Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
There’s an eagle in the nest on the the live Eaglecam. If you’re awake, go look! I’ll keep the site visible on my spare laptop much of today and post here with the time (EST) when I see eagles. Check back from time to time.
6:52 EST: EAGLES: two of them! What magnificent birds! One of them is bringing sticks to the nest, which is obviously still being built. Eggs and chicks to come!
7:54 EST: Both eagles still there; they’re building the nest.
9:00 EST: Eagles out hunting or looking for sticks.
9:32 EST: Both eagles back in the nest, busily tucking in sticks.
Elaine Ecklund’s Templeton-funded book, Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think, was a prime example of how to frame disagreeable data by distorting it, Faced with data showing that scientists, especially at “elite” universities, are largely atheistic, she talked repeatedly about “spirituality,” hoping that readers would unconsciously make the elision between “spiritual” and “religious.” She also counted as “religious” those scientists who align themselves with a “religious tradition.” (I’m one of these, for although I’m an atheist I frequently tell people I’m Jewish.) And Ecklund’s been doing this frenetic framing ever since her book came out. Such is the power of Templeton money.
Ecklund continues her campaign with a turgid essay, the headline post at today’s Huffpo Religion (where else?), “Why university scientists do not discuss religion.” You’d think this reticence would be a good thing, but Ecklund deplores it, for it prevents the loving union between science and faith that she so desires (and was funded to promote):
But religion appears to be advancing on university campuses. There has been a rise in the number of religious studies departments, societies for the scholarly study of religion (in a variety of disciplines), and institutes devoted to dialogue between religion and science. Yet, perhaps because of how busy their research keeps them (the working hours per week for research university professors has steadily increased over the past 40 years) or their inherent lack of interest in religion, many elite scientists do not know about such efforts.
And since those scientists who are religious often keep their faith closeted, their nonreligious colleagues have little reason to think there is any place for religion in the academy, or any way for science and religion to be reconciled. This is too bad because many scientists who fear the encroaching impact of religion generally fear the most fundamentalist forms of it. And since their fellow scientists with religious views are reluctant to talk openly about their own beliefs, such stereotypes are rarely dispelled. . .
What happens if we fail to engage with religion? An explosion might happen!
If the scientists at elite universities fail to successfully engage with religion on their campuses, other American universities might follow suit. And if the current resurgence of religion on college campuses collides with persistently antireligious models of university life, might a collision or an explosion of some sort be inevitable?
(Note the dreadful writing that characterizes this essay: if there is already a collision, then a collision might be inevitable!)
My research shows that religious scientists often already feel embattled in their academic communities. They struggle with how public they should be about their faith commitments, given that so many of their colleagues are negative toward religion (evangelicalism and fundamentalism, in particular). Yet because religious scientists rarely talk candidly about their faith while in the university environment, they have not yet realized that a significant proportion of their colleagues, although not religious themselves, are open to talking and thinking about religion and matters of faith. In this way, both groups end up closeting faith and perpetuating the assumption that there is no safe place for intelligent discussions about religion on America’s elite university campuses.
Templeton sure got its money’s worth.
But don’t worry, Dr. Ecklund—I’m doing my bit! I’m at an “elite” university, and I am speaking up more about religion—though perhaps not exactly in the way you’d like.
While staying with old friends in Cambridge, I noticed again a framed letter on their wall—a letter to my friend Betsy from none other than J. Edgar Hoover, evil FBI director for nearly half a century, from 1924 to 1972. When she was a girl, Betsy had dreams of becoming an FBI agent, and wrote to Hoover in 1963 asking how to do it. He sent back this personal reply (click to enlarge):
Guess what the “other positions of responsibility and trust which are held by women” were?
Well, times have changed, and now more than 2,000 women are special FBI agents. The absorption of women into what were traditionally “men’s jobs,” and the recognition that women had a right to go for them, is one of the great moral victories of our time, and I watched it happen. Sadly, in much of the world that victory has yet to be achieved.
I like to fancy that this website anchors a small community, so that, instead of haranguing each other to perform salacious acts with rusty utensils, we actually get to know each other. Many of you have read Doc Bill’s comments, and know that he is the über-proud owner of his kitteh Kink, a tabby with a bent tail. Kink was a runner -up in the Awesome Kitteh Contest, and the subject of an awesome Thankgiving card that I also posted.
Now, however, Doc Bill is trying to parlay Kink’s fame into a lucrative empire, and has established (on the urging of myself and Miranda Hale) a website for the cat, kinkthecat.com. There you can see photos of the lolzy creature, and read his sporadic postings.
But publicity was not enough—Doc Bill wanted money. And so he made this, currently holding my morning latte:
Yes, that’s Doc Bill, in his characteristic Hawaiian shirt, with his beloved Kink. He has in fact set up a Kink the Cat Store at CafePress, hoping to cash in on his kitteh. (I doubt that Kink sees any profits!)
Doc sent me a free mug, doubtlessly knowing that I’d publicize his store and and send business his way. You can buy Kink mugs, tee shirts, and even (if you have a goggie you want to pwn), Kink the Cat Dog Shirts!
Okay, I’ve done my duty for the free mug. But two hints to Doc Bill: Make the logo bigger, and allow comments on Kink’s blog.
This entry came from reader Yokohamamama, whose eponymous blog I’ve mentioned before. If you’re interested in things Japanese, including kittehs, birds, plants, and food, have a look (and check out her 11 favorite songs). The cat is not hers, but who cares?
This kitteh is in fact a neighbor’s kitteh and not my own (my kitteh, Clio, is in Arizona taking care of my mom since her liver transplant). I don’t know his name, and he doesn’t allow me to get close to him, but we have a nodding acquaintance. I see him nearly every day when I put the futons out to air. He’s usually draped across the roof of another neighbor’s silver sports car, languidly sunning himself in luxurious tranquility. On this particular day, as I was returning from a morning walk, I looked up and was surprised to see him perched on the roof—hardly a comfortable posture. I watched for several minutes, but he never moved or blinked. I could only assume, given his expression, that he had repented of his luxurious lifestyle and was doing his early morning Zazen on the ridgepole as penance for his sins. Caption: “I can haz Buddah Nacherz”
This Richard Strauss song is one of the Vier Letzte Lieder (“Four Last Songs”) composed by Richard Strauss in 1948. They really were his last songs, and he never heard them performed.
My favorite is Beim Schlafengehen (“On going to sleep”), clearly about death. And the best version, by far, is by soprano Jessye Norman. Her voice is almost inhumanly powerful, and the song ineffably beautiful. The crescendo, at 3:10, and the ending, always make me tear up. If you don’t like this, you don’t have ears to hear:
If I can hear music on my deathbed, this is the song I want them to play.
There are two issues here, both of which we’ve considered before here at WEIT. First is the species concept issue, which both Jerry and I mentioned recently (links to Jerry’s posts in mine). The second is a scientific nomenclature issue, one that arose in the infamous Darwinius case.
The species concept issue also comes in two parts. First, are the mainland clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa) and the insular clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi) distinct species? And, second, among the insular clouded leopards, are the Bornean and Sumatran populations distinct? The first issue was the focus of two papers in 2006 which raised the insular leopards to full species status. Normally, the raising of insular forms to full species status on the basis of being different from the mainland form raises a warning flag for me, but there is an additional consideration which I think in this case supports the raising to full species status. This is that the islands of Borneo and Sumatra are on the Sunda Shelf, and thus were connected to the mainland as recently as about 10,000 years ago (see Harold Voris’s superb series of paleo-bathymetric maps of the Sunda Shelf for details). So, the insular and mainland forms were in contact very recently, and one good explanation for why this contact would not have led to an erosion of the genetic differences between them is that they were reproductively isolated (i.e., different species). There are other possible interpretations, but the recent contact combined with observed differences certainly makes the 2-species taxonomy reasonable.
The new, unpublished, paper argues not for a new species, but for dividing the insular form into two subspecies, one from Borneo and one from Sumatra. (A subspecies is recognized when there is a particular pattern of geographic variation within a species, namely that there is a geographic segment of the species’ range within which individuals can be distinguished from individuals from other parts of the range. Basically, if you can tell where an individual is from by the way it looks, or, if you tell me where the individual is from, I can tell you what it looks like, then you can name a subspecies.) This seems perfectly reasonable to me.
The problem is that they describe a new subspecies in the paper (rather than reviving a previously described one), but they have also posted a pre-print online and allowed press coverage. Online posting does not constitute publication in the formal sense, and their paper will soon be published on paper. But by generating press coverage (the BBC has included the new name in its coverage) and posting online, they increase the chance that the name will be formally published before their paper appears in print, either accidentally, or on purpose by an unscrupulous individual wanting to steal credit for their work (it does happen). This was part of the problem with Darwinius: the name Darwinius was bandied about before the name was published.
The authors are actually compounding a problem they created for themselves earlier: they published the new name in 2007 (I have not seen this paper), but now consider their proposal at the time nomenclaturally defective, and the name not nomenclaturally available from that publication. (The technical term for what they now regard their 2007 effort is a nomen nudum: a nude name, i.e. a name without a proper description accompanying it, and thus not available for use as a scientific name). The nomenclature of this name could be confused. I hope their paper appears soon.
One thing highlighted by this paper that I want to unreservedly endorse is the use of camera traps for the study of elusive large mammals. These traps have helped with studies of a number of species, including several big cats: jaguars(including Arizona jaguars), Saharan cheetahs, Asiatic cheetahs, tigers, as well as clouded leopards. The BBC, NYT, and other media often highlight the results of these studies. Recently, camera traps revealed an unexpected high-altitude population of tigers in Bhutan, in a valley where three big cats– leopard, snow leopard, and tiger– all live together.
____________________________________________________________
Buckley-Beason, V.A. et al. 2006. Molecular evidence for species-level distinctions in clouded leopards. Current Biology 16:2371-2376. (pdf)
Kitchener, A.C., M.A. Beaumont, and D. Richardson. 2006. Geographical variation in the clouded leopard, Neofelis nebulosa, reveals two species. Current Biology 16:2377-2383. (pdf)
Wilting, A., V.A. Buckley-Beason, H. Feldhaar, J. Gadau, S.J. O’Brien, and K.E. Linsenmair. 2007. Clouded leopard phylogeny revisited: support for species recognition and population division between Borneo and Sumatra. Front. Zool. 4:15. (not seen)
Wilting, A., P. Christiansen, A.C. Kitchener, Y.J.M. Kemp, L. Ambu, and J.Fickel. 2011. Geographical variation in and evolutionary history of the Sunda clouded leopard (Neofelis diardi) (Mammalia: Carnivora: Felidae) with the description of a new subspecies from Borneo. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution in press. (pdf)
