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.
Reader Steve sent this “find the iguana” (don’t blame me for the resolution), adding “This from a friend just back from a cruise.” He added that he thought the iguana was “pretty obvious,” but I couldn’t see it after a cursory scan:
Earlier I asked readers to think about (and comment on) why, if motion is relative, it still makes more sense to say that the Earth orbits the Sun than vice versa. I had my own take, but the answer is not super-obvious. So I asked Official Website Physicist™ Sean Carroll for the answer, and here’s his response.
The short answer would be that it is possible to choose whatever coordinate system you like, including ones centered on the Earth, and then say “in that coordinate system the Sun goes around the Earth.” Hell, it’s possible to choose coordinate systems in which neither the Earth nor the Sun move at all! But some coordinate systems are better than others, and for understanding Solar System dynamics, an Earth-centered one is particularly dumb. If some Orthodox Jews want to argue that they have the right to be dumb, who am I to stop them?Somewhat more careful (dare I say “rabbinical”?) discussion by me here:Note, however, that while you can say “I am using a coordinate system where the Earth is at the center,” you can not say “Coordinate systems where the Sun [or the Solar System’s barycenter] is at the center are wrong.” So “geocentrism” is flatly incorrect.Also, not to belabor the obvious: early geocentrists were not relying on coordinate invariance, and attempts by modern ones to save the old ideas are kind of pitiful.
I’m doing science today and, as my brain is busy trying to avoid using the passive voice while writing a paper, I’ll save my neurons for that and put up a few easy-to-write posts.
First-time commenter “J. Lee” sent his/her take on a post, and rather than approve it, burying it among comments from several days ago, I thought I’d put it above the fold and let readers respond however they want. Lee mounts a defense of Muslim outrage and a critique of Charlie Hebdo for provoking that outrage with its drawings of Muhammad.
The first bit in italics is from my post, “CBC wimps out on showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons“. I’ll direct J. Lee to the responses after a few days. Here you go:
You can judge the honesty and commitment to free speech of a journalist or newspaper by whether or not they’ll publish the [Charlie Hebdo cartoons]
To Muslims, all visual depictions of Mohammed are sacrilege.
For a Muslim, seeing such a thing in print would be akin to you discovering that someone had drawn your child’s naked body, including the genitals, labeled it with your child’s name, and distributed it globally.
The cartoonist might point out, “This is a caricature–see how hilariously we contorted your child’s genitals? This is freedom of speech! We do caricatures of everybody–why would we skip over your child?”
Would you “get the joke” and chuckle along with them?
The caricatures of Mohammed are a form of hate speech. I see nothing cowardly in the decision of mainstream media not to participate in hate speech.
It seems that many in the West have decided that all Muslims are evil because a few have committed atrocities, and therefore they’re all fair game for anything from torture to bullying. That’s a recipe for a truly global WWIII with no safe havens.
There’s no courage involved in striking a bold pose and saying “Bring it on!”
My only personal comment involves the last line. “No courage”—really? The folks at Charlie Hebdo knew what could happen to them, and published anyway. Does it take more courage to do that than to withhold publication of cartoons to save your skin?
Perhaps you remember when the ESPN sports commentator and erstwhile famous pitcher Curt Schilling got into an epic Twi**er battle (if such things can be described as “epic”) with his fellow reporter Keith Law. Schilling, a creationist, emitted some remarkably ignorant tw**ts, and was handily refuted by Law, who for his educational efforts was temporarily suspended from tw**ting by his ESPN bosses. (See my reporting here.)
Given the scientific truth of evolution, it would seem to be embarrassing to publicly question it, but of course over 40% of Americans are creationists, and most of the rest will let creationism pass as an offshoot of the desirable institution of religion. And so sportscaster Dave Pasch publicly flaunted his ignorance last week when, as a celebration of his being named Arizona’s “Sportscaster of the Year,” he was given both a cake and a copy of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species by Bill Walton. (This occurred on ESPN’s broadcast of a basketball game between Colorado and Arizona.)
In the video below you’ll see Pasch reject the book gift proffered by Walton, a fellow sportscaster and once a superb basketball player. Pasch then offers to straighten Walton out by giving him a book that “counters” Darwin. Finally someone, showing a knowledge of ID, touts “irreducible complexity”.
Of course Pasch is religious—what creationist isn’t? (The only one I know is David Berlinski.) As The Blaze reports,
Pasch is a devout Christian who is generally more than open about his faith. In fact, he includes a reference to John 1:14 in his Twitter biography, a verse which reads, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth” — a reference to Jesus Christ.
In a past interview with the blog Jesus N Sports, Pasch discussed his Christian faith and his sports career, mentioning John 1:14 as one of his favorite Bible verses. Among the subjects discussed in the interview was the honesty and openness with which Pasch said he discusses his faith. [JAC: pity he doesn’t discuss science with that same honesty.]
“I am pretty honest and forthright about my faith when it comes up in a conversation. I am a follower of Christ,” he said, describing how he would react to a colleague who asked about his beliefs. “I would tell them how I came up with that conclusion, continue to help someone understand.”
What is it with ESPN and their creationist broadcasters?
I hope the day will come, and I hope The Albatross will hasten it, when faith is seen not as a virtue but a flaw. I’d send Pasch my book, but if he rejects Darwin’s book out of hand there’s no chance he’d read mine.
h/t: Nathan
Here’s a selection of the nasty, humorous, and misguided comments that some readers tried to post over the last few weeks. All of the misspellings and other errors appeared in the original (attempted) comments.
*******
Reader “NEIL C. REINHARDT” (yes, in caps, like the rest of his email), had a few words to say about cats in a comment on my post “Spot the Jack Russell terrier“:
JERRY,
WHILE I AM FEEDING THREE CATS OHTHRS WERE NOT AND WHILE THEY HAVE PUT ME ON THEIR “STAFF”, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
HOW MANY “WAR CATS” ARE THERE? “DRUG CATS”? “SEARCH AND RESCUE” CATS? “LIFEGUARD” CATS?
“BOMB” CATS?HOW MANY CATS WILL RUN OUT TTO A MAIN ROAD TO GET FIRE AND RESCUE PERSONNEL AND LEAD THEM BACK TO WHERE THEY ARE NEEDED?
AND HOW MANY CATS PULL SLEDS?
SO GET THE HELL OFF OF THIS BS AOBUT CATS BEING BETTER THAN DOGS ARE!
This was actually similar to an argument made by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker‘s “Cats vs. Dogs” debate that we had last October. Gladwell’s thesis, which he deliverered in a hilarious 8 minute-talk, was that the superiority of dogs was demonstrated by their participation in the War on Terrorism (bomb sniffing, finding victims, etc.), while cats didn’t give a rat’s ass about terrorism. Ergo, he argued, dogs were superior. Here Mr. CAPSLOCK argues that cats are inferior because they don’t do the bidding of humans. I guess, then, he’d argue that slaves are better than free people! Seriously, though, one of the appeals of cats is that they don’t do what you want; they are independent, semi-wild, and an animal closer to being wild than is a dog. And you have to earn their love, which is what you do with humans, who do not (as do dogs) love you unconditionally. But I’ve said all this before. My real reply to NEIL C. REINHARDT would be this: “Back away from the caffeine. Slowly. . . ”
Reader Mark sent me this cartoon as an answer:
*******
Reader “Katia” defended the Pope against my criticisms in the post “Pope Francis says it’s not kosher to make fun of faith“:
Frankly I agree with Pope Francis 100%.
To question this and continue the path of blaming and criticizing more progaganda.I’m not catholic, it just COMMON SENSE
What I said about Pope Francis was the harmful nature of his claim that nobody should criticize religion (of course he meant Catholicism). I’m not sure what Katia is trying to say here, or what common sense is, but if nobody “blamed” the Church, its reprehensible policy of covering up child rape would have never been uncovered, and might well have continued.
*******
Reader “John Balmer” criticized evolution in an attempted comment on my post, “Scotland refuses to ban teaching of creationism“:
If Evolution is such a solid fool proof and unshakable scientific fact ….then why are evolutionists so scared if it being challenged by an alternative view of Origins and by having it put under scrutiny….the truth is the evolution Theory is full of holes and has become nothing more to the ruling establishment than a Sacred Cow not to be touched or challenged……now that is Indoctrination !!!
Dear Mr. Balmer,
I’m not scared at all of creationists, who tend to be a foolish lot, nor am I afraid to put the theory of evolution under scrutiny. After all, that’s what I did in my last book, comparing its ability to explain the data with the ability of creationism. Evolution won hands down. (Did you read that book, by the way?) And what are the “holes” you’re talking about? Our unsolved questions, like the origin of life? Well, we’re working on them, and, unlike you, at least we have a way to know whether our answers are wrong. Finally, you do realize, don’t you, that any scientist who could disprove the existence of evolution and natural selection would become instantly famous? Scientists don’t get famous by buttressing an established paradigm, but by overturning it. But you appear to be blinded by faith, and so you may not understand what I’m trying to say.
Have a blessed day,
Professor Ceiling Cat
*******
Reader “Raynor” had something to say about Alex Malarkey, the Christian boy who retracted his assertion that he visited Heaven after an accident, as detailed in my post, “Boy who wrote bestseller on visiting heaven retracts his claims”:
Alex, et. al are possesed and the book is true. All who claim otherwise are going to hell.
Now this may be a “Poe,” but I’ll assume that Raynor is serious. And if Alex is possessed (presumably by Satan), why would Satan, speaking through the boy, produce an account of heaven that is true?
*******
Reader “Zenta” made this comment on “The Paris murders: Catholic League’s Bill Donoghue gets it wrong; New Yorker’s George Packer gets it right“:
Dear Biology Professor,
Social life, politics and Power are more complicatde than Biology. It is funny to see trying to explain everything based on wrong analogy, irrelevant biology or psychology.
(I’ll assume this is a female, but it doesn’t matter.) It appears she’s trying to say something, but can’t quite figure out what. And its relevance to the post on the Charlie Hebdo murders, in which I didn’t even mention biology, is nebulous.
Finally, reader “Grow up” objected to my post “Yiddish girl” corrects Ami magazine about geocentrism“, in which a girl wrote to the Jewish teen magazine AMY (an offshoot of the Jewish magazine “Aim”), saying that “Jews believe” that the Sun goes around the Earth instead of vice versa. I, of course, said that was bogus and that the girl’s views were corrupted by faith. “Grow up,” almost certainly an adult, argues that, in fact, you can conceive—both religiously and scientifically—of a geocentric solar system:
To start with, I know the editor of the Aim personally. She told me that she barely thought about the answer when responding. She would not insult a young girl writing in so just chose to be polite. She does not in anyway believe in Geocentrism, nor to any very Orthodox Jews she or I know of. It takes great immaturity, obsessiveness and secular fundamentalism to attack a letter written by a little girl in a kids magazine! This is a magazine that regularly has features for kids on accepted science and never has in any way promoted geocentrism.
Still, the editor was right about differing opinions. The opinions she refers to are not scientist but Rabbinic scholars. This girl was arguing that “we Jews” by which she can only mean Orthodox rabbinic consensus, was geocentric. The editor replied specifically to her assertion that it was a fundamental belief of Orthodoxy. It would be a lie to say that not Rabbinic scholars since Galileo have ever been geocentrists because many were. Today however few Rabbis ever thought geocentrism in any way a religious belief and feel free to accept scientific views. Any person seeking to prove what Orthodox Rabbis historical believed can bring proofs either way. Some Rabbis vehemently rejected heliocentrism while there was even one Rabbi who was even a student of Galileo and an ardent heoiocentrist. Thus her answer of differing (rabbinic) opinions was correct and the best answer to give when arguing on theological issues. Regardless, geocentrism today is no longer as “wrong” as it used to be. The Lubavitcher Rebbe pointed out that the theory of Relativity makes the question of what moves around what moot. I am no student of physics but even I understand that relativity does make defining what moves around what much more flexible. If one really feels the need to theologically believe in geocentrism they can do so due to the the theory of relativity.
Leaving aside religion, let’s tackle the scientific claim based on relativity. Now I’m not going to give the answer here, as I’ll leave it to readers. But let me just pose this Gedankenexperiment. Model the Earth going around the sun by making two fists and having one of them revolve around the other. If you could see your fists from afar, floating in space, you wouldn’t know which object was going around the other. From the Earth’s reference frame, it would look like the Sun was going around the Earth, and vice versa from the Sun’s reference frame. So why isn’t “Grow up” right on scientific grounds?
I’ll put up the answer later, just so readers can think about the evidence for a heliocentric solar system. But do put your own answers below in the comments.
One of the day trips we took from Calcutta (now known as “Kolkata”) was to Bishnupur, world famous for its sculpted terracotta temples depicting scenes from the Mahabarata, a Sanskrit epic poem said to be the longest poem ever written (it fills several large volumes, which I can attest to since my host had a copy).
The temples are located here because Bishnupur was the capital of the Malla dynasty (later conqurered by the Mughals), and the temples, which probably took at least 15 years each to build, were ordered built (and financed) by the king. They’re made of terracotta, or sculpted clay that is fired and hardened, and then the sculpted panels fastened to the temple with a mixture of various organic substances including sugar (I can’t remember them all, but you wouldn’t think that, combined, they would form a glue that could last centuries).
The temples date mainly from the 17th century, and given that they’re made of fired clay, have been severely eroded by weather over the last 500 years. But they’re still stunning, and well worth visiting. In a few generations the figures won’t be nearly as nice.
First, there is a “Ganesha” tree in the town, which has a callosity resembling the beloved elephant-headed god. It’s revered and decorated by worshippers:
Here are several of the temples, which are spread out all over the town. I wasn’t savvy enough to record their names, nor energetic enough to look them up now. But it’s not necessary except for history buffs.(UPDATE: in a comment below, reader John O’Neall links to a Wikipedia page that identifies and describes all the temples.) Here are four of the most elaborate:
But it’s when you get close to them that you see that each is covered with a profusion of religious sculptures. I took a lot of photos but will show just a few.
First, when you approach the temples you can see how elaborate the sculptures are:
Note the deer (or cows) and ducks (or geese):
The art of making these elaborate sculptures has apparently been lost, though there’s a trade in inferior terracotta pieces for the tourist trade.
An original Sanskrit inscription. My host, a scholar of early Indian religious history, could read it, but I can’t remember what it says. Is it too much to hope that a reader can translate?
And a selection of some of the more striking panels:
Tigers!
And the effects of erosion on a depiction of Krishna playing his flute. How sad that someday this will all be effaced by the elements:
Once again Hili fails to attend church on the Lord’s day. Rather, she luxuriates at home and keeps Cyrus off the couch!
Hili: Look, I occupy the whole sofa!A: A small dog would still find some room.Hili: A very small dog.
Hili: Popatrz, zajęłam całą sofę!
Ja: Mały pies jeszcze by się zmieścił.
Hili: Bardzo mały.
I won’t belabor this, as reports of Islamic terrorism are so frequent, and now so horrible in nature, that we’re almost getting inured to them. Now we learn that ISIS is not only killing people for being gay by throwing them off buildings, but also killing men and boys for the horrible and anti-Islamic crime of breeding pigeons. (That, of course, would have doomed Darwin.)
The report on executions for pigeon-breeding comes from NBC News:
Raising doves and pigeons is a deadly pursuit in ISIS-controlled Iraq.
The popular hobby is in the sights of extremist Islamist fighters, who this week rounded up 15 boys and young men in the eastern province of Diyala for pursuing a pastime now deemed un-Islamic. Three have already been executed, according to a security official in the area who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity.
Abu Abdullah, a 52-year-old farmer, told NBC News about the moment earlier this week that six gunmen barged into his home and dragged away his oldest son, who is 21.
“My son was standing beside me. I asked them why, and they said, ‘He is not following the real Islam, he must be punished for being a pigeon breeder. This habit is taking him away from worshiping Allah,” Abdullah said on the telephone.
The fighters put the household’s pigeons in bags and burned them. Then they took away his son.
“I begged them again to know where are they taking him, what are they going to do to him. They said he is going to be taken to be judged according to the Islamic Sharia,” Abu Abdullah said. “They pushed me, and when my son tried to stop them from pushing me they beat him. Then they put him inside the car and left.”
Why is this so anti-Islamic? It’s fatuous:
The hobby, which was especially popular among middle and lower classes before the U.S. invasion in 2003, has been targeted by extremists of all stripes. Suspicion of bird-breeders stems from the fact they tend to feed their animals at the same time devout Muslims traditionally hold their first of five daily prayers.
This distrust has prompted some clerics to issue fatwas against bird breeders.
A fatwa? If we didn’t already know that extremist Islam is a form of insanity, this should convince you.
And Pink News reports, with disturbing photos, that ISIS has executed two gay men by throwing them off buildings. This was apparently announced in advance, since the photos show a crowd gathered below the building waiting for the men to fall. I’m sure many of them cried “Allahu akbar.”
You can see the photos by going to the link, and then clicking the next link (or the screenshot below) that says ”
That second page adds this:
In further images, far too disturbing to be published on PinkNews, the corpses of the men were photographed lying on the street in front of an angry crowd.
ISIS released other images alongside the gay executions showing a woman being sentenced to death by stoning. A further shocking image, again too disturbing to publish on PinkNews shows the woman’s corpse under a mound of rubble.
Another set of images show two men, described as thieves being crucified and then being shot in the head from behind.
Well, the photos aren’t as disturbing as the videos of ISIS cutting the heads off hostages, and I’ve seen a couple of those. Religion has driven these people over the edge, turning them into automatons who lack any feelings we’d describe as “human.” I have no idea how to solve this problem, but let’s begin by saying that these two instances of barbarism—murder for homosexuality and pigeon breeding—are due not to colonialism, or oppression by the West, but simple delusion caused by faith. There is no other explanation.
I shouldn’t have to keep making that point, but apologists like Karen Armstrong keep arguing that this kind of violence has nothing to do with “true” religion. Of course she defines “true” religion as “religions that don’t practice violence,” so it all becomes a horrible tautology. We’ll deal with Ms. Armstrong’s latest book, and her interview about it, later this week.
h/t: Linda Grilli, pyers
