Deep Subject

Cell phones and cancer?

2011-06-03T11:00:00.009-05:00

I think this cartoon from Calamities of Nature covers the main danger of cell phones, but basically radiation (cell phones, microwaves, etc.) below the visible range of the electromagnetic spectrum, won't cause DNA to mutate. As long as your blood is flowing, it won't even cook your brain.

The article "Cellular Telephones and Cancer: How Should Science Respond?" in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
points out that "all known cancer-inducing agents—including radiation, certain chemicals, and a few viruses—act by breaking chemical bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA."

The article also notes that a study of nearly half a million cell phone users from 1982 thru 1995, did not support an association between the use of cell phones and tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers.

[Edited June 11, 2011 to add information from and reference to the JNCI article.]

Exposing a Crackpot

2010-08-11T18:40:00.004-05:00

As P.Z. Myers points out, Robert Lanza, MD, Scientist, Theoretician, Genius, Renegade Thinker, wants Scienceblogs.com to take down a few posts about him. The posts in question seem to be:

I think more people ought to read these posts and decide for themselves whether Dr. Lanza can be categorized as a Crackpot, Kook and/or Woo-meister.

Unguided evolution

2010-07-01T10:18:00.006-05:00

Some folks like to pooh-pooh evolution as "unguided," inferring that it something unguided could not have produced what looks to be the product of an intelligent designer. As a simple test, the above image is useful.

At first glance, it looks like a tattoo with a barcode, something a designer could have created. In reality, however, it evolved in a quite different way on a different planet.

The whole Intelligent Design movement being thrust on us by the marketing arm of the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, is a rehash of hundreds of years old arguments about how life is too complex to have come about without the help of some outside mover/shaker. What most people ignore, forget, or are unaware of, is how much time it has taken for life to reach this point. People who rely on literal translations of ancient texts, such as the Bible, think our world has only been around for 60 to 100 centuries. Science has shown, however, that the Earth is over 3.5 billion years old and that's over 35 million centuries.

If something as complex and beautiful as the image above can happen in the virtual blink of an eye, is it so hard to imagine that nature's sculptor (evolution) built life as we know it from the building blocks of DNA, given such vast amounts of time?

Some may try to make a distinction of the micro- macro- evolution variety. However, as David Eller points out in an article on the subject, "... macroevolution is merely the accumulation of microevolutionary changes."

The ironic thing about intelligent designers -- of the human variety -- is that they are also responsible for the collateral damage they cause. Let's hope that we do not ultimately extinguish our own species because we ignored or underestimated the potential collateral damage of things like our contribution to global warming.

God's purpose

2010-06-13T22:58:00.003-05:00

I heard a Christian ask the question "What purpose did God have in mind for all that petroleum buried in the Gulf of Mexico? There must be a reason."

That got me to wondering what the Intelligent Designerists would say to that. Did the Intelligent Designer put all that crude down there so BP could turn it loose in the ocean? Did the big guy need that oil to lubricate the bearings the Earth spins on? Did the IDer need it so he could invent oil companies?

Do all minerals have a purpose?

Is the DI listening? Inquiring minds want to know.

Are you a denialist?

2010-05-23T16:24:00.003-05:00

From the epilogue of a New Scientist article "Living in denial: Why sensible people reject the truth" (well worth reading), comes this list:

How to be a denialist

Martin McKee, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine who also studies denial, has identified six tactics that all denialist movements use. "I'm not suggesting there is a manual somewhere, but one can see these elements, to varying degrees, in many settings," he says (The European Journal of Public Health, vol 19, p 2).

1. Allege that there's a conspiracy. Claim that scientific consensus has arisen through collusion rather than the accumulation of evidence.
2. Use fake experts to support your story. "Denial always starts with a cadre of pseudo-experts with some credentials that create a facade of credibility," says Seth Kalichman of the University of Connecticut.
3. Cherry-pick the evidence: trumpet whatever appears to support your case and ignore or rubbish the rest. Carry on trotting out supportive evidence even after it has been discredited.
4. Create impossible standards for your opponents. Claim that the existing evidence is not good enough and demand more. If your opponent comes up with evidence you have demanded, move the goalposts.
5. Use logical fallacies. Hitler opposed smoking, so anti-smoking measures are Nazi. Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus and then knock down your straw man.
6. Manufacture doubt. Falsely portray scientists as so divided that basing policy on their advice would be premature. Insist "both sides" must be heard and cry censorship when "dissenting" arguments or experts are rejected.

We've seen most of these in the proponents of anti-AIDS, anti-vax, anti-agw, anti-evolutionism, and many other movements. As the article sums up,

Denialism has already killed. AIDS denial has killed an estimated 330,000 South Africans. Tobacco denial delayed action to prevent smoking-related deaths. Vaccine denial has given a new lease of life to killer diseases like measles and polio. Meanwhile, climate change denial delays action to prevent warming. The backlash against efforts to fight the flu pandemic could discourage preparations for the next, potentially a more deadly one.

If science is the best way to understand the world and its dangers, and acting on that understanding requires popular support, then denial movements threaten us all.

The article also sheds some light on why some instigators of denialist movements are doing what they do:

Kalichman, however, feels that everyday reasoning alone is not enough to make someone a denialist. "There is some fragility in their thinking that draws them to believe people who are easily exposed as frauds," he says. "Most of us don't believe what they say, even if we want to. Understanding why some do may help us find solutions."

He believes the instigators of denialist movements have more serious psychological problems than most of their followers. "They display all the features of paranoid personality disorder", he says, including anger, intolerance of criticism, and what psychiatrists call a grandiose sense of their own importance. "Ultimately, their denialism is a mental health problem. That is why these movements all have the same features, especially the underlying conspiracy theory."

If you are a denialist, you may need psychological help.

More Thoughts on Electric Cars

2010-05-14T18:53:00.002-05:00

Since there isn't a gas tank on an electric car, miles per gallon is rather meaningless. Perhaps a better measure for operating cost comparison might be miles per dollar (MPD).

For example, if gasoline were $3.00 per gallon and a car could travel 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline, then it could do 10 MPD. If the car could travel 60 miles on a gallon of gasoline, its MPD would be 20.

If a car (e.g. Nissan LEAF or Tesla Model S) could travel 100 miles on 24 kwh of electricity and electricity were 11 cents per kilowatt hour (kwh), it would cost $2.64 to go 100 miles, or do 37.9 MPD.

Some Thoughts on Electric Cars

2010-02-27T07:11:00.003-06:00

I was thinking about getting a pure electric vehicle (EV) like the Tesla sedan or the Nissan LEAF, since my wife does a lot of around town driving. One of the things that usually comes to mind when car shopping is gas mileage, but mpg is meaningless for an EV. What is more relevant for an EV is the battery system's energy storage capacity. Storage capacity will affect the range of the vehicle as well as its cost to recharge. Knowing the vehicle's storage capacity in kilowatt hours (kwh) helps give you a handle on these things.

For a round numbers example, if your vehicle has a storage capacity of 30kwh, and the cost of your electricity is $0.10/kwh, it will cost you $3.00 to fully charge the vehicle. If you can drive 100 miles before fully recharging, your energy cost will be $0.03/mile. (If fuel was $3.00/gal, for comparison, it would be like having a vehicle that gets 100mpg, but only has a one gallon tank.)

Getting a handle on the range is a little trickier. Although it depends on the design of the vehicle and the driving habits of the operators, published figures from the manufacturers will likely only be achievable under "ideal" conditions (downhill with a tailwind). Independent testing by organizations like Consumer Reports will probably be more realistic. Needless to say, YMMV and living with the vehicle for a while will be a learning experience in that regard to see how far you can go and still get home with a comfortable amount of reserve power.

One of the psychological stumbling blocks for EVs will be the fear of a flat battery while on the road. Battery failure notwithstanding, a dead battery may be a little more traumatic an experience for the EV driver than running out of gas in a regular car. Towing may eventually be replaced by mobile recharge services that can supply a high voltage "quick charge" to get you home or to a charging station.

Technology should also come to the rescue here by keeping you apprised of the amount of energy left in your system and, via GPS, letting you know when you are in danger of not being able to make it home or to the nearest charging station.

Another thing about EVs is that, since the government can't collect road taxes via the fuel they consume, they may eventually incur recovery tax(es) to help pay for road use. This policy might change, however, in the interest of having an incentive for the public to move away from the high pollution and carbon emissions of conventional vehicles. Incidentally, pure electrics are not the only EVs in this space. Plug-in hybrid vehicles like the Chevy Volt are too.

It will be interesting to see how the pure electric vehicle space develops as their numbers increase and especially if they become a significant portion of the overall marketplace.

Thoughtful House -- Think Again

2010-01-30T09:16:00.004-06:00

Warning: discredited British ex-Doctor Andrew Wakefield has set up house -- "Thoughtful House Center for Children" -- in Austin, Texas, to avoid British scrutiny and carry on his nefarious ways. Parents and guardians of young children should avoid him and his facility at all costs.

5/30/2010 Update: For the details of Andrew Wakefield's scam, see "Nailed: Dr Andrew Wakefield and the MMR - autism fraud:" by Brian Deer.

The British General Medical Council (GMC), which registers doctors in the United Kingdom, reported on January 28, 2010 that Dr. Andrew Wakefield had acted dishonestly and irresponsibly in connection with a research project and its subsequent publication. The hearing, which started in July 2007, centered on a study of children by Wakefield and twelve others that linked the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine with autism and bowel problems. Subsequent studies found no connections, but sensational publicity caused immunization rates in the UK to drop more than 10 percent. Ten of the study's authors have since renounced its conclusions; and Lancet's editor said he should not have published the study and that Wakefield's links to litigation against the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine were a "fatal conflict of interest."

The GMC began investigating after learning that Wakefield had failed to declare he had been paid £55,000 to advise lawyers representing parents who belived that the vaccine had harmed their children. The GMC said that Wakefield had improperly recruited the patients at his son's birthday party, paid them £5 to give blood specimens, and later subjected some of them inappropriately to colonoscopy, lumbar punctures, and other tests without approval from a research review board. Wakefield was also criticized for not disclosing that he had filed a patent for a vaccine to compete with the MMR, and for starting a child on an experimental product called Transfer Factor, which he planned to market. The GMC panel concluded that the allegations against Wakefield could amount to "serious professional misconduct" and will deliberate on what action to take at a hearings scheduled to begin in April. http://www.casewatch.org/foreign/wakefield/gmc_findings.pdf

During the investigation, Wakefield relocated to Austin, Texas, where he helped found Thoughtful House Center for Children, a "nonprofit" clinic that offers many unsubstantiated treatments for autism. He does not have a medical license but oversees the clinic's research program. The clinic's latest (2008) tax filing lists his salary as $270,000.

[Hat tip to Consumer Health Digest #10-04, January 28, 2010]

[edited to add video clip 02/02/10]

Dirty Dealings at the Texas State Board of Education

2010-01-06T08:49:00.003-06:00

Texas SBOE member Rick Agosto is highlighted as the swing vote for hire on the board in a recent Washington Monthly article Money and Power on the Texas State Board of Education.

This article was a sidebar to an article on the ascent to power of Texas SBOE's ultraconservative bloc Revisionaries.

Both articles are worth reading and highlight out how not just Texas' education standards have been corrupted by Texas' ultraconservatives.

Fortunately, Mr. Agosto has decided not to run for re-election in 2010. Unfortunately, the damage he has helped the ultraconservative bloc do to Texas' education standards will not go away with him.

It's about time Texas did some housecleaning at the SBOE. Aside from Agosto, there are three seats on the Board currently held by ultraconservatives which will be contested in the 2010 re-election. Of the three, Cynthia Dunbar is not running for re-election, but has five contenders for her seat. She has endorsed another ultraconservative to replace her -- Brian Russell. The other two are Don McLeroy, who is being opposed by Thomas Ratliff, and Ken Mercer, who has five opponents.

The candidates for the SBOE seats up for election in 2010 are shown here.

Merry Xmas

2009-12-19T09:33:00.003-06:00

Some would have you believe that there's a war on Christmas. I think that's silly.

Since Dec. 25th was made a legal federal holiday called Christmas Day in the U.S., it has become a secular holiday. Otherwise it would be a violation of the Bill of Rights' First Amendment "provision respecting an establishment of religion."

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

If the proponents of the war are trying to get the government to mandate religious connotations to the day, they will run afoul of this amendment.

Christmas is not only a religious occasion for those who want to observe it for religious reasons, it is a day that anyone can use for whatever purpose they choose.

I don't think Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics, atheists or anyone wants to get rid of Xmas.

It's a tempest in a teapot.

Upgrade Texas Public Education

2009-12-15T09:38:00.007-06:00

As recent developments in the English Language Arts and Science curricula have shown, ultra-conservative elements of the Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) are about to try and screw over the Texas Social Studies standards which are due their 10-year update in 2010.

We are at a critical juncture in this process since over half of the SBOE seats are up for (re)election in 2010.

I urge anyone willing to stand up for good education in Texas and eligible to run for election in SBOE District 3, 5, 9, or 10 to help unseat some of these folks and help bring sanity back into education process in Texas. Otherwise, be sure to vote for the good guys on election day.

The districts up for (re)election in 2010 are:


District   Incumbent
1          Rene Nunez
3          Rick Agosto
4          Lawrence Allen
5          Ken Mercer
9          Don McLeroy
10         Cynthia Dunbar
12         Geraldine Miller
15         Bob Craig

Enter your Zip code at Who Represents Me to see what district you are in and who your current SBOE member is.

To be on the ballot you must file an application for a place on the ballot with your respective party by Jan. 4, 2010, and pay a filing fee. The primary election will be on March 2, 2010, the general election will be in November 2, 2010. Write-in candidates have until August, 2010 to file.

For more details on the election process, go here: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/index.shtml

SBOE Mangling Texas Science TEKS -- Act Now

2009-03-17T09:01:00.004-05:00

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) revises it's science curriculum (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills -- or TEKS) once every ten years. That time is now and this year, new science TEKS (pdf) were written and recommended by science writing panels and experts appointed by the SBOE.

At their January meeting, Don McLeroy and members of his hard-right faction of the SBOE managed to make some unscientific amendments to the proposed recommended science TEKS. This SBOE revised document (pdf) was then approved as the first reading by the SBOE of the science TEKS and was filed with the Texas Register. On March 25, 26, and 27, the SBOE will meet again and could make these TEKS the final ones.

The National Center for Science Education has produced a detailed description and analysis of the January amendments and why they are scientifically unsound.

If you reside in Texas, you can help by writing, telephoning, or emailing your SBOE member (enter your zip code to look up). Check this page to see how your member voted on these amendments at the January meeting. If your member voted against these amendments, thank your member and encourage him or her to continue to support sound science at the March meeting. If your member voted for these amendments, encourage him or her to promote the best science education for Texas schoolchildren by voting to remove these unfortunate amendments and support the TEKS as drafted by the writing panels and experts. In either case, let your SBOE member know that you are their constituent and why you think the amendments that were passed in January should not become part of the new science TEKS.

Any member of the SBOE may be emailed via sboesupport@tea.state.tx.us. Email pertaining to details of the TEKS should be sent to sboeteks@tea.state.tx.us. Comments on the first reading TEKS may also be made online.

The SBOE will hear public testimony on March 25 from noon to 6pm, with registration starting at 8am Friday, March 20th. (Registration form here (pdf).) Please attend and/or testify, if you can. The SBOE meets at 1701 Congress Ave, Austin, TX 78701 (see map).

See the SBOE web page for more information.

Texas SBOE creationists in denial

2009-02-17T22:20:00.005-06:00

The evidence for evolution goes way beyond the fossils, but this poster summarizes the fossil evidence quite well. One of the things creationists are always claiming is that there are “no transitional fossils!” Well you’re staring right at one!

There are seven creationists on the Texas State Board of Education. They are David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Terri Leo, Gail Lowe, Ken Mercer, and Don McLeroy, the Chairman.

These far-right hardliners want unscientific "weaknesses" to be taught in public school science classes order to try to undermine the teaching of biological evolution and to open the door for teaching the discredited Intelligent Design Theory of the Discovery Institute.

Unfortunately for them, the vote to keep the "strengths and weaknesses" language around did not pass in January. The creationists Leo, Cargill, and McLeroy did, however, manage to pass other amendments which could weaken the science standards.

Mr. Mercer has pointed out that some of the Republicans on Board voted against the Texas Republican party platform which includes the teaching of ID, saying "I pray for my three friends, Pat Hardy of Ft. Worth , Bob Craig of Lubbock, and Geraldine “Tincy” Miller of Dallas." I say more power to Pat Hardy, Bob Craig, and Geraldine Miller for standing up for the children of Texas.

I sincerely hope that the Board can continue to muster enough votes to ensure that children attending the public schools of Texas will receive educations which will be among the best in the nation in the 21st century.

Don McLeroy, leading the SBOE and subverting science

2009-02-01T16:44:00.000-06:00

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) last month finally voted to get rid of the controversial "strengths and weaknesses" language which was a vestige of a bygone time from the new science curriculum standards. The creationists on the SBOE (a near majority) and elsewhere implied that the language had served Texas well for 20 years, when it had done no such thing. A common attack on the removal was to claim censorship or a reduction in academic freedom, in line with the current Wedge strategy being promulgated by the Discovery Institute of Seattle, Washington. The fact is that these words have nothing to do with the questions students can ask in the science classroom, and were being subverted into a trojan horse for the introduction of creationist arguments into science classes.

In a last-ditch attempt to corrupt the new 21st Century science standards, the creationist bloc on the board proposed a series of amendments and succeeded in getting some of them passed. The tactic used by Dr. McLeroy (pronounced mackle-roy), a dentist from College Station, Texas, and chairman of the SBOE, to advance one of his amendments was to claim that he had read up on evolution "as a hobby" and he then proceeded to read a lot of out of context quotations (he admitted he was quote mining) distorting the positions of scientists and creating confusion among the board members. See "The collapse of a quote mine" for an analysis of Dr. McLeroy's quote mining effort and the true source of his information.

The amendment “makes no sense to me,” said David M. Hillis, a prominent professor of biology at the University of Texas, adding, “It’s a clear indication that the chairman of the state school board doesn’t understand the science.” He also said, "This new proposed language is absurd. It shows very clearly why the board should not be rewriting the science standards, especially when they introduce new language that has not even been reviewed by a single science expert."

George W. Bush's scientific legacy

2009-02-01T16:27:00.002-06:00

Some may sneer at President Bush's actions, but at least one thing he did worked out well for science -- he appointed Judge John E. Jones III to the federal bench.

Thanks to Judge Jones, the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design Theory was shown to be the sham that it is in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board decision in December, 2005

Texas State Board of Education Censorship

2009-01-18T09:10:00.003-06:00

Steven Schafersman's post to his blog at the Houston Chronicle regarding the new Earth and Space Science standards was deleted under pressure from some Young-Earth Creationist (YEC) members of the SBOE. Here is the first paragraph:

The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.

Read the rest of the post on the Texas Citizens for Science website. Steven Schafersman is President of Texas Citizens for Science and contributed to the new ESS standards development effort.

Don Mcleroy - Liar?

2008-12-16T08:11:00.005-06:00

At the November meeting of the SBOE, Don Mcleroy stated

I don’t think you’ll find a single Board member that has ever advocated — in fact I don’t know of a single Board member that has ever advocated — teaching creationism, teaching intelligent design, or teaching supernatural explanations in the science classroom. (Audio here.)

The Texas Freedom Network (TFN) subsequently revealed that many of the board members had indeed advocated these positions via their responses to Free Market Foundation (FMF) questionnaires and voter guides. The FMF has clarified that the definitions shown on the voter guides accurately reflect the questions used in their candidate questionnaires.

When questioned about this, McLeroy said "... I have never stated that I want to teach Creationism or Intelligent Design nor do I want to." in this response to the blogger who pointed out the discrepancy to him.

So, in Dr. McLeroy's opinion, indicating that he "strongly favors it" to the FMF for publication in a voter guide is not a public statement. I wonder what a judge would say.

Don McLeroy is a Master of Deceit, if not outright liar.

Texas deserves better.

Opportunity to shake up Texas SBoE

2008-10-28T13:44:00.004-05:00

Seven of the seats on the Texas SBoE are on the ballot this November, but only three are interesting to those of us who would like to reduce the current number of far-right members on the board.

The three races of interest are:

District 7
David Bradley (incumbent, far-right R) vs Laura Ewing (D)
District 8
Barbara Cargill (incumbent, far-right R) vs Linda Ellis (write-in)
District 14
Gail Lowe (incumbent, far-right R) vs Edra Bogle (D)

To see if you can vote on one of these contests, enter your address at this website.

Help if you can.

McCain is choice of terrorists

2008-10-28T13:31:00.002-05:00

McCain has been endorsed by Al Qaeda, according to this article in the New York Times: The Endorsement From Hell.

“From their perspective, a continuation of Bush policies is best for [Al Qaeda] recruiting,” said Professor Joseph Nye, [the former chairman of the National Intelligence Council,] adding that Mr. McCain is far more likely to continue those policies.

As if we needed another reason not to vote for him.

An American president who keeps troops in Iraq indefinitely, fulminates about Islamic terrorism, inclines toward military solutions and antagonizes other nations is an excellent recruiting tool. In contrast, an African-American president with a Muslim grandfather and a penchant for building bridges rather than blowing them up would give Al Qaeda recruiters fits.

It's time to clean house.

Some FAQs about Separation of Church and State

2008-08-20T17:00:00.010-05:00

Q. Where is the "separation of church and state" in the Constitution?
A. The First Amendment's religion clauses state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." The Establishment Clause forbids more than the establishment of a national religion; it also forbids laws or actions respecting an establishment of religion. As James Madison, Father of the Constitution, put it "The Constitution of the U.S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion." In a January 1, 1802 letter, President Thomas Jefferson wrote of the intended relationship between religion and government: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

The Establishment Clause sets up a line of demarcation between religion and government in our society, and the Supreme Court determines where the line is drawn to accommodate liberties in our ever-changing society. Although the exact language is absent, the Supreme Court has repeatedly determined that the Constitution does indeed call for separation between church and state.

Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" was first noted by the Supreme Court in an 1878 opinion by Chief Justice Morrison Waite. Justice Hugo Black later reaffirmed the wall's significance in the landmark case Everson v. Board of Education (1947). Black wrote "In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" The wall forbids government to actually or effectively favor one religion over another, favor religion over non-religion and vice-versa. Requiring neutrality removes the authority of government from religious practice and protects each citizen's right to express his or her personal beliefs.

Q. What is a "law respecting an establishment of religion"?
A. The Supreme Court has used a variety of methods to decide if a government action amounts to religious establishment. Unconstitutional actions typically lack a secular purpose or have the principal effect of advancing or inhibiting religion. Religiously motivated actions violate the basic idea that government should concern itself only with civil matters and leave religion to the individual's conscience. Expressive actions, such as prayer at government-sponsored events or religious symbols on government property, are invalid if they effectively endorse or disapprove of religion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor designed the "endorsement test" to thwart government actions that link one's religion to his or her standing in the political community. In her words, government endorsement of religion sends a "message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community," and the "accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

Q. Doesn't the First Amendment only apply to the federal government?
A. Not anymore. When the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791, it was clearly intended to apply only to the federal government. However, ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 set the course for applying the Bill of Rights to the states. The amendment reads in part "... No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." In 1940, in a case called Cantwell v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses must be applied to the states. Since that time, all government action "respecting an establishment of religion," whether at the federal, state or local level, is subject to review under the U.S. Constitution.

For more information, see

[Edited 6/14/11 to update links]

Louisiana, Back to the Past

2008-06-29T17:39:00.004-05:00

Louisiana is on its way back to the days before the Enlightenment and probably to the Dark Ages. Louisiana's exorcist Governor, Bobby Jindal, signed into law the latest Discovery Institute derived bill on Academic Freedom, paving the way for creationist teachers to offer their brand of creation science as an alternative to real science and confuse the hell out of the students.

We have our share of creationist types in Texas as well, and I fully expect that they will try to pass a similar law here when the legislature reconvenes next January. Hopefully there will be time for the opposition to rally its forces and save Texas the trouble (there surely will be legal battles if it passes and a teacher tries teaching the creationist pseudo-science "alternative viewpoints") of having this on the books.

Maybe Louisiana wants to become the magnet state for creationism. If so, they might try offering an incentive to the Institute for Creation Research to relocate there and get them out of our hair. Perhaps they'll also pass a law forbidding climate change while they're at it.

Don McLeroy, Master of Deceit

2008-05-25T00:19:00.003-05:00

This is incredible breaking news.

First, on Wednesday, May 21st, Texas State Board of Education (SBoE) member Mary Helen Berlanga called on Gov. Perry to replace Don McLeroy as Chairman of the SBoE, saying that he has "created havoc" and calling him the "Master of Deceit."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2008_4571200

And then, on Friday, May 23rd, McLeroy pulled this stunt.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D90RHOOG0.html

What outrageous insolence. If he can pull this off for the English standards, there's no telling what he will do to the science standards which are in the works. McLeroy is a well-known ID proponent.

Get the word out. Don McLeroy is out of control.

Texas residents should write/call/email the governor and their representatives. They should express their outrage and demand that McLeroy be replaced as Chairman (Governor Rick Perry appointed McLeroy last year). Governor Perry's page is here: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/ and Texas residents can find their representative's contact info here: http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us/

For more on the Religious Right's influence on the SBoE, see the Texas Freedom Network's report "The State Board of Education: Dragging Texas Schools into the Culture Wars."

Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers discuss their experience with "Expelled"

2008-03-22T11:02:00.004-05:00

Professors Dawkins and Myers discuss their experiences in seeing (or trying to see) the preview of "Expelled: No intelligence Allowed."

You can access other video options here.

"Expelled the Movie" expells noted atheist

2008-03-21T09:59:00.003-05:00

You really have to read this to believe it. There is also a follow-up here.

Epic fail.

The AiG Museum from a Christian Perspective

2008-03-03T20:36:00.006-06:00

Jason Byassee of the Christian Century has toured the $27 million Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, and found it lacking.

Reconciling Christian claims about God, creation and humanity with the findings of Darwin and his successors is an important and daunting task, one that mainline theology has still not satisfactorily accomplished. AiG can hardly be faulted for attempting the task, though its effort is a spectacular failure.

See his report, "Dinosaurs in the Garden, A visit to the Creation Museum," here.

Hat tip to Jason Rosenhouse

Alternative Science?

2008-02-17T04:10:00.004-06:00

It would appear that one of the tactics being employed by the Discovery Institute (DI) and others interested in keeping evolutionary science from being taught in public schools these days is to claim that there are alternative scientific explanations for science. Huh?

Read what Steven Schafersman, President of Texas Citizens for Science, writes in "What Critiques of Darwin?".

Maybe they figure if it works for quackery (CAM) it will work for creationism.

Joseph Chikelue Obi: It's the Society of Homoepathic Thuggery all over again, or more abusive legal threats against a skeptical blogger

2008-01-23T12:25:00.000-06:00

Dr. Joseph Chikelue Obi (who bills himself as the "world's top expert in nutritional immunomudulation") has threatened Le Canard Noir's webhost with a lawsuit, demanding a £1 million a day penalty unless pages about him and his highly dubious activities are removed from their server. Once again, given the U.K.'s exceedingly plaintiff-friendly libel laws, Le Canard Noir had little choice but to capitulate, as his ISP demanded that he take down the offending pages.

It's time for every blogger who supports freedom of speech and skepticism to repost the article, and I call on you to do just that. Here are my copies of the offending articles:

Right Royal College of Pompous Quackery - Dublin, Thursday, September 28, 2006

I had to share this with you. Following on from my recent Quack Word 'Doctor' blog, I came across the Royal College of Alternative Medicine (RCAM) , a Dublin based - well, I'm not sure quite what it is...

What caught my eye was just the shameless aggrandisement of the site. It is quite hilarious, if not a little repetitive at times. Calling yourself 'Doctor' is somewhat pompous when all you have done is paid for some international postage. However, the man behind RCAM has absolutely no shame and titles himself as the:

Distinguished Provost of RCAM (Royal College of Alternative Medicine) Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK)

Wow! Probably, just Joe to his mates. Naturally, when you Google the qualification FRCAM(Dublin), there is only person who appears to revel in this achievement. I'll leave the rest as an excercise for the reader.

The distinguished provost looks like he is just another pseudoscientific nutritionist, his spin being "Nutritional Immunomodulation". This is obviously a lot more clever than Patrick Holfords mere 'Optimum Nutrition', but having only one 'omnipill' is probably a poorer commercial decision that Patrick's vast range of supplements.

Obviously, Professor Obi has had a few problems with what probably amount to bewildering comments about his site as the legal threats and press releases concerning his 'ethical' responses to criticisms cover more space than anything else. 'Ethical' is a favourite word on the site.

The most recent press release states,

7th September 2006 : The Distinguished RCAM Provost, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi FRCAM(Dublin) FRIPH(UK) FACAM(USA) MICR(UK) has formally accepted appointment as Chief Professorial Examiner for the Doctor of Science (DSc) programme in Evidence Based, Alternative Medicine (EBAM) of a highly respected International University in one of the British Commonwealth Protectorates.

This new qualification is primarily aimed at Medical Graduates, Physicians, Surgeons, Pharmacists, Dentists, Osteopaths, Chiropractors, Opticians, Wellness Consultants, Herbalists, Acupuncturists, Naturopaths , Healers, Podiatrists , Chiropodists , Scientists , Healers ,Therapists, Homeopaths, Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Nurses wishing to ethically upgrade their current Qualifications in Alternative Medicine over an exceedingly intensive 12 - 36 month period of study.

British Commonwealth Protectorates? Could that be Dublin?

I really have no idea what this organisation is all about. But it looks like it could be getting quite big soon...

RCAM currently has International Vacancies for One Million (1,000,000) 'Foundation Fellows' ('Movers and Shakers') ; who will independently play a highly pivotal role in diligently mentoring (and regulating) it's future Global Membership.

So if you really think that you seriously have what it takes to become a 'Leader' in Alternative Medicine , then (perhaps) RCAM may definitely be exactly what the Doctor ordered for you.

One million. That's a lot of quacks! And they are just to mentor (and regulate) the wider quack membership! This man has ambition.

The Big J really hates real doctors. This is his most recent press release...

RCAM would like to warmly commend the various Chieftans of the National Health Service of the United Kingdom for ethically and appropriately ignoring utterly misguided calls (from a rather amusing Group of thirteen Clinical Yestermen) to compel Hard-Working (and Tax-Paying) British Citizens to additionally pay for Life Enhancing Alternative Medicine Interventions out of their very own pockets - rather than get such treatments free via the NHS. RCAM would like to also categorically state that such exceedingly flawed 'G-13? demands that the National Health Service of the United Kingdom expediently abandon Alternative Medicine altogether (in total favour of Conventional Medicine) be diplomatically treated with the very utmost contempt which such unguarded verbal flippance duly deserves ; as none of these 13 'Eminent UK Scientists' behind such calls has professionally attained Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications in Alternative Medicine and as such cannot be deemed competent enough to make such sweeping 'Shilly-Shally' statements about the noble independent specialty of Alternative Medicine.

RCAM therefore publicly advises the General Public to lawfully go about their normal Wellness-Seeking Behaviour as usual - without any unwarranted prejudice or fear resulting from such highly self-serving, morally unethical , abjectly crude , totally unprofessional, utterly unstatesmanly, morbidly barbaric, wantonly uncivilized, profanely undemocratic and unspeakably sacrilegious perpetual affronts on the therapeutically formidable institution of Alternative Medicine.

Now, I do not have 'Globally Acceptable Fellowship Qualifications' in Santa Clause Studies to know he does not exist. But hey. I must be a morbidly barbaric and profanely undemocratic, unethical duck.

So, struggling around the acres of pomposity I find one place where Prof Joe might be making some money. You can call him to seek his wisdom, after pre-booking an hour's slot (and handing over your credit card) for a mere 300 Euros. Alternatively, you can pay by the minute on the contact line for a trifling $10 per minute.

Its going to cost you $20 just for Joe to say Hello and to read out his numerous titles, qualifications and names. Not bad 'ethical' work.

Ethical Quackery, the Monarchy and Kate Moss - Thursday, October 12, 2006

No, this is not about our Defender of Quackery, our Quack-in-Chief His Royal Quackiness, Prince Charles, but about the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Joseph Chikelue Obi. And yes, it is just a rather lame story written solely to get a picture of Kate on my blog.

I've written a rather lazy blog on the distinguished professor before that was just a bit of a gawp at his quacktastic website and what looks like a health phone-line scam.

Well, I've done a little more digging with Google and it has revealed a few quack gems. It has been pretty hard work, since Google returns some 6,000 pages, the vast majority just appears to be Prof Obi's self-promotion. However, if you persist in digging a few interesting facts turn up.

So, what has the little black duck found out about the "most Controversial Retired Physician and 'A-List' Medical Celebrity, Dr Joseph Chikelue Obi"?

Here we go...

1. The Irish Independent reports that his college does not exist at the Dublin address given on the web site. There's a surprise! It's just a front.

2. The Independent goes on. "In January 2003, he was suspended by for serious professional misconduct at South Tyneside District Hospital. Among the allegations made were that he failed to attend to patients, wrote strange notes about colleagues and at one point gave a dating agency phone number to a psychiatric patient."

3. He was being investigated by the police for taking thousands of pounds of a 58 year old woman to in order to cure a long standing illness.

4. The GMC strike Dr Obi off their register for "serious professional misconduct". So much for him being retired.

5. On another tack, Dr Obi has been involved in a little cyber-squatting. This looks as if it took place while he was a doctor - always after a few quid!

6. Since then, now self-titled Prof Obi, a few new avenues have been opened, including trying to entice Kate Moss away to one of his 'safe-houses' in Ireland. Hat's off!

He is quoted as saying:

Under the European Convention on Human Rights, Miss Moss still has fundamental rights, just like anyone else out there, and as far as I am concerned, she is not guilty of anything until an Ethical Jury says so.

(I mentioned before that 'ethical' was one of his favourite words.)

7. Prof Obi has been developing a Penis Enlarger (watch out Kate) that his own Royal College has now endorsed.

8. At least one person (out of the targeted million) has paid Prof Obi the fees for his college to accredit them. Dr Michael Keet (8 Canards) of the Central London College of Reflexology handed over 'hundreds'. Do we feel sorry for out-quacked quacks? I guess we ought to.

9. For those of you wanting to see behind the grand titles and see the real human being, Joseph lists his interests as Comedy in London, Whole Food Nutrition and Christian Music. On this 'Meetup' site, he describes himself as "Just a very ordinary guy . . .". That's nice.

10. His name appears very often on the blog Abolish The General Medical Council (GMC), often reporting something he has got up to. The blog describes itself as:

An ethical blog for those who publicly feel that the General Medical Council (GMC) should be Statutorily Abolished in favour of a Medical Licensing Commission (MLC) to solely register and revalidate Doctors who practise Conventional Medicine in the UK. The Blog also recommends that the GMC/MLC hands all disciplinary functions over to an Independent Clinical Tribunal (ICT) in keeping with the EU Convention on Human Rights ; to avoid (both) Institutional Bias and Multiple Jeopardy.

Oooh. There is that word 'ethical' again. And 'European Human Rights'. No name is given for the blog author but the avatar is a portrait of the queen. Another apparent obsession of Prof Obi - royalty. Could the author be none other than the Professor himself, a little agrieved for his ticking off? I hope you all click through to the blog. Maybe we will show up in his stats and whoever the writer is can get in contact and confirm one way or another.

I rather hope it is, as the final thing I turned up would just be fantastic...

11. Is the Distinguished Provost of the Royal College of Alternative Medicine, Professor Obi now selling ethical ring-tones? I do hope so.

Watch out Crazy Frog! Here comes the Crazy Provost...

ADDENDUM:

If you want to see the whole letter threatening Le Canard Noir (and you really should read the whole thing; it's hilarious), it's here. One amusing aspect of the letter is that "Professor Dr." Obi hired an essay writer in the name of Tanja Suessenbach rather than a solicitor to write up the threat. What's not so funny is how fast Le Canard Noir's ISP caved in response to this.

Hat tip to Respectful Insolence.

Where is the new evidence for evolution?

2008-01-01T12:17:00.000-06:00

As explained in the new issue of Evolution: Education and Outreach, it hasn't been necessary to claim "new evidence" for more than a century.

Over the past 150 years, [Darwin's] initial list [of evidence] has been supplemented by countless observations in paleontology, comparative anatomy, developmental biology, molecular biology, and (most recently) comparative genomics, and through direct observations of evolutionary change in both natural and experimental populations. Each of thousands of peer-reviewed articles published every year in scientific journals provides further confirmation (though, as Futuyma (1998) notes, “no biologist today would think of publishing a paper on ‘new evidence for evolution’ ... it simply hasn’t been an issue in scientific circles for more than a century”). Conversely, no reliable observation has ever been found to contradict the general notion of common descent. It should come as no surprise, then, that the scientific community at large has accepted evolutionary descent as a historical reality since Darwin’s time and considers it among the most reliably established and fundamentally important facts in all of science.

Read the article "Evolution as Fact, Theory, and Path" by T. Ryan Gregory (pdf).

Santa Claus is just one part of the fairy tale.

2007-12-15T08:39:00.000-06:00

Just like Santa Claus, the Christmas story is fiction.

See The Christmas story didn't happen, an editorial by James Dee in the December 15th edition of the Austin American Statesman.

An Open Letter to the Texas Education Agency

2007-12-12T19:40:00.000-06:00

The Society for the Study of Evolution has weighed in on the topics of science education and the termination of Chris Comer by the Texas Education Agency (TEA).

The Society for the Study of Evolution (SSE) was founded in March, 1946. The objectives of the Society for the Study of Evolution are the promotion of the study of organic evolution and the integration of the various fields of science concerned with evolution. The Society publishes the scientific journal Evolution and holds annual meetings in which scientific findings on evolutionary biology are presented and discussed.

The following is the text of the SSE letter.

An Open Letter to the Texas Education Agency regarding science education and the termination of Chris Comer

As representatives of various scientific societies, we write to express our deep concern about the recent termination of Chris Comer from her job as Director of Science Curriculum for the Texas Education Agency (TEA). According to press reports, Ms. Comer was forced to resign for political reasons, directly after she forwarded an email announcement about a lecture critical of Intelligent Design (ID). These reports are deeply troubling. Not only has Ms. Comer suffered an apparently grave injustice, but it appears that members of the TEA administration are willing to sacrifice standards of science education in the state of Texas to partisan political ideology. This is just the kind of purging employed by Trofim Lysenko and other ideologues within the Soviet Union during the Stalin era, when rejection of well-established principles of Mendelian genetics set Soviet biology back by 50 years. We fear that the stage is now being set for a similar erosion of science education for a current generation of Texas students.

The Austin America-Statesman (Nov. 20, 2007) reported that the call to fire Ms. Comer came from TEA’s senior adviser on statewide initiatives, Lizzette Reynolds. We are shocked by Ms. Reynold’s statement that the email in question is “highly inappropriate” in assuming that evolution “is a subject that the agency supports.” We are further shocked by the purported rationale for termination in the published memorandum from Monica Martinez: that Ms. Comer's email “implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral," and that this "creat[es] the perception that TEA has a biased position." And we are dumbfounded by TEA spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe’s implication, reported in the New York Times (Dec. 2, 2007), that evolutionary science is a matter of “personal opinions and beliefs.”

Such statements betray an astonishing lack of understanding about not only about basic biology, for which evolution is fundamental, but also about the nature of science generally. It is not a matter of “personal opinions and belief” to include well-established scientific findings, such as Mendelian genetics or evolution, in science classes. It is not “biased” to exclude unfounded pseudo-scientific ideology such as Lysenkoism or “Intelligent Design” from science curricula. Indeed, for a science educator or agency to “remain neutral” about such critical matters — which go to the very heart of science education — would be the height of professional irresponsibility.

In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in science classes violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Since that 1987 ruling, the creationist movement has “evolved” into “Intelligent Design” in a thinly veiled attempt to avoid the issue of separation of church and state. Intelligent Design has been exhaustively discussed in the academy and its claims to scientific status have been carefully examined and thoroughly dismissed. Its specious arguments against evolution have been considered and soundly refuted. The recent Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board Federal Court case only confirmed what scientists and philosophers of science had long before concluded — “Intelligent Design” is not a scientific theory but a narrow religious view that aims to establish itself above other, mainstream, religious faiths. It has no place in the science classroom, neither explicitly nor disguised under the false pretence of teaching “controversy” in science. Any responsible educational agency should exercise careful oversight to ensure that such religious ideology is not included in the science curriculum.

Indeed, scientists and science educators should be even more pro-active. As part of its 6 November 2002 Board Resolution on Intelligent Design, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) expressed the general conclusion of the scientific community that “Intelligent Design” creationism was not science. Moreover, it explicitly called upon its over 260 affiliated scientific societies “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."

SSE concurs with the AAAS Board’s conclusions and its recommendation. Professional ethics demands that one not “remain neutral” when science is deliberately misrepresented by creationists. Chris Comer thus acted responsibly and professionally in forwarding the announcement about an educational lecture regarding “Intelligent Design” creationism.

In contrast, the administrators who called for her termination and who forced her resignation acted irresponsibly and in direct opposition to the professional standards expected of those who oversee science education. Their comments, quoted above, make it clear that they have sacrificed not only a dedicated public servant but also the facts and the very nature of science to partisan political ideology. It is a sad day for Texas when TEA administrators resort to Stalinist-style purging to suppress the truth about the bankruptcy of “Intelligent Design” arguments.

The TEA loses considerable stature and credibility in making Ms. Comer a martyr to political interference in the teaching of science. We urge the TEA to instead immediately reinstate Ms Comer in her position as TEA’s Director of Science Curriculum. We also applaud Ms. Comer for her distinguished career in science education and her dedication to defending sound education for the children of Texas.

Robert T. Pennock, Chair, Education Committee
Johanna Schmitt, president-Elect
Donald Waller, President
All, Society for the Study of Evolution
Rick Amasino, Past-President, American Society of Plant Biologists

The SSE letter is available as a pdf file here.

Don't Mess with Texas Education

2007-12-05T17:09:00.001-06:00

As recent developments have shown, evolution denialist elements of the Texas State Board of Education (SBoE) are about to try and screw over the Texas science education standards which are due their 10-year review in 2008. This report makes it clear that there is an effort underway by some Texas Education Agency (TEA) administrators and some members of the SBoE to distort and diminish evolution instruction in Texas public schools by requiring that the "weaknesses" and "controversies" of evolutionary biology be presented. These are strategies which the Discovery Institute advocates and they dovetail with their Intelligent Design Creationism advocacy as part of their objective to subvert science education in public schools.

We are at a critical juncture in this process since there is currently a conservative majority on the SBoE and half of the SBoE seats are up for (re)election. At least seven members of the fifteen-member SBoE support the Discovery Institute's "teach the controversy" and teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution strategy. I urge anyone willing to defend science education in Texas and eligible to run for election to the SBoE in their district to unseat some of these folks and help bring sanity to science education in Texas. Please help us avoid the inanity of another Dover-like federal trial over the teaching of religious pseudo-science.

The districts up for (re)election in 2008 are:


SBOE       Name                         City
District
2          Mary Helen Berlanga (D)      Corpus Christi
6          Terri Leo (R)                Spring
7          David Bradley (R)            Beaumont
8          Barbara Cargill (R)          The Woodlands
11         Patricia Hardy (R)           Weatherford
13         Mavis B. Knight (D)          Dallas
14         Gail Lowe (R)                Lampasas

To enter the election you must file an application for a place on the ballot with your respective party by Jan. 2, 2008. The filing fee is $300. The primary election will be on March 4, 2008, the general election will be in November, 2008.

Republican Party (512)477-9821
Democratic Party (512) 478-9800

For more details on the election process, go here: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/candidates/guide/demorrep.shtml

For more on the Chris Comer story, go here: http://www.wikio.com/news/Chris+Comer.

Barbara Forrest on the Chris Comer affair: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/ForrestComer.pdf.

Read Judge Jones's opinon on the Dover trial here: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

Homeopathy is Worthless -- Mostly

2007-11-25T18:07:00.000-06:00

Ben Goldacre, a UK medical doctor who is also employed by the media as a commentator on pseudoscience and the sociology of medicine, has an article in the Lancet discussing the efficacy of Homeopathy (free registration).

Ben says that even though five large meta-analyses of major homeopathy trials have shown that homeopathy produces no statistically significant benefit over a placebo, homeopathy may have a clinically useful role and that banning it would be an over-reaction.

Food for thought.

(The article is also available on his blog here.)

The Pseudo-Science called Intelligent Design

2007-11-25T10:04:00.000-06:00

According to Mike Elzinga, it doesn't take a judge to tell the difference between pseudo-science and real science -- anyone can tell the difference by simply comparing the activities of those who work on them.

As an example, he provides a comparison of ID to real science over here.

Answering Creationist Challenges to Evolution

2007-10-28T09:38:00.001-05:00

Science, and in particular evolutionary theory, is under attack by creationists (mostly Young Earth Creationists). Even though there is no doubt about the fact of evolution within the scientific community, the number and diversity of the objections to evolution raised by creationists can put even well-informed people at a disadvantage. John Rennie, editor at the Scientific American, has compiled 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (pdf) which can be a useful resource for those encountering such people.

Here is a list of the challenges Rennie addresses:

Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

Head on over and check it out.

Goobernor Rick Perry

2007-10-22T20:56:00.000-05:00

Let's see,

What else?

Texas deserves better.

Dembski Debunked

2007-10-15T21:29:00.000-05:00

Mark Perakh has an article at Talk Reason, Errors not corrected for three years point to incompetence, discussing how the ID advocate and pseudo-mathematician William A. Dembski has misled the public. He says, among other things:

This, in turn, allows one to assert that to all intents and purposes Professor Shallit was right in defining Dembski as a pseudo-mathematician and therefore that all the alleged "Mathematical foundation of Intelligent design" so vigorously and triumphantly trumpeted by Dembski and his acolytes, is pseudo-mathematics. It can't serve as a foundation of any reasonable conceptual set.

Far from being the "Isaac Newton of Mathematics," as some have claimed, one has to wonder how Dembski could have gotten a PhD and become a supposed expert in this particular field of mathematics without being familiar with the work of the prominent mathematician Alfréd Rényi who has been widely published and heavily referenced for over forty years, as stated in the article.

ED = { CS, ID, ... }

2007-09-27T08:40:00.000-05:00

Since Dover it has been obvious that the creationists would morph their attacks on Evolution once again. We've seen Creation Science (CS) turn into Intelligent Design (ID) and now speculation is on what the next instantiation will be called. CS, ID, and whatever the next one will be called fall into the category of Evolution Denial (ED).

Thanks to folks like those at the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington, the evolution deniers are being supplied with more and more material to bolster their "teach the controversy" propaganda campaign. The upcoming film Expelled will yet again try to put some lipstick on the ID pig and portray some fifth column scientists as victims of scientific oppression, thus fanning the "controversy" flames where there is no controversy.

Unfortunately, as long as there are those who persist in taking ancient texts as equivalent or superior to modern knowledge, we will be pestered by these deniers, as has been the case each time science has shown them to be wrong.

Uncommon Subversion

2007-09-03T16:01:00.000-05:00

The blog Uncommon Descent holds that ...

Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins.

In actuality, however, it is the Intelligent Design Creationism ideology promoted by the Discovery Institute and William Dembski, who runs the Uncommon Descent blog, that is attempting to subvert the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences will become questionable and amenable to the notion of a supernatural explanation. The problem, therefore, is not merely that ID is trying to subvert science to promote a creationistic worldview, but that this worldview is intended to undermine scientific inquiry, leading to conclusions about biological and cosmological origins which incorporate supernatural explanations, setting the scientific clock back to the middle-ages.

Holocaust caused by Darwin? Not even close.

2007-08-25T13:20:00.000-05:00

While we do not deny that evolutionary theory was a factor in Nazi ideology, it is a mistake to see it as the main or only factor, given the long history of Christian anti-Judaism. Christian anti-Judaism has a continuous history from its earliest days (see John 8:44), and so it is absurd to say that Darwinism was even necessary or sufficient to explain the Holocaust.[10] The Holocaust was simply the latest and most violent spasm of repeated Christian anti-Judaism.

Excerpted from the article Creationists for Genocide by Hector Avalos.

The Unlightenment

2007-08-17T18:54:00.001-05:00

Welcome to a dangerous new era - the Unlightenment - in which centuries of rational thought are overturned by idiots. Superstitious idiots. They're everywhere - reading horoscopes, buying homeopathic remedies, consulting psychics, babbling about "chakras" and "healing energies", praying to imaginary gods, and rejecting science in favour of soft-headed bunkum. But instead of slapping these people round the face till they behave like adults, we encourage them. We've got to respect their beliefs, apparently.

Read more at Charlie Brooker's screen burn

The Evolution of Denial

2007-08-12T13:44:00.002-05:00

I think this is spot on.

(click for full size version)

See more of Non Sequitur by Wiley Miller.

Update: The original comic is no longer in the archive, sorry.

An Open Letter to Governor Perry

2007-08-10T10:37:00.000-05:00

Dear Governor Rick Perry,

As a long-time resident of Texas, I am appalled by your appointment of Mr. McLeroy as the Chairman of the State Board of Education.

I was hoping that Texas would be able to avoid the embarrasment that states like Kansas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania have endured at the hands of the Discovery Institute and the Intelligent Design Creationism movement, but your appointment has almost certainly placed us in that camp.

How much are you willing to sacrifice the future of our children, our economy, and our self-respect to take us back into the dark ages of pseudo science? That is surely where Mr. McLeroy wants to take us.

Please, replace Mr. McLeroy with someone more moderate. Do it for our children. Do it out of respect for Texas. Do it before we are all tainted by the fiasco of another Dover-like trial.

Above all, please do it now, before it's too late.

Controversy? What controversy?

2007-07-28T22:25:00.000-05:00

The ID movement is down but not out. The Discovery Institute (DI) is still out there pushing their "teach the controversy" wedge program.

As Dr. Barbara Forrest states in her latest paper,

[T]he only real controversy is the one that the ID creationists have fabricated for the precise purpose of advancing their agenda. There is no legitimate scientific debate between ID and evolution, and there is no controversy within the scientific community concerning the status of evolutionary theory.

Furthermore,

Because ID is a religious belief, allowing it to be inserted into the public school science classroom violates the constitutionally protected separation of church and state. Just as significantly, introducing ID into the classroom is detrimental to the teaching of real science. The methodology of modern science has consistently produced notable scientific achievements for more than three centuries. To ensure that American scientific progress continues—especially if American students are to contribute to it as scientists—we must ensure that our children have a proper understanding of science.

See her complete paper: Understanding the Intelligent Design Creationist Movement: Its True Nature and Goals here (pdf).

Dr. Barbara Forrest is a professor of philosophy at Southeastern Louisiana University. She testified for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller trial, and Judge Jones wrote in his ruling, "Dr. Barbara Forrest ... has thoroughly and exhaustively chronicled the history of ID in her book and other writings for her testimony in this case. Her testimony, and the exhibits ... admitted with it, provide a wealth of statements by ID leaders that reveal ID's religious, philosophical, and cultural content."

The Theocracy Delusion

2007-07-01T21:55:00.000-05:00

Recycling my older post...

A delusion is an erroneous perception of reality.
There is no scientific evidence to support the existence of anything supernatural.
Belief in the supernatural is thus a delusion.
A theocracy is government based on a deity or divine power.
Deities and divine power are based on belief in the supernatural.
A theocracy is thus a government based on delusion.

Do you want a government based on delusion? Not me, I'm against it. I'll take the democracy that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights provide.

Help ensure that we do not have a theocracy. Blog against Theocracy!

To read what others have to say, go to the Blogswarm Site:

Also check out the First Freedom First site.

Resistance to Science in America

2007-06-03T11:15:00.000-05:00

[The] developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology. These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest. P. Bloom & D. S. Weisberg

From WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE? By Paul Bloom and Deena Skolnick Weisberg

Well worth a look.

A Fitting Top Ten List for the Creationist Museum

2007-05-29T23:00:00.000-05:00

Lawrence Krauss has created a nice list of ten scientifically sound reasons why everything is not just 6000 years old as Ken Ham and the Answers In Genesis folks would have you believe. You may already be familiar with this information, but it's nice to review in case you haven't been keeping up with recent developments.

Here's the Top Ten Countdown List:

10. The Universe: the Big Bang Really Happened

9. Stars and Galaxies

8. Radioactivity

7. Supernova 1987a

6. The Sun Shines

5. Continental Drift

4. Rock Strata, Ice Cores, and All That

3. Fossils

2. Evolution

1. The Documentary Record

You'll find Lawrence Krauss' list with all the details here.

A Brief History of Disbelief, Doubt

2007-05-13T16:44:00.000-05:00

I have added a link on the right to a page which will provide links to the BBC series on disbelief and the public radio segment on doubt.

Science for Judges

2007-04-18T12:40:00.001-05:00

Judges generally do not have the training of a scientist, but may be called upon to make decisions involving scientific evidence.

The University of Nevada, Reno has published course material for Judges entitled A Judge's Deskbook on the Basic Philosophies and Methods of Science.

Introduction and Overview
The Judicial Role in Evidentiary Decision-Making
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science
Quantitative and Qualitative Research
An Introduction to the Experimental Method
An Introduction to the Scientific Methods of Survey Research
An Introduction to Qualitative Methods
Peer Review, Publication, and General Acceptance
Data Analysis: An Introduction to Statistics
Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence: A Brief Overview
DNA Evidence

This material has been available for several years, but I am just pointing out that I think it could be helpful to any non-scientist looking to become more familiar with science and scientific methods.

[edited 12/15/09 to link to the pdf]

PRESIDENT BUSH VOWS TO PROTECT ONE-CELLED PEOPLE

2007-04-13T15:24:00.000-05:00

The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act passed the Senate 63-34, but President Bush promises a veto. He said the use of embryonic stem cells in research "crosses a moral line." In case you're wondering where this "moral line" is drawn, WN has looked into it. George W. Bush and other conservative theologians believe a "soul" is assigned to the fertilized egg at the instant of conception. That makes it a person, even though it's not counted in the census. In-vitro fertilization makes a lot more of these one-celled people than it needs; leftovers are stacked in the freezer until it starts filling up. President Bush cares deeply about these helpless one-celled people and wants to ensure they are properly flushed down the disposal rather than exploited by godless scientists interested only the reduction of suffering.

From What's New Friday, April 13, 2007.

I think imbecile may be too kind a word to describe Dubya and others who think flushing the future down the toilet is the way to heaven.

Blog Against Theocracy

2007-04-06T22:46:00.000-05:00

A delusion is an erroneous perception of reality.
There is no evidence to support the existence of anything supernatural.
Belief in the supernatural is thus a delusion.
A theocracy is government by deity or divine power.
Deities and divine power are based on belief in the supernatural.
A theocracy is thus a government based on delusion.

Do you want a government based on delusion?

Not me, I'm against it.

To read what others have to say, go to the Blogswarm Site:

Also check out the First Freedom First site.

Testing the God Hypothesis

2007-04-04T12:02:00.000-05:00

In a sense, every science experiment is a test of the God hypothesis. This is because of the assumption of methodological naturalism, that is, the null hypothesis that God does not affect the outcome of experiments. If scientists ever obtained consistent data that could not be explained by any known natural processes, this would lend support to the hypothesis that God exists, and scientists would eagerly pursue this line of research. But the assumption of methodological naturalism holds; that is, we find no evidence of God's intervention in the natural world. Hence, we conclude that a god of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic type does not exist. While it is true, as the apologist will argue, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is nevertheless reasonable grounds for an assumption of non-existence, at least until reasonable evidence to the contrary is provided.

From a review of God: The Failed Hypothesis, by Victor Stenger.

Fundamentally Wrong

2006-11-11T16:57:00.000-06:00

Those who think that there are fundamentalist athiests could benefit by reading AC Grayling's essay which

... might help to clear the air for [the faithful] on the meanings of "secular", "humanist" and "atheist". Once they have succeeded in understanding these terms they will grasp that none of them imply "faith" in anything, and that it is not possible to be a "fundamentalist" with respect to any of them.

Read more here (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ac_grayling/2006/11/post_604.html).

The Fullness of Time

2006-08-16T16:04:00.000-05:00

I think this snippet from a talk by Richard Dawkins does a good job of putting microevolution and macroevolution in perspective.

Darwin was inspired by the example of the Galapagos finches; he was also inspired by the examples of domestication.

These are all domestic dogs (Slide 1) except the top one which is a wolf. The point of it is, as observed by Darwin, how remarkable that we could go by human artificial selection from a wolf ancestor to all these breeds - a Great Dane, a Bulldog, a Whippet, etc. They were all produced by a process analogous to natural selection - artificial selection. Humans did the choosing whereas in natural selection, as you know, it is nature that does the choosing. Nature selects the ones that survive and are good at reproducing, to leave their genes behind. With artificial selection, humans do the choosing of which dogs should breed and with whom they should mate.

These plants (Slide 2) are all members of the same species. They are all descended quite recently from the wild cabbage Brassica olearacea and they are very different cauliflower, brussels sprouts, kale, broccoli, etc. This great variety of vegetables, which look completely different, has been shaped - they have been sculpted - by the process of artificial selection from the same common ancestor.

That's an example of what can be achieved in a few centuries when the selection is powerful enough. When the selection goes on for thousands of centuries the change is going to be correspondingly greater - that's macroevolution. It's just microevolution going on for a long time.

It's difficult for the human mind to grasp how much time geology allows us, so various picturesque metaphors have been developed. The one I like is as follows: I stand with my arm outstretched and the distance from the center of my tie to my fingers represents the total time available since life began. That's about four thousand million years. Out to about my shoulder we still get nothing but bacteria. At my elbow you might be starting to get slightly more complicated cells - eukaryotic cells - but still single cells. About mid-forearm you start getting multicellular organisms, animals you can see without a microscope. At my palm you would get the dinosaurs. Somewhere toward the end of my finger you would get the mammals. At the beginning of my nail you would get early humans. And the whole of history - all of documented written human history, all the Babylonians, Biblical history, Egyptians, the Chinese, the whole of recorded history would fall as the dust from a nail file across the tip of my furthest finger.

This is hard for the human brain to grasp, time spans of that order. Remember that the time represented by the dust from the nail includes the time it took these cabbage varieties to evolve by artificial selection (human selection) and dogs to evolve from wolves. Just think how much change could be achieved by natural selection during the thousands of millions of years before recorded history.

From Richard Dawkins' THE "ALABAMA INSERT": A STUDY IN IGNORANCE AND DISHONESTY.

Evolution challenges Man, not God

2006-07-30T21:50:00.000-05:00

[L]et's be clear: This is not evolution versus God. The existence of God — any sort of god, personal or abstract, immanent or distant — is not what Darwin's evolutionary theory challenges. What it challenges is the supposed godliness of Man — the conviction that we above all other life forms are spiritually elevated, divinely favored, possessed of an immaterial and immortal essence, such that we have special prospects for eternity, special status in the expectations of God, special rights and responsibilities on Earth.

David Quammen in The Reluctant Mr. Darwin: An Intimate Portrait of Charles Darwin and the Making of His Theory of Evolution.

ID Inspired Artwork

2006-07-21T23:45:00.000-05:00

Award winning art: Myths of our Time: Intelligent Design by Barbara West.

Intelligent Deception

2006-07-17T10:20:00.000-05:00

The reason the Discovery Institute has to constantly battle the idea that intelligent design and creationism are inexorably linked is that creationism is the basis for, not an implication of, intelligent design. Those with any inclination towards honesty will continue to make that connection. But undoubtedly the Discovery Institute will not. Honesty is not one of their stated goals. Defending the traditional doctrine of creation is.

From Wayne Adkins' article in the American Chronicle, "The Discovery Institute and the Theory of Intelligent Deception".

Intelligent Assassin

2006-06-05T17:56:00.000-05:00

What are the odds?

Abraham Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. John F. Kennedy was elected to congress in 1946. Lincoln was elected President in 1860, Kennedy in 1960. Both of their last names have seven letters. Both of their wives experienced the loss of child in the White House. Both were shot in the head on a Friday. Both were assassinated by Southerners and succeeded by Southerners. Lincoln was succeeded by Andrew Johnson, who was born in 1808. Kennedy was succeeded by Lyndon Johnson, who was born in 1908. Lincoln’s assassin, John Wilkes Booth, has 15 letters in his name. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, has 15 letters in his name. Both assassins were known by three names. Booth was born in 1839, Oswald in 1939. As I am unable to imagine otherwise, these coincidences are too great to have occurred due to chance alone, so there must be some Intelligent Assassin behind it.

This actually came from a critique of "The Priviledged Planet" by Charles G. Lambdin.
See Creationism by Any Other Name

Save the Internet

2006-06-05T17:42:00.000-05:00

Check out the video by Moby over here: Save the Internet

Dover is Over -- ID is Creationism

2005-12-20T20:08:00.000-06:00

This morning, December 20, 2005, Judge John Jones III handed down his ruling (click) regarding the teaching of Intelligent Design:

The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions. The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, S 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions.

Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. S 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

John E. Jones III
United States District Judge

I just wonder how many more times this courtroom scenario will have to be repeated before the creationists finally give up trying to discredit the scientific theory of evolution.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -- Dr. Padian, commenting on ID

Also see NY Times article on the decision here.

What are the odds?

2005-12-17T22:41:00.000-06:00

Consider that each person who has ever lived on this planet had two parents. If we assume for the sake of simplicity that a persons parents are on the average 20 years old when the person is born, we can draw a family tree with that person at the top, and each generation 20 years below it, thus:


 Yrs Gen Num
  0   0   1                        kid
                                    |
                              +-----+-----+
                              |           |
 20   1   2                  Mom         Dad
                              |           |
                          +---+---+   +---+---+
                          |       |   |       |
 40   2   4              Gma     Gpa Gma     Gpa
                          |       |   |       |

We can see a progression here. With each generation, the number of ancestors doubles every 20 years. The first generation has 2, the second generation has 4, etc.

We can create a formula to tell us how many ancestors we have at each generation (assuming, for this exercise, that each of our ancestors is a different person). If Gen (G) is the number of the generation (0 being the current), and Num (N) is the number of ancestors, then our formula looks like this:

Num = 2 to the power of Gen

In table format,


     Gen |  Num  | Yrs
    -----+-------+-----
      0  |   1   |   0      us
      1  |   2   |  20      parents
      2  |   4   |  40      grandparents
      3  |   8   |  60      great grandparents
      4  |  16   |  80      great great grandparents

(Note that the Yrs column also represents the age of that generation.)

Let's suppose we want to find out how many ancestors we had 100 years ago. Since each generation is 20 years, we divide 100 by 20 to get the number of generations, or 5.

The formula now looks like this:

Num = 2 to the power of Yrs divided by 20

So here is a table for a few interesting years


     Yrs | Gen | Number
    -----+-----+-------------
       0 |   1 |           1    us
      80 |   4 |          16    grandparents
     100 |   5 |          32    great great great grandparents
     120 |   6 |          64
     200 |  10 |       1,024
     300 |  15 |      32,768
     500 |  25 |  33,554,432

This shows that the number of ancestors we had 100 years ago, in the early 1900s, was 32.

It also shows that each of us had over 33 million ancestors if we go back just 500 years to the 16th century CE. How about 2000 years ago? Hold on to your hat!


     Yrs | Gen | Number
   ------+-----+------------------------------------------
     500 |  25 |                                33,554,432
   1,000 |  50 |                     1,125,899,906,842,624
   1,500 |  75 |            37,778,931,862,957,161,709,568
   2,000 | 100 | 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376

This says that each of us had a gazillion ancestors (technically, 1.3 nonillion) if we go back just 2,000 years.

How is this possible? There weren't that many people around then. There aren't even that many people around now. I'll come back to this later.

Let me introduce a little simplifying terminology so we can write big numbers without all those digits from now on.

We may recall from our school days that 1,000 is 10 cubed or "10 to the power of 3." If we write "10 to the power of" as "e" (for exponent), then "e3" means "10 to the power of 3" or 1,000. We may also recall that 1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000. Writing it in our shorthand, then, e3 x e3 = 1,000,000. But 1,000,000 is also 10 to the power of 6. So e3 x e3 = e6. So we can see that adding the exponents is the same as multiplying the numbers. You can check this on various other powers of 10 if you like. Conveniently, you can also reconstruct the number by just writing a 1 followed by the number of zeroes matching the exponent. (E.g., e5 = 100,000)

You can see that some pretty big numbers can be easily represented in this manner.

Redoing our table from above and adding a few more, we get


     Yrs | Gen | Number
   ------+-----+-----------
       0 |   1 |   1
      80 |   4 |  16
     100 |   5 |  32
     120 |   6 |  64
     200 |  10 |   1.0e3
     300 |  15 |   3.3e4
     500 |  25 |   3.4e7
   1,000 |  50 |   1.1e15
   1,500 |  75 |   3.8e22
   2,000 | 100 |   1.3e30

Now lets add a few more points to the table.


     Yrs | Gen | Number
   ------+-----+-----------
   1,000 |  50 |   1.1e15
   1,500 |  75 |   3.8e22
   2,000 | 100 |   1.3e30
   3,000 | 150 |   1.4e45
   4,000 | 200 |   1.6e60
   5,000 | 250 |   1.8e75
   6,000 | 300 |   2.0e90

You can see that the number of ancestors 6,000 years ago is 2 followed by 90 zeroes!

I find it interesting to look at these numbers in a slightly different sense. If you think about it, this says that in the last 6,000 years, 2.0e90 people had to pair up in one particular way in order for you to be conceived. In other words, the chances (odds) of you being born were 1 in 2.0e90 just 6,000 years ago. Yet, here you are.

I don't have access to the referenced work, but this statement appears on one of the Intelligent Design sites (http://intelligentdesign.org/odds/odds.htm).

It was Dr. Emile Borel who first formulated the basic Law of Probability which states that the occurrence of an event where the chances are beyond 1 chance in 10 to the 50th power (the 200th power is used for scientific calculations), is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, regardless of the time allotted or how many opportunities could exist for the event to take place.(Emile Borel, Probabilities and Life, Dover 1962, chapters 1-3)

I guess Dr. Borel never thought about his own heritage.

Another thing to ponder is just how large these numbers can get, as we keep doubling them every 20 years going into the past. Let's take it back further ...


        Yrs |    Gen | Number
   ---------+--------+-----------
      1,000 |     50 | 1.1e15
      2,000 |    100 | 1.3e30
      5,000 |    250 | 1.8e75
     10,000 |    500 | 3.3e150
     20,000 |  1,000 | 1.1e301
     50,000 |  2,500 | 3.8e752
    100,000 |  5,000 | 1.4e1505
    200,000 | 10,000 | 2.0e3010
    500,000 | 25,000 | 5.6e7525
  1,000,000 | 50,000 | 3.2e15051

So even if you like the "10 to the power of 200" odds as being impossible, you can see that just 20,000 years ago (1,000 generations ago) the odds were much longer than that. If you are of european stock, there is evidence of humans inhabiting Europe over 700,000 years ago.

Let's go back now to the quandary that there weren't that many people around back then, so what gives? The answer is that if we go back and look at a family tree of who these people are, we will find that they indeed are not all unique individuals. In fact, the further you go back in your tree, the more duplication you will find. Essentially, you will find that alot of cousins married (or at least mated with) each other, whether they knew it or not. There are other possibilities, of course, including siblings and transgenerational coupling, although most cultures forbid incest these days.

The fact is that there had to be that many people, unique or not -- after all it does take one of each sex to conceive a child -- it is just that some people could show up at more than one point in your family tree.

Evolution is just a theory

2005-11-11T19:38:00.000-06:00

Yes, and so are Newton's laws of physics. All science is based on theories. A scientific theory can be considered our best explanation to date of how something got the way it is. In some cases, such as chemistry and physics, science can predict what will happen under the right circumstances. For example, if certain chemicals are brought together, what will happen can be predicted by science, because the reason for the reaction is well understood and supported by experiments that have been conducted and verified by independent means.

There are plenty of areas that are still unexplained by science, however. Does that mean that science will not or cannot explain them? Let me just say that many people have gone to their graves without knowing the answer to something that we take for granted today. Questions like "Is the earth flat?" or "How fast does light travel?" were areas that nobody knew the answer to for millenia. I think it is fair to say that there will always be more questions and there will continue to be more answers as time goes by.

Just because a question baffles someone does not mean that it must have a supernatural answer. Assuming a supernatural answer has been a practice for millenia, however, when a scientific answer is either missing or hard to accept. The latest vestige of this is seen in the notion that since there is so much complexity in life that has not been explained by science, it must therefore be the work of one or more "intelligent designers." The intelligent design movement finds the theory of evolution hard to accept, so they are trying to find ways to poke holes in it. What they are not doing is providing an alternative scientific theory.

So what evidence is there that supports evolution as a scientific theory? Start here for more on that topic.

Intelligent Design?

2005-10-15T13:57:00.000-05:00

There is a movement afoot to try and equate the notion of Intelligent Design with the Theory of Evolution. Peering behind the curtain of Intelligent Design, one finds that it is yet another attempt to discredit Darwin's theory of evolution without offering anything substantial to replace it.

When someone says that Darwinian evolution is "just a theory," and that ID deserves equal time, they do not understand what it means for something to be a scientific theory. It's as if a theory is somehow unproven. The fact is, any scientific theory is "just a theory" that explains the facts of the evidence found thus far. If sufficient new evidence is supplied and verified, a theory may be updated to explain all the facts, or replaced by a new theory that explains the all facts. This happens all the time and has always been the case. All of science is made up of theories like this. Sometimes a theory will become a "law," but it is still a theory as well, subject to further refinement or replacement. A theory without evidence and independent verification is not a theory, it's speculation, or at best, a hypothesis. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory, nor a hypothesis.

If the objective of the proponents of Intelligent Design is to provide a scientific theory to supplant the Theory of Evolution, then that theory will also have to explain all of the evidence which the Theory of Evolution explains. The essential message that Intelligent Design seems to be trying to deliver, however, is that the state of our natural world is too complex to be explained via the scientific theory of evolution, so it must be false. They believe that the only way such a complex environment could have occurred was by being created by an "Intelligent Designer."

For a more in depth look at what Intelligent Design offers and what it can explain that evolution can't, go here.

Here's a question for ID pundits:

Does the intelligent designer who designs people, also design viruses? If so, is this conflict-of-interest? -- Bob Parks