Stymied, Michael Ruse criticizes me for liking boots and cats

March 19, 2012 • 5:14 am

Thomas Wolfe is one of my favorite American authors (see here), though most cognoscenti of literature find him tiresome because of his tendency to overwrite.  In 1937, F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote Wolfe an epistolary admonishment about this tendency, saying, among other things:

Hasn’t it occurred to you that such qualities as pleasantness or grief, exuberance or cynicism can become a plague in others?  That often people who live at a high pitch often don’t get their way emotionally at the important moment because it doesn’t stand out in relief? . . .

To a talent like mine of narrow scope there is not that problem.  I must put everything in to have enough + even then I often havn’t [sic; Fitz couldn’t spell] got enough.

That in brief is my case against you, if it can be called that when I admire you so much and think your talent is unmatchable in this or any other country.

Ever your friend,

Scott Fitzgerald

Wolfe was having none of this, and responded in a letter that started like this (read the whole correspondence here):

The unexpected loquaciousness of your letter struck me all of a heap.  I was surprised to hear from you but I don’t know that I can say I was delighted.  Your bouquet arrived smelling sweetly of roses but cunningly concealing several large-sized brickbats.

I recalled this exchange when reading a new piece by Michael Ruse on his Brainstorm site at the Chronicle of Higher Education: “Armageddon time for Jerry Coyne.” He starts off with a lot of praise for my prowess as an evolutionary geneticist and my trenchant criticisms of religion on this website.  But those are the roses—the brickbats come quickly. I have a “tin ear for philosophy” and, especially, I am fond of criticizing one Michael Ruse: I “sneer at him frequently.”  Re my philosophical blindness, Ruse says this:

Although I have little time for most religion, qua philosophy I still argue that science does not have all of the answers and it is at least legitimate for believers to try to offer their answers. I don’t think the answers are necessarily beyond criticism, but at the same time I do not think that because they are not scientific answers this thereby makes them wrong or pernicious.

Yes, believers can try to offer their answers, and I will criticize them.  I criticize them not because they’re not all inherently unscientific (after all, we could get evidence for a God, prayers could work, and so on), but because some of them are untestable and on those grounds unscientific, others are empirical propositions lacking any evidence, while still other “questions” have answers that are contested by members of different faiths, and so there is no way to resolve them.

Really, Michael, if you think the answer to “What is our purpose?” is “To accept Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior,” is that a good answer?  And it is pernicious, because that belief has led Christians to unbelievable lengths of cruelty over history.  What about “Who is the true prophet of God: Jesus or Mohamed?” Is that a good question.  What about “God answers prayers.”  That statement is probably wrong, or at least has failed every test.

Yes, it’s legitimate for the faithful to offer questions. But I challenge Michael to tell me one question raised by the faithful that has ever been truly answered by religion to everyone’s satisfaction.  Just one, Michael.  Let’s start with this one:  does God exist?  The faithful say “yes,” but Ruse says “no” (he’s an atheist). The reason I criticize religious “ways of knowing” is because they are not “ways of knowing” at all, but “ways of making things up”; and because the answers, which the faithful often see as absolute truths, lead them to impose those “truths” on society in pernicious ways.  If people kept their silly religious answers to themselves, then we wouldn’t have a problem. But it’s in the nature of faith that many believers can’t keep their “answers” to themselves.  Ergo the kerfuffles about abortion this month.

But what really bothers Ruse, apparently, is my penchant for cats and cowboy boots, which he goes on about at unseemly length:

However Coyne does have (let us say) some quirks, that are nigh obsessions. One is a passion for cowboy boots. Rick Perry and Roy Rogers have nothing on him. Frankly, I am rather reminded of a French movie I once saw, starring Jeanne Moreau, about a chap with a foot obsession. As I remember, things did not work out well for him.

And then there are cats. Jerry, if I might now presume to call him – after all, he is an employee – is nuts about cats. Day after day, there are hymns of praise and love for cats. Day after day there are pictures of white cats, black cats, happy cats, sad cats, naked cats, clothed cats – cats, cats, cats, cats, cats. Dogs don’t cut the mustard. Ferrets (my favorites) are nowhere. Horses are, well, horses. But cats! If ever there were a proof of the existence of a good god, it is cats. Indeed, I suspect that Jerry’s non-existent deity has whiskers.

Ferrets?

LOL! This is sort of funny except that there are no whiskers on a nonexistent deity. (Perhaps he’s thinking of the Catological Argument proving the existence of a feline deity since the greatest possible being of which we can conceive has whiskers.)

I know they say that there’s no such thing as bad publicity, but I don’t give a rat’s patootie about this column.  It’s embarrassing for Ruse, for he goes on and on about me with no apparent point.  What, exactly, is my “Armageddon”? That’s the battle between good and evil accompanying the End Times, but how is it relevant to his piece?  He winds up claiming that perhaps my brain has been addled by toxoplasmosis, which, as I wrote about previously, can be transmitted to humans via their cats, and might affect our behavior.  He claims it’s affected mine.

In typical Ruse-ian fashion, he gets it all wrong.

First his characterization of the effect of the parasite on human behavior:

You do all sorts of daft things because it is in the interests of the parasite that you do them. You think you are being clever and rational but it is the bug that is driving you.

Nope, for we are not the primary hosts of the protozoan parasite, which are cats and rodents.  The parasite makes the rodent behave in strange ways (like being attracted to cat urine, and showing less fear of cats) as a way of getting to the next host, a cat. The effects of the parasite on human behavior are not effects that have evolved by selection to facilitate the parasite’s transmission, but only side effects of being infected.  Our “daft behavior” when infected is not in the interests of the parasite, because living in humans is not part of the parasite’s life cycle. It’s a dead end, for we’re not eaten by cats (well, maybe Ben Goren is).

Ruse’s second mistake:

In a way, Jerry should find all of this rather satisfying. One of his big bugaboos about philosophy is our belief in free will. He will have none of it. We are all robots. This cat finding is grist for his mill. When we think we are acting freely, it is the parasite that is in charge.

But in another sense, even if he does not find it depressing – and the article rather suggests that the parasite is pretty good at keeping us happy as clams – I confess I rather do. It suggests that Jerry’s most outlandish behavior, namely criticizing me, is not based on sound logic and evidence but on his being too much in feline company. There I thought I had attracted the attention of one of the best minds of our generation, and it is all a matter of infrequently changed litter boxes.

Oh, dear Michael, let me falsify that hypothesis right off the bat: I do not own a cat. I just like them.

And really, what’s the point of this piece?

Guest post: defending science

March 19, 2012 • 4:37 am

Reader Peter Beattie contributed a short essay inspired by watching Neil deGrasse Tyson on Bill Mahrer’s show. It’s apophatic in the sense that Peter tells us what we should not say when defending science.

__________________

How not to defend science

by Peter Beattie

While we are discussing how (or even whether) to justify scientific knowledge, here is a prime example of what the relevant points should be—and how one should not go about defending science. On a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher, science champion Neil deGrasse Tyson got into an exchange with former GM executive and climate denialist Bob Lutz:

Maybe you’ll agree that the discussion at the end— in which both participants are smugly convinced that they’re right and the other is wrong—was pretty much a waste of time and of the opportunity for something to be learnt. Or you won’t, in which case you’ll probably stop reading just about now. But if you do, you may be asking yourself what could be done to prevent such a discussion from becoming an exercise in futility. And to this end, I’d like to make three suggestions.

Understand your own arguments so your opponent cannot steal them

If you want to cite certain weather phenomena in support of climate change, you’d better make sure you actually understand what it takes to make that connection—and that your example is representative of the point you’re making. Maher’s point about the tornadoes in the mid-West was easily brushed aside by Lutz with the superficially correct statement that weather is not the same thing as climate. This makes Maher look bad and Lutz look good, and completely needlessly: there is a fresh paper by Hansen et al. (albeit not yet peer-reviewed) that ticks all the right boxes. Hansen et al. look not at a singular event, but at a weather pattern; they explain what the relevant comparable patterns are; and they give the statistical measures on which to base their assessment that the heat waves in Texas in 2011 and Moscow in 2010 are very likely due to climate change. All it takes is for the host, or a scientifically trained guest, to be prepared to cite specific sources and to briefly explain the salient points.

The second opportunity for Lutz to get away with his superficially correct (but evasive) arguments was handed him on the same silver platter. When Maher brings up the “overwhelming consensus of climate scientists”, this gives Lutz a great line: “Science doesn’t operate on consensus”. Which is the simple truth: The signatures of a thousand climate scientists professing their “belief” in climate change are scientifically as irrelevant as another thousand non-specialist scientists professing their skepticism. Tyson hinted at the right answer when he said, “It operates on a consensus of experiments”—but how many people in a lay audience are going to understand exactly what that means? If you cannot explain that it is only the qualified opinions of scientists working in the field—i.e. their argued, evidenced, and independently checked empirical results—which counts towards a consensus, then you’re losing a big part of both the argument and the audience.

Be careful with your metaphors

The first point here is really obvious. If you know a memorable saying that you can offer in support of your scientific position, make sure to pick one that has a deeper point that directly addresses the point at issue. Depicting your opponents as misguided fools and yourself as being in possession of a “great truth” may be a good applause line, but as a defence of science it is both pathetic and counterproductive. Science pursues truth, but it steadfastly denies owning the Truth.

Second, if you want to propose a bet as a great metaphor for what science is about, make sure not to leave out the one point about bets that prevents them from becoming a childish stunt. Making a bet is a pretty good way to represent a central aspect of science, viz. a competition between ideas that can be resolved by empirical evidence. But as any schoolchild knows after having made at most three bets, the whole exercise becomes a farce if you do not in advance specify the conditions under which either side would have to admit defeat. It might still happen that your betting partner openly reneges on his promise and simply digs in, but then you can at least call him a liar. That way, any onlookers are left in no doubt as to which idea is likely to be less well supported.

Don’t let grandstanding get the better of data and arguments

When Lutz says, “Name me one prediction of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] that has come true”, that could have been the most telling point of the whole discussion. What Lutz suggests is that one genuine counter-example would be enough to shake his conviction—which on the face of it would be admirably falsificationist thinking. But nobody seriously takes him up on it. And it would have been so easy: Let him spell out exactly what kind of data would count as a counter-example to his assertion and then either have the relevant data to hand or let someone in a control room give it to you once they have Googled it—and maybe throw up a graphic to strengthen the point. Very soon, nobody would make the mistake of blustering without backup again.

Finally, a point about sources and checkability. Maher very sensibly asks Lutz, “What are you reading that I am not reading?”, but again fails to follow through. One simple question would have sufficed to stop Lutz in his tracks: “Which study specifically shows that measured sea levels have not risen?” The point, again, is to at least be able to show that your opponent is inconsistent and cannot support his claims. But then, that is the best you can do anyway. Even hard logic never forces you to accept the truth of X; logic can only force you to make choices. But these choices have to be made as clear as possible.

A bizarre fly

March 18, 2012 • 12:06 pm

How could I have missed the website flyobsession?  It’s run by Brian V. Brown, who’s the Curator of Entomology at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, and his site is full of weird and interesting flies.

I’ve posted before on phorids—flies in the family Phoridae that are often wingless, with many so bizarre that they don’t resemble flies at all (take a look at my preceding link to see a mimetic adult phorid that looks like an ant larva). Here’s a phorid that Brown just posted on flyobsession (reproduced with his permission). It’s white, wingless, and sports a bunch of huge bristles on its back.  What could they be for?  Matthew Cobb, who passed this on to me, supposes that the fly may be parasitic, and the bristles used to adhere to a large host.  Who knows?  The small eyes and lack of coloration suggests that it lives in a dark habitat—perhaps on the fur of a mammal.

Brown’s notes on this:

. . . I am posting this photo of an extremely bizarre specimen we found just this week in material from Thailand. I think it is a female of the genus Rhynchomicropteron, but if so, it is an extremely unusual one! Thanks to Lisa Gonzalez for pointing it out to me, and Inna-Marie Strazhnik for photographing it. Maybe it can be number 16 in Terry Wheeler’s posts about why flies are great.


Washington Times denies that Richard Dawkins is an ape

March 18, 2012 • 10:21 am

I received this from several people, and at first thought it was a joke. (This shows how hard it is to distinguish the effusions of the faithful from pure satire.) After exercising due diligence, I have decided it’s real. It’s an article by Vasko Kohlmayer in the Washington Times raising this question: “Is Richard Dawkins an ape?”  Kohlmayer’s conclusion, of course, is “no”:

In an interview with a black African bishop, the British evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins identified himself as an African ape.

“I am an ape. I am an African ape. I am very proud to be an African ape and so you should be,” Dawkins told the bemused cleric.

Even though he did not intend it, Dawkins’ statement brings out starkly the intuitive implausibility of evolutionary theory.

When hearing those words, one is immediately struck by the obvious falsity of the claim: No matter what he may choose to call himself, Richard Dawkins is certainly is no African ape.

To give an idea of the distance separating the two creatures, below are some things that Richard Dawkins can do, but which an ape – African or otherwise – could never do:

  • Read a novel
  • Reflect on his own existence
  • Enjoy a Shakespeare play
  • Wonder about the meaning of life
  • Appreciate a Beethoven symphony
  • Think about the theory of evolution
  • Dream about his future
  • Perceive right and wrong
  • Complete a crossword puzzle
  • Contemplate the size of the universe
  • Form a mental concept of God

Richard Dawkins can do all this and more while even the brightest of apes is incapable of even grasping the point behind these mental activities.

To suggest that there is some kind of fundamental equivalence between Professor Dawkins and an ape is not only demeaning, it is outright incredible. It is also indecent, since there is something almost blasphemous about a person putting himself on the same level as an animal.

Kohlmayer’s argument, of course, is religious:

The truth is that we have all been created in God’s image. Fallen though we are, we still bear the divine stamp in our being. We must never forget that. Above all, we must not teach our children that they come from animals. Not only is this untrue, but if we tell them that they are animals they will eventually start acting like animals. . .

Richard Dawkins’ intelligence and the ability to speak and reason did not come from apes. Neither are they a product of chance. They are gifts from above. He should not be using these gifts to demean himself or the One who gifted him so liberally.

Blah blah blah. . . the words appear on parade, like a team of well-rehearsed horses.  Has Kohlmayer ever looked at the behavior of atheists?

I believe it was William Jennings Bryan who denied during the Scopes trial that man was a mammal.  That one statement laid him low, exposing his Bible-ridden ignorance for what it is. Of course we are mammals, and of course Richard is an ape.  The Wikipedia definition is as good as any:

Apes are Old World anthropoid mammals, more specifically a clade of tailless catarrhine primates, belonging to the biological superfamily Hominoidea.

Last time I looked, I was also a tailless catarrhine primate, so that makes me an ape as well.  The only thing I’d take issue with is Richard’s statement that he’s an African ape. He’s an ape who is descended from African apes, but he’s currently an Oxford ape. (Richard was an African ape when he was growing up in Kenya.)

As for Kohlmayer’s argument that we’re not apes (or animals!) because we can do all sorts of things that other beasts can’t, well, those abilities come from the evolution of our big brains, not from the hand of God. Just because some apes have capacities more advanced than others doesn’t mean they’re not apes.  Crows are a lot smarter than ducks, but nobody denies that a crow is a bird.

I doubt that this article is a hoax because here’s the Times profile of Vasko Kohlmayer:

Born and raised under communism, Vasko Kohlmayer is a naturalized American citizen. He has lived in several countries under various forms of government, but he still marvels at the goodness of God and the wonder of life. He has discovered that no matter how many places you’ve been, there is always something new to learn wherever you go.

Yeah—maybe he should learn what an “ape” is!

And, of course, the Washington Times is currently owned by the Unification Church (aka “the Moonies”).

Vasko

 

h/t: Dom

Tests of the supernatural fail again: new study can’t replicate findings of precognition

March 18, 2012 • 5:47 am

Who says that you can’t test the supernatural?  Intercessory prayer, near-death experiences, and ESP—all have been tested (and refuted) using science; all are classical “supernatural” phenomena whose mechanisms, if they existed, would seem to defy the laws of physics (I’m not going to get into arguments about the definition of “supernatural” here).  And now there’s a new paper in PLoS ONE by Ritchie et al. (free download at link, reference below) that refutes a recent paper presenting evidence for precognition: the idea that somehow one could have intimations in the present about stuff that hasn’t yet happened.

The original paper, published in 2011 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology by Daryl Bem of Cornell University (download the paper here, and see my post on it here), gave statistically significant evidence for precognition in several experiments.  In brief, experimental subjects who were asked to memorize a list of words, and then type as many as they could remember onto a computer, did better at remembering those words to which they were subsequently exposed when presented with random selections of the initial word list and irrelevant “control” words. This implied that seeing the words later increased one’s ability to remember them in the past.

The paper, appealing as it did to many people’s love of psychic stuff, got a lot of attention; it was, I believe, a subject on my radio interview with woo-meister Alex Tsakiris at Skeptiko. (Alex loved it of course.)

Bem’s experiment was criticised by other scientists, and I think there are still some attempts to replicate it in the works; my own judgment was that the results couldn’t be replicated by others.  That seems to be the lesson of the paper by Ritchie et al., who took Bem’s most significant experiment and replicated it three times in three different laboratories: The University of London, The University of Edinburgh, and the University of Hertfordshire.

The results are simple: none of the three replications achieved anything near statistical significance. The respective probability values (the values that results as extreme as those seen could be due solely to chance) were 46%, 94%, and 61%; the overall probability was 83%.  For “one-tailed” tests like these, results are considered significant only if the probability of attaining them by chance is 5% or less; and the replication results didn’t even come near that threshold.  Conclusion: Bem’s results are severely in question.

What happened in Bem’s study if his results really were wrong? Ritchie et al. have several theories:

  • There were statistical and methodological “artifacts” outlined by several critics (see references 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 in their paper)
  • Other variables, not recorded by Bem (subjects’ use of self-hypnosis or meditation, anxiety level, etc.) could have been responsible for the results. I don’t really understand this criticism because it seems that the “supernatural” character of precognition would be unaffected by those variables
  • the effect might be genuine but is hard to replicate. Ritchie et al. note that this is a common claim by psi advocates when results aren’t replicated. It’s like theologians who say, “God cannot be tested.”

The authors favor the hypothesis that Bem’s original result was due to “experimental artifacts.” They also note that there is at least one other published report of a failure to replicate Bem’s response: the paper by Robinson (2011) cited below.  The PLoS paper ends with a cute conclusion:

At the end of his paper Bem urges psychologists to be more open towards the concept of psychic ability, noting how, in Alice in Wonderland, the White Queen famously stated, ‘Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast’. We advise them to take a more levelheaded approach to the topic, and not to venture too far down the rabbit hole just yet.

Bem has published a response to Ritchie et al.’s piece: it’s basically a non-response, calling for more work and floating the possibility that the negative attitudes of Ritchie et al. could have had an effect on their results (that, too, would be a paranomal result). As Bem said, “Ritchie, Wiseman, and French are well known as psi skeptics, whereas I and the investigators of the two successful replications are at least neutral with respect to the existence of psi.” That’s a pretty lame defense. Why would you re-test someone’s results if you weren’t a skeptic? On Thursday Ritchie et al. published a response to Bem’s critique.

An interesting side note: Chris French, one of the authors of the Ritchie et al. paper, wrote a piece in the Guardian, “Precognition study and the curse of the failed replications,” giving his take on Bem’s study and describing their own difficulties in getting their failure of replication published. It was rejected by three journals, including the original journal—the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology—before it was finally accepted in PLoS ONE!  The unwillingness of the original journal’s editor to even send Ritchie et al.’s paper out for review is reprehensible, particularly in light of the splash made by Bem’s paper.  Extraordinary results deserve extraordinary scrutiny.  As French notes:

This whole saga raises important questions. Although we are always being told that “replication is the cornerstone of science”, the truth is that the “top” journals are simply not interested in straight replications – especially failed replications. They only want to report findings that are new and positive.

Most scientists are aware of this bias and will rarely bother with straight replications. But straight replication attempts are often exactly what is required, especially when dealing with controversial claims. For example, parapsychologists are typically happy to accept the findings of a new study if it replicates a previously reported paranormal effect. However, if it fails to do so, they are likely to blame any deviation from the original procedure, no matter how minor. It was for this reason that we chose to follow Bem’s procedure as closely as possible (apart from a minor methodological improvement).

Given the high cost of paper publications and the high submission rejection rate of “top” journals, it might be argued that rejecting replication studies was defensible in the pre-internet era. But what would prevent such journals from adopting a policy of sending reports of replications, failed or otherwise, for full peer review and, if accepted, publishing the abstract of the paper in the journal and the full version online? Otherwise, publication bias looks set to remain a major problem in psychology and science in general.

Doubt and replication are the sine qua non of science, and journals must always send out failed attempts to replicate for peer review, and find a way to publish them if they’re sound.

h/t: Diane G.

__________

Bem, D. J. 2011. Feeling the future: experimental evidence for anomalous retroactive influences on cognition and affect. J. Personality Social Psych. doi: 10.1037/a0021524:DOI: 10.1037/a0021524.

Ritchie, S. J., R. Wiseman, and C. C. French. 2012. Failing the future: three unsuccessful attempts to replicate Bem’s ‘Retroactive facilitation of recall’ effect. PLOS ONE 7(3): e33423. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033423

Robinson E. 2011. Not feeling the future: A failed replication of retroactive facilitation of memory recall. J. Soc. Psychical Research 75:142-147.

The chickens come home to roost in Texas

March 17, 2012 • 3:05 pm

How do you like them apples now, Governor Perry? This is what you get for disqualifying Planned Parenthood from Texas’s Women’s Health Program (funded largely by the federal government) because PP provides abortions (none of which are funded by federal dollars!).

The Department of Health and Human Services announced on Thursday that it will cut off all Medicaid funding for family planning to the state of Texas, following Gov. Rick Perry’s (R) decision to implement a new law that excludes Planned Parenthood from the state’s Medicaid Women’s Health Program.

Cindy Mann, director of the Center for Medicaid and State Operations (CMSO), wrote Texas health officials a letter on Thursday explaining that the state broke federal Medicaid rules by discriminating against qualified family planning providers and thus would be losing the entire program, which provides cancer screenings, contraceptives and basic health care to 130,000 low-income women each year.

“We very much regret the state’s decision to implement this rule, which will prevent women enrolled in the program from receiving services from the trusted health care providers they have chosen and relied upon for their care,” she wrote. “In light of Texas’ actions, CMS is not in a position to extend or renew the current [Medicaid contract].” . . .

According to Medicaid law, Mann said, a state cannot restrict women’s ability to choose a provider simply because that provider offers separate services — in this case, abortion — that aren’t even paid for by the Medicaid program.

[Perry] vowed to continue the Women’s Health Program in Texas without Planned Parenthood and without federal money, although he has yet to outline how his state will come up with money.

Good luck with that, Governor!

Once again, the Bible wins and women lose. But isn’t that always the case?  How many women will die from undetected cancers because of Perry’s boneheaded and religiously motivated policy?

h/t: Grania

Abbie Smith debates creationist Steve Kern

March 17, 2012 • 12:57 pm

Update: A video of the debate is now up on YouTubue; and yes, it is a rout for Kern and a win for Abbie:

______

On Thursday fellow “blogger” Abbie Smith, aka erv—a graduate student who studies endogenous retroviruses—debated evolution with conservative pastor Steve Kern at the Oklahoma City Community College. The debate was sponsored by the Oklahoma City Chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Red Dirt Report describes the fracas, which, if the site is to be believed, was a rout for Kern and a victory for Abbie. A few snippets from the report:

This year, Kern took up the challenge again, this time debating whether “intelligent design” should be taught in public schools, something his opponent – Abbie Smith, a doctoral candidate in microbiology and immunology at the University of Oklahoma – disagreed with.

After introductions by the Rev. Jim Shields of the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma, Kern kicked off the debate by giving a rather rambling opening statement that, among other things, had him proclaiming “neo-Darwinism is a dying theory” and that “education is about having other points of view.”

“Since removing God from the schools, public education has suffered,” Kern said.

As Kern looked down at his notes, seemingly nervous and unprepared, Smith sat next to him, smiling confidently. She would soon have her turn, standing behind the lectern and giving a snazzy PowerPoint presentation that clearly explained

With images of reactionary book burnings and an artist rendering of Jesus coddling a baby dinosaur accompanying her notes that appeared on two screens, Smith’s classroom approach was smart, witty and informative in comparison to Kern’s rigid, fundamentalist approach. . .

When Smith concluded her introduction, Kern sarcastically congratulated her and explained that children are not taught the difference between microevolution and macroevolution and how the former “is the ability of species to make chamges within the limits set by the parameters encoded in the DNA of specific species” while the latter is the “unobserved process of one species changing into a totally different species.”

Noting a bill that his legislator wife, State Rep. Sally Kern (R-Oklahoma City) has pushed, addressing “academic freedom,” Kern said all it would do is “allow teachers to point out discrepancies” in scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution.

At this point, Kern then got startlingly emotional, asking Smith and the audience, “Why are they upset about children learning about God?” He then added, “You can’t compartmentalize your faith, your education … they are all things, that are part of who you are.”

Because it’s against the First Amendment, you moron! Kern then went on to use a version of the “why-are-there-stlll-monkeys” argument:

Kern also said the theory of evolution was a “lie … (they) have been teaching and preaching and proselytizing for 70 years …”

This is where Kern began to argue that evolution – at least macroevolution – doesn’t make sense because “viruses are still viruses” and other organisms are still what they have always been … “You’re talking about adaptation here,” he told her.

Smith went on to talk further about viruses, while Kern sat there with a sour look on his face, coming back to tell her that “You go back and viruses are viruses … they may have adapted … they are still viruses.”

. . . “If evolution is true, why are so many people asking about its validity,” asked Kern.

The debate wound up with a Q&A:

During a question-and-answer portion, following the conclusion of the debate, one of the questions had to do with God and that if there was a God, wouldn’t the study of evolution expose His existence?

Smith thought about it and said, “Theoretically.”

Kern, of course, said that if a design is revealed, then logically there must be a “designer.”

This is one time when Abbie failed to score big.  “Theoretically,” is a confusing answer. I would have responded, “Yes, the study of evolution has given evidence against the existence of God, for no Designer God would have used the wasteful and incredibly painful process of natural selection to forge His creations, nor would He have pointlessly led 99% of all species that ever lived to a final extinction.  If a beneficent and omnipotent God wanted to bring things into being, natural selection—with all the incalculable and pointless suffering it brings to innocent animals—would have been the last process He would have used.  And, of course, there are all those design flaws, like the small birth canals of women. . . ”

Kern, apparently, failed to grasp the elementary tenet of evolution that natural selection gives the appearance of design without the need for a designer. Nous n’avons pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.

Kudos to Abbie, who, unlike other students, is using her spring break productively.

Student Abbie and Pastor Kern (Andrew W. Griffin / Red Dirt Report)

UPDATE: The Oklahoma City Biblical Examiner has a different (and poorly-written) take on the debate. LOL!:

At one point, Ms. Smith said that, if evolution were proven false, all science would be useless and she would have no reason to go to work the next day.  It is unclear whether she was referring to macro-evolution or micro-evolution.  Macro-evolution is an unobservable hypothesis which supposedly took place in the far distant past.  It has no bearing on observable science today.

The Biblical Examiner needs to learn the difference between “unobservable” and “we can see it happening in real time with our own eyes.” One can certainly observe feathered dinosaurs in the fossil record around 140 million years ago, as well as a gazillion “mammal-like reptiles” and “fishapods.” And then there are those annoying early hominins . . .