Was Homo erectus Santa White?

I was wondering about Santa visiting the kiddies of Homo erectus families about a million years ago. Was Santa white way back then? The only way to solve this enigma is to ask a Republican!

Fox News has answered this question for us--Santa, a real entity, was(is) definitely white. Megyn Kelly says so, based on well, you know, something. She must be right, because renowned  paleoanthropologist Herr Professor Doktor Bill O'Reilly agrees.

But all of this speculation is moot, there's no such thing as extinct hominins; the majority of Republicans don't "believe" in evolution. That's right; Santa Claus is real, but evolution, climate change, and other things scientists talk about and work on are commie conspiracies to overthrow the American way of life.  As Representative Paul Broun (R-GA), who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, put it,

All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. And it's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.

 

Darwin returns to Dover

Charles Darwin came back to haunt Dover, Pennsylvania, in the form of a billboard proclaiming "Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief." The billboard was prepared in time for the bicentennial anniversary of his birth, February 12, at a site of significance in the history of ideas. The Freedom from Religion Foundation paid for this billboard and a second one in Dayton, Tennessee. Both sites are known for trials arising from anti-evolutionists wishing to teach Creationism in public schools as the explanation for biodiversity. In Dayton, John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, a prohibited act. In Kitzmiller &al. v. Dover &al. (the trial was actually held in Harrisburg) the Dover Area School District was found in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution (Article 1 section 3).

Some reactions to the billboard were reported by one of the local papers that followed the story leading up to the 2005 judgement. Steven Neubauer, an outspoken local atheist, said the billboard celebrates science and is not an attack on religious beliefs. Tammy Kitzmiller, the lead plaintiff in the case, said she likes the billboard but figures it will stir up matters that ought to rest. William "Deer-in-the-Headlights" Buckingham, a former school board member who was one of the perpetrators of the Dover Affair, feels the billboard is an expression of free speech, which is allowed to everyone except Christians. Apparently, he is one of many who remains confused about what is meant by "free speech." Similarly, local pastor Sterling Walsh Jr. said the billboard merely reflects one of many viewpoints about the beginning of the world, not realizing that Darwin's theory of evolution did not address the origin of the world, or even the origin of life.

Larry Hicks' column in the paper the next day took the point of view that the billboard represented the gloating of winners in a clash of atheists versus Christians, blaming extremists on both sides for perpetuating the Creationism controversy. He claims "the Christians" who lost Kitzmiller v. Dover have "begrudgingly accepted thair loss," have "been mostly quiet since," and have "licked their wounds and moved on." Mr. Hicks is unaware of the extent and depth of the issue, as was clearly pointed out by Dan Gilbert in an Op-Ed piece two days later. Mr. Gilbert gets it. Judging by the comments posted in response to these articles in the York Dispatch, many people still do not. Our society still fails to educate very well. Can we make a special effort this year, Darwin's 200th birthday, the 150th anniversary of the publication of his The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and the International Year of Planet Earth, to promote a rational, scientific understanding of the world around us?

Origin of life and that second law of thermodynamics

This article (subscription req'd) in Science magazine by P.G. Falkowski and Y. Isozaki (24 October 2008) is a perspective on the origin and cycling of free oxygen on Earth. It's a brief, good description of an important geochemical cycle. But what struck me as particularly notable was the ending paragraph, which begins

Each mole of oxygen in Earth's atmosphere required ~450 kJ equivalents of photon energy to produce.

This leads to a very clear refutation of one of the Creationists' favorite, hoary arguments. The paragraph ends

Nature certainly has provided an incredible source of potential energy for the evolution of life on Earth.

Thank you.

Third World country passes freedom from academics bill

The Louisiana House passed a bill designed to bring dishonor and disrepute upon that state. It's an unintelligent bill, a foolish bill, an ill-thought-out bill. I think the bill has the intention of allowing teachers to provide supplemental materials to their science [sic] classes, materials that regurgitate the same tired old arguments about the "weaknesses" of evolution, arguments that have long been debunked.

I suspect Jack Chick has a lobby presence in the halls of Louisiana government.

Darwin Day is coming...And a little progress

Don't forget, it's Darwin's Birthday Tuesday, 12 February. Why not make a weekend out of it?

The progress I'm referring to is to note that there was an item in the York (PA) Daily Record announcing an 'Evolution Shabbat' Friday (better hurry) at Temple Beth Israel in York, Pennsylvania. Speakers are Rabbi Irwin N. Goldenberg on the Jewish perspective, and Leonard Berkowitz on science, creationism, and intelligent design.

Can Intelligent Design researchers say this?

Michael Eisen of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is the co-leader of a project studying comparative genomics of fruit flies. After sequencing the genomes of ten species of fruit flies they followed the evolutionary trail of genes and associated regulatory regions, pathways, and cellular processes in these ten plus two additional species of Drosophila.

This work allowed the researchers to construct a phylogenetic tree showing the relatedness of the dozen species. But it allows much more, and that is summed up by a quote from Eisen; their work

allows you to map where [genetic] changes occur along the tree, and that allows you to study the process of evolution, not just the product.

Now, just for comparison, what research in Intelligent Design Creationism can make a similar claim? What cdesign proponentsists have even agreed that it is appropriate to study the process of Intelligent Design Creationism?


A brief summary of this work appears in the 9 November issue of Science; more than 40 papers published in Nature and other journals deal with various aspects of it.

Don't miss this--Kitzmiller v. Dover on PBS

Okay, Earth Science Week came and went with little notice. But please notice this episode of Nova on PBS--it's a reenactment of the case that the Discovery Institute was eager to see come to trial...then awfully anxious to see not come to trial...then dismissive of the case as not important.

The show airs 8:00 PM Tuesday, 13 November (check your local listings). If you can't wait, check out the promo on the PBS Web site, where, besides the preview, you can find related information and discussions.

As former Dover Area School Board member and one of the chief Creationists involved in the shenanigans, Bill Buckingham, said, "This is never gonna go away." That's right, Bill; the trial exposed Intelligent Design for what it is--anti-science Creationist claptrap with the primary purpose of bringing proselytizing religion into the classroom.

A fair question, or not?

Various bloggers have commented on the recent Republican "debate" in which the eleven assembled contenders were asked if they "believed" in evolution, and three--Brownback, senator from Kansas; Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, and Tancredo, congressman from Colorado, indicated they did not. McCain, who was the only individual asked the question, replied that he did, but went on to waffle and try to please both sides.

There was also unfavorable discussion of Kathleen Parker's Washington Post article, which tried to tell the reader the issue was too complex to be meaningful in any way. She said The debate question was fundamentally a setup for ridicule.

I agree with that second point, but I say the ridicule was well-deserved. I disagree with the first point, however.

Yes, the science of evolution is complex, and we can't expect mere politicians to be able to explain it or to explain why Creationism (of the Intelligent Design or any other flavor) is not a valid alternative scientific theory in the brief time allotted in the entertainment piece gratuitously called a debate. However, all of the candidates have had ample time to listen to real scientists and to realize that evolution is considered the bedrock foundation of biology. If they dismiss evolution science in favor of Creationist publicity and eyewash, will they likewise dismiss scientific findings regarding climate change if those finding are inconsistent with their political ideology; will they advocate failed (as determined scientifically) policies regarding sex education in order to pander to their perceived constituency? Will they disregard scientific advice, preferring instead to embrace misinformation and wishful thinking to take America into unnecessary wars?

The question was fair. It gave voters some insight into the likelihood of candidates preferring to operate within a fantasy world, or at least pandering to a constituency that dwells in such a world.