Turning Universities Into Trade Schools

Times are tough. Money is short. States all over the country are cutting the budget for higher education, and the result is often the loss of faculty, classes, and even entire departments. The University of Florida has been forced to accept a 10% cut in state funding, and part of their response is to discontinue their geology department. This is insane. Geology is one of the most basic of the natural sciences; biology, paleontology, meterology, and oceanography all depend on it. Who's at fault? P.Z. Myers has the answer:

...part of the problem is…you. Why do you keep electing cretins to your legislatures who despise the "intellectual elite", who think being smart is a sin, who are so short-sighted that they care nothing for investing in strengthening the country in ways that take ten or more years to pay off? Stop it! Your representatives should be people who value education enough to commit to at least maintaining the current meager level of funding, but instead we get chains of ignoramuses who want to demolish the universities…and simultaneously want to control them to support their favorite ideological nonsense, via "academic freedom" bills.

Read Myers' excellent rant here.

Rick Warren--Ignorant, Idiotic, Insane, or Immodest?

One of the most infuriating things about creationists is their willingness to discard the entire accumulation of knowledge of mankind. As Gary Trudeau famously pointed out about George W. Bush, a belief in young-earth creationism requires a rejection of “biochemistry, genetics, ecology, paleontology, anatomy, physics, astronomy, geology, cosmology, history and archaeology.” Of course, denial of evolution also requires a rejection of modern medicine, agriculture, embryology, and even psychology. The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky stated “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution,” and, because people are biological entities, this principle can be extended outward to the whole of human society. Evidence for evolutionary change is so pervasive, so diverse, and so absolute, that when a person claims he does not believe in evolution, he must be ignorant, idiotic, or insane.

We can add another “i-word” to describe those who reject evolutionary theory—immodest. Let us consider the case of Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church of Lake Forest, California. Warren had this to say about evolution:

I believed that evolution and the account of the Bible about creation could exist along side of each other very well. I just didn't see what the big argument was all about. I had some friends who had been studying the Bible much longer than I had who saw it differently...Eventually, I came to the conclusion, through my study of the Bible and science, that the two positions of evolution and creation just could not fit together. There are some real problems with the idea that God created through evolution... My prayer is that you will have this same experience!

The Bible's picture is that dinosaurs and man lived together on the earth, an earth that was filled with vegetation and beauty...man and dinosaurs lived at the same time...From the very beginning of creation, God gave man dominion over all that was made, even over the dinosaurs.

It’s bad enough—although not altogether unsurprising—that Warren, an evangelical Christian, would reject all things scientific in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis. But this interpretation also rejects some of the most respected and age-old tenets of the Christian church. Saint Augustine, writing in 408 A.D. said:

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are.

As P. J. Bowler makes clear in his excellent work Evolution: The History of an Idea, early Christian thinkers were not usually biblical literalists, and even many lay people understood that the scriptures were to be read as mystical, magical tales, and not as scientific textbooks. Indeed, it was not until the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation in the 17th Century that “modern” creationism was proposed (and immediately challenged by every branch of newly-emerging science), and not until the late 19th Century was Young-Earth Creationism accepted by more than just a few. Ironically, the rise of Natural Theology during the Enlightenment stripped away some of the mystical emblemism associated with plants and animals, and eventually helped lead to the formation of evolutionary ideas by those such as Lamarck and Darwin.

One might assume that a religious leader like Rick Warren would be aware of this history, since he holds a Doctor of Ministry. It seems impossible that a prestigious institution like the Fuller Theological Seminary of Pasadena, California, would bestow such a degree without a class or two on the history of Christian thought. Yet Warren rejects the collected wisdom of Western Civilization, from Augustine to Darwin, in favor of a worldview that insists that (as Lewis Black put it) The Flintstones is a documentary.

Only Another Month and a Half to Go

The Philadelphia Inquirer has an interesting profile of Stephen L. Johnson, the outgoing head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Although tasked with protecting the environment, Johnson felt that it was important to do so only if there was no conflict between the science and commerce. I'm sure this has nothing to do with Johnson's education in biology at a university that apparently teaches creationism. Is it fair to expect a person who apparently doesn't understand science to understand why the environment should take precedence over the economy?

The Nature of Faith

We spend a lot of time these days arguing about the relationship between science and religion, without a lot of thinking about what those words mean. Many of us in the science biz think of "faith" as belief in something for which we have no evidence, but there are other ways to think of it. Claude Scales has a thoughtful contemplation on the nature of faith on his always excellent blog.

Science Just Gets Weirder

I'm just not sure how to interpret this.

A Philosophy Dressed Up as Science

There seems to be a relationship between right-wing politics and ignorance about science. Here, Tom Bethell in the conservative tabloid The American Spectator displays a complete lack of understanding of basic evolutionary theory (or willfully obfuscates evolutionary science for political reasons). Bethell is a journalist who feels that he has the expertise to declare that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, that global warming is a lie, and that evolution is "best seen as a 19th Century philosphy--materialism--dressed up as science."

In his article, Bethell derides evolution in part because it can be used in "support of any cause whatsoever." Indeed this is true. It is also true that Christianity, which is the opposite of evolution in Mr. Bethell's estimation, has been used to justify war, slavery, genocide, rape, and any number of crimes against humanity. Bethell would be horrified--and rightly so--if I claimed that Christianity is to blame for every evil perpetrated by its adherents. His invocation of misuse of evolutionary theory is a non sequitur.

Bethell's treatise is loaded with such non sequiturs, along with misconceptions and fabrications about evolutionary theory. The most egregious:

The underlying problem is that a key Darwinian term is not defined. Darwinism supposedly explains how organisms become more "fit," or better adapted to their environment. But fitness is not and cannot be defined except in terms of existence. If an animal exists, it is "fit" (otherwise it wouldn't exist). It is not possible to specify all the useful parts of that animal in order to give an exhaustive causal account of fitness. If an organism possesses features that appear on the surface to be inconvenient-such as the peacock's tail or the top-heavy antlers of a stag-the existence of stags and peacocks proves that these animals are in fact fit. So the Darwinian theory is not falsifiable by any observation. It "explains" everything, and therefore nothing. It barely qualifies as a scientific theory for that reason.

This same tripe has been trotted out in creationist arguments before. It might be convincing if it were correct, but unfortunately for Bethell, it isn't the least bit true. Scientists don't define fitness as a quality or trait that allows an organism to be successful--such a quality is an adaptation. Fitness has a precise definition: the ability of an organism to get its genes into the next generation. Such an ability can be quantified and measured. Adaptations may contribute to fitness, but they're not the same thing. (Wikipedia has a pretty decent explanation of fitness.)

It's not surprising that Bethell doesn't understand the difference between adaptation and fitness; it's clear from his writing he doesn't understand the difference between science and religion. He claims that Intelligent Design is "informed" by science, and if by that he means that it uses scientific words to dress up pseudo-scientfic mumbo-jumbo, then I guess it is. So is astrology. Bethell toes the company line on Intelligent Design "theory":

Intelligent design is...aggressive and therefore potentially dangerous. It says to the Darwinians: "You don't have the evidence to support your claims. Your lab results and fossils don't support your theory. Organisms are way too complex to have arisen by chance. Take all the time you want, it won't be enough. Even though we don't know how it happened, these critters must have been designed somehow."

Bethell is right--the IDers are aggressive. Their idea is also dangerous, since it threatens the teaching of real science in public schools. ID makes provocative claims about evolution, but they're easily shown to be baseless--fossils don't support evolutionary theory? Such a thing would be said only by someone who's never looked at a fossil. Complexity as an argument against evolution is nothing more than an argument from incredulity: "I don't believe anything so complex could possibly evolve." Intelligent design is indeed a philosophy dressed up as science. Here is another part of the intelligent design movement that Bethell gets right: They "don't know how it happened." That's the difference between IDers and evolutionary biologists. We do know how it happened.

The Neverending Story--Now with Dinosaurs!

Here is another small skirmish in the neverending war between those who believe that birds are direct descendents of a group of theropod dinosaurs, and those who believe that birds and dinosaurs shared a common ancestor, usually said to be a thecodont reptile. For many, this is thought to be settled science--for example, see the Wikipedia article on the origin of birds. However, a few holdouts, led by Alan Feduccia, continue to maintain that there are many problems with the dinosaur-origins theory. Feduccia presents a strong case against dinosaur origins in his book The Origin and Evolution of Birds. This debate has been going on as long as I have been studying birds; I can't imagine that it will be finally settled any time soon.

Confused creationists sometimes mistake these scientific disputes for evidence that evolutionary theory has "holes" in it. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is the way science is supposed to work--one scientist publishes his work, and others examine the work and offer criticisms.

The War on Science, Part 13,456

Surprise! Dubya's choice for Surgeon General of the United States, James Holsinger, just happens to be a crooked, incompetent, homophobe who--surprise, again!--is also a big donor to Republicans, including noted nutcase Jim Bunning. Thank God that our government has learned its lessons about cronyism, and that this guy has no chance of being confirmed. Right? Right?

Another Creationist President?

Mike Huckabee doesn't think that belief in creationism or evolution matters to a potential President of the United States. He couldn't be more wrong. The "president" we have now has demonstrated time after time what happens when the most powerful man in the world doesn't understand, believe, or respect science or scientists. As Stephen Colbert likes to say, Bush makes his decisions from the gut and not the brain, and as Malcolm Gladwell pointed out on Colbert's show last week, that has put this country into a heap of trouble.

In the face of overwhelming evidence and a nearly-unanimous consensus from reputable scientists, Huckabee refuses to accept evidence of human-caused global warming:

Huckabee was a guest on the April 25 edition of Glenn Beck. In response to Beck's question about whether "global warming" was "real" or "not," Huckabee replied that as "a Christian" he "think[s] we ought to take good care of the Earth. ... But as far as blaming human beings for enjoying the environment, that's a little bit extreme."--Huckabee interview on the Glenn Beck show, quoted on the Media Matters website.

What happens, then, when the Greenland ice cap begins to melt? Will a President Huckabee refuse to take action? What if astronomers tell the Reverend President that an asteroid--invisible to the naked eye--is going to impact Philadelphia or Detroit? I think in this case, I'd rather have Morgan Freeman as president. The fact is, Mike Huckabee does not have the education necessary to understand how science works or what it says. He holds a degree in religion from Ouachita Baptist University; this qualifies him to be a Baptist preacher, but not to be making decisions on stem-cell research, the space program, global climate change, science education, or public health. We've had one president ignorant of science and the rest of the reality-based world. Haven't we learned our lesson?

Do People in Arkansas Lack a Sense of Humor?

This letter was sent to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette as a joke. In the letter, Connie Meskimen, a Little Rock attorney, blames global warming on Congress because they started Daylight Savings Time a month early, thus allowing extra time for the earth to heat up. The Demozette published it without comment. Apparently some folks in Arkansas don't get the joke. One of my colleagues read the letter to his class as an example of how scientifically illiterate some people are. Perhaps it's a better example of how humorless people can be.

Although, with some of the garbage spouted by global warming deniers and creationists, maybe I shouldn't be too surprised that people take this kind of thing seriously. After all, some people believe that irreducible complexity is a scientific argument.

Space Duds

A headline on CNN.com this morning says "NASA Developing New Space Duds." If you're like me, you're surpised to find out that the article is about new types of space suits being developed by NASA, and not about more in the series of ridiculously expensive failures that NASA has blown into the stratosphere over the last few years. President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," which includes manned missions to Mars, as well as unmanned probes to the moon and other bodies, will cost 16 billion dollars this year, and will average about 20 billion per year every year between 2009 and 2020, with no end in sight. At that rate, it won't be as expensive as Dubya's other boondoggle, the Iraq war (although it may last as long), but it's going to be a horrific waste of time and manpower. No one has properly explained just what benefit the nation or the world gets from sending seven or eight (presumably sane) young folks to Mars in a tin can, especially when the same amounts of money applied to the unmanned space program would yield much more in the way of actual scientific results.

Not to mention what it might do for our educational system.