…for the Candidates to answer

Thought Provoker is a little ruffled that there's a non-science specific thread on the front page [Lying to Advance a Cause], so I thought I'd post something genuinely scientifical that some here might be interested in.

This is, right on time following the political minutiae of hammering platform planks into a sturdy stage and getting nomination formalities out of the way, Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama's Answers to the Top 14 Science Questions as winnowed by ScienceDebate2008 and leading science organizations from more than 3400 questions submitted by more than 38,000 scientists, engineers and other concerned Americans.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why teaching evolution is dangerous is the title of an unheroic blog entry. From the blog:

Ed Darrell points out the competitive advantage this gives the rest of the world and how local the problem of Creationism is.

I rarely label a statement as a lie even though I might believe it is and rarely use the term liar but will make an exception in this case. Many have peddled the lie linking increasing adherents to Intelligent Design to a loss of competitive advantage for America vis a vis the rest of the world- in the educational, scientific and economic spheres. In the past I've gently corrected these misapprehensions by pointing out some simple facts.

Read the rest of this entry »

It has sadly reached the point that my ancient 'pooter and cranky dial-up connection simply cannot load the On Holocaust Memorial Day thread anymore. I've had to follow comments from the admin board, and I can't post from there.

Read the rest of this entry »

…A New Generation Of Denial

Today - May 1 - is official Holocaust Memorial Day. Being as I am a political leftist, I got myself into a strange back-and-forth over on DailyKos that started innocently enough when someone mentioned the Godwin aspect of the Expelled movie. Given the remembrance today, and the UMC's official apology for eugenics, I innocently mentioned that I'd like to see - sometime before I die and my promise to my godparents dies with me - an official apology by science for its support of eugenics. Particularly biological and evolutionary science.

Talk about opening a can of Holocaust Denial worms! At first I got complaints that 'science' has nothing to apologize for, since science played no part in eugenics. We know that's not true, and the truth is voluminous out there for anyone to access, so I mentioned that. Quite levelly and without rancor. Yes, 'Darwinism' was indeed used to justify eugenics in this and other countries, gladly handed to Hitler as legislative models for his racial purity policies in 1934. That's history, it's well-documented.

Read the rest of this entry »

Our semi-annoying, semi-enlightening commenter and sometimes contributor Thought Provoker has spent the better part of the past week valiantly attempting to defend Charles Darwin from Ben Stein's charge in the movie Expelled that Darwinism led to eugenics, and eugenics led to Adolph Hitler's eugenics laws, which led to… The Holocaust.

I admit to sensitivity on this issue, as both my Godparents were Jews, very recent immigrants from Europe. Both of them had tattoos and had lost their entire families in the Holocaust. They never had any children of their own. Can you guess why? So I got 'indoctrinated' very young in the importance of what Never Again! means.

My husband's Aunt Melba (still spry but blind at 96) was sterilized as an adolescent when she and her sister were dropped off at an orphanage back when being an orphan was considered a symptom of "undesirable genetic inheritance" in America. So both sides of this family have some eugenics horror stories in the family album and a serious commitment to making sure it never happens again.

These family stories are related. Such things were as common when I was growing up as unfortunate survivors of polio and thalidomide babies and radiation-induced cancer clusters from atmospheric bomb testing. What happened to my Godparents had its insidious roots in what happened to Aunt Melba years earlier in Oklahoma. Direct, irrefutable connections, as history amply documents in collections from Cold Spring Harbor to the Holocaust Museum.

Read the rest of this entry »

Because I'm too busy (and tired) to draw out the significant points, let me simply tease readers of Telic Thoughts with a title and a few words.

In 1961, the 26th Cold Spring Harbor Symposium was entitled Cellular Regulatory Mechanisms. In molecular biology, this was a historic meeting which included the work of Jacob and Monod. Bernard Davis, a microbiologist from Harvard, gave the opening address entitled, "The Teleonomic Significance of Biosynthetic Control Mechanisms."

Feast your eyes on some of his remarks:

Read the rest of this entry »

In his famous Natural Theology William Paley wrote:

In crossing a heath, suppose I pitched my foot against a stone and were asked how the stone came to be there, I might possibly answer that for anything I knew to the contrary it had lain there forever; nor would it, perhaps, be very easy to show the absurdity of this answer. But suppose I had found a watch upon the ground, and it should be inquired how the watch happened to be in that place. I should hardly think of the answer which I had before given, that for anything I knew the watch might have always been there. Yet why should not this answer serve for the watch as well as for the stone? Why is it not as admissible in the second case as in the first? For this reason, and for no other, namely, that when we come to inspect the watch, we perceive"”what we could not discover in the stone"”that its several parts are framed and put together for a purpose…

Read the rest of this entry »

The Books section of the weekend New York Times offers this article:
Dumb and Dumber: Are Americans Hostile to Knowledge?

It begins…

A popular video on YouTube shows Kellie Pickler, the adorable platinum blonde from "American Idol," appearing on the Fox game show "Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?" during celebrity week. Selected from a third-grade geography curriculum, the $25,000 question asked: "Budapest is the capital of what European country?"

Ms. Pickler threw up both hands and looked at the large blackboard perplexed. "I thought Europe was a country," she said. Playing it safe, she chose to copy the answer offered by one of the genuine fifth graders: Hungary. "Hungry?" she said, eyes widening in disbelief. "That's a country? I've heard of Turkey. But Hungry? I've never heard of it."

Read the rest of this entry »

Freeman Dyson wrote:

The Darwinian interlude has lasted for two or three billion years. It probably slowed down the pace of evolution considerably. The basic biochemical machinery of life had evolved rapidly during the few hundreds of millions of years of the pre-Darwinian era, and changed very little in the next two billion years of microbial evolution. Darwinian evolution is slow because individual species, once established evolve very little. With rare exceptions, Darwinian evolution requires established species to become extinct so that new species can replace them.

Now, after three billion years, the Darwinian interlude is over. It was an interlude between two periods of horizontal gene transfer.The epoch of Darwinian evolution based on competition between species ended about ten thousand years ago, when a single species, Homo sapiens, began to dominate and reorganize the biosphere. Since that time, cultural evolution has replaced biological evolution as the main driving force of change. Cultural evolution is not Darwinian. Cultures spread by horizontal transfer of ideas more than by genetic inheritance. Cultural evolution is running a thousand times faster than Darwinian evolution, taking us into a new era of cultural interdependence which we call globalization. And now, as Homo sapiens domesticates the new biotechnology, we are reviving the ancient pre-Darwinian practice of horizontal gene transfer, moving genes easily from microbes to plants and animals, blurring the boundaries between species. We are moving rapidly into the post-Darwinian era, when species other than our own will no longer exist, and the rules of Open Source sharing will be extended from the exchange of software to the exchange of genes. Then the evolution of life will once again be communal, as it was in the good old days before separate species and intellectual property were invented.

And what has moved us into the post-Darwinan era? Intelligent design. In this case, the intelligent designers are human beings, whose rationality and foresight have not only brought culture into existence, but has enabled them to decipher the machinery and coding of life. Wouldn't it be very interesting if there is indeed a deeper symmetry in the pre- and post-Darwinian eras?

In reviewing Behe's new book, both Richard Dawkins and Nick Matzke lead off with the same talking point:

Dawkins:

But things went wrong, especially at the famous 2005 trial where Judge John E. Jones III immortally summed up as "breathtaking inanity" the effort to introduce intelligent design into the school curriculum in Dover, Pa. After his humiliation in court, Behe "” the star witness for the creationist side "” might have wished to re-establish his scientific credentials and start over. Unfortunately, he had dug himself in too deep. He had to soldier on. "The Edge of Evolution" is the messy result, and it doesn't make for attractive reading.

Matzke:

Michael Behe is the leading advocate of "intelligent design" (ID), which has been on the ropes since the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. There, Behe's effort to show that ID is science and not creationism failed [1-3]. The Edge of Evolution is Behe's rather scattered comeback attempt.

While Matzke is not quite as catty as Dawkins, both are telling us that Behe wrote his new book as consequence of the Dover trial. According to Dawkins, the EoE is the "messy result" of Behe having to "soldier on" after the defeat in Dover. According to Matzke, it is a "comeback attempt."

Yet we are left with one glaring question "“ do either of these critics have any EVIDENCE to support their historical claims? Since I'm sure these scholars would not invent histories about other people, I'll be eagerly awaiting this evidence in the comments section.