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.
From National Public Radio’s Skunk Bear, with the help of birder Nick Lund, we have a new video of the dumbest-sounding birds of North America. If you’re a birder or bird aficionado, close or avert your eyes from the screen, listen, and see how many you can identify by sound alone. There are five, so make a list when you’re not watching. And report your answers below.
According to CNN, Kentucky Rowan County clerk Kim Davis has been released from jail, with the proviso that she not interfere with clerks in her office issuing marriage licenses. It’s not yet clear whether her name will still appear on the licenses, but it seems that that will remain unless and until the legislature changes the rules in January.
A long and complicated analysis by Eugene Volokh (a UCLA law professor) at the Washington Post concludes that Davis probably is legally exusable from signing licenses based on Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It’s complicated, and apparently comes down to whether religious beliefs can be accommodated without undue hardship to the employer. But Davis is back at work, and remains a religious bigot.
I’ve already written at length about Republican Presidential candidate Ben Carson’s creationism (see here), which is even odder coming from a neurosurgeon. But of course we know that among all those who use scientific information, doctors and engineers are among the most likely to be creationists. Carson has also equated homosexuality with bestiality and pedophilia, although he later apologized for his “poorly chosen words.”
But such idiocy doesn’t seem to turn off Republicans; in fact, it seems to inspire them. While a lot can change between now and a year from November, at this moment Carson is nipping at the heels of Donald Trump for the most popular GOP candidate. One would think that with the election looming, Carson would ratchet down his ridiculous young-earth creationism. But one would be wrong.
Right Wing Watch gives the audio and transcript of a four-minute “Faith & Liberty” interview that Carson gave in 2014, in which he raises all the young-earth creationist tropes: the earth just looks old because God made it look old (why would he do that?), that natural selection can’t explain the evolution of complex features like an eyeball or a kidney, and so on. RWW reports:
In a “Faith & Liberty” interview posted last week, potential GOP presidential candidate Ben Carson discussed his rejection of the theory of evolution, arguing that the science of evolution is a sign of humankind’s arrogance and belief “that they are so smart that if they can’t explain how God did something, then it didn’t happen, which of course means that they’re God. You don’t need a God if you consider yourself capable of explaining everything.”
He claimed that “no one has the knowledge” of the age of the earth “based on the Bible,” adding that “carbon dating and all of these things really don’t mean anything to a God who has the ability to create anything at any point in time.”
Carson pointed to the “complexity of the human brain” as proof that evolution is a myth: “Somebody says that came from a slime pit full of promiscuous biochemicals? I don’t think so.”
He said evolution is unable to explain the development of an eyeball: “Give me a break. According to their scheme, it had to occur over night, it had to be there. I instead say, if you have an intelligent creator, what he does is give his creatures the ability to adapt to the environment so he doesn’t have to start over every fifty years creating all over again.”
The rest of the interview decries the “persecution of Christians” and the prevalance of Obamacare, with Carson praying that God will show the “people of low information” the flaws of Obama’s plan.
But talk about people of low information—Carson is their poster boy! His rejection of evolution means one of three things: that he’s blinded to the facts by religion (which means that he can’t be an objective President), that he’s simply ignorant of the massive evidence for evolution (which means that he won’t be a good President), or that he’s lying to cater to the many Republican creationists (which means he can’t be an honest President). I don’t think he’s lying; rather, he’s sworn by his faith to ignore the scientific facts.
It is incumbent on the press—and I hope they do this—to press Carson incessantly on his opposition to evolution. It’s not just that it’s a bad sign that a President doesn’t accept evolution, but that it shows how blinded to reality his religion has made him. It’s a character flaw, and it’s time that we stop seeing a President’s religious beliefs as beyond criticism.
Here’s a 2014 podcast by the Discovery Institute in which Carson disses evolution. I find it frightening. What’s even worse is that he accepts natural selection but denies evolution! Have a listen it’s short (9 minutes and 42 seconds):
I have mixed feelings about Pope Francis’s reforms of the Church’s attitudes towards gays, abortion (discussed a few days ago) and now the anullment of marriages, which of course gets around the stricture of “no divorce” by pretending that the marriage was never valid in the first place. Previously annulments were laborious processes, which required applications, often years of waiting, and (of course) lots of dosh paid to the church.
As announced on CNN this morning, and now in The New York Times, here are the changes (my words)
If you’re a Catholic and want to remain in the Church, this is a good thing. For previously Church law prohibited you from getting remarried or even cohabiting without an annulment; civil divorces weren’t recognized. That put many Catholics in a bind. The response of many, however, was to leave the Church, either formally or informally (by stopping going to services), and, as we know, membership in the Catholic church is dropping precipitiously.
That, in fact, is why Francis is doing this, and to pretend otherwise is foolish. By fixing the Church’s retrograde attitudes and catching them up to modernity, he’s hoping to retain believers. I don’t think for a moment that this strategy comes from the Pope recognizing that Catholic dogma was hurtful; but perhaps I’m being overly cynical.
Apropos, there’s a new article in The Atlantic (brought to my attention by reader Don) that describes the attrition of fully-believing Catholics and the growth of a phenomenon I thought was limited to Jews: “Secular Catholicism.” An excerpt:
There is a basic assumption about religion at work in the claims cultural Catholics make about their identity. Even though about 13 percent of them occasionally attend Mass, they do not consider that practice sufficient for them to claim Catholicism as their religion. Instead they say they are Catholic “because of their Catholic background,” which mostly means that they were raised in Catholicism as children. They feel they have inherited a Catholic identity, but have made a conscious choice not to embrace Catholicism as their religion.
When asked what it means to be a Catholic, some people say that it is “a matter of religion,” others that it is a matter of “ancestry or culture.” Religion and religious identity are seen as distinct from the cultural identity.
Well, if they want to eat fish on Friday, just as I like to eat corned-beef sandwiches and pickles, more power to them—so long as they don’t try to enforce Catholic-derived beliefs (such as the prohibition of abortion and assisted suicide) on others.
Meanwhile the attrition continues, at least in the US. As a Pew Survey taken this May showed:
A report released Tuesday by the Pew Forum finds that the total number of Catholics in the United States dropped by 3 million since 2007, now comprising about 20 percent – or one-fifth – of the total population.
And perhaps more troubling for the church, for every one Catholic convert, more than six Catholics leave the church. Taken a step further, Catholicism loses more members than it gains at a higher rate than any other denomination, with nearly 13 percent of all Americans describing themselves as “former Catholics.”
Here are the data in graphic form. Check out the “unaffiliated” (“nones”) growing rapidly in the first box!
Is it any wonder that Francis is desperate to keep the sheep from leaving the flock?
Below is a song critical of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper (head of the Conservative Party), who’s famous for his dire environmental policies. As Wikipedia notes (and I’ll add the links):
The Conservative Party of Canada has made significant budget cuts to Environment Canada, leading to criticism that it is undermining the ability of departmental staff to enforce remaining environmental laws.
The CPC has also been accused of restricting the ability of government scientists to speak to the public, the media, and even other scientists, leading to criticism that they are trying to limit the debate on environmental issues by “silencing scientists”.
The silencing of scientists was explicitly directed to keeping them quiet about three issues: global warming, fisheries, and especially the Athabasca oil sands project, which has been bitterly opposed by environmentalists. While I suppose the government has the right to restrict what scientists say when they’re speaking as government employees, I can’t see that they have the right to do so when those scientists are speaking as individuals and not representing official policy. This kind of speech restriction would never stand up in the U.S., for instance.
Harper is muzzling scientists for one reason only: to prevent the free dissemination of scientific information and opinion that might be inimical to the government’s (i.e., Harper’s) interests. It’s repressive, and would, in the U.S., constitute a violation of the First Amendment. I suppose the Canadian constitution permits this, though I know Canadian scientists have demonstrated against it.
Enter Tony Turner, a scientist at Environment Canada, one of the agencies whose budget has been cut. Turner, apparently a fixture on the Ottawa music scene, wrote the following song, “Harperman,” criticizing the PM and calling for his ouster. As The Guardian notes (see also the article on the CBC News site):
The song, which is recorded with a backing choir and a double bass, with Turner himself on the guitar, contains lyrics like “no respect for environment / Harperman, it’s time for you to go”, and “no more cons, cons, cons / we want you gone, gone gone”.
The song is actually quite catchy, and doesn’t divulge and privileged scientific information:
So what happened? Turner was suspended and is now being investigated by the government. That’s McCarthy-esque behavior, and is reprehensible. Harper himself could, of course, reverse this decision, and the fact that he didn’t is even more evidence that it’s time for him to go. Meanwhile, Turner, under any reasonable code of behavior, has the right to privately express his scientific and political opinions. The CBC, which gives more information about the song (useful for non-Canadians), adds this:
Debi Daviau, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC), confirmed to CBC News that Turner is under investigation. PIPSC is the union which represents federal scientists.
“[Environment Canada] is alleging … [Turner] has violated the departmental code of values and ethics in that the writing and performing of this song somehow impeded his ability to impartially study migratory birds,” she said.
“There doesn’t seem to be a lot of formal grounds to base this in and certainly the courts have been loud and clear on the matter of how public servants can legitimately participate in a federal election.”
A spokesperson for Environment Canada wouldn’t comment on the case, citing privacy, but said public servants are expected to comply with the values and ethics code, regardless of their job.
So is this silencing and punishment of scientists legal? The CBC has a FAQ site, posted last May, about muzzling government scientists. While they describe the new draconian directive, they don’t discuss at all whether this policy is legal.
In 2006, the Harper government introduced strict procedures around how its scientists are allowed to speak about their research to the media.
In the past, journalists were generally able to contact scientists directly for interviews, but after these new directives they had to go through government communications officers.
And scientists had to get pre-approval from their minister’s office before speaking to members of national or international media, a process that can involve drafting potential questions and answers, which are then scrutinized by a team before the green light is given.
. . . A 2014 study of media policies from 16 federal departments concluded that current policies place far more restrictions on Canadian scientists when it comes to talking to media than is the case with their U.S. counterparts.
Since the policy has stood for nearly ten years, I suspect it’s legal, or it would have been challenged in the courts, but I’m not sure. The CBC adds that “A complaint lodged by advocacy group Democracy Watch and the University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Clinic in 2013 led to the launch of an investigation by Canada’s information commissioner Suzanne Legault, which is still ongoing.” But I haven’t heard any results.
Perhaps some Candians, or Canadian scientists, can weigh in here and see if anything has been or can be done about this abrogation of free speech, and of the free dissemination of scientific opinion.
h/t: Matthew
Reader Damon Williford favored me with four pictures of reptiles and about twenty of birds. Today I’ll put up four reptiles and four birds, saving the rest for later. And don’t forget to keep those photos coming in! Damon’s notes:
I’ve got some wildlife photos from South Texas for you. This batch includes reptiles.The first photo is a Western Diamondback Rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox). I encountered this individual at nature preserve in Port Aransas, TX. This snake didn’t rattle or assume a strike posture. I had the wrong lens on the camera so I couldn’t get the snake’s whole body in the picture. Once I tried to position my self to get a better shot, the snake retreated into the grass.
The second photo is the local bull alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) that inhabits a large cattail marsh in Port Aransas. Every spring he puts on impressive territorial and courtship displays. The third photo is head shot of a smaller individual that inhabits the same marsh.
The fourth is of a Brown Anole (Anolis sagrei). These lizards are now established in many parts of coastal Texas. Most of that is probably due to them hitchhiking on ornamental plants.
And the birdies:
Attached are photos I’ve taken over the past 5 years of the raptors and cuckoos of South Texas. Texas may be the land of the theocrats but there is some interesting wildlife in the state. The first four photos are of some of breeding raptors, including the Crested Caracara, Harris’s Hawk, and the White-tailed Hawk. Caracaras and White-tailed Hawks are fairly nervous, making it difficult to even get cruddy photos, but its fairly easy to get good shots of Harris’s Hawks, Considering that Harris’s Hawks will nest in suburban and urban areas, that’s not too surprising. The preening Harris’s Hawk in the second photograph was sitting on top of security lamp in a parking lot at a state park. I was within 25 feet of the bird and it ignored me completely. The Zone-tailed Hawk (Buteo albonotatus) breeds further west but shows up occasionally in South Texas during the fall and winter.
Crested Caracara (Caracara cheriway):
Harris’s hawk (Parabuteo unicinctus):
White-tailed hawk (Buteo albicaudatus):
Zone-tailed hawk (Buteo albonotatus):
“On the Way Home” is from the Buffalo Springfield’s 1968 Album “Last Time Around”, and was written by Neil Young in 1967, when he was but 22. Can you imagine—all of his great songs for the group were written when he was in his early 20s! (He turns 70 this November.)
As happened so often, the song, though written by Young, was performed by Richie Furay, with Neil relegated to keyboard and backing vocals. This is the recorded version:
The lyrics seem to refer to a lad’s Wanderlust, but toward the end wander into strange territory. What is the “change”?. And what does it mean “the other side is just the same”? Young’s songs, even simple ones like this, always have something enigmatic and opaque about them. But that doesn’t mean the words are irrelevant, for the song just wouldn’t be the same with other lyrics. “A smoke ring day when the wind blows” is a wonderful simile.
When the dream came
I held my breath
With my eyes closed
I went insane,
Like a smoke ring day
When the wind blows
Now I won’t be back
Till later on
If I do come back at all
But you know me,
And I miss you now.
In a strange game
I saw myself as you knew me
When the change came,
And you had a
Chance to see through me
Though the other side
Is just the same
You can tell
my dream is real;
Because I love you,
Can you see me now?
Though we rush ahead
To save our time
We are only what we feel;
And I love you,
Can you feel it now?
Below is an excellent solo version performed by Young at his famous Massey Hall Concert in 1971. There’s lagniappe as well: a rendition of “Tell Me Why,” the first song on Young’s 1970 solo album “After the Gold Rush”. I was so enamored of this song that taught myself to play the whole thing on the guitar, including the intro. My guitar, a beautiful Martin, has for years gathered dust on my closet shelf (well, it’s actually in a case) . I wonder if I could still pick it up and play this.
I want to add one more story. Two years ago Terry Gross of National Public Radio interviewed Graham Nash, who of course played with Young in CSN&Y; you can hear the full interview here. Nash calls Young “the strangest of his friends,” and recounts this anecdote about Young and his 1972 album “Harvest“:
The man is totally committed to the muse of music. And he’ll do anything for good music. And sometimes it’s very strange. I was at Neil’s ranch one day just south of San Francisco, and he has a beautiful lake with red-wing blackbirds. And he asked me if I wanted to hear his new album,“Harvest.” And I said sure, let’s go into the studio and listen.
Oh, no. That’s not what Neil had in mind. He said get into the rowboat.
I said get into the rowboat? He said, yeah, we’re going to go out into the middle of the lake. Now, I think he’s got a little cassette player with him or a little, you know, early digital format player. So I’m thinking I’m going to wear headphones and listen in the relative peace in the middle of Neil’s lake.
Oh, no. He has his entire house as the left speaker and his entire barn as the right speaker. And I heard “Harvest” coming out of these two incredibly large loud speakers louder than hell. It was unbelievable. Elliot Mazer, who produced Neil, produced “Harvest,” came down to the shore of the lake and he shouted out to Neil: How was that, Neil?
And I swear to god, Neil Young shouted back: More barn!
Well, Labor Day weekend is over, and it’s time to get back to work. All over the U.S., today is the First Day of School for secondary schools, a day that used to fill me with great dread when I was a child. Fortunately, I’m now the cause rather than the recipient of that dread, and school at the University of Chicago doesn’t begin until early October. As if to recognize the end of summer, traditionally marked by Labor Day, the weather, too, will turn mild, even cool: here’s our five-day forecast (note the HIGH of 65°F, or 18°C).
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Cyrus are once again pondering arcane questions:
Hili: What do you prefer: integrals or differentials?
Cyrus: Whatever, as long as there’s plenty of it.
I asked Malgorzata for an explanation:
Neither Hili nor Cyrus know what integrals and differentials are. But Hili heard these words and thought they sounded nice and highbrow and she wanted to boast in front of Cyrus about her intellectual capabilities. Cyrus, simple soul as he is, decided that she must be talking about sausages and answered accordingly.
Hili: Co wolisz, całki czy różniczki?
Cyrus: Wszystko jedno, byle dużo.