which I think makes the topic even more intriguing.  To be honest, I usually try to mention these interesting parts to the students- knowing that some will neither care nor understand, but maybe one or two will wish to learn more.  


Scientific American posted an article challenging my simplified version of protein synthesis.  In the DNA, some stretches do not actually code for anything.  When the mRNA begins transcription, segments called introns must be removed through RNA splicing.  Only segments called exons carry information.


Now researchers find that mRNA even makes edits to the code after splicing- meaning that RNA itself can edit the DNA code and make a slightly different protein.  This means that even organisms with the exact same DNA (clones and twins) can make slightly different proteins through RNA editing.  While our DNA is 99.9% the same, maybe our RNA makes us slightly more different than that.  To add a greater impact, this process has been implicated as a possible cause for ALS and Epilepsy 1. 


Sadly, high school textbooks, curricula, and state tests continue to sterilize biology to the lowest common denominator.  Hopefully, I can teach them the basics and with brief asides to the amazing nature of biology I can show science for what it is- a changing, complex network of paradigms constantly at risk of collapsing under new data.

Our Extended Family

The Smithsonian Institute recently reopened their Hall of Human Origins with new fossils and new models.  I am very eager to go check it out.  But since I have no time, I will have to be satisfied with pictures.

Scientific American has a slide show of our extended family.  It looks pretty good.  Check it out!

Wet Dog Science

In this You-Tube clip, scientists at Georgia Tech uncover the secrets of how and why wet dogs shake themselves dry.  Basically, a smaller dog (or any mammal really) must rotate much faster than a larger dog.  The length or type of fur may also play a role, but really the whole point is to watch puppies shake in super-slow motion.

Brrr! Do Giant Snow Storms Disprove Global Warming?

This week, the south braces for another blast of winter weather.  An icy layer covers the peaches and oranges of Georgia and Florida.  Elsewhere, England faced its coldest December in a long time.  As climate change denialists use every example of snow to ring the death knell of global warming, others patiently attempt to explain how these storms already fit within the expected models.  This article from Scientific American may help the conversation.

Usually, the debate begins by explaining the difference between local weather patterns and long term climate change.  Isolated weather events neither confirm nor reject the prediction models of global climate change.  Rather we must look at all of the data to assess the validity of climate change.  While we experience this cold streak from arctic air, other areas face different problems as "record high temperatures are currently outnumbering record low temperatures by about two to one."  By 2050, the ratio could be 20 highs to 1 low.  


So how does this snow storm fit into global warming models?  As the arctic sea ice melts due to warmer temperatures, the increase evaporation increases the atmospheric pressure and ultimately affects the jet streams.  A U-shaped bulge dips icy arctic air as far south as Florida combined with excess moisture and a paralyzing snow storm develops.


No matter your position on the topic, be sure to stay safe and stay warm!

Darwin is Biology's Newton

In a post on his blog, David Housholder declares biology has yet to come of age and needs a figure like Copernicus, Galileo, or Newton.  I would say that Darwin already fills the role as Biology's Isaac Newton. While much of modern evolution was outside of Darwin's grasp, he propelled naturalism into a proper science with its own unifying theory.  His meticulous record keeping and brilliant insight produced perhaps the single, greatest idea ever.  Many observations, experiments and discoveries have refined and added to Darwin's original idea, but the idea remains the foundation of modern biology.  Likewise, Newton poured out brilliant scientific ideas and remains the centerpiece of physics even though some of his insights have been revised based on new discoveries.

Housholder seems to think Darwin will one day be dismissed as a primary figure in biology.  He points to the fact that evolution remains controversial.  Unfortunately, evolution only remains controversial because some people purposefully seek to undermine its teaching.  Some would rather push their erroneous misconceptions onto others than let some actually explain what evolution is and how it works.  The fault does not lie with the scientists, but rather the liars and loonies.

He continues only with some self-deprecating remarks and makes this statement:

First of all, “science” about the past is dicey. On a good day!

True, evolution helps us to understand the past.  Much of evolutionary biology seems more like forensics by looking and evidence and drawing conclusions.  By Housholder's logic, we could never convict a criminal of a crime because science cannot recreate an accurate picture of the past.  But by collecting evidence, we can make inferences about what happened in the past and even when.

Next he says:

You can’t repeat an observation of something you can’t observe in the first place.

But we can repeat experiments showing the mechanisms of evolution and extrapolate to the history of life.  Once again, inference allows us to look are the DNA of different species and figure out their common ancestry.  Also, evolution has been observed.  People have studied the finches on the Galapagos and antibiotic resistance.  


But more important, ring species allow us to see species in action.  Ring species are a single species over a large territory with something in the middle.  Around one side of the object, the organisms adapt and survive to a different niche than the other side.  When the two versions meet again, they may not recognize each other as potential mates.  For more info, check out this site about the salamanders of California.


When he says "We always tend to read in what we want to see," he applies it to all of science not just the interpretation.  We collect the evidence which points logically to evolution.  From that realization, we can interpret to mean there is not god or that God exists depending on our belief system.  But you cannot completely disregard an entire branch of science because some people with a different philosophy don't believe in God.  Argue the religion, but don't take science hostage.

The Torah and Creation

One reason Creationist despise evolution deals with time.  Evolution requires a very old universe and old Earth.  Modern science agrees that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old and the Earth (and our solar system) formed about 4.6 billion years ago.  These estimates were determined through several lines of evidence and produced repeatable results.  Creationism relies on a literal interpretation of six days for creation only 6,000 years ago only derived from the Bible.  Clearly, a huge difference separates these two options.  How can a religious person accept science or a scientific mind find faith in a Bible that says something different from the evidence?  We must find some way to incorporate both the science and the Bible into our understanding of the universe.  In a commentary for the Huffington Post, Rabbi Adam Jacobs describes the Jewish approach to understanding the act of creation.   As Lewis Black would say, it's their book anyway.

High School Test on The Theory of Evolution

When debating creationists, I am always amazed by their ignorance of the science of evolution.  For the most part, Creationists are not stupid people but often very intelligent and highly productive members of society.  Unfortunately, they don't understand the science.  This would not matter until they begin attacking evolution through their own misunderstandings and misconceptions.

To test some basic knowledge, I am going to post some of the questions from the actual test that I give to my students on The Theory of Evolution.

In Light of Evolution

In 1973, Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote this article for The American Biology Teacher magazine.  Titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in Light of Evolution", the article simultaneously identifies evolution as the unifying theory of biology while leaving room for the religiously inclined.  Dubbed Theistic Evolution, Dobzhansky shows how a knowledge of science does not preclude faith, and may in fact enhance it.  Dobzhansky helped to establish the Modern Synthesis of evolution with biology.  So powerful is the idea of evolution, that we can easily say that evolution is biology and biology is evolution.

In his important writing, Dobzhansky begins by describing a Arab Sheik's denouncement of Copernican Theory (that the Earth revolves around the sun).  The Sheik lacked a fundamental understanding of modern physics and stood ignorant of the scientific facts on the theory.  Instead he based his entire knowledge of the universe on a literal interpretation of the Koran, to which Dobzhansky responds:

The Koran and the Bible do not contradict Copernicus, nor does Copernicus contradict them. It is ludicrous to mistake the Bible and the Koran for primers of natural science. They treat of matters even more important: the meaning of man and his relations to God. They are written in poetic symbols that were understandable to people of the age when they were written, as well as to peoples of all other ages.

No one should use the Bible as a science book.  Many natural philosophers thought that to understand God, you must study God's Word (Bible) and God's Works (Nature).  Biology becomes another aspect of that understanding, which even Darwin identified.

Like Copernican Theory, Evolution has been constantly confirmed through experimentation and observation.  This was true in 1973, and more so in 2010 with the science of genomics.  From fossilized bones in the ground to fossil genes in our genomes, evolution helps us explain the magnificent diversity of life.  And while see witness this diversity, organisms show shocking similarities with homologous structures and redundant DNA.

Creationists appear willfully ignorant of the facts of evolutionary theory.  They (and the new atheists) promote the false dichotomy of science or religion.  If you want to debate religion, let's do that. Debate Christianity and atheism.  Leave the science out of it. Leave evolution out of it.  Evolution is not the sole domain of atheism.  An understanding of evolution may fall in line with your views on religion as an atheist, but it also falls in line with my views as a Christian.  Evolution only sits against the fundamentalist, literal view of the Bible, while creationism must fight back all of biology, geology, chemistry, and physics.

Dobzhansky (and many others afterwards) hold a different view.  He describes this problem:

It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s method of creation.

You can incorporate your views on religion with the overwhelming evidence for evolution.  Theistic evolutionists believe in God and accept modern science.  We see evolution, not as an enemy, but as a tool for God to create.  We faced with the facts of evolution and an understanding of what it really is, people must accept evolution as true.

During his paper, Dobzhansky continues to identify the most common examples of evolution which students should have learned in high school: common DNA, adaptive radiation, and comparative anatomy.  Each of these can best be explained through evolution- unless you accept that God is a devious jokester who only made life appear to have evolved.

Evolution explains all of biology by tying together diverse facts.  Indeed:

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.

Well said. Well said.

A Teacher on Evolution

Perhaps no topic intrigues me more than evolution: the theory and the controversy.  During my time in Grad School, I studied the impact of religion in schools and eventually the Christian teachers who teach evolution.  One major assumption shows through any discussion of evolution and creationism: there are no Christians who accept evolution as a scientific explanation.

I grew up in Winton-Salem.  This is where I went to school and I went to church.  My first encounters with evolution were a joke.  My "science" teacher did not believe in evolution and refused to discuss it.  At that time, I was okay with not learning anything new.  Now I am disgusted that I allowed that lack of education to occur.  It was my church that introduced me to Darwin and evolution.  Many of the arguments that I learned were based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, misinformation, or poor logic.

As I graduated high school with my Southern Baptist Church as my only source of information about evolution, I took off for college.  I was effectively armed with a distrust of evolution and many arguments to defeat any evolutionist.  In high school, I did not think of myself as an eager anti-evolutionist, but my freshmen biology course proved me wrong.  However, the fascination with evolution was just beginning.  When my professor began the chapter on evolution, I went so far to write an angry email (my only correspondence with this teacher) using the arguments that had been engrained in my head.  I even made a speech in my English class against evolution.

I continued taking biology courses, in particular every evolution course that I could get into.  The more information that I uncovered, the more logical evolution came to be.  At first I realized that it was impossible to deny natural selection.  Sometimes, the individuals with the best adaptations will be more likely to survival.  The allele frequencies would change, thus the populations could change over time.  Even with my newfound acceptance “microevolution” I was still whole-heartedly against “macroevolution”.  It took more time and more evidence for me to change my mind and to finally accept that populations of the same species can be separated from each other long enough to be considered different species.  Either they will not mate with each other or they cannot, either way they are now two separate species.

How does evolution affect religion?  The truth is, I don’t know.  I know that as a teacher, I will not tell other people what to believe.  In the science classroom, I am going to teach the scientific theory of evolution.  If you want your child to learn creationism, go to Sunday school; but science should be reserved for science.  I will agree that a specific, literal interpretation of the Bible leaves no room for evolution.  But not all Christians believe that the Bible is literal.   But once again, that is a theological argument that should be made in either Church or a comparative religions class.  We should realize that there are Christian science teachers, who will continue to teach evolution.  Evolution does not have to destroy your faith, it may require you change your view of your faith.  Faith is what we believe in the absence of evidence, not in spite of evidence.  Once again, why would God give us the ability of reason, and expect us not to use it.

Cambridge Brain Science Intelligence Tests

Partnered with the New Scientist Magazine and the Discovery Channel, Cambridge Brain Science produced this awesome series of intelligence tests.  The tests are designed to examine the 12 Pillars of Wisdom, including planning, reasoning, memory, and attention.  The test very specific brain functions with simple tasks.  Try them.  They take about 30 minutes to complete with a short questionnaire at the end.  I took the test at the wrong time with distractions, at the end of the day, and on four hours of sleep.  If I can find enough time, I would like to try again.

Teachers and psychologists often discuss Multiple Intelligences.  Intelligence has always been difficult to describe and to determine.  Our basic IQ tests suffer from hidden biases and flaws.  Multiple intelligences divides knowledge into several categories such as Visual/Spatial, Verbal/Linguistic, Logical/Mathematical, Bodily/Kinesthetic, Musical/Rhythmic, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal.  Because people excel in different areas, we find it difficult to label intelligence.  This idea basically determines your likes and dislikes and assumes that you will be intelligent with the things you like and less intelligent with the things you don't.  You can take this test to learn about your Multiple Intelligences.

Does Natural Selection Make Us Selfish?

In a simple answer:  Not really.  The important aspect of Natural Selection is that certain traits that allow you to survive and produce offspring will always be selected for because now you get to have children.  In some cases of some species, selfishness is selected for because it allows individuals to gather more resources and in effect more mates.  In other cases, cooporation allows for the group to have access to the resources, which makes the population healthier and those better able to produce more offspring. 

Sometimes, both forces (selfishness and cooperation) affect a population.  In Chimpanzees and other social animals, all organisms work together to warn each other about predators and other dangers.  While at the same time a social hierarchy ensures that only the dominant male (or female) gets to mate with the opposite sex.  The other organisms are left in the cold with no opportunity to produce offspring (except for some tricky business behind the back of the alpha).

Seed Magazine has an interesting article about destroying the idea that Natural Selection only describes selfishness and says nothing about Altruism (helping others).  The group dynamics of nature's populations show this interesting battle between looking out for the group and looking out for oneself.