Templeton’s latest: Two wooish videos and an accommodationist interview

March 5, 2011 • 10:08 am

Over at its Big Questions site, Templeton has highlighted two short (ca. 3 minute) videos—both touting the limitations of science and, by default, the importance of Jebus, and has also published an accommodationist interview conducted by Rod Dreher.

The first video, by Eric Priest, holder of the Gregory Chair of Mathematics at the University of St. Andrews, claims that materialism leads to an impoverished view of the world. He notes that there are many important questions that science can’t address (e.g., “Do I love my wife?, “Is that painting beautiful?” and “What is my purpose in life?”)  Priest adds that are actually four different worlds: the physical one, the mathematical world, the world of Priest’s personal consciousness, which he sees as different from the physical world (really?), and the world of the ultimate (? I didn’t catch the word) consciousness, “which God inhabits.”  All of these worlds, he claims, are necessary for a satisfactory understanding of reality.  He doesn’t say why he’s so sure of God’s existence.

Priest, an Anglican, is a member of the Faraday Institute for Science and Religion, which is partly supported by Templeton, is a former member of the Templeton Board of Advisors, and has received grant money from the Templeton Foundation.

The second video shows physicist Russell Stannard of the Open University talking about the limits of science in “providing a common morality”.  It’s all well and good: he talks about kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and so on, but then claims that science can’t understand the broader aspects of morality, like people giving money to starving Ethiopians, or loving their enemies.  The question he’s actually addressing in this short clip is not whether science provides morality (we know that’s a subject that’s under hot dispute), but whether science can help us understand the origin of human morality.  He notes that the “deeper levels of morality are extremely difficult for science to be able to explain.” As an opponent of Templeton, I see here a subtle injection of woo, i.e., a religious explanation, though Stannard is not explicit.  In principle, I don’t see why science couldn’t at least explain human morality; in fact, we’re starting to do so now.

Stannard, a religious believer, has published four books with the Templeton Press, is the director of the Templeton Cambridge Journalism Programme in Science and Religion, and was winner of a Templeton Project Trust Award.

Let us not forget how Templeton cultivates these people, putting them on their boards, giving them money, and then recruiting them as talking heads. Let us also remember where Templeton’s goals really lie.  If you think they’re heading towards pure science, just keep an eye on what they fund—and what they present on their webpage.

Finally, in a piece called “Darwin pushed to margins” Rod Dreher (director of publications at Templeton) inteviews Penn State political scientist Eric Plutzer.  The interview starts okay, showing the dire state of evolution teaching in America, but then veers a bit off the rails when Dreher asks Plutzer how to deal with the problem:

Our research also points to another possible opportunity. We estimate that no more than 30 percent of Americans belong to faith traditions that emphasize a strict and literal reading of the Bible that may lead adherents to see a potential conflict between their faith and the findings of evolutionary biology. The contradictions are rooted in beliefs about the antiquity of the earth, Adam and Eve, and the idea that all current animals descend from those on Noah’s ark.  Probably, the actual number is far fewer than 30 percent because many churches with their roots in the early Fundamentalist movement can accommodate some figurative passages in the Bible. Nevertheless, these ideas have diffused into the larger population and are held by others whose own pastors, priests and rabbis see no inherent contradiction between scripture and science. I think there are opportunities for those associated with these other faith traditions to better articulate how faith accommodates modern science, and vice verse.[sic] These positions have been eloquently made by Francisco Ayala, Kenneth Miller, and other scientists. But the challenge has not been taken up as effectively in the mass media or in individual congregations. We see an opportunity for greater accommodation and this would mean that more students would enter their high school biology class with an open mind.

More broadly, many people of faith are drawn to the study of evolution to explore God’s work, and find a spiritual connection in their study of nature. This perspective was common in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but is not often enough articulated in current debates about evolution. Maybe that is because nobody has yet stated it more eloquently than Darwin himself:

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Doesn’t this gratuitous osculation of the rump of faith remind you of Elaine Ecklund’s “conclusions” in her Templeton-funded book, Science and Religion: What Scientists Really Think?

That’s not surprising, for the interview with Plutzer is based on a book he wrote with Michael Berkman, Evolution, Creationism, and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms. Guess who funded the book?

It’s no coincidence that Templeton funds these book projects, and then their authors go public asserting that the adoption of science in America requires that scientists make nice to religion.  Templeton gets full value for its buck.

Illinois creationists retreat, tail between legs

March 5, 2011 • 9:01 am

Two days ago I wrote about candidates for both the Fremont and Lake Zurich school boards, in northern Illinois, who were in favor of teaching creationism alongside evolution in public school science classes.  I was distressed to learn that all four of the Lake Zurich candidates answered “yes” to the question, “Do you believe that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in science classes?”

Cue a rapid retreat of three of them (all incumbents) after they were excoriated for their stand.  As the Daily Herald reports,

In a separate telephone interview, [Doug] Goldberg said he misunderstood the context of the original question.

Goldberg said he’s researched the issue since the original Daily Herald interview session and understands teaching creationism in science class is against the law.

In a separate telephone interview, [Tony] Pietro said he misunderstood the question and didn’t remember that it specifically referred to science classes.

“I would like to retract the comment as it pertains to creationism in the science classroom,” he said. “Creationism is not a scientific theory, and creationism has no place in a science classroom.”

If creationism is taught at school, it would have to be in a world culture or sociology class that gives all religions equal time, Pietro said.

He apologized for the confusion.

[Jim] Burke could not be reached for comment Friday. At the previous night’s public forum, he said he has never supported creationism in science class and that “any quote that may make it look like I do has been taken out of context.”

Nonincumbent Chris Wallace stands by his statement.  People of Lake Zurich—DEFEAT HIM!

And, rattled, the Lake Zurich Board of Education published a letter on its web page asserting that creationism is not part of their school curriculum, that they’re scrupulously following the law, and that there is no “controversy” over creationism:

The Illinois Learning Standards and the laws of Illinois do not allow for the teaching of creationism in science class, and we do not do so.

For at least the past six years during which current Board members have been seated, never once has the subject of creationism been discussed or even mentioned. No sitting Board member has ever asked to have the issue of creationism put on a meeting agenda, nor has any current Board member expressed plans to do so. Simply put, the issue of whether to teach creationism in a science class is not a controversy that exists in District 95. It is a controversy that has been created by an article published by the Daily Herald last Friday.

That’s all well and good, and I’m pretty sure creationism won’t rear its head in Lake Zurich schools, but the letter is a bit disingenuous.  For one thing, it was signed by Burke, Goldberg, and Pietro—the very incumbents who made the pro-creationist statements.  Further, the controversy was not created by the newspaper; it was created by these three mushheads and their non-repentant crony saying stupid things in public, and betraying an ignorance of the law.  They’ve already revealed their beliefs and the incumbents have shown themselves to be weasels, politicians without honor (is that an oxymoron?) For both reasons they should be defeated.

h/t: The Sensuous Curmudgeon (who really should reveal who he/she is) and Michael

Caturday felid: claustrophilic kittehs

March 5, 2011 • 5:18 am

Today we have two cats who like to be enclosed in tight spaces (this seems to be common among housecats, perhaps reflecting an evolutionary past that included denning).

First, from the Daily Mail, comes Ksyusha, a crazed kitten who loves to crawl into tight spaces, including jars and dryers.  Her owner swears that she does this on her own volition.

x

xx

And of course our old standby, Maru the Japanese Scottish fold, who just nabbed the Salon Viral Video award for Best Animal Performance.  Maru, as you know, has a penchant for entering boxes, regardless of their size. In this, the winning video, Maru’s owner (the pseudonymous “mugomogu”) actually does a scientific experiment to test which size of box Maru most prefers:

Mimicry: The nefarious cuckoo

March 4, 2011 • 7:12 am

Chimps and other primates may show a rudimentary form of morality, but it’s clear that by and large nature is pretty heartless—as you’d expect given the character of natural selection. Nevertheless, who hasn’t felt like reproving the cheetah who brings down, on film, a cute young Thompson’s gazelle?

In class this week, my students were saddened and dismayed by another of nature’s nefarious wonders, the cuckoo—in particular, the common cuckoo (Cuculus canorus).  Here’s one:

The cuckoo has hit on the mother of all adaptations, a phenomenon called brood parasitism.  Instead of spending huge amounts of time building a nest, brooding eggs, and feeding the voracious young until they fledge, the female cuckoo recruits an individual of another bird species to do all the work for her—a full-time babysitter.  That way, the cuckoo can use its time and resources maximizing its reproductive effort without the enormous expense of childcare.

A female cuckoo simply lays one egg in the nest of another species, say a reed warbler or a dunnock, where there is already a clutch of eggs. The cuckoo’s egg then nestles inconspicuously among the others. Inconspicuously? Yes, for the female cuckoo lays an egg that mimics pretty well the other eggs in the nest, so the foster mother can’t easily detect the intrusion.

The curious thing is that within the common cuckoo species, each female lays an egg precisely patterned and color to mimic the eggs in the nest she will parasitize.   And here’s the kicker: within that cuckoo species there are seven different types of females, each laying a different type off egg and each parasitizing only the nests of species producing similarly-colored eggs.  The different “types” of cuckoos that lay different eggs are called gentes.  The gentes are not different species of cuckoos—they are all members of the same species, but with different types of genes that make different types of eggs.  This is an example of a genetic polymorphism (from the Greek meaning “different forms”).   Polymorphisms are not rare in animals and plants: our own species has them, including eye color variants and whether your earwax is wet or dry (a trait based on a single gene).

Here are four of the different types of eggs laid by four cuckoo gentes.  The species that is parasitized is on the left, the mimetic cuckoo egg on the right.  Again, each female lays only one type of egg her whole life.

Here are some actual nests, each containing a single cuckoo egg, indicated by the arrow.  Note that the mimicry is very good but not perfect—a human observer (but not the bird) can pick out slight differences, and the cuckoo egg is often larger:

What happens next is sad, but a remarkable adaptation showing nature in all its red toothiness and clawdom.  The cuckoo chick hatches and proceeds to destroy all its competitors—the other eggs and chicks—leaving it the sole recipient of foster care (click on the “Watch on YouTube” line).

As Attenborough notes in the video, brood parasitism has evolved in many bird species, including the “cuckoo duck” Heteronetta atricapilla.

The European cuckoo’s adaptive habit raises lots of questions.  Why is the foster parent fooled by the mimetic eggs, but can’t seem to recognize a cuckoo chick that is so different from its own?  In some species of brood parasites, like indigobirds, the foster mother can recognize foreign chicks, and so the parasite babies have evolved calls and “mouth gape” patterns (coloration on the babies’ mouths that induce feeding by the mother) that mimic those of the non-foster young.  Another explanation is that the foster mother’s drive to feed whatever chick it sees in its nest outweighs everything else: that is, there’s simply no genetic variation for the foster mother to respond to an alien-looking chick.  While genetic variation is pervasive in nature, it’s not always around when it’s “needed.”  Every case of a parasite or predator victimizing another species, for example, represents an absence (perhaps temporary) of genetic variation in the victim to fully overcome the challenge.

The biggest mystery, though, is how the polymorphism for color pattern is maintained.  How, for example, does a female “know” where to lay its egg?  If it had the genes for producing eggs that mimic reed warblers, and laid its egg in a dunnock nest, that egg would be summarily ejected and its genes would not be passed on.

This problem is overcome by imprinting: a female imprints on the song and appearance of its foster mother, so when it comes time for a cuckoo to lay its own egg, it goes right back to a nest harboring a female on which it’s imprinted.

But what about mating?  Males, after all, also carry genes for egg color and pattern—they just don’t express them.  (If you’re a male human, you carry genes for making breasts and vaginas, but don’t express those either.)  But if a female mates with a male carrying egg-pattern genes different from hers, wouldn’t the eggs that their daughter produce be intermediate, and therefore unable to pass the test of mimicry?

One possible answer is that a female knows to mate only with those males carrying similar egg-pattern genes.  But this isn’t the case. First of all, there’s no way a female can detect a male’s genetic endowment for egg pattern.  But more important, research has shown that female cuckoos mate randomly—they don’t know or care what a male’s “egg genes” are.  So how does the pattern fidelity work?

We’re not sure, but it may involve the birds’ sex chromosomes.  In birds, unlike mammals, it is the female who has two different sex chromosomes, called the Z and the W. In humans males are XY and females are XX, but in cuckoos and other birds (and butterflies), females are ZW and males are ZZ.  A ZW female produces ZW daughters, so the W chromosome, and the genes it carries, are transmitted matrilinearly.  The male makes no genetic contribution to this chromosome.

This, then, is a possible solution to the egg-color polymorphism. If the genes for a specific egg color and shape are carried only on the W chromosome, then in the offspring those genes will not be mixed with any genes from the father.  This will enforce a fidelity of egg type between female and daughter, regardless of who the female mates with.  That, combined with the tendency of female cuckoos to imprint, explains how the single common cuckoo species can harbor several types of females, each laying a different mimetic egg, and with very few “mistakes.”

The genetic studies verifying the location of egg-mimic genes on the W chromosome have yet to be done: you can imagine how hard it would be to cross different cuckoos in the lab or aviary, for that would also involve providing foster parents!  This is a project for a bright and energetic graduate student.

And, of course, this whole story tells you where the word “cuckold” came from.

Meryln gets castrated today

March 4, 2011 • 5:54 am

For some it’s not a good Friday, so spare a thought this morning for poor Merlyn, the cat of reader daveau. As you read this, Merlyn’s on his way to the vet for excision of the family jewels.  Daveau, as you may recall, was the owner of Kitteh Contest entries Bryxie and Keeshu. Daveau’s introduction:

Meet Merlynus. He came into our lives 6 weeks ago as a 4-1/2 month old kitten. This little guy is an unholy terror; dashing through the house on top secret kitteh missions, knocking over plants, scattering papers, upending food dishes, guarding fish tanks and perplexing the adult kittehs. Cuteness is his weapon.

Merlyn is a British Shorthair, from the same general bloodline as his great-great-(etc)-aunt Bryxie, who died a little over a year ago. Not a substitute, mind you, but enough like her to make us smile at the memories, and enough different that he will have his own special place in our hearts.


I’m going WHERE?

LAST CHANCE TO SEE!

So you think you knew Templeton? A new report.

March 3, 2011 • 8:58 am

I realize that there’s a disparity of opinion among my readers about the John Templeton Foundation.  Some, like me, feel that its mission is to blur the boundaries between science and religion, debasing the former and buying off the many scientists whom it supports with its deep pockets.  Others, recognizing that Templeton does support woo, nevertheless see no problem with scientists taking Templeton money for real science—or even accepting the Templeton Prize for Scientists Who Say Nice Things About Religion.

Regardless of your take, you should by all means read a new 23-page report on the Templeton Foundation by Sunny Bains (link goes right to the pdf download). Bains is a journalist and scientist at Imperial College London, and her report was supported by Sam Harris’s Project Reason (I’m on the board of advisors).   I’ll just give her introductory precis, but if you want to comment on the issues, do read the whole paper.  Curiously, it was published in the journal Evolutionary Psychology, which of course causes me some cognitive dissonance!

From the first two pages of her report:

For many who do not have a problem with the science/religion agenda of the Foundation, the issue is then one of integrity. Is the Foundation what it says it is? Are its stated goals and its actual goals the same (as judged by who and what it funds)? Does it operate in a transparent and non-corrupt way?

In this commentary, I consider five issues that suggest that the John Templeton Foundation is not what it represents itself to be:

1. The Foundation began as an overtly pro-religious organization. It has since changed its stated aims and goals, and their presentation, in a way that seems calculated to make them appear more “open-minded.” Nevertheless, the Foundation’s agenda—based on its actual activities—
seems to have remained the same.
2. The Foundation’s organizational structure and the awarding of its prizes appears to be rife with cronyism.
3. Respondents to the Foundation’s “Big Questions” (at least those questions with clear links to science) are disproportionately Foundation advisors and grantees, and yet it is implied that they represent a balance in responses.
4. The Foundation finances prestigious external organizations to run its activities, often without making the participants and/or audience aware of who provided the funding.
5. The Foundation and its current chairman, John (Jack) Marks Templeton, Jr., have a history of funding what could be seen as anti-science activities and groups (particularly concerning climate-change and stem-cell research).

_______

Bains, S.  2011.  Commentary: Questioning the integrity of the John Templeton Foundation. Evolutionary Psychology 9:92-115.