Jebus, no … what a miserable idea

Clive Thompson wants us to simply redefine the “theory of evolution” as the “law of evolution”. This is possibly one of the worst ideas I’ve heard yet for overcoming the problem of the colloquial definition of theory. It is not correct. The theory of evolution is a whole collection of ideas describing complex phenomena; it is not reducible to the kind of clear and simple mathematical description we associate with scientific laws. When somebody asks me what the ideal gas law is, I can say PV=nRT; when someone asks me what the law describing the gravitational attraction between two bodies is, I say Gm1m2/R2; when they say, “OK, smartie pants, what is the law of evolution?”, what am I supposed to do? Recite Hardy-Weinberg at them (which, by the way, is called a law already, but is not the sum of all of evolution by any means)?

It’s a bad idea that sets us up for more confusion and will play right into creationist hands. Why not go all the way and just call it the “Truth of Evolution”? It’s the same strategy — it’s all avoiding the issue by an attempt at redefinition, and mangling the idea in the process.

(Larry Moran sees it the same way I do. He must be a very smart man.)

(And Wilkins was way, way ahead of us both.)

HuffPo follies

I’m not a fan of the Huffington Post — I see too much support for clowns like Chopra and anti-scientific thinking like Robert Kennedy’s — so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at this. Matthew Chapman posted his suggestion for a presidential debate on science there. This is the same issue I thought was a good idea, but cynically suspected none of the candidates would ever go for it. The response on HuffPo was to a large part deranged.

[Read more…]

Noooo! My brain!

The Canadian Cynic points out one of Denyse O’Leary’s less endearing habits: her penchant for constant self-promotion and linking profligately to herself. Reading it, what came to mind was the idea of a one-person circle jerk, and then I realized what that implied, and what we were seeing if we read any of her blogs where she’s … ack, snarfle … herself … yikes, beebadabeebada <tilt>. Doesn’t she know that’s a sin?

Well, I’m not going to look at those blogs anymore.

The morning after Judgment Day

I checked out a few of the blogs by the usual suspects this morning, and noticed that the creationists are largely silent (so far, give ’em time) on the Dover documentary from last night…with one exception. The Discovery Institute’s Media Complaints Division is wound up over it. They have an eight-point “rebuttal” of the documentary that consists of many picked nits and regurgitated whines, and I thought about taking them on point by point, but then decided it wasn’t worth it. For one thing, it’s written by Casey Luskin, the DI’s small mammal mascot, who is something of an incompetent pipsqueak, so it’s hardly worth flicking him around any more. Most importantly, it misses the point of the program entirely.

[Read more…]

Judgment Day liveblogging

The new PBS documentary on the Dover trial, Judgment Day (optimistically reviewed by NCSE! The Discovery Institute in frantic denial!) starts here in the midwest in about a half hour. I’ve got my diet coke, I think I’ll pop some popcorn, and maybe I’ll take a stab at liveblogging the show. Let’s hope it’s lively!

Feel free to chime in with comments as we go.

[Read more…]

Scalzi suffers for our sins

Last June, we goaded science-fiction author, blogger, and professional wise-ass John Scalzi into promising to visit Ken Ham’s Creation “Museum” (actually we bought his attendance by sending him money, which he turned around and donated to Americans United for Separation of Church and State).

Well, Scalzi finally makes good on his promise. It was worth it. There’s both an essay and a photo tour. He was amused by it all.

Indeed, it’s over the top enough that I never could actually get angry with the place. Not that I was planning to; I admit to dreading coming to the place, but that’s primarily because I thought it would bore and annoy me, not make me angry. In fact, I was never bored, and was genuinely annoyed only by the “paleontologist” at the start of the walk-through. The rest of the time I enjoyed it as I suspect anyone who is not some stripe of creationist could enjoy it: As camp. At some point — specifically the part where the Scopes Monkey Trial was presented as the end of decent Christian civilization as we know it — I just started chuckling my way through. By the time I got to the Dinosaur Den, with its placards full of patent misinformation about how soft tissue fossilization strongly suggested a massive, worldwide flood, I was a little loopy. It was just so ridiculous.

There’s some understanding for why the silly place is popular (apparently, attendance is quite good), and a recognition that it’s all one big, ridiculous joke.

Behe gets reamed again

The middle-aged man named Ian Musgrave has replied to the grey-haired man Michael Behe in response to his recent condescending dismissal of the young woman Abbie Smith (don’t these irrelevant signifiers of age, sex, and status add so much to our understanding of the discussion?) It’s really all about fun with viral proteins, and Behe’s failure to understand the basics of the evolution of the same. I think I’d be reluctant to refer to him as “the middle-aged biochemist Michael Behe” anymore — a biochemist should know this stuff.

Behe replies. He seems to be in a bit of a snit.

Kentucky does good

One of the most vocal pro-creationist governors in the country, Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky (home of Ken Ham’s infamous creationist “museum”) has had his re-election bid go down in flames. This is fabulous news. Revere sees it as one more sign of the impending demise of the religious right — I can’t be quite so optimistic, since they always seem to resurrect themselves. Greg Laden is also pleased with the result. He also takes exception to the claim that creationism is properly taught in social studies and comparative religion classes — and to that, I’d add the frequent suggestion that it belongs in philosophy classes. It does a disservice to all of those disciplines. At best, it ought t be mentioned in abnormal psychology classes, as an example of the madness of crowds or of religious hysteria.

Dover documentary

Is everyone looking forward to the new Nova program, Judgment Day? Look for it next Tuesday, 13 November, on PBS. The first review I’ve seen is available in this week’s Nature, and it’s positive.

Hot on the heels of several books chronicling Kitzmiller vs Dover, comes Judgment Day, a rigorous television documentary from the producers of the prestigious science series Nova. This two-hour montage of interviews and reconstructions, to be shown on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) in the United States, features all the main players, bar one. Michael Behe, inventor of the specious meme “irreducible complexity” and guiding light of the intelligent-design movement, refused to participate. His testimony — the cornerstone of the defence — revealed a definition of science so loose that it includes astrology.

I thought Behe was so proud of his testimony! Why should he now be reluctant to expound further on it in a documentary?

Herein lies the dramatic challenge of retelling this important story. The feebleness of the intelligent-design case, and the overwhelming strength of the prosecution in systematically deconstructing it, render the verdict clear just minutes into the programme. The makers of Judgement Day inject tension with eyewitness accounts from the people of Dover, and home-video footage of raucous school board meetings shows how passionate and divided this small community became. It works: it is inspiring to hear parents and educators,such as Sunday school and physics teacher Bryan Rehm, recount how they refused to be steam-rollered into bringing religion into the science classroom.

I’m happy to see that due importance is being attached to the real center of the argument: while they are important, the testimony of the scientists is secondary to the role local communities play. This is a battle that’s got to be fought in the minds of ordinary citizens, not just in laboratories.

Be sure to tune in next week!

Rutherford A (2007) Dover trial documentary screens. Nature 450:170.