Eclipse art: Kelly Houle and Ben Goren

May 26, 2012 • 4:24 am

If you’ve been reading here semi-regularly, you’ll know that last Sunday there was a convocation of WEIT regulars at the Grand Canyon. The occasion was a rare annular eclipse, with the chance to photograph, paint, and view it in an incomparable setting. I now have some tangible artistic output from that viewing, namely the paintings of Kelly Houle and the photos of Ben Goren.

Kelly did three paintings, and you can actually bid for them on eBay (see below).  Here’s her description of the experience and the auction:

 I set up around 3pm at Lipan Point, and did between 5 and 10 small paintings before it got too dark. I didn’t see anyone else painting that day, but there were a lot of photographers and tourists around. It was a strange experience painting something you’re not supposed to look at for very long! I would look for a few seconds through binoculars or eclipse glasses, then go back to the painting. You can see the striking difference in colors from the two kinds of filters I used. I had no idea what to expect as far as the colors in the canyon or the quality of the light. I thought it we would see reds, but the colors ended up being cool gray-blues and purples. When the sun was eclipsed, we were able to see Venus for a few minutes before it disappeared again as the light returned.

Now that the bugs are all scraped off, I’ve set up a little Ebay auction, which starts today [Saturday]. I’m selling the three original oil paintings below, and there are some other things listed as well. My new Ebay shop is called BooksIlluminated.

The three oil paintings are starting at ridiculously low prices ($20!), and I’m hoping that readers here will raise the stakes, even though I badly want the third one depicted below.  Here are the paintings and descriptions from Kelly’s Ebay site:

This is an original oil painting done on site at the Grand Canyon on Sunday, May 21, 2012 during the annular eclipse. This is what I saw looking through filtered binoculars at around 6pm as the moon began to pass in front of the sun. This is a rare painting of an annular eclipse created in the plein air style–outdoors, in real time, as I observed the event.

ORIGINAL FRAMED OIL PAINTING. Signed by the artist; 4in x 4in canvas (outer frame dimensions are 9in x 9in)

This is an original oil painting done on site at the Grand Canyon on Sunday, May 21, 2012 during the annular eclipse. This is what I saw looking through eclipse glasses at around 6pm as the moon began to pass in front of the sun. This is a rare painting of an annular eclipse created in the plein air style–outdoors, in real time, as I observed the event.

Annular Eclipse, by Kelly M. Houle. Original Framed Oil Painting, Signed by the artist, 4in x 4in canvas (outer frame dimensions are 9in x 9in)

And my favorite, which I hope some reader doesn’t acquire by outbidding me!:

This is an original oil painting done on site at the Grand Canyon on Sunday, May 21, 2012 during the annular eclipse. This was the scene around 6:30pm as the moon eclipsed the sun. As the sky darkened, I was able to see Venus, which I painted in the upper left corner. When the moon passed by, the sky brightened, and Venus disappeared once again until sunset. This is a rare painting of an annular eclipse created in the plein air style–outdoors, in real time, as I observed the event.

Annular Eclipse, by Kelly M. Houle
Original Framed Oil Painting. Signed by the artist; 4in x 12in gallery wrapped canvas, unframed

Kelly at work:

Apparently Ben stayed up last last night so I could have some of his photos to post this morning.  The wonderful photo below (which he calls a “first draft”) captures the Canyon and the eclipse.  Ben’s notes:

I’m thinking of this as a good first draft. I’ll probably do more to it later, but I need to sleep on it at least a day or two, if not longer, It’s a composite of a half-dozen exposures that does a not-bad job of capturing what I experienced that day.

Not bad indeed! (Click to enlarge):

He adds:

…here’re thumbnails of the straight-out-of-the-camera pictures I wound up using in the composite. At least a couple of them I wound up developing at different exposures as additional layers….

Ben sent three other photos.  He clearly has talents beyond fondling the intestines of our Savior!:

Here’re three somewhat-representative telephoto shots of just the sun. All are taken with a 400 mm f/2.8 lens with a 2X teleconverter for an effective 800 mm focal length, then cropped and reduced for emailing.

First is shortly after the Moon made contact with the Sun. You can see a line of sunspots paralleling the Sun’s equator. If you think about the geometry, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Moon followed the line of sunspots. Oh — and each of those sunspots is bigger than the entire Earth, just to put things in perspective.


Next up is the archetypal ring of an eclipsed Sun. The reason the Moon’s outline is slightly irregular is because that’s the actual profile of the Moon, what with all the craters and mountains and what-not. And it’s slightly off-center because we were slightly off the centerline of the path of the eclipse; some dozens of miles to the north, it would have been perfectly centered. But then it wouldn’t have been over the Grand Canyon….

Last is the Sun sinking into the many, many miles distant far, far rim of the Canyon. It’s a double eclipse, really — the Sun, Moon, and Earth all lined up. The sunspots are still visible as are the irregularities in the Moon’s outline, and the change in color is entirely due to the Earth’s atmosphere.

I’m proud of the talents and heterogeneity of the readers here: we have scientists (even a Nobel Laureate or two who lurk), teachers, mathematicians, librarians, goat farmers, musicians—you name it.  Who on earth could accuse us of scientism, or of being blind to the beauty and diversity of life? Many thanks to Kelly and Ben for sharing their art.  And don’t forget to bid for Kelly’s paintings!

Caturday felid: Simon’s cat

May 26, 2012 • 3:31 am

There’s a new episode of the wonderful cartoon Simon’s Cat by Simon Tofield; these come out far too rarely. In this one Simon discovers the distastefulness of anurans:

The Simon’s Cat website is here, and the YouTube channel, where you can see all the cartoons, is here.

Oh, and one more I failed to post: “Shelf life”.  As with all cats, Simon’s moggie cares only for noms:

Or, put another way:

UCSF enacts policy mandating open-access research, and a related complaint from me

May 25, 2012 • 11:23 am

The chickens are finally coming home to roost.  The price-gouging practices of many academic journals, a practice I’ve often decried here, have driven one large and important university to take  action. According to the webpage of the University of California at San Franciso (UCSF), that university will henceforth constrain all of its faculty and academic employees to publish in journals whose contents are freely and immediately available to anyone.  It has always galled me that although the taxpayers (whose hard-earned dollars are distributed to scientists largely through the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health) fund our work, scientific journals can nevertheless make taxpayers cough up large sums to view the results of that research. That’s unconscionable by anyone’s lights.

“Our primary motivation is to make our research available to anyone who is interested in it, whether they are members of the general public or scientists without costly subscriptions to journals,” said Richard A. Schneider, PhD, chair of the UCSF Academic Senate Committee on Library and Scholarly Communication, who spearheaded the initiative at UCSF. “The decision is a huge step forward in eliminating barriers to scientific research,” he said. “By opening the currently closed system, this policy will fuel innovation and discovery, and give the taxpaying public free access to oversee their investments in research.”

UCSF is the nation’s largest public recipient of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), receiving 1,056 grants last year, valued at $532.8 million. Research from those and other grants leads to more than 4,500 scientific papers each year in highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journals, but the majority of those papers are only available to subscribers who pay ever-increasing fees to the journals. The 10-campus University of California (UC) system spends close to $40 million each year to buy access to journals.

. . . The new policy requires UCSF faculty to make each of their articles freely available immediately through an open-access repository, and thus accessible to the public through search engines such as Google Scholar. Articles will be deposited in a UC repository, other national open-access repositories such as the NIH-sponsored PubMed Central, or published as open-access publications. They will then be available to be read, downloaded, mined, or distributed without barriers.

There does, however, seem to be one loophole:

The UCSF policy gives the university a nonexclusive license to distribute any peer-reviewed articles that will also be published in scientific or medical journals. Researchers are able to “opt out” if they want to publish in a certain journal but find that the publisher is unwilling to comply with the UCSF policy.  “The hope,” said Schneider, “is that faculty will think twice about where they publish, and choose to publish in journals that support the goals of the policy.”

So much for forcing Science or Nature to stop charging exorbitant sums to view their papers!

I have another complaint not addressed by this policy: some journals allow scientists to withhold the raw data analyzed in their papers for long periods (over a year) so that other researchers can’t “mine” it and use that data to generate their own papers. The idea is that one’s data is proprietary, and one should have exclusive use of it for a long period of time. This, too, I find unconscionable.  The essence of science is that other workers must be able to repeat your results before those results become credible in the research community.  You can’t do that if someone publishes an analysis and then refuses to give you the data on which that analysis is based.  The selfish desire to “own” datasets, so you can generate lots of papers from them without other scientists being able to peek at the data, is inimical to the progress of science.  In my view, every bit of data on which a published paper is based must be available immediately to any scientist who wants to see it.

h/t: Ollie

Kitteh contest: Friday kittens

May 25, 2012 • 8:30 am

The contest is long over but I still have an immense backlog of readers’ cat photos, and they keep coming in.  Here’s a nice one from reader “Pyers” that was headed “Less than 24 hours old”:

Belong to some friends … went round last night to wish them welcome to the world. Moms a persian; dad a mog…. (oops!)

They knew she was pregnant but not sure when the due date. They came down yesterday morning to find she had torn a book to shreds and had built a nest round the back of a freezer where the warm air is expelled. (Fascinating behaviour in a domesticated animal)

They had a closer look and saw the kittens …..

Richard Dawkins reviews Ed Wilson’s new book

May 25, 2012 • 4:49 am

Over at Prospect magazine, Richard Dawkins reviews E. O. Wilson’s new book, The Social Conquest of Earth, in an essay with the double-entendre title, “The descent of Edward Wilson.”  If you think Richard’s incursion into atheism has eroded his ability to explain biology in an engrossing way, be heartened: this is a good review.  Well, it’s a well-written and lively review of a book that Richard doesn’t much like.

He begins with an amusing and amazing anecdote about one reviewer’s reaction to Darwin’s Origin, and then gets to Wilson’s book:

I am not being funny when I say of Edward Wilson’s latest book that there are interesting and informative chapters on human evolution, and on the ways of social insects (which he knows better than any man alive), and it was a good idea to write a book comparing these two pinnacles of social evolution, but unfortunately one is obliged to wade through many pages of erroneous and downright perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory. In particular, Wilson now rejects “kin selection” (I shall explain this below) and replaces it with a revival of “group selection”—the poorly defined and incoherent view that evolution is driven by the differential survival of whole groups of organisms.

The bulk of the piece is an exposition about kin selection—one of the best I’ve read—and how Wilson’s recent rejection of the concept is scientifically unfounded: something I’ve discussed at great length on this site. For example:

So, “replicators” and “vehicles” constitute two meanings of “unit of natural selection.” Replicators are the units that survive (or fail to survive) through the generations. Vehicles are the agents that replicators programme as devices to help them survive. Genes are the primary replicators, organisms the obvious vehicles. But what about groups? As with organisms, they are certainly not replicators, but are they vehicles? If so, might we make a plausible case for “group selection”?

It is important not to confuse this question—as Wilson regrettably does—with the question of whether individuals benefit from living in groups. Of course they do. Penguins huddle for warmth. That’s not group selection: every individual benefits. Lionesses hunting in groups catch more and larger prey than a lone hunter could: enough to make it worthwhile for everyone. Again, every individual benefits: group welfare is strictly incidental. Birds in flocks and fish in schools achieve safety in numbers, and may also conserve energy by riding each other’s slipstreams—the same effect as racing cyclists sometimes exploit.

Such individual advantages in group living are important but they have nothing to do with group selection. Group selection would imply that a group does something equivalent to surviving or dying, something equivalent to reproducing itself, and that it has something you could call a group phenotype, such that genes might influence its development, and hence their own survival.

It is a common mistake to invoke the process of group selection to explain adaptations of animals for living in groups.  Many of these, including reciprocal altruism, may well have evolved by individual selection.  That’s not just a guess, for models can easily produce such results using biologically realistic assumptions.

I’ll let you enjoy the longish review on your own, but will tender the conclusion:

Edward Wilson has made important discoveries of his own. His place in history is assured, and so is Hamilton’s. Please do read Wilson’s earlier books, including the monumental The Ants, written jointly with Bert Hölldobler (yet another world expert who will have no truck with group selection). As for the book under review, the theoretical errors I have explained are important, pervasive, and integral to its thesis in a way that renders it impossible to recommend. To borrow from Dorothy Parker, this is not a book to be tossed lightly aside. It should be thrown with great force. And sincere regret.

Although I haven’t yet read the book, I share Richard’s dismay about Wilson’s late-life rejection of kin selection.  Wilson is indisputably a giant of modern biology—one of the last of the greats in his generation—and it only tarnishes his legacy to wind up dissing one of the most productive concepts in modern evolutionary biology—inclusive fitness (the basis of “kin selection).  As I’ve said before, there is powerful evidence in favor of the inclusive-fitness explanation of eusociality (the situation in which a colony or group consists of sterile “castes” whose efforts increase the reproductive output of the fertile “queen”). That evidence includes not only the fact that all eusocial insects descend from ancestors who mated only once (a powerful prediction of inclusive fitness theory) and a higher ratio of queens than male drones produced by the sterile worker bees, something repeatedly confirmed by observation.

You can buy Wilson’s book here for only $16.66 in hardback.

 

Mencken week: day 7

May 25, 2012 • 2:56 am

To finish off Mencken Week, I’m posting HLM’s obituary of one of his nemeses: William Jennings Bryan, whom Mencken excoriated in his reports on the Scopes Trial. Bryan died almost immediately after the trial concluded, and Mencken published this scathing obituary in the Baltimore Evening Sun on July 27, 1925. Those who think we should always speak well of the dead won’t like this—indeed, it’s almost too vitriolic for me. Reminiscent of Christopher Hitchens’s remarks about the passing of Jerry Falwell, it’s nonetheless vintage Mencken, full of bombastic and evocative language.  No widely-read newspaper would publish anything like this today.

William Jennings Bryan

It was plain to everyone, when Bryan came to Dayton, that his great days were behind him — that he was now definitely an old man, and headed at last for silence. There was a vague, unpleasant manginess about his appearance; he somehow seemed dirty, though a close glance showed him carefully shaved, and clad in immaculate linen. All the hair was gone from the dome of his head, and it had begun to fall out, too, behind his ears, like that of the late Samuel Gompers. The old resonance had departed from his voice: what was once a bugle blast had become reedy and quavering. Who knows that, like Demosthenes, he had a lisp? In his prime, under the magic of his eloquence, no one noticed it. But when he spoke at Dayton it was always audible.

When I first encountered him, on the sidewalk in front of the Hicks brothers law office, the trial was yet to begin, and so he was still expansive and amiable. I had printed in the Nation, a week or so before, an article arguing that the anti-evolution law, whatever its unwisdom, was at least constitutional — that policing school teachers was certainly not putting down free speech. The old boy professed to be delighted with the argument, and gave the gaping bystanders to understand that I was a talented publicist. In turn I admired the curious shirt he wore — sleeveless and with the neck cut very low. We parted in the manner of two Spanish ambassadors.

But that was the last touch of affability that I was destined to see in Bryan. The next day the battle joined and his face became hard. By the end of the first week he was simply a walking malignancy. Hour by hour he grew more bitter. What the Christian Scientists call malicious animal magnetism seemed to radiate from him like heat from a stove. From my place in the court-room, standing upon a table, I looked directly down upon him, sweating horribly and pumping his palm-leaf fan. His eyes fascinated me: I watched them all day long. They were blazing points of hatred. They glittered like occult and sinister gems. Now and then they wandered to me, and I got my share. It was like coming under fire.

II

What was behind that consuming hatred? At first I thought that it was mere evangelical passion. Evangelical Christianity, as everyone knows, is founded upon hate, as the Christianity of Christ was founded upon love. But even evangelical Christians occasionally loose their belts and belch amicably; I have known some who, off duty, were very benignant. In that very courtroom, indeed, were some of them — for example, old Ben McKenzie, Nestor of the Dayton bar, who sat beside Bryan. Ben was full of good humor. He made jokes with Darrow. But Bryan only glared.

One day it dawned on me that Bryan, after all, was an evangelical Christian only by sort of afterthought — that his career in this world, and the glories thereof, had actually come to an end before he ever began whooping for Genesis. So I came to this conclusion: that what really moved him was a lust for revenge. The men of the cities had destroyed him and made a mock of him; now he would lead the yokels against them. Various facts clicked into the theory, and I hold it still. The hatred in the old man’s burning eyes was not for the enemies of God; it was for the enemies of Bryan.

Thus he fought his last fight, eager only for blood. It quickly became frenzied and preposterous, and after that pathetic. All sense departed from him. He bit right and left, like a dog with rabies. He descended to demagogy so dreadful that his very associates blushed. His one yearning was to keep his yokels heated up — to lead his forlorn mob against the foe. That foe, alas, refused to be alarmed. It insisted upon seeing the battle as a comedy. Even Darrow, who knew better, occasionally yielded to the prevailing spirit. Finally, he lured poor Bryan into a folly almost incredible.

I allude to his astounding argument against the notion that man is a mammal. I am glad I heard it, for otherwise I’d never believe it. There stood the man who had been thrice a candidate for the Presidency of the Republic — and once, I believe, elected — there he stood in the glare of the world, uttering stuff that a boy of eight would laugh at! The artful Darrow led him on: he repeated it, ranted for it, bellowed it in his cracked voice. A tragedy, indeed! He came into life a hero, a Galahad, in bright and shining armor. Now he was passing out a pathetic fool.

III

Worse, I believe that he somehow sensed the fact — that he realized his personal failure, whatever the success of the grotesque cause he spoke for. I had left Dayton before Darrow’s cross-examination brought him to his final absurdity, but I heard his long speech against the admission of expert testimony, and I saw how it fell flat and how Bryan himself was conscious of the fact. When he sat down he was done for, and he knew it. The old magic had failed to work; there was applause but there was no exultant shouts. When, half an hour later, Dudley Field Malone delivered his terrific philippic, the very yokels gave him five times the clapper-clawing that they had given to Bryan.

This combat was the old leader’s last, and it symbolized in more than one way his passing. Two women sat through it, the one old and crippled, the other young and in the full flush of beauty. The first was Mrs. Bryan; the second was Mrs. Malone. When Malone finished his speech the crowd stormed his wife with felicitations, and she glowed as only a woman can who has seen her man fight a hard fight and win gloriously. But no one congratulated Mrs. Bryan. She sat hunched in her chair near the judge, apparently very uneasy. I thought then that she was ill — she has been making the round of sanitariums for years, and was lately in the hands of a faith-healer — but now I think that some appalling prescience was upon her, and that she saw in Bryan’s eyes a hint of the collapse that was so near.

He sank into his seat a wreck, and was presently forgotten in the blast of Malone’s titanic rhetoric. His speech had been maundering feeble and often downright idiotic. Presumably, he was speaking to a point of law, but it was quickly apparent that he knew no more law than the bailiff at the door. So he launched into mere violet garrulity. He dragged in snatches of ancient chautauqua addresses; he wandered up hill and down dale. Finally, Darrow lured him into that fabulous imbecility about man as a mammal. He sat down one of the most tragic asses in American history.

IV

It is the national custom to sentimentalize the dead, as it is to sentimentalize men about to be hanged. Perhaps I fall into that weakness here. The Bryan I shall remember is the Bryan of his last weeks on earth — broken, furious, and infinitely pathetic. It was impossible to meet his hatred with hatred to match it. He was winning a battle that would make him forever infamous wherever enlightened men remembered it and him. Even his old enemy, Darrow, was gentle with him at the end. That cross-examination might have been ten times as devastating. It was plain to everyone that the old Berseker Bryan was gone — that all that remained of him was a pair of glaring and horrible eyes.

But what of his life? Did he accomplish any useful thing? Was he, in his day, of any dignity as a man, and of any value to his fellow-men? I doubt it. Bryan, at his best, was simply a magnificent job-seeker. The issues that he bawled about usually meant nothing to him. He was ready to abandon them whenever he could make votes by doing so, and to take up new ones at a moment’s notice. For years he evaded Prohibition as dangerous; then he embraced it as profitable. At the Democratic National Convention last year he was on both sides, and distrusted by both. In his last great battle there was only a baleful and ridiculous malignancy. If he was pathetic, he was also disgusting.

Bryan was a vulgar and common man, a cad undiluted. He was ignorant, bigoted, self-seeking, blatant and dishonest. His career brought him into contact with the first men of his time; he preferred the company of rustic ignoramuses. It was hard to believe, watching him at Dayton, that he had traveled, that he had been received in civilized societies, that he had been a high officer of state*. He seemed only a poor clod like those around him, deluded by a childish theology, full of an almost pathological hatred of all learning, all human dignity, all beauty, all fine and noble things. He was a peasant come home to the dung-pile. Imagine a gentleman, and you have imagined everything that he was not.

The job before democracy is to get rid of such canaille. If it fails, they will devour it.

_______

*Bryan was a candidate for President of the U.S. three times, and served as Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson

Why don’t the faithful debate each other?

May 24, 2012 • 12:28 pm

Maybe I frequent the wrong websites, but I see far more debates in which atheists are pitted against the faithful, or creationists against evolutionists, than those in which the faithful debate each other.  That is, do we ever see liberal theologians like John Haught debate conservative ones like William Lane Craig about whose idea of God is right? Why not pit a Muslim versus a Christian to argue whether Jesus was the son of God? Or a Catholic versus a Christian to argue about hell and morality?

Maybe these things take place, but I doubt that they do with the frequency of the faith-vs.-nonbelief debates. (I’m willing to admit I’m wrong if I’ve missed tons of stuff.)

But if religion/religion debates are infrequent, why is that? Because, I think, religious people realize that by attacking someone else’s superstition, they undermine their own.  By exposing the lack of evidence for the other guy’s faith, you inadvertently expose the lack of evidence for your own. That, after all, is what John Loftus’s Outsider Test for Faith is about. Even liberal theologians usually avoid direct attacks on other faiths, for they know intuitively that no matter what you call it, revelation is still revelation, and it ultimately comes down to stuff that you make up because you like the way it makes you feel.

Still, it would afford me hours of delight to see a Muslim argue with a Christian about whose faith was right.

My Evolution paper officially out

May 24, 2012 • 7:30 am

My paper on the relationship between acceptance of evolution, religion, and societal health is finally available for free at Evolution (you can see the early publication section here and download my pdf here; if the second link doesn’t work, just go to the first link and download my paper directly—it’s the 9th one down). There are three typos that, I hope, will be fixed, but this is essentially the final piece. If you want the article, I’d appreciate it if you downloaded it from the Evolution site rather than asking me: Evolution keeps track of such things to assess the impact of the journal and of original articles.  If neither of those links works for you, email me and I’ll send you the pdf.

I’m grateful to Daphne Fairbairn, the indefatigable editor of the journal, for her suggestions and willingness to allow the article to be disseminated for free; to Tom Meagher (the Outlook on Evolution and Society editor) and three anonymous reviewers—yes, it was peer-reviewed—for their helpful comments; to our old friend Jason Rosenhouse for reading the whole thing and making many useful suggestions; and to Mona Albano for a wonderful (and voluntary) job of tweaking the prose.

Here’s the abstract:

American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the United States, which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and supposed implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the United States suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Because creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the United States is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.

The reaction in some corners of the blogosphere seems predictable, but I’ll leave you make those prognostications.  All I can say is that when you see religion as responsible for anything bad—even something as palpably obvious as creationism—or suggest that there may some incompatibility between science and religion, there will be nay-sayers alternately bawling and osculating the rump of faith.

I’ll finish with a relevant quote from p. 325 of Carl Sagan’s The Demon-Haunted World (a wonderful book; do read it). I’ve put in bold the sentence that absolutely distinguishes science from religion.

I meet many people offended by evolution, who passionately prefer to be the personal handicraft of God than to arise by blind physical and chemical forces over aeons from slime. They also tend to be less then assiduous in exposing themselves to the evidence.  Evidence has little to do with it: What they wish to be true, they believe is true. Only 9 percent of Americans accept the central finding of modern  biology that human beings (and all the other species) have slowly evolved by  natural processes from a succession of more ancient beings with no divine intervention needed along the way. (When asked merely if they accept evolution 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.)

Reader earlycuyler‘s cat Lynus gets educated:

_________

Coyne, J. A. 2012.  Science, religion, and society: the problem of evolution in America. Evolution, published online: 17 May 2012, DOI: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01664.x