Erika's Extra New and Hot

"The exhibition at the Cooper-Hewitt has many items to show a grasp of the depths of world poverty and ingenious ways to attack it. They include a 20-gallon rolling drum for transporting water, above."

“Design That Solves Problems for World’s Poor” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/science/29cheap.html?ref=science

This article doesn’t relate directly to Darwin, but we’ve talked several times about attempts to right past wrongs, like using technology to counter the global warming that is resulting from technology. I also think it’s just a really good idea. This article describes the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum that honors inventors who design products to help the poorest in the world. It is housed in Carnegie’s mansion, which is fitting, as Carnegie himself thought that everyone wealthy had a duty use his money for the greater good. He believed that wealth would be most useful concentrated in the hands of a few, who would then become patrons of the arts and sciences, promoting a level of civilization that he did not believe possible without a wealth disparity. He himself founded libraries all across the country, and managed to give away almost all of his money before he died (for more of his philosophy, see “The Gospel of Wealth” http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1889carnegie.html). Since there is such an enormous disparity between the industrialized world and the developing world, I’m sure Carnegie would have approved of using the amassed resources to improve others’ lives. I found it interesting that, after globalization has allowed developed countries to exploit the resources of the rest of the world, we are now trying to use globalization to make the situation more tenable.

Erika's New and Hot, Week 9, and review of The God Delusion

"Two days after the flyby, New Horizons took a picture of this alignment of two of Jupiter's moons, Io and Europa. The blue plume on top of Io, left, is dust particles arising from an eruption of the volcano Tvashtar."

“Jupiter Gets Its Close-Up” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/08/science/space/08plan.html?ex=1180584000&en=bd5a5970cc36b077&ei=5070

This article was really exciting, and it also reminded me of the first major undermining of humanity’s special place in the world: the heliocentric model. When Copernicus published On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres in 1543, the book (describing a heliocentric system) went largely ignored. Galileo first brought the heliocentric model to the public consciousness (and therefore the Church’s) with a series of discoveries he published in 1610 in The Sidereal Messenger. One of the most disturbing observations he made was that Jupiter has four moons (it actually has four moons and dozens of smaller ones he could not see with his telescope). That knowledge significantly undermined the argument that Earth was special and deserved to be in the center of the universe—who were those moons shining for? If Earth wasn’t the only planet with a moon, maybe it wasn't so special. Just under four hundred years later, we’re not only able to see all of Jupiter’s moons, but we can send missions there (and beyond) to take photographs. Galileo might have been unsurprised to hear that Io, one of Jupiter’s moons he observed, is incredibly active, but I bet this photo of a volcanic eruption would have significantly unsettled his contemporaries. It’s a remarkable photo. He might have been a bit sad, though, that we’re still having debates about whether literal interpretations of the Bible should be taken over empirical evidence…

Here is my review of Dawkins’ The God Delusion. I initially tried to publish it on Amazon, but it was over the word count so it didn’t appear, and now Amazon won’t let me publish this (shorter) version because it thinks I already have reviewed that book. So I’ve posted it here, sorry.

The God Delusion

This book succeeded in its stated goal of convincing me to accept my atheism. In the first chapter, Dawkins presents a scale of 1 through 7 on the question of the existence of God. I could only agree with 6; like Dawkins, I would respond, “Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. ‘I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there’” (51). While I found Dawkins’ style belligerent (for a mild example, a letter from the president of a historical society “damningly exposes the weakness of the religious mind…every sentence drips with intellectual and moral cowardice” (16-17)), I had difficulty finding holes in his arguments. However, his arguments raised tough questions, and I did not agree with all of his responses.

For instance, he firmly believes it is child abuse to deny a child the right to think critically, but instead to teach unquestioning faith in authority. I also believe in and value critical thinking above all others. For science, it would be horrible to believe in unexplainable mysteries and accept things unquestioningly. A group of people taught to obey authority figures could be led to commit atrocities. At the same time, I am not so sure that our empirical mindset is unquestioningly better. Dawkins makes a good point that few people raised in a well-educated, open-minded society would choose to live like the Amish, or in Saudi Arabia. Yet the Amish or Saudis who would choose to live in our society would necessarily have already accepted our paradigm- within their own, they would not want to, just as within the standards of our society, we would not want to live in theirs. That does not make us objectively “right.”

Dawkins wants the child to choose. I don’t know how that could be achieved- either he/she would learn to believe in science (empiricism, evidence), and therefore not believe Scripture, or learn to believe that truth is found in authority (sacred books), and therefore be unconvinced by empirical evidence. I believe it is better for people to think critically and question authority, but I don’t know if that is objectively true- how could I prove it- so how could I force everyone else to accept my source of truth?

Dawkins makes the optimistic assertion that there is no separate realm for faith because, ultimately, everything is a scientific question that could be solved by science. There is no room for God- the gaps in science are being filled, and the theologians’ desire to leave some questions unanswered is detrimental and hopeless. I agree, but I don’t believe that science can answer everything. Natural selection and a scientific origin of life do not and cannot give any ultimate meaning to life. I think there is none, but that answer is beyond the scope of science. I cannot think of a feasible experiment to demonstrate whether life has any meaning, even though it is a yes or no question. Dawkins finds meaning in that we are lucky to be here, but that is just his opinion. I agree that theologians have no monopoly on answers to those sorts of questions, but they do have special knowledge of particular answers, and if people want to find the answers in one specific book, it is reasonable that they would turn to those most learned in such matters. Probably, anyone’s answer is as good as anyone else’s, but since I can’t determine an experiment to determine which answer is scientifically true, I would not prevent anyone from seeking an explanation based on ancient documents that have withstood the test of time. I don’t agree that everything can be answered by science, or that there is no room left for God, despite my personal opinion.

I found Dawkins’ explanation of morality unsatisfying. He explained how morality would have been evolutionarily useful, and I agree. Christians certainly act no more “Christian” than atheists, and many horrible things have been done in the name of religion (though I don’t agree with him that the world would have been much better off without it- I think religion has been an excuse for, not the cause of, wars). However, he gave no reason for why we should still act morally, even though it was once evolutionarily advantageous and we still feel the urge to do so. He makes fun of people for fearing atheism because they don’t think people would act morally without feeling supervised. To me, that is not the question he should have addressed: removing any idea of ultimate meaning or purpose, what is the value of a human life? How does one find meaning in helping others, if humanity is just the current end product of an amoral process? For me, the danger in this mechanistic view of the universe lies not in its removal of a mind-reading punisher, but rather in the meaninglessness of it all. That we are the way we are because of impersonal mechanisms like natural selection is remarkable, but it does not make my life or my actions meaningful, as I would feel if I could believe we had been put here for a purpose. Dawkins finds science an inspiration, but that is his personal opinion. In The God Delusion, his advocacy of fearless critical thinking about every topic left me searching for a meaning of life that would stand up to such scrutiny, and his inspiration by science did not sway me. His book allowed me to say that I am an atheist, but I understand why the religious might want to protect their children from such doubts, however cowardly that may seem.

Alex's New and Hot

"What's in a Name? The Future of Life"
by Kristen Philipkoski

I found this article the other day, it's somewhat related to Becca's story earlier this week what with it being Linnaeus's 300th birthday and all. This article goes into a little bit of detail about the man and his work, but otherwise, most of the article is actually a critique of the current Linnaeian system of classification. That is, it looks at the history of binomial nomenclature and basically says that it's a horrible system. A scathing critique, if you will.

The problem is, the naming scheme is not optimal. For the most part, the naming is very ad hoc and often times species are often named after really random things like the name of the discoverer. There's not a particularly elegant way of organizing everything. In addition, the currently classification system does not take into account a lot of the current advances in the evolution of life and molecular genetics.

The point is, many people think that the current system is really outdated, here is a quote:

"The binomial system for naming species is a necessary evil," says David Hillis, a professor of integrative biology at the University of Arizona who says he'd prefer a more precise nomenclature, such as registration numbers for all species. "No one would suggest such an awkward system today, but it is so entrenched that it is virtually impossible to change."

So people want to replace it with something that's perhaps more streamlined and makes more logical sense, but I guess the problem is that there's too much precedent. The Linnaean system has been around for so long that a lot of people think that it's going to be really hard to replace this system, so we might be stuck with what we have for a while now.

This is going to be a horrible analogy, but it's like Galileo/Copernicus vs. Aristotle almost. Aristotle had so much sway and power and he had tradition on his side that even when something else came along later that was better, people didn't really care and it was hard to get that new thing stuck. Eventually though, the better thing did stick around. Same with the recent demotion of Pluto as a planet. In any case, I'd be interested to see what people do with binomial nomenclature in the future.

Book review to come later.

Julie's New and Hot (Week 9)

"Nature's Tricks Help Moths Say 'Don't Eat Me"
by Nicholas Wade

New York Times, May 29, 2007

Butterflies and moths have evolved a wide variety of colors and camouflage patterns. Throughout these insects' lifetimes, they have evolved special traits to escape from predators. In "100 Caterpillars" and "100 Butterflies and Moths," Daniel Janzen and Winifred Hallwachs (with photos by Jeffrey Miller) examine these insects and their colorful appearances.

A few examples of these strategies that are mentioned in the article:

• Calledema plusia, a type of moth, has a "silvery gash on both sides of its brown wings," which "mimics a shaft of light streaming through a dead leaf."
• Pieria helvetia has a "disappearing act." When a predator is near, it will fly very rapidly, flasthing the red spots on its hindwings. Then it will quickly close its wings and is then invisible.
• The most interesting adaptations are in the moth, Oxytenis modestia. As a caterpillar, this moth imitates bird droppings. At the end of the caterpillar stage, the moth mimics a green snake. As an adult, the moth imitates a leaf, but the shape and form of the leaf depends on the time of the year it is born. Moths born in the dry season mimic dry leaves by being light beige colored. Moths born in the rainy season look dark and moldy.
  

These adapations are incredible, especially the varied and specific ones of the Oxytenis modestia. The photos from the book that are included in the article are amazing as well. (Captions are also from the article.)

"DISGUISES The mechanisms for warding off predators include dark coloring that allows the H. amphinome to blend in to tree bark."


"Silver stripes on the C. plusia look like sunlight streaming through a dead leaf."


"During caterpillar stages, O. modestia bears a resemblance to a bird dropping."


"A pattern on Z. ellops mimicks a dead leaf."


"H. icasia releases a bitter yellow fluid if bothered."

p.s. Here is my review for Letter to a Christian Nation. In the book, Harris mentions www.whydoesgodhateamputees.com (footnote on page 78). There are other links on this site as well to YouTube videos and other sites. Interesting stuff...

Kate's New and Hot (Week 9)

Pretty flowers...

Hey all, Last week I mentioned a really cool article about Carl Linneaus in June's National Geographic. Becca already posted about his 300th birthday celebration, but I just wanted to let everyone know about this article. It's pretty biographical...there's an online version here. There is a whole section that talks about evolutionary trees and stuff. Another interesting thing to note is that this article was written by David Quammen, author of The Reluctant Mr. Darwin. Quammen mentions Darwin once in the article: "But his passion for order--for seeking natural order--did move taxonomy toward the insights later delivered by Charles Darwin."

I really wanted to post these pictures from the article...I think they're incredible. I love NatGeo :)

Sagar: Fun With Limbless Lizards!

A new limbless lizard may have been discovered in India though the finding has yet to be published in a scientific journal. The discovery is significant because it seems for now that the species is only found in eastern India with its closest relatives being in Sri Lanka and South Africa! Lizards and snakes diverged on the evolutionary tree a long time ago. Limbless lizards are thus not snakes. I just thought this new discovery was interesting as it tangentially relates to our discussion last week about how the difference between two closely related species seems arbitrary. What makes this species a lizard and not a snake???? This new species sure does look like a snake. It seems nowadays, that species are traced genetically as well as morphologically making the classifications more legitimate. The link to the article is here .

Lauren's New and Hot (Week 9) and Dawkins

This photo is of invasive goats and a native tortoise on the Galapagos. Here is the website the photo came from.

No kidding as slaughter of Galapagos goats nears completion

This article on the Scotsman.com website describes the measures taken to save the Galapagos from goats. Whalers introduced goats to the islands in the 1800s, and the goats have caused significant problems for the islands in that they eat the cacti that normally feed Galapagos tortoises and otherwise disturb the environment. In the 1970s, a program was started to exterminate the goats. This program took off in the 1990s, and now goats have been nearly eradicated from some of the smaller islands and a portion of Isabela (the largest island). One method of eliminating goats is flying over the islands in helicopters and shooting the goats. New Zealanders experienced with shooting feral goats from helicopters were hired to perform this task. Another method used is to take goat-sniffing dogs on foot and shoot the goats. The most creative method listed in the article is the use of hormone-treated sterile female goats to lure wild goats.

Some people say that the extermination effort is necessary because otherwise the goats could destroy the fragile ecosystem. Poor people living on the islands make their livelihoods from selling goat meat, so they object strongly to the extermination effort. Without the goats, these people would have extremely little to eat or live on.

One interesting reaction to goat extermination is that of natural resources management expert Robert Nelson, who says that the human impact on the Galapagos has been tremendous, and that goat extermination is merely an artificial means of trying to return the Galapagos to their state before human intervention. He says, "it is more like Disneyland than the real thing."

I have reviewed The God Delusion, and here is the link to my review. An amusing note: no one has marked my previous three reviews as helpful, yet within hours of my Dawkins review being posted, three people have marked it as helpful. I guess this shows how popular The God Delusion is. A preview of what I thought of Dawkins: overall it was a very well thought out book, however, he may have taken things a bit too far when he claimed that religion (including moderate religion) is the root cause of anything evil humans do. I can't help thinking that if it were not religion, something else would serve to do the same thing.

On an unrelated note, I was amused to find the following Daily article:What you didn't know about Darwin. The author takes the stance that Darwin delayed publication of the Origin deliberately out of religious concerns. This article amused me because it has a very cursory summary of a number of things we learned this quarter, and there are at least 14 students who already know the things that the author considered to be "What you didn't know about Darwin".