My new and hot for this week expands on our discussion last week on the GOP debate, and specifically the question, "Do you believe in evolution?" I found an article from the Charlotte Post (located at http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/122204.html) entitled, "Complexity comes up short in Darwin debate," which discusses the injustice of asking candidates to "choose between religion and science." There were several points raised in the article which simultaneously terrify and amuse me.
First, the writer applauds John McCain's answer to the question-- that is, "I believe in evolution. But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." Whereas I myself, and I believe the majority of the class, found this answer ridiculous, the article says quite the opposite: "This is what you call a slam dunk. McCain was able to acknowledge both science and religion and make them mutually inclusive." I argue otherwise-- I think McCain's belief that "the hand of God" is present in his view of the Grand Canyon shows the weakness of his understanding of evolution.
Similarly, Huckabee's recovery attempt after answering that no, he did not believe in evolution (and suffering the contempt of much of the country) shows the superficiality of his concept of evolution. According to the article, "After the debate, Huckabee said, 'I wish life were so simple. If it were, we'd be in a game show and not running a presidential campaign. ... If I'd had time, I would have asked whether he meant macro or micro evolution.'" Excuse me? Huckabee goes on to explain that while he does know that species adapt and mutate, he believes that "the design has a designer and the creation has a creator." While qualifying his statements may pacify a few shocked by his original "no" answer, it does not change the fact that he does not believe in the science--and therefore doesn't change my view a bit. (Also, side note: I was confused about this, but the article explains that microevolution allows the possibility of a creator, but macro does not. Good to know).
The real thing to take from this, though, is the writer's overarching point: "In a nation where 91 percent of citizens profess to believe in God, it's a safe bet we won't see an atheist in the White House anytime soon. But what about a president who doesn't believe in Darwin? Are Darwin and God mutually exclusive?" Are they? And if voters believe they are, what are the implications for the country?
Last note: Alan Dershowitz, a famous criminal lawyer, spoke this weekend in MemAud. He mentioned the different religious views expected of leaders of different countries, paraphrased as such: "In the United States, you cannot be an atheist and be president. In Israel, you must be an atheist to be president. In France, you must be an atheist, but the God you don't believe in must be the Catholic God." The intersection between religion, science, and leadership has huge and various consequences for different countries-- very interesting to think about.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Josh's New and Hot (Week 7)
The New Billboard
The Old Billboard
Click here for the press release.
Seems that threats to evolutionary thinking are ramping up after the Republican debate where our future leaders affirmed that they don't believe in science. The latest campaign to stop the flow of rational thought is a "Who is your Creator" contest held by the eponymous organization who is offering $5,000 to the lucky entrant. The taks is to formulate a 4-part legal opinion which makes the case for teaching creationism in classrooms.
As Prof. Siegel told us, this campaign is really not trying to prove "Intelligent Design" is science but rather that evolution is not science and thus "Intelligent Design" must be taught as an alternative. It really is interesting how the contest encourages its entries to completely muddle something that is not an argument by attacking evolution with tactics it has used to prove that creationism is not real science.
For instance, the first part of the winning entry will address the banning of any criticism of evolution. The contest suggests that "A Humanist judge will obsess ever whether a belief or theory is Christian while ignoring the religious implications of teaching the theory of evolution." Religious implications of evolution?! Honestly.
The second part is to encourage the courts to define a standard of science. This too is very scary as it is asking the courts, non-scientists, to make concrete decisions on what science is and is not. This effectively is entreating the courts to make all scientists and researchers beholden to a political establishment. This second part subjugates scientific thought.
The third section of the contest is too rich to not post the entire blurb. "Thirdly, a successful contestant shall explore whether there is any reliable scientific evidence or facts supporting the theory of evolution, based on the standards developed above. He or she shall also explore the scientific evidence or scientific facts disproving the theories of evolution. The courts cannot define science much less authoritatively determine whether evolution is science, so this section is critical." Enough said!
The fourth section is asking the entrant to propose a way that evolution and "Intelligent Design" should be taught in schools. I thought this was decided in Mclean v. Arkansas Board of Education and, most recently, Kitzmiller v. Dover. Intelligent Design is not science and evolution will be taught in public schools!
This really is not a debate that we should be having at this point. I can't believe that some religious radicals are continuing to push this issue. On the bright side, we'll have an endless supply of youtube videos telling us why a banana proves creationism.
Alex's New and Hot
Hi, so last week during class I mentioned this really interesting anime movie made in Japan back in the 80s or 90s, called The Ghost in the Shell. It's basically become a classic in the anime world and that's why I was really surprised that no one else had seen it. Coming out of Japan, I think there are only a few movies that are definitely must sees and I think this is one of them.
Click here for the main website. Go down to Menu, then go click on Story and it will give you a rough outline of the premise of the movie.
Basically in the year 2029, humans have become so integrated with machines that it's really hard to say who is human and who is machine, especially after one of the top secret government projects (a virus to infiltrate the enemy) becomes self-aware. And I guess on this level, it's basically the plot of the Terminator, only done much earlier and in a much more meaningful manner, in my opinion. Anyway, the main character is basically a human brain, I think, and her body is completely robotic, all cybernetic, etc. Her body has camouflage and so she can become invisible at will. The other thing is that basically everyone in this society is so engrained with technology that the virus-gone-awry is able to hack people to commit acts of terrorism.
In any case, this is a great movie that I think everyone should watch at some point.
As a sidenote, there is a really interesting fight scene near the end of the movie, basically the climax, where they are in some run-down museum and the giant robot is shooting at the main character. And basically you see the bullets destroying the walls of the place, and in one part, you see the "tree of life" getting shot to hell. At the top of this tree is "homidae" or something, I couldn't really tell at that speed. But I'm pretty sure it's basically another allusion to the whole human evolution at an ever accelerating pace business.
You can see it in this Youtube video at 3:38.
Click here for the main website. Go down to Menu, then go click on Story and it will give you a rough outline of the premise of the movie.
Basically in the year 2029, humans have become so integrated with machines that it's really hard to say who is human and who is machine, especially after one of the top secret government projects (a virus to infiltrate the enemy) becomes self-aware. And I guess on this level, it's basically the plot of the Terminator, only done much earlier and in a much more meaningful manner, in my opinion. Anyway, the main character is basically a human brain, I think, and her body is completely robotic, all cybernetic, etc. Her body has camouflage and so she can become invisible at will. The other thing is that basically everyone in this society is so engrained with technology that the virus-gone-awry is able to hack people to commit acts of terrorism.
In any case, this is a great movie that I think everyone should watch at some point.
As a sidenote, there is a really interesting fight scene near the end of the movie, basically the climax, where they are in some run-down museum and the giant robot is shooting at the main character. And basically you see the bullets destroying the walls of the place, and in one part, you see the "tree of life" getting shot to hell. At the top of this tree is "homidae" or something, I couldn't really tell at that speed. But I'm pretty sure it's basically another allusion to the whole human evolution at an ever accelerating pace business.
You can see it in this Youtube video at 3:38.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Chad's New and Hot, Week 7: Hoax of Dodos?
In response to the cable network Showtime’s plans to air the documentary by Randy Olson on intelligent design called Flock of Dodos, Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, wrote a letter to Showtime’s CEO claiming that numerous points presented in the film are “wildly inaccurate.” In fact, the Discovery Institute has set up an entire website, called Hoax of Dodos, dedicated to shining light on what the Discovery Institute claims are falsehoods with Olson’s film. Among other points, both the article and corresponding website focus on two main points of contention.
The first is the claim made by Olson that modern biology textbooks do not contain Ernst Haeckel’s 19th century illustrations of various species of embryos as evidence in favor of evolution. The Discovery Institute responded to this by producing examples of textbooks that contain similar drawings of embryos and calling Olson an outright liar for not publicly acknowledging this fact now. Next, the Discovery Institute also argues that Olson greatly inflated the amount of the Discovery Institute’s annual budget for intelligent design. In his film, Olson claims that the Discovery Institute spends about 5 million dollars a year on researching and promoting intelligent design. The Discovery Institute claimed in response that their spending on intelligent design comes nowhere near this total and averages only about 1 million dollars annually. They went on to say that Olson got near this figure by including all of the Institutes revenues, which include grants from private sources that are intended to be spent over a longer period of time.
Though the Institute tries to back up its claims with graphs and photos and repeatedly calls both Olson and his film fraudulent hoaxes, their website really does nothing to definitively convince its readers. Instead, the entire thing just comes across as a petulant backlash to all of the criticisms made in Olson’s documentary.
Check out both the article and the Institute’s website, Hoax of Dodos.
The first is the claim made by Olson that modern biology textbooks do not contain Ernst Haeckel’s 19th century illustrations of various species of embryos as evidence in favor of evolution. The Discovery Institute responded to this by producing examples of textbooks that contain similar drawings of embryos and calling Olson an outright liar for not publicly acknowledging this fact now. Next, the Discovery Institute also argues that Olson greatly inflated the amount of the Discovery Institute’s annual budget for intelligent design. In his film, Olson claims that the Discovery Institute spends about 5 million dollars a year on researching and promoting intelligent design. The Discovery Institute claimed in response that their spending on intelligent design comes nowhere near this total and averages only about 1 million dollars annually. They went on to say that Olson got near this figure by including all of the Institutes revenues, which include grants from private sources that are intended to be spent over a longer period of time.
Though the Institute tries to back up its claims with graphs and photos and repeatedly calls both Olson and his film fraudulent hoaxes, their website really does nothing to definitively convince its readers. Instead, the entire thing just comes across as a petulant backlash to all of the criticisms made in Olson’s documentary.
Check out both the article and the Institute’s website, Hoax of Dodos.
Erika's New and Hot, Week 7
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/14/nyregion/14dna.html?ref=science "Governor Proposes DNA Tests for Most Crimes in New York"
This article talks about how the governor of New York wants all convicted criminals, whether of felonies or of misdemeanors, to have their DNA tested. N.Y. has been testing DNA since 2000, but while it started out as just for sex offenders and other serious felons, it has gradually been expanded. On the one hand, many people are nervous about such an invasion of privacy- especially for people convicted only of misdemeanors, crimes that include petty theft, vandalism, public intoxication, and any other offense for which the conviction is less than twelve months (if longer, it's called a felony). For instance, the ACLU is worried about what else the DNA might be used for, besides convicting and exonerating criminals. DNA has much personal information that could be misused, and such a sweeping increase in the number of tests necessarily generates unease. Also, taking samples of all current offenders in the N.Y. prison system, of those on parole, probation, and the registered sex offenders, requires a total of 50,000 tests, which would cost the state $1.75 million. It is uncertain how much future costs would incur.
However, such a widespread use of DNA tests could have great benefits. If a murderer had once been convicted of petty theft, he or she could be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If an individual were innocent, he or she could be exonerated, even decades later (as has happened in about 200 cases across the country). The bill would make it easier for defendants to ask for their DNA to be tested against the evidence collected in their cases. It has the potential to bring criminals to justice with more certainty, and allow innocence to be proven more definitively.
I thought it was interesting that DNA, which has been used to prove which species are related to which, is now employed to determine the innocence or guilt of humans. I do find it somewhat unsettling that the government would have access to such personal information- such information that so completely identifies each individual. However, if it can help justice be served...there are all those cases of people being wrongly convicted...what do you guys think?
This article talks about how the governor of New York wants all convicted criminals, whether of felonies or of misdemeanors, to have their DNA tested. N.Y. has been testing DNA since 2000, but while it started out as just for sex offenders and other serious felons, it has gradually been expanded. On the one hand, many people are nervous about such an invasion of privacy- especially for people convicted only of misdemeanors, crimes that include petty theft, vandalism, public intoxication, and any other offense for which the conviction is less than twelve months (if longer, it's called a felony). For instance, the ACLU is worried about what else the DNA might be used for, besides convicting and exonerating criminals. DNA has much personal information that could be misused, and such a sweeping increase in the number of tests necessarily generates unease. Also, taking samples of all current offenders in the N.Y. prison system, of those on parole, probation, and the registered sex offenders, requires a total of 50,000 tests, which would cost the state $1.75 million. It is uncertain how much future costs would incur.
However, such a widespread use of DNA tests could have great benefits. If a murderer had once been convicted of petty theft, he or she could be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If an individual were innocent, he or she could be exonerated, even decades later (as has happened in about 200 cases across the country). The bill would make it easier for defendants to ask for their DNA to be tested against the evidence collected in their cases. It has the potential to bring criminals to justice with more certainty, and allow innocence to be proven more definitively.
I thought it was interesting that DNA, which has been used to prove which species are related to which, is now employed to determine the innocence or guilt of humans. I do find it somewhat unsettling that the government would have access to such personal information- such information that so completely identifies each individual. However, if it can help justice be served...there are all those cases of people being wrongly convicted...what do you guys think?
Julie's New and Hot (Week 7)
In Time Magazine's "The Most Influential People in the World: The Time 100" issue, guess who appeared in the scientist and thinkers section? Richard Dawkins.
In "Richard Dawkins" by Michael Behe, Behe writes about Dawkin's popular and controversial The God Delusion, in which Dawkin states that "religion is a so-called virus of the mind, a simple artifact of cultural evolution, no more or less meaningful than eye color or height." The fact that Dawkins appears in Time's list shows how relevant and heated discussion on evolution currently is.
Two interesting/related comments...
I also saw a short Time article about the Time 100 dinner, which was held to celebrate the honorees. There was one line about Dawkins and Wikipedia:
"Jimmy Wales, inventor of Wikipedia, met with Richard Dawkins, the biologist and outspoken atheist, to explain why Dawkins' attempts to edit Wikipedia entries kept being rejected."Interesting... This makes me wonder what type of edits Dawkins tried to make.
Also, when I checked out The God Delusion on Amazon, there were 753 book reviews!
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Lauren's New and Hot (Week 7)
This New York Times article From DNA Analysis, Clues to a Single Australian Migration discusses how it was previously thought that Australia and Papua-New Guinea were populated by several migrations, but that now based on mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes of aborigines, scientists can trace the ancestry of all aborigines back to one group that migrated 50,000 years ago. Until very recently, this population has been genetically isolated from all other human populations.
It was previously thought that dingos had to have been brought by later migrations, so this new information means that either dingos were acquired through trade with other groups of people, or that there were subsequent migrations of people with dingos, and that the later immigrants died out without a trace. Also, a change from thin bones 45,000 years ago to thicker bones around 20,000 years ago led researchers to suspect that some aborigines bred with Homo Erectus, but the evidence of only one migration indicates that the changes in bones were due to adaptation of the existing aborigine population.
Based on the DNA, researchers have traced the migration of the ancestors of the aborigines from India (a major stopping point out of Africa) to Australia. This migration probably took about 5,200 years to complete. While aborigines never bred much with other groups of people since leaving Africa, their present morphology is still significantly different from of their African ancestors. Based on fossil evidence in Australia, these morphological changes are due to genetic changes after the migration.
Lonesome George (again). Another New York Times article by the author of the article Becca posted last week, At Last, Hope for Lonesome George lists names suggested by various readers for the name of George’s potential mate. The final decision appears to be that Esperanza (Spanish for Hope) would be the best name for her- if she exists, for as long as she lives there will be hope for Pinta tortoises. This article does not really have any news in it, but I thought it would be fun to mention given that we have discussed Lonesome George the past two weeks.
While not new and hot, this does relate to Josh’s New and Hot last week, and our discussion of the distinction between chimpanzees and humans. This page includes several articles discussing the blurred line between human and chimp ancestors, and suggests that humans and chimps did interbreed shortly after the two species diverged, and that we have evolved to be more different since then.
It was previously thought that dingos had to have been brought by later migrations, so this new information means that either dingos were acquired through trade with other groups of people, or that there were subsequent migrations of people with dingos, and that the later immigrants died out without a trace. Also, a change from thin bones 45,000 years ago to thicker bones around 20,000 years ago led researchers to suspect that some aborigines bred with Homo Erectus, but the evidence of only one migration indicates that the changes in bones were due to adaptation of the existing aborigine population.
Based on the DNA, researchers have traced the migration of the ancestors of the aborigines from India (a major stopping point out of Africa) to Australia. This migration probably took about 5,200 years to complete. While aborigines never bred much with other groups of people since leaving Africa, their present morphology is still significantly different from of their African ancestors. Based on fossil evidence in Australia, these morphological changes are due to genetic changes after the migration.
Lonesome George (again). Another New York Times article by the author of the article Becca posted last week, At Last, Hope for Lonesome George lists names suggested by various readers for the name of George’s potential mate. The final decision appears to be that Esperanza (Spanish for Hope) would be the best name for her- if she exists, for as long as she lives there will be hope for Pinta tortoises. This article does not really have any news in it, but I thought it would be fun to mention given that we have discussed Lonesome George the past two weeks.
While not new and hot, this does relate to Josh’s New and Hot last week, and our discussion of the distinction between chimpanzees and humans. This page includes several articles discussing the blurred line between human and chimp ancestors, and suggests that humans and chimps did interbreed shortly after the two species diverged, and that we have evolved to be more different since then.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)