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.
I’m afraid that Hili’s recent philosophical leaning was a flash in the pan (or bowl):
Hili: I wonder…
A: What about?
Hili: Are there 3D printers that can print cat food yet?
Hili: Zastanawiam się…
Ja: Nad czym?
Hili: Czy są już drukarki 3D drukujące pokarm dla kotów?
It’s been a looooong day, but the Albatross is flying well. I have nothing to offer beyond this series of gifs, from College Humor, all showing the familar “cats knocking stuff off of tables” behavior. I can understand it when it’s meant to wake an owner up, but there seems to be more to it than that. . . .
Source: catbearding
Source: gifak
Source: collegecandy
Source: imgur
Source: szuperblog
Source: gifyoutube
Source: gifyoutube
Source: collegecandy
The Khan Academy is a site and an educational method that is widely used in America. Founded by Salman Khan, it’s free, and consists of a number of videos that are supposed to teach you just as well as, or better than, conventional classroom education. The videos are crude, drawn by hand during the presentation, and accompanied by free exercises to see what you’ve learned. I haven’t done a lot of research on the method, but a “60 Minutes” show a while back said that it was a revolution in education and gave better results that group lessons in a class.
You couldn’t however, prove it by the two evolution videos I’ve watched today (there are seven, actually, that you can find on this site). What bothers me is not the material on evolution per se, which is generally good (though I think I could do better), but the attempt in at least two of the videos to reconcile not only evolution and religion, but evolution and Intelligent Design.
Here’s the first video, called “Intelligent Design and Evolution”
Note that about five minutes into this, the narrator (I don’t know if it’s Khan) begins asseverating that his purpose is not to equate evolution and atheism, or to dispel students’ ideas of God, but to try to “reconcile” Intelligent Design (aka God) with evolution.
After pointing out some of the flawed traits of organisms that suggest that the designer, whoever it is, doesn’t go for perfection, the narrator then begins wading into theology. He claims that if there really is an omnipotent God (and again says he’s not passing judgement on its existence), that god would not focus on designing particular features. Rather, that god would actually design a system (evolution) that could produce complex features, though they may be imperfect. In other words, the narrator’s pushing a notion of theistic evolution in which God’s wonder is suggested not by perfect design, but by an elegant system (natural selection and evolution) that allows “designoid” things to emerge on their own. The video claims that if you really want to appreciate the all-powerful God, you should marvel that he created a “system that comes from simple and elegant basic ideas”: natural selection and mutation. The narrator argues that this is a better god than the old design-each-feature god, saying that evolution “speaks to a higher and more profound design”. What the hell?
That’s straight accommodationism. Although the narrator repeatedly says he’s not taking sides on a God, he keeps emphasizing that if you want to believe in one, the way to do it is to accept evolution as the true sign of God’s cleverness: “If one does believe in a God. . . then this idea of [naturalism] is a very profound design and it speaks to the art of the designer.”
Whoa! What is that doing in a series of instructional videos for kids? Why even mention Intelligent Design and God? You wouldn’t be able to do that in a public school, so why here? Any why push this kind of theological argument which, after all, is rejected by nearly half of all Americans? Is the Khan Academy telling people how they should practice their religion? I see no other conclusion.
The video finishes with a long disquisition about how fractal equations can produce complexity from simplicity—just like evolution does, kids! But that’s just an analogy, and doesn’t really clarify or explain anything about evolution. Evolution is not fractal in any meaningful sense of the word.
After making that video, the narrator apparently wanted to clear up a few points about evolution and ID, so he made a second video, “Evolution Clarification”:
Here he just gets in an even bigger mess, calling the ID/evolution debate (at 5:10) an “artificial one.” Now his criticisms of ID as science are good, but then he somehow tries to reconcile ID with evolution, as if ID were the idea of God itself. Well, ID incorporates the idea of God (they call it a “designer,” but nobody’s fooled by that), but it isn’t God, and you can’t reconcile ID and evolution, period. They are inimical views of nature, and the contentions of ID have been demolished.
Somehow the narrator (or Khan) feels compelled in this video to not be “disrespectful of those who believe in this belief system” (i.e., religion), and that drives the last half of the second video.
Again, why is this stuff part of instruction on evolution? Let the kids and their parents sort out the implications of evolution for God. The job of the Khan Academy, I think, is to teach evolution, not confect a kind of theology that is friendly to evolution. They’re acting like BioLogos here, and I’m surprised they’re not funded by Templeton.
At any rate, if I were a parent, particularly one who was not religious, I wouldn’t use these videos to teach about evolution. They’re full of stuff about the nature of God, and about how a really wonderful God would have used evolution to create life. The videos are enablers of theistic evolution, and thus don’t teach evolution as the naturalistic process that scientists hold it to be.
h/t: Su
If you’re anywhere around western Pennsylvania this weekend, you can find me at the Pennsylvania State Atheist/Humanist Conference in Pittsburgh, the third time it’s been held (heathenism is spreading, I tell you). The ceremonies begin with a drinks reception on Friday at 7 pm; that and all activities will be at the DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel & Suites Pittsburgh Downtown. The formal schedule is here, and there’s an interesting mix of people (I’ll be talking a bit about what’s in the Albatross, though I’ve only 20 minutes to summarize an entire book). The festivities wind up Sunday afternoon, and there’s plenty of entertainment, too, including George Hrab (see lineup at the bottom of the “speakers” page). It looks like a good time.
I believe they’ll have WEIT on sale (the Albatross won’t be out for a while). If they do, I’ll be there signing the book, and, as an extra bonus, you can have a cat drawn in your copy if you give me the scientific name of the cheetah (the Latin binomial; I’m not making it easy for you, so look it up).
Pittsburgh has plenty of good noms, and I hope to have a meal in two places (here and here). “Dirty O’s,” as they call it, has the largest portion of french fries I’ve ever seen (I’ve been there), and they’re fantastic.
I am told by a reader that, at least for that person, the RSS feeds for the site aren’t working, so that the emails that go out with each post aren’t arriving. I’m trying to determine if this is a general problem, so if yours has stopped working, just let me now in the comments below.
What a good feeling it is to see a university get rid of its theology courses! Religious history or comparative religion is fine; theology, not so much. If you want to teach about the properties of nonexistent objects, do it in a private divinity school or seminary. There’s simply no excuse for a public university to act as if superstition is real; it’s as if they had an entire curriculum devoted to ghosts, their properties, and their wishes, and pretended they were studying real objects! Or an entire curriculum on homeopathy in or alongside a medical school.
But King’s College London has made the decision, although it was ostensibly made on financial grounds. According to The Tablet (a Catholic news weekly),
Leading theologians have criticised the closure of a university’s post-graduate theology and ministry programme as “deeply regrettable”.
(Note that there are also “ministry” courses, so King’s College is also in the business of teaching preachers to tell lies)
The decision to shut down the influential theology and ministry courses at King’s College London was taken, according to the university, for financial reasons in order to make the department “viable” for the long term.
The move came after the appointment of Alister McGrath, former chair of theology, ministry and education, to be Andreos Idreos professor of science and religion at the University of Oxford.
Another key departure was Dr Anna Rowlands, appointed as a lecturer in contemporary Catholic theology and deputy director of the Centre for Catholic Studies at Durham University, who formerly lectured in political and moral theology on the programme.
I’ve read a bit of McGrath for the Albatross, and find him an unexceptionable, garden-variety accomodationist, and a vocal critic of New Atheism. He wrote, among other books, The Dawkins Delusion (coauthored with his wife Joanna McGrath). Wikipedia says that he’s a former atheist, and he’s criticized Dawkins for being theologically unsophisticated (see aforementioned book).
It’s an embarrassment to Oxford and other state-supported schools in the UK that they would even have programs in theology, and this has always baffled me. It may be a holdover from the days when those schools were actually religious institutions, but in a modern world there’s no excuse for it. In fact, having theology programs in public universities would be illegal in the U.S., as it would constitute an illegal violation of the First Amendment (public endorsement of religious doctrine). Oxford and Cambridge, for example, are among the best universities in the world, and yet they still teach theology. And a Center for Catholic Studies at Durham University? Really? Why is that?
Some academics are mourning the downgrading of theology, but I’d say that if you have to cut somewhere, theology should be the first thing to go. Those academics who regret the loss of theology departments are, I suspect, either theologians themselves or believers.
The Tablet’s report continues:
There is concern in academic circles that theology courses may be squeezed due to the financial pressures universities are coming under. The move to end the course at King’s comes after it was revealed that Heythrop College, a specialist philosophy and theology institute, is talks about a “strategic partnership” with St Mary’s University, Twickenham (see below).
. . . Professor McGrath said: “I learned with great sadness of the closure of the theology and ministry course. I believe it was one of the best in the land. It contributed very significantly to the intellectual and pastoral well-being of the churches. I do not think the decision is reversible, but it is deeply regrettable.”
No; it’s to be applauded! But there’s one skunk in the woodpile, for this is also reported:
Around 120 postgraduate students studied for taught doctorates or an MA on the theology and ministry programme at King’s. The existing students will continue their courses in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies.
I don’t quite get how they can deep-six an entire theology and ministry program but still retain a Department of Theology and Religious Studies. If they shut down the postgraduate program in theology, what are the graduate students going to do in a Department of Theology and Religious studies? This also suggests that undergraduate courses will continue in that Department.
Come on, King’s: it’s time for you to put away your childish things. Is there anybody here willing to defend entire departments of theology in the UK?
h/t: Coel
The readers have come through with a bunch more pictures, so I’m set for a while, although be aware that due to an upcoming trip (more later), posting will be light Thursday through Monday. But today we have some lovely bird photos taken in China by reader Bruce Lyon. His notes are indented:
In June I was able to visit the remote Kuankuoshui Nature Reserve in Guizhou Province in south central China—an area that few westerners get to visit. My Chinese colleagues Wei Liang and Canchao Yang have been studying brood parasitic cuckoos at this site for the past decade and they kindly gave me the opportunity to visit their study area. The habitat was gorgeous—hilly Karst limestone clothed in many places with primary forest. It was also packed with birds.
Below: Typical primary forest habitat at the Kuankuoshui Nature Reserve. Bamboo is the typical understory growth in the forest.
When I travel, I enjoy learning about the taxonomic relationships of the birds I encounter but a bunch of the birds I saw in China appear to be difficult taxonomic cases. Part of the problem is that ornithologists create wastebin families to deal with unresolved taxa and it seems that several of the birds I saw belong to groups that have either only very recently been resolved or remain to be resolved. John Harshman, who appears to be a regular reader at this site, compiled the Tree of Life page for these birds so he can set me straight if I am too far off the mark on the systematics.
Below: An Ashy-throated Parrotbill (Paradoxornis alphonsianus). According to Wikipedia, the genus name Paradoxornis —‘paradox bird’— reflects the difficulty ornithologists have had in figuring out the true relationships of parrotbills. Recent molecular genetic evidence puts them in the Sylviidae, which includes the Old World Warblers.
Below: Ashy-throated Parrotbills have an interesting egg color polymorphism: some females lay blue eggs, others lay white eggs, and some lay pale blue eggs. This polymorphism appears to a defense against brood parasitism by the common cuckoo and my colleagues provided evidence for disruptive selection for egg color (birds with extreme egg colors are favored while birds with intermediate colors are less successful at reproduction). An Ashy-throated Parrotbill nest with blue eggs.
Below: My favorite birds in China were the laughingthrushes (family Leiothrichidae), a taxonomic group with peak diversity in China. These guys remind me a little of jays. All three laughingthrush species I saw live in groups and I suspect they are cooperative breeders, where full-grown non-dispersing offspring help their parents raise the next batch of kids. Below is a Red-tailed Laughingthrush (Garrulax milnei). This species is often found in bamboo and, like many laughingthrushes, is a pathetic flyer.
Below: A cuddly pair of White-browed Laughingthrushes (Garrulax sannio).
Below: The Red-billed Leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea), another member of the laughingthrush family, was one of the most abundant forest species and lives in pairs, not groups. This species loves bamboo for nesting.
Below: White-collared Yuhinas (Yuhina diademata). This species lives in large groups and I commonly encountered them along the edges of roads through the forest.
From the Dutch strip (now in English, too) Could Be Worse, reprinted with permission.
The clerics should have practiced the Outsider Test for Faith!
h/t: Bruce