Secularism wins again: LSE apologizes (sort of) to students forced to cover up their Jesus and Mo shirts

December 20, 2013 • 9:44 am

On October 5 I reported that the LSE Students’ Union, apparently quite a repressive “anti hate speech” group, censored two students for wearing and selling Jesus and Mo shirts at the Fresher’s fair, and that wasn’t the first time the Union censored Jesus and Mo (they’re obviously in fear of the wrath of Islam). From my report then:

Both The British Humanist Association and the National Secular Society report that the London School of Economics is exercising censorship of students who wore and apparently sold Jesus and Mo teeshirts at the “Fresher’s Fair” (“Fresher” = American “freshman”).

From the NSS:

“A row over free expression has broken out at the London School of Economics after members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Student Society (ASHSS) were told they would be physically removed from the annual Freshers’ Fair unless they covered up t-shirts deemed “offensive”.

Student Union officials removed materials from the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Student Society stand and demanded that the group removed t-shirts they were wearing featuring satirical Jesus and Mocartoons. When asked for an explanation, LSESU officials stated that several students had complained about the t-shirts.

After a period of consultation a member of the LSE Legal and Compliance Team and Head of Security told the members of the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society that the wearing of the t-shirts could be considered “harassment”, as it could “offend others” by creating an “offensive environment”.

As I reported in January of last year, the ASHSS were also censored by the LSE Students’ Union for posting and Jesus and Mo cartoon on the group’s Facebook page.

Now, as both The Rationalist Association and The Telegraph report, the Director of the LSE, Professor Paul Kelly, has apologized to the students, admitting that he and the school made a mistake. From the Telegraph:

Prof Kelly, pro-director at LSE, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It was a difficult judgment and I quite accept I called it wrong.”

Prof Kelly dismissed claims that the decision was made on the basis of freedom of speech, but said this was based on a dispute between students. He said they had to take into account the views of everyone at the event, which sees students from hundreds of different countries across the world attend.

He also said they had received both oral and written complaints.

He added: “This was a complex event because it’s a welcome event. It’s when students from 130 countries arrive in the UK all together. Freedom of speech still applies there, but it wasn’t the same as us objecting to a student society event or a public lecture, or if Christian – as he later did – hosted an event where students wore the T-shirt. That’s fine.”

. . .The students formally appealed to LSE on November 12 and received a public apology from Professor Craig Calhoun, director of the LSE. He wrote to the pair to confirm that wearing the T-shirts did not constitute harassment or break the law.

A statement released by the university said: “LSE takes its duty to promote free speech very seriously, and as such, will discuss and learn from the issues raised by recent events.”

Note the notapology aspect of this: Kelly’s claim that this wasn’t made on the basis of freedom of speech but on a “dispute between students.” That dispute was, in fact, about freedom of speech, and the dispute was whether Islam could be satirized in Jesus and Mo cartoons (the two cartoons issue were quite innocuous; I show the designs here and have put one below):

picture-32

Wow, that’s really harassment, isn’t it? Clearly the LSE, despite its grudging admission, is on the side of the thought police. The Telegraph notes that “At the time Richard Dawkins, a high profile atheist, branded LSE student union officers ‘sanctimonious little prigs’ over the incident.” Exactly right. And I’m not sure they’re free of that characterization yet, for their denial that this was a free speech issue is ludicrous.

Nevertheless, Rory Fenton at the Rationalist Association notes that it may have set an important precedent for UK universities:

The impact of this has already been felt elsewhere. I attended a meeting last week at another London university, where the students union had told its Atheist Society that they couldn’t criticise Christianity in their posters, using a bizarre interpretation of the Equality Act as their justification. The society stuck to their guns and, bolstered by the legal assurance already secured at LSE, argued the case that their free expression was being curtailed. The union backed down.

Universities will have paid close attention to the LSE’s behaviour. It is clear that the case for free speech has been made and won. While not quite a judge’s ruling, a more subtle precedent has been set: freedom of expression does not bow to religious sensitivities. Well done to Chris and Abhishek for sticking to their principles and taking this to the end. Here’s hoping no more students have to.

Nobody has the right not to be offended—neither Muslims nor Christians. Can we realize that and move on?

The outgroup for multicellular animals: ctenophores

December 20, 2013 • 6:47 am

Ctenophores, or comb jellies, are a phylum of animals whose relative position in the Great Tree of Life—along with the other metazoan (multicellular) animal phyla of Cnidaria (jellyfish, corals sea anemones), Porifera (sponges)  Placozoa (a single species resembling a multicellular amoeba, which forms its own bizarre phylum), and Bilateria (all the other animals we know, from worms to clams to squirrels)—has been a mystery.  It’s now being resolved, and a paper in the latest Science by Joseph Ryan et al. (see also the nice short summary by Antonis Rokis; references and links with free download at bottom) may have resolved at least these major groups.

But first, here’s a weird placozoan, the species Trichoplax adhaerens, which is the only monspecific phylum I know (there may be others). It’s a marine animal that eats algae:

Trichoplax_mic
This is a multicellular animal

There have been been lots of arguments over the years about how these phyla are related, and that’s important because some of them have common features (colenterates, ctenophores, and bilaterians, for example, have nervous systems; others don’t; while only bilaterians and ctenophores have “mesoderm”, a middle layer of tissue in the zygote that forms, among other things, bilaterian muscles), common features that imply common ancestry.  Just those similarities I described would imply that our closest relatives—and by “our” I mean Bilateria—may be ctenophores, but their mesoderms are different from ours.  And they strongly resemble jellyfish. When I was younger I learned that sponges, because of some peculiar cells with flagella they have, may be the outgroup for all animals (the sister group of all the other groups).

All in all, the grouping of metazoan phyla has been contentious and unresolved, but now the advent of whole genome-sequencing offers one way to sort it out.

The paper by Ryan et al is based on whole-genome sequencing of a single species of ctenophore, Mnemiopsis leidyi (one species from each group will do when you’re trying to resolve such anciently-diverged taxa, which diverged around the time of the Cambrian explosion, over 500 million years ago). Here’s M. leidyi:

7698693-md
Photo by: Krister Hall; portfolio here: http://photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=880342

But let’s look at some ctenophores first, as they’re among the most beautiful of animals, iridescent marine species with shimmering waves of light:

I don’t want to dwell on the paper too long, but several of the main findings come from comparing the genome of this species (both DNA sequences and which genes are present or absent in the groups) with those of representatives of the other four phyla as well as a definite “outgroup” (single-celled animals; they used a “choanoflagellate“: a one-celled animal with a flagellum surrounded by a collar).  The phylogenies differed a bit depending on how they did the analysis, but the most definitive one, statistically more supportable than any other family tree, involved using the presence or absence of groups of genes as a way to judge relatedness. Here’s their phylogeny as redrawn in the summary of Rokas:

Picture 1Now this is weird in several respects:

  • It shows that ctenophores are the outgroup of all other metazoans. That is, their ancestors branched off before the ancestors of sponges, placozoans, cnidarians, and bilaterians. That’s a surprise because ctenophores look far more similar to jellyfish than to anything else. But that similarity is superficial, and belies the true genetic relationships. (Looks are deceiving; genomes less so.)  There’s no doubt that this is correct, and that the sister group to ourselves (Bilateria) is cnidarians. That’s a surprise. We are in fact more closely related to sponges and those weird placozoans than to ctenophores.
  • The only animals in this tree that have nervous systems are Bilateria, Cnidaria, and Ctenophores; placozoans and sponges don’t. And, as the new DNA sequencing study shows, those nervous systems rest on the expression of similar genes in the three groups, so they didn’t evolve independently.
  • The finding above implies either that 1.) the ancestor of all multicellular animals had a nervous system, which was later lost in sponges and placozoans, or that 2.) the ancestor had the requisite genes for building nervous systems, but they were originally used for something else and later co-opted in Bilateria, Cnidaria, and Ctenophora to build neurons and other components of that system. Although the latter may seem less likely, it’s not unknown for the same genes to be co-opted in different lineages to build similar structures. (The eyes of humans and fruit flies evolved independently, for instance, but both involve the important involvement of a gene called Pax6.) The representation in Rokas’s figure implies possibility 1)—a full nervous system in the common ancestor—but we don’t know that yet.
  • Finally, the genes that make the mesoderm of ctenophores—the middle layer of tissue—are different from those making the mesoderm of bilaterians, like the layer of tissue that builds our muscles and connective tissue. It’s thus pretty clear that the mesoderm evolved twice independently, and that depiction in Rokas’s diagram is accurate.  The mesoderms of Bilateria and Ctenophora are analogous but not “homologous”, i.e., they are similar in structure but not evolutionary origin.

There’s other stuff in the paper of Ryan et al. as well, but this is what most of us need to know. The paper is free if you want to read more.  What strikes me most strongly is that the similarity between comb jellies and jellyfish does not reflect close relationship, and probably evolved independently—unless the common ancestor of all metazoans was jellyfish-like (unlikely!). And the possibility that the common ancestor also had a nervous system is also intriguing. That won’t be resolved until we can figure out what those genes in sponges that make nervous systems in ctenophores and bilaterians (but not in sponges really do)—that is, we need a functional analysis of sponge “nervous-system-type” genes.

_________

Ryan, J. F., K. Pang, C. E. Schnitzler, A.-D. Nguyen, R. T. Moreland, D. K. Simmons, B. J. Koch, W. R. Francis, P. Havlak, S. A. Smith, N. H. Putnam, S. H. D. Haddock, C. W. Dunn, T. G. Wolfsberg, J. C. Mullikin, M. Q. Martindale, and A. D. Baxevanis. 2013. The genome of the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi and its implications for cell type evolution. Science 342:1336-1344.

Rokas, A.  2013. My oldest sister is a sea walnut? Science 342:1327-1329.

Note to readers

December 20, 2013 • 4:02 am

I’m trying to figure out if I can get The Roolz posted somewhere permanently on the sidebar, but until that happens here is another Rool.

I am glad to receive items from readers, though at times their number is a bit overwhelming! But many of my posts come from those contributions, and I try to remember to h/t readers if I use their contributions. (Sometimes I forget this acknowledgment—in which case my apologies.) If you send me something and I don’t use it, please do not feel bad. I get many more tips, photos, and other stuff than I can possibly use, and have to choose.

But please do not send me items asking me to post them, or saying, “I think this would make a great post for your site.” That feels a bit presumptuous and coercive, and, as readership grows, I’m starting to get these requests more frequently.

Also, please do not ask me to publicize your or your friend’s book, business, or any other endeavor.  If you want to call something interesting to my attention—and of course it must be of potential  interest not just to me, but to readers—that is great, but don’t ask me to post things. I will make that decision, because:

professor-ceiling-cat-text_s

Friday: Hili dialogue

December 20, 2013 • 3:31 am
Hili’s new job is affecting her hunting:
Hili: All facts must be carefully checked.
A: Are you talking about something specific?
Hili: I’m wondering if this leaf is moved by wind or by something else?
1531712_10202351408413886_1684074486_n
In Polish:
Hili: Wszystkie fakty trzeba dokładnie sprawdzać.
Ja: Mówisz o czymś konkretnym?
Hili: Zastanawiam się, czy ten liść porusza wiatr, czy coś innego?

Crow snowboards on mayonnaise lid (?)

December 19, 2013 • 3:32 pm

This video, from deathandtaxes via reader Kelly Houle, shows a crow apparently using a mayonnaise lid to snowboard down a roof.

But after watching it a few times, I wonder if the bird is really trying to have fun, even though we know that some animals do play, and that crows are wicked smart. But this bird looks as if it’s trying to nom the mayonnaise out of the lid, and the sliding is just a byproduct of the pecking at residual food. The crow has to stand in it, of course, to steady it for its pecks.

What say you?

Russian translations welcome.

My TAM interview, part 2, and a book on secularization

December 19, 2013 • 2:07 pm

Here’s the second of three installments of my interview at TAM with Joel Guttormson of the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science.

In this short clip I raise my favorite thesis, which a while I thought was largely mine, but have discovered that it’s been a going hypothesis in sociology for a long time. I just finished reading this book:

51vVRDk18WL

Although it was published in 2004, it’s the most detailed and data-rich analysis of secularization I’ve seen. The authors deal with many aspects of how and why the world is losing its faith, and come to several conclusions I find interesting. The first is their main conclusion, derived from surveys of 76 countries (pp. 4-5):

We believe that the importance of religiosity persists most strongly among vulnerable populations, especially those living in poorer nations, facing personal survival-threatening risks. We argue that feelings of vulnerability to physical, societal, and personal risks are a key factor driving religiosity and we demonstrate that the process of secularization – a systematic erosion of religious practices, values, and beliefs – has occurred most clearly among the most prosperous social sectors living in affluent and secure post-industrial nations.

They also argue, as I have, that the reason the U.S. is so religious—the most religious among “postindustrial” nations—is because our society has high levels of dysfunctionality: high income inequality, poor health care, high teenage pregnancies, high murder rates, and other factors that make people insecure (and, to my mind, turn to God).

It also means that if we want to get Americans to accept evolution, as I say repeatedly, we have to make them less religious.

Norris and Inglehart also consider a popular alternative to the hypothesis I just mentioned: the “religious markets” hypothesis. That one argues that the U.S. is hyper-religious because our “supply” of religions—the number of denominations available and on tap—is high, and religious participation increases with not only more religious pluralism, but also with less state regulation of religious institutions.  Their data militates against that hypothesis, though, because statistical analysis of “religious plurality” indices shows no correlation between plurality and religious participation. Countries that lack religious plurality, like Indonesia, El Salvador, Egypt, Brazil, and so on, in which more than 90% of believers adhere to one socially dominant religion, nevertheless have very high levels of religious participation.

The book contains many other analyses and conclusions, but I’ll give just one more.  Though the religiosity of industrial and postindustrial countries is waning (we saw the data for this in the U.S. this morning), the religiosity of the world as a whole may be increasing. That’s because countries that are more religious—in particular those that embrace Catholicism and Islam—are simply outbreeding more secular nations. In toto, then, at least in 2004, the total percentage of people in the world who are religious is increasing.  Those statistics may have changed in the last 9 years.

Now I’m not arguing that, as atheists, it’s futile for us to criticize religion.  Such criticism has clearly made converts. All I claim is that religion is like pesky dandelions on your lawn.  Snipping them off at ground level may temporarily get rid of their more obvious manifestations, but to permanently remove them you must kill the roots.

One of God’s Special Children damns me to Hell

December 19, 2013 • 12:14 pm

Cory Hall, who left a link to his website in his comment (posted here) is a classical pianist with a few things to say about evolution:

Picture 1LOL!  No, I don’t know it, but Hall reveals himself to be one of the 58% of Americans who believe in Satan and Hell.

Here’s what Hall says in the section of his site called “My Christianity“:

I believe the Bible is true and inerrant in every detail, God created everything in six days, our earth and universe are only around 6000 years old, dinosaurs (called “dragons” by all ancient civilizations) and humans have always co-existed until rather recently, and Darwinian evolution is the biggest lie in the history of pseudoscience because it is from the father of all lies, Satan. I realize such beliefs are often unpopular in our post-modern world; however, I care the least bit about being “popular” or “accepted.” I care only about the truth. As long as one believes in the lies and fallacies of Darwinian evolution, one will ultimately fail to see the one and only truth, which will ultimately create a stumbling block to achieving true salvation.

His bio on another site says this:

Hall holds music degrees from California State University, Sacramento (B.M. in piano), The Eastman School of Music (M.M. in piano), and The University of Kansas (M.M. in historical musicology, D.M.A. in piano). His major piano professors include Dr. David Burge at the Eastman School of Music and Richard Reber at the University of Kansas.

He’s 40 50, he’s from Florida, and he has a doctorate. All this goes to show is that someone who’s both educated and musically talented can be a deluded fanatic when it comes to both religion and science. So sad. And his “caring only about the truth?” Clearly a mischaracterization given his young earth creationism.

What can you say about someone who wants me to fry eternally because I accept a scientific fact?

Picture 1
God’s Special Snowflake will never melt

Update: Another email I got a few seconds ago from a different “reader” (personal information redacted):

Why don’t you pull some of that money you make out of your pocket or wallet and see what it has written on it.  Perhaps you should refuse to spend it if you are offended.  Sorry, but that’s the way this country was founded.  You might just have to get over it.  Why do you care anyway?