Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
The Pecksniffs have descended on the town of Matthew Cobb; yes, the termites have dined their way to Manchester. For a lovely and famous pre-Raphaelite painting, “Hylas and the nymphs“, created in 1898 by John William Waterhouse, has been removed from display at the Manchester Art Gallery.
First, the story behind the painting (from Artble):
Taken from the story of Jason and the Argonauts, Hylas was an Argonaut warrior and the assistant and lover of Herlkas. He was also known to be a very handsome youth.
When Jason’s boat landed on an island during his search for the Golden Fleece, Hylas was sent to fetch water for the camp. Finding a pool in a clearing, he reached down and put his pitcher into the water. Before he could lift his pitcher he looked up to discover water nymphs encircling him. Drawn by his beauty, one of the nymphs reached up to kiss Hylas.
The tale stops there and Hylas disappeared without trace from that moment, it was said that Herlkas searched the island for his beloved, in fact such a time passed that the boat left without him.
It’s a lovely painting; I have a weakness for the pre-Raphaelites and their descendant Maxfield Parrish.
It is a painting that shows pubescent, naked nymphs tempting a handsome young man to his doom, but is it an erotic Victorian fantasy too far, and one which, in the current climate, is unsuitable and offensive to modern audiences?
Manchester Art Gallery has asked the question after removing John William Waterhouse’s Hylas and the Nymphs, one of the most recognisable of the pre-Raphaelite paintings, from its walls. Postcards of the painting will be removed from sale in the shop.
The painting was taken down on Friday and replaced with a notice explaining that a temporary space had been left “to prompt conversations about how we display and interpret artworks in Manchester’s public collection”. Members of the public have stuck Post-it notes around the notice giving their reaction.
Apparently its removal is an unfortunate byproduct of the recent (and laudable) movements against sexual harassment and predation:
Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art, said the aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. “It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks.”
The work usually hangs in a room titled In Pursuit of Beauty, which contains late 19th century paintings showing lots of female flesh.
Gannaway said the title was a bad one, as it was male artists pursuing women’s bodies, and paintings that presented the female body as a passive decorative art form or a femme fatale.
“For me personally, there is a sense of embarrassment that we haven’t dealt with it sooner. Our attention has been elsewhere … we’ve collectively forgotten to look at this space and think about it properly. We want to do something about it now because we have forgotten about it for so long.”
Gannaway said the debates around Time’s Up and #MeToo had fed into the decision.
It’s dangerous to say that the influence of these movements have gone too far, as distinctions between various types of badness seem to have been effaced. And the censorship of paintings was not an aim of these movements: it’s collateral damage. But there’s nothing good about this kind of censorship, which I predict will spread. If we need to deep-six every painting in which a male artist “pursues” a woman’s body, then get ready for the censorship of many of the world’s great artworks—not only the pre-Raphaelites, but Titian, Rubens, Picasso, Rembrandt, Manet, and, well, the list goes on forever. Here are a few example of ideologically incorrect paintings.
Of course curator Gannoway denies that this is censorship, even though it clearly is:
Clare Gannaway, the gallery’s curator of contemporary art, said the aim of the removal was to provoke debate, not to censor. “It wasn’t about denying the existence of particular artworks.”
. . . Gannaway said the removal was not about censorship.
“We think it probably will return, yes, but hopefully contextualised quite differently. It is not just about that one painting, it is the whole context of the gallery.”
Excuse me, but this is what comes out of the south end of a bull facing north. They characterized the removal as an “artistic act”, but it’s really an act of censorship. And what Gannaway calls “contextualized quite differently” means that if the paiting returns, there will be a big placard next to it pointing out why it’s “problematic.”
Jesus God, what is happening? I want to eat a Tide pod.
My response is similar to that of Stig Abell, editor and publisher of the Times Literary Supplement (h/t: Barry for the tweet):
This is fine, as long as the conversation begins: "please put the painting back up and stop being so silly". https://t.co/zl3H7E3PDj
I’ve made no secret about my lack of affection for Bill “The Science Guy” Nye. Although at one time he may have been a great promoter of science for kids, he seems unable to survive out of the limelight. The result is that he’s engaging in all sorts of activities to keep himself in the public eye: debating Ken Ham about evolution, popping up at events like the Reason Rally (where he refused to sign my book for charity), and starring in his misnamed television show, “Bill Nye Saves the World.” It also rankles me that he pretends to be a scientist but he’s really not: he was an engineer at one time, but he hasn’t even done that for 32 years. I don’t care if science popularizers have science degrees so long as they can present the material cogently and engagingly, but I do mind when they pretend to be scientists.
The last straw was the incursion of politics into his science show, which proved horribly cringeworthy. Behold “My vagina has its own voice”, followed by “Ice cream sexuality”:
I can’t imagine Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or Richard Dawkins presenting any of those videos, which aren’t even science but ideology.
There are many other reasons I dislike Nye, but this will suffice. Others, of course, disagree, and love the laterally compressed man with the bow tie. Many of them were turned on to science by Nye when they were kids, and I can’t fault that. All I know is the man I see today, and he makes the soles of my shoes curl up.
This week, however, Nye decided to attend Trump’s State of the Union Address, which was fine, but what rankled people is that he went with Republican congressman Jim Bridenstine. Trump proposed Bridenstine as the new director of NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), but the nomination has been held up because Bridensteine is unqualified, not having a science degree (though he’s a pilot and was director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum), and, most important, he won’t say openly that human activity is the major cause of global warming. When examined in a confirmation hearing, Bridenstine admitted that global warming was in part anthropogenic, but wouldn’t say that human activity is the main cause.
To many that is heresy, but I think that a partial admission is a step in the right direction for the man, though of course he may have been lying. I don’t think he should be confirmed, for he’s simply unqualified, but in the end his failure to fully sign on to what is seen as settled science will probably be the main factor blocking his nomination. After all, most of Trump’s nominees are unqualified!
What bothered people a lot was that Nye went to the State of the Union as Bridenstine’s guest, which apparently they saw as Nye’s endorsement not only of Bridenstine’s views and Trump’s policies, but also, by proxy, of xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, racism, ableism, and yes, anti-science. No matter that Nye accepts and speaks about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming, or that he dissociated himself from Bridenstine’s and Trump’s political views. As the New York Post reports:
“I will attend the State of the Union as a guest of Congressman Jim Bridenstine — nominee for NASA Administrator — who extended me an invitation in my role as CEO of The Planetary Society,” the science educator and engineer tweeted Monday night.
“While the Congressman and I disagree on a great many issues — we share a deep respect for NASA and its achievements and a strong interest in the future of space exploration,” he wrote.
“My attendance tomorrow should not be interpreted as an endorsement of this administration, or of Congressman Bridenstine’s nomination, or seen as an acceptance of the recent attacks on science and the scientific community,” he continued.
I don’t have a beef with Nye going to the speech with Bridenstine; I have a beef with him constantly pushing himself into the limelight, and he’ll do it in any way he can. I object to Nye’s rampant careerism, not to his politics. In this case, though, his self-promotion required him to go with a Republican.
Many others took issue with that, though, and pushback against Nye’s attendance was reported and/or promulgated by many places, including Salon, Geekwire, and CNN. The only temperate voice was reported at Geekwire:
The Planetary Society’s Casey Dreier volleyed back, saying that it’s important to acknowledge Bridenstine’s shift toward the mainstream on climate science.
“If pro-science activists want to see their policies succeed, by definition they will have to gain new supporters, and in so doing they will have to change people’s minds — and embrace it when it happens,” he wrote.
Nye is the CEO of The Planetary Society: one of the reasons he’s associating himself with the NASA mission.
But three other groups spoke out loudly against Nye’s actions. An online petition by Climate Hawks Vote, which says what’s below, has gathered more than 35,000 signatures:
President Donald Trump is a bigoted climate denier. So is Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK), Trump’s embattled nominee for NASA Administrator. So why is Bill Nye “very pleased” to be Bridenstine’s guest at Trump’s first State of the Union address?
Bill, please be the Science Guy, not the Bigoted Climate Denial Guy. Cancel your plans to attend Trump’s State of the Union as Rep. Bridenstine’s guest.
You can be “very pleased” to be someone’s guest without endorsing Bridenstine’s policies, and Nye explicitly said he didn’t, and has emphasized human-caused global warming constantly.
Bill Nye has been a stalwart voice against the Trump administration’s climate denial in the past year. Meanwhile, Jim Bridenstine is exactly the opposite: a climate denying, fossil fuel-funded politician who has no business running NASA. As a member of Congress from Oklahoma, Bridenstine has already racked up $170,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry. Even though he refutes the science of climate change and has no scientific background, he just moved one step closer to becoming the head of NASA.
NASA performs critical climate science research, and if the Senate confirms Bridenstine’s nomination he could work with Trump to end NASA’s earth science missions, and ground essential research satellites. With his controversial nomination heading soon to the Senate floor, Bill Nye’s tacit endorsement could be just what Bridenstine needs to get enough votes to be confirmed. We have to stop this in its tracks.
Tell Bill Nye today: Don’t support the Trump administration’s disastrous climate denial agenda by attending the State of the Union as Jim Bridenstine’s guest.
As scientists, we cannot stand by while Nye lends our community’s credibility to a man who would undermine the United States’ most prominent science agency. And we cannot stand by while Nye uses his public persona as a science entertainer to support an administration that is expressly xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, and anti-science.
Scientists are people, and in today’s society, it is impossible to separate science at major agencies like NASA from other pressing issues like racism, bigotry, and misogyny. Addressing these issues should be a priority, not only to strengthen our own scientific community, but to better serve the public that often funds our work. Rather than wield his public persona to bring attention to the need for science-informed policy, Bill Nye has chosen to excuse Rep. Bridenstine’s anti-science record and his stance on civil rights, and to implicitly support a stance that would diminish the agency’s work studying our own planet and its changing climate. Exploring other worlds and studying other planets, while dismissing the overwhelming scientific evidence of climate change and its damage to our own planet isn’t just dangerous, it’s foolish and self-defeating.
Further, from his position of privilege and public popularity, Bill Nye is acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but without our approval.
That seems over the top to me, for Nye surely doesn’t endorse xenophobia, homophobia, and that whole slate of sins; in fact, he’s disavowed much of this (see above). Even though the videos about are cringeworthy, they nevertheless do attack homophobia and misogyny. So Nye’s supposed “implicit” support for these things has been rejected explicitly. I also question whether science at NASA, or anyplace else, cannot be separated from identity politics. There’s no logical connection between the two, except that most scientists are liberals, and most liberals don’t endorse homophobia, xenophibia, et al. Finally, does Nye need anyone’s approval to appear at the State of the Union message? He was not acting on the scientific community’s behalf, but on his own behalf.
There’s this, too:
The true shame is that Bill Nye remains the popular face of science because he keeps himself in the public eye. To be sure, increasing the visibility of scientists in the popular media is important to strengthening public support for science, but Nye’s TV persona has perpetuated the harmful stereotype that scientists are nerdy, combative white men in lab coats—a stereotype that does not comport with our lived experience as women in STEM. And he continues to wield his power recklessly, even after his recent endeavors in debate and politics have backfired spectacularly.
In 2014, he attempted to debate creationist Ken Ham—against the judgment of evolution experts—which only served to allow Ham to raise the funds needed to build an evangelical theme park that spreads misinformation about human evolution. Similarly, Nye repeatedly agreed to televised debates with non-scientist climate deniers, contributing to the false perception that researchers still disagree about basic climate science. And when Bill Nye went on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show to “debate” climate change in 2017, his appearance was used to spread misinformation to Fox viewers and fundraise for anti-climate initiatives.
There’s a bit of truth here, because Nye does “keep himself in the public eye”. More important, I too won’t debate creationists because it gives them credibility—but that’s not the only reason. Other reasons include creationists’ “Gish galloping” in these debates, and because rhetoric in a live debate is not, I think, the best way to let the public issues. But I don’t mind if some other folks debate creationists, so long as they’re prepared and know what they’re doing. But surely going on television and pushing for recognition of global warming is a good thing: we can’t always avoid our opponents, and sometimes debates, with the proper science advocates, can be useful.
I’ll leave you to judge for yourself whether Nye perpetuates stereotypes of science. If he does, people like Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is black and doesn’t wear a lab coat, must dispel them.
In the end, the way to make your point in this case is not to demonize Nye, but to defeat Bridenstine’s nomination. (His nomination seems a lost cause anyway.) Write to your senators and representatives! Write to the White House! This may seem like bawling up a drainpipe, but if that doesn’t do anything, surely calling out Nye will do even less.
I find myself in a strange position defending Bill Nye, as I don’t like him, don’t admire him, and don’t think he’s doing much for science. But I simply can’t get worked up about him going to the State of the Union address with a Republican nominee, especially when Nye has explicitly disavowed Bridenstine’s views on climate change.
Readers: please send in your GOOD wildlife (or landscape) photos, as I can use more.
Today is Duck Day! A “Festival of Ducks”, or so reader Karen Bartelt titled her group of photos. Her notes are indented:
“In line, in line, it’s all in line, my ducks are all in a row They do not change, they do not move, they have nowhere to go.”
—James Taylor, “Sun on the Moon”
Black-bellied whistling ducks (Dendrocygna autumnalis). All in a line at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge, on the Mexican border, where the “Wall” will be built first if there is ever any funding. And I know that ducks can fly over a wall, but the disruption to habitat in the Refuge if a wall were to be built is anyone’s guess. Picture also includes a few American coots (Fulica americana) and some sort of turtle.
Blue-winged teal (Anas discors). Big Bend National Park, Texas. Mexico is in the background. These are not Mexico’s best ducks. They’re bringing drugs (note that one duck has dropped its bundle of drugs into the Rio Grande). They’re rapists (of American ducks). Some I’m sure are fine ducks. But not these. [JAC: There are no ducks better than American ducks!]
Greater scaup (Aythya marila) all in a line at the South Shore Marina, Milwaukee, WI.
Common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula) in many lines, South Shore Marina, Milwaukee.
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola, male), south of water treatment plant, Lake Park, Milwaukee. I did see a female, but the photo isn’t very good.
Reader Sean Crawford sent an ibex video; his notes:
Here’s a video of some Ibex [Capra ibex] in Monachil, Andalusia, which is just outside Granada Spain. I was on holiday there with my wife and kids (hence the background noise!). We were hiking and, lo and behold, suddenly a herd (group?) of Ibex crossed our path, one of which does an amazing jump from one boulder to another clear across the stairs of the path we’re on.
The main action takes place right at the beginning, in the first few of seconds, around 4 seconds in, and you have to look pretty closely first time around to see what’s happening. But once you get your eye in, on a second viewing it’s quite clear. The rest of the video is less dramatic as the group makes its way from boulder to boulder up the mountain.
From the Uniontown (Pennsylvania) Morning Herald, January 4, 1950, heralding my birth on December 30 of the previous year. Note that I was born in a Catholic hospital—they don’t even show my name!
Good morning: we’ve made it to the first of February 2018. Yay! However, it’s also National Cake Pops Day, which are unappealing small spheroids of cake covered with chocolate, served at pretentious restaurants:
In the U.S. it’s also the beginning of Black History Month (also in Canada) and National Bird-Feeding Month. Unfortunately, given the tweet below, it’s also World Hijab Day, whose stated purpose “is to encourage women of all religions and backgrounds to wear and experience the hijab.” In many places, that would be the experience of oppression.
NOTE: An unknown reader, with a return address in Montreal, Canada, sent me a lovely gift of Stilwell’s Humbugs, my very favorite hard candy. (They are delicious: handmade with mint, sugar, and butter; watch the video at the link). Since no name was enclosed with the gift, thank you, and if you identify yourself I’ll respond.
What happened on February 1? First, as the beginning of Black History Month, today’s Google Doodle celebrates Carter G. Woodson (1875-1950), who, though not born on this day, is known as “the father of black history.” Born the son of former slaves, he worked his way through school as a miner, and then, I’m pleased to say, got both his A.B. and A.M. at The University of Chicago. After teaching, he worked for the NAACP in Washington, D.C., and then embarked on the activities that led to today’s Doodle. From Wikipedia:
Woodson devoted the rest of his life to historical research. He worked to preserve the history of African Americans and accumulated a collection of thousands of artifacts and publications. He noted that African-American contributions “were overlooked, ignored, and even suppressed by the writers of history textbooks and the teachers who use them.” Race prejudice, he concluded, “is merely the logical result of tradition, the inevitable outcome of thorough instruction to the effect that the Negro has never contributed anything to the progress of mankind.”
In 1926, Woodson pioneered the celebration of “Negro History Week”, designated for the second week in February, to coincide with marking the birthdays of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. However, it was the Black United Students and Black educators at Kent State University that founded Black History Month, on February 1, 1970. Six years later Black History Month was being celebrated all across the country in educational institutions, centers of Black culture and community centers, both great and small, when President Gerald Ford recognized Black History Month, during the celebration of the United States Bicentennial. He urged Americans to “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.”
The Doodle and the man:
On this day in 1793, in the French Revolutionary Wars, France declared war on both the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. On February 1, 1861, Texas seceded from the United States at the beginning of the Civil War; exactly four years later, Abraham Lincoln signed the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery and involuntary servitude. The Amendment was approved by the required 3/4 of the states on December 6, 1865, and became law 12 days later. On this day in 1884, the first volume of the Oxford English Dictionary (A-Ant) was published. In 1896, Puccini’s opera La Bohème premiered in Turin, conducted by Arturo Toscanini. Here’s one of my favorite arias from that opera “Quando m’en vo”, gorgeously sung by one of my favorite singers, Kiri te Kanawa—a fellow Kiwi. This was performed in 1993 with the Australian Pops Orchestra, John Hopkins conducting, at State Theatre Victorian Arts Centre, Melbourne.
On February 1, 1918, Russia adopted the Gregorian calendar. On this day in 1960, four black students staged the first of the famous Greensboro sit-ins at a segregated Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina. They were denied service, more protestors joined them the next day, and the rest is history. Exactly four years later, the Beatles had their first #1 hit in the US with the song “I want to hold your hand.” On this day in 1968, photographer Eddie Adams took the Pulitzer-Prize-winning photograph of the execution of Viet Cong officer Nguyễn Văn Lém by South Vietnamese Police Chief Nguyễn Ngọc Loan. You can see the photograph at the link, and it still gives me the willies. On this day in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Tehran after 15 years of exile, and the theocracy began. Finally, on this day in 2003—and many of you will remember this—the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated during reentry, killing all seven astronauts aboard. The cause was a dislodged piece of insulation that damaged the fuel tank and the wing.
Notables born on this day include John Ford (1894), Clark Gable (1901), Murel Spark (1918), Boris Yeltsin (1931), and Jessica Savitch (1947, drowned 1983). Those who died on February 1 include Mary Shelley (1851), Piet Mondrian (1944), Buster Keaton (1966), Werner Heisenberg (1976), the entire crew of the Columbia (2003: Michael Anderson, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Rick Husband, William McCool, and Ilan Ramon), and Ed Koch (2013)
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is again pondering the world. When I asked Malgorzata what the dialogue meant (Andrzej writes them all and sends them to her), she responded:
I waited with trepidation for this question. I have no idea! Hili might be bored and wants Andrzej to think out something interesting to do. Andrzej doesn’t know what would interest Hili and he tries to deflect the request by praising her (she is vain and loves being praised). But this explanation is just a desperate attempt to explain – not really an explanation.
The dialogue:
Hili: I think we have to think up something.
A: It’s a fine thought.
In Polish:
Hili: Myślę, że coś trzeba wymyślić.
Ja: To świetny pomysł.
Here’s another optical illusion from Matthew; there is no red in the illustration, just blues and grays:
This Peruvian leaf beetle is packing a serious spine on its underside. Not sure why. Fights or prying apart mating pairs? (Platyphora sp.) pic.twitter.com/lcLwBwDCde
Reader Rick Longworth sent this video of a “wildcat” (I’m not sure whether this is a feral tabby or a European wildcat [Felis silvestris silvestris]) catching a rodent in the snow. Nor can I be sure if he actually sees the prey, or is, like a fox, hunting by sound. It’s hard to gell. Finally, I don’t understand most of the Spanish caption, so readers can help out here (below). But it is a lovely video of a feline predator in action. Look how fast that mouse is consumed!
Be sure to enlarge it by clicking on the four arrows to the right.
The caption:
Los gatos monteses no lo tienen fácil para cazar cuando hay grandes nevadas. Por eso, se desplazan por las zonas donde hay partes descubiertas donde les es más fácil localizar a los ratones y otros micromamíferos que componen la mayor parte de su dieta.
In Polish: