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.
by Greg Mayer
The Milwaukee County Zoo has a magnificent pair of African lions. The male has the sort of large, flaring mane that most of us associate with lions (but which is, in fact, subject to much individual and geographic variation; Asiatic lions, for example, have smaller manes).
The female is lithe and muscular; when living together in mixed-sex prides, females do much of the hunting.
We’ve mentioned lions here before at WEIT, including the almost mythical spotted ones.
I am back to the land of the living, and a two hour proboscis inspection determined that it was indeed flu and not toxic shock syndrome—sometimes a side effect of sinus surgery. I’m well on the mend and will resume regular websiting tomorrow.
The kitteh contest is closed: we have 86 entries, and many of them are AWESOME. Each judge, working independently of the others will rate cats on a scale from “1” (well above average) to “10” (truly awesome). This may take a week or so, so be patient, for the results will be (as Chris Mooney would say) “stunning.” And we have material for years of felids to come.
If you noticed a dearth of posts over the last few days, the reason is medical: on top of my sinus operation I got a really nasty case of flu, and have been flat on my back for four days. No email, no computer, not even any reading. I’m on the mend now, and should be back in fighting trim in a few days.
I’ve extended the kitteh contest (there are now many entries) to 6 pm (US) EST today, so bring out your cats!
The mission statement of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is as follows:
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents and concerned citizens working to keep evolution in public school science education. We educate the press and public about the scientific, educational, and legal aspects of the creation and evolution controversy, and supply needed information and advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national levels.
They also say this about religion:
What is NCSE’s religious position?
None. The National Center for Science Education is not affiliated with any religious organization or belief. We and our members enthusiastically support the right of every individual to hold, practice, and advocate their beliefs, religious or non-religious. Our members range from devout practitioners of several religions to atheists, with many shades of belief in between. What unites them is a conviction that science and the scientific method, and not any particular religious belief, should determine science curriculum.
So why does the NCSE, which supports every shade between faith and atheism, have a “Faith Project” but not an “Atheism Project”? And why is the NCSE promoting this on their site?:
Webcast: Evolving Christianity
Interested in exploring the issues raised by science and faith? A free webcast series promises to assemble “thirty of today’s most inspiring Christian leaders and esteemed scientists for a groundbreaking dialogue on how an evolutionary worldview can enrich your life, deepen your faith, and bless our world.” To be broadcast throughout December 2010 and January 2011, “Evolutionary Christianity — Conversations at the Leading Edge of Faith” includes interviews with NCSE Supporter Kenneth R. Miller, discussing “Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul,” as well as Ian Barbour, John Cobb, Michael Dowd, John F. Haught, Karl W. Giberson, Owen Gingerich, Denis Lamoureux, John Polkinghorne, John Shelby Spong, Charles H. Townes, and a host of further scientists and scholars who regard their acceptance of evolution as expanding and enriching their faith. To subscribe to the webcast series and the companion e-newsletter, visit http://evolutionarychristianity.com/.
Over at the endorsed webcast site, The Advent of Evolutionary Christianity, the NCSE’s neutrality toward religion looks a bit, well, compromised:
Saying Yes! To Both Religion and Science
Are you frustrated with how the mainstream media portray the science and religion issue? It’s as if the only two games in town were science-rejecting creationism and faith-rejecting atheism. But for the millions of us in the middle who see no conflict between faith and reason, heart and head, Jesus and Darwin, we know that’s a false choice. Religious faith and practice can be positively strengthened by what God is revealing through science!
Here are some of the participants:
Darrel Falk, President, BioLogos
Karl Giberson, Vice-President, BioLogos
John Polkinghorne, theologian
John Haught, theologian
Kevin Kelly, who thinks that evolution has been set up by God to attain preordained ends
Bishop Shelby Spong
Kenneth Miller, Catholic evolutionist who suggests that “the world . . . knew we were coming”
Dennis Lamoroux, author of I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution
Owen Gingerich, astronomer and member of the board of directors, Templeton Foundation
Philip Clayton, theologian
Tom Thresher, pastor
For a seminar selling “evolutionary Christianity”, evolutionists are a bit thin on the ground. I recognized only Kenneth Miller (who’s written on evolution, though he’s more of a cell biologist). In contrast, I recognized at least eight theologians. What gives? Is it to much to ask them to find a few professional working evolutionary biologists to participate—even Christian ones?
Oh, and the site says this as well:
Evolutionary Christianity points to those who value evidence as divine communication. Whatever our differences, we all have deep-time eyes and a global heart—that is, we’re all committed to a just and healthy future for humanity and the larger body of life.
“Studying evolution is like following cosmic breadcrumbs home to God. Only by looking through evolutionary eyes can we see our way out of the current global integrity crisis that is destroying economies and ecosystems around the world.”
Oh dear Lord, studying evolution leads us home to God? “Religious faith and practice can be positively strengthened by what God is revealing through science?” [My italics.] Evolutionary Christians consider evidence as “divine communication”? This is hardly “studied neutrality” toward religion: it’s an explicit endorsement not only of the harmony between Christianity and evolution, but even a statement that we can find God in evolution. In other words, it’s theology, which the NCSE isn’t supposed to do or endorse.
The NCSE should stop promoting this nonsense. Clearly, the panjandrums there have made an explicit decision that they’ll best further the teaching of evolution by cozying up to Christians, even if those Christians (like Kevin Kelly) have a completely teleological and unscientific view of what evolution is. It seems as if they don’t care what kind of evolution is endorsed, just so long as it’s called “evolution.” God directed it toward certain ends? That’s okay! Evolution is “undirected” and “purposeless”? No, we can’t have that, even if it’s true: might scare the Christians!
For what is an organization profited, if it shall gain the whole world, and lose its own soul?
h/t: Cathy
According to Panda’s Thumb, cdesign proponetist Michael Behe has a paper upcoming in a respectable journal: The Quarterly Review of Biology. Checking their website, it’s sure enough true:
Note also that philosopher Maarten Boudry and his colleagues have an attack on ID. This article is online and Nick Matzke says it’s “quite good.”
The Behe piece hasn’t yet appeared (I’ll let you know when it does), but Nick has this take on it:
If past experience is any guide, Behe’s article will make abstract arguments about the improbability of adaptations *if* many simultaneous events are required, but will present no evidence that many simultaneous events are likely to be necessary for the sorts of adaptations we actually see in biology. Positive evidence for ID will not be provided at all, but the article will be trumpeted as such by the usual ID propagandists. But the article isn’t out yet, so we’ll see, I suppose.
This would make the article similar to Behe’s book The Edge of Evolution, which I reviewed (and panned) for The New Republic, so it’s not clear why the piece is being published. I suppose it’s possible that Behe, blinkered and Jebus-loving as he is, could still produce a decent scientific paper, but I’m not holding my breath.
Behe, meanwhile, is flogging his books on a tour of the UK. You can see reviews of his Glasgow talk at The Twenty-First Floor and The Sensuous Curmudgeon. And if you haven’t seen his department’s disclaimer of his work, check out this link at Lehigh University’s Department of Biological Sciences.
We now have about 45 entries in the Awesome Cat Contest (see rules here); three winners will get autographed books, and all you have to do is send a photo of your kitteh and a paragraph of 250 or fewer words describing why he/she is so awesome.
The deadline is Wednesday, at 5 p.m. CST (6 pm US EST).
This is going to be a tough one for our celebrity judges; there are many winsome cats and wonderful stories, with some heartbreaks, too. If your cat isn’t chosen, never fear, for the rest will form a reserve to be posted from time to time. All shall have prizes!
Japanese Kitty Chan pan photo (not an entry) courtesy of Yokohamamama
Over at Metamagician, Brother Blackford has a nice post about the ways that humanities, rather than science, can help us “know” stuff. I think I’m pretty much on board with him: our big difference seems to be largely semantic. That is, I construe science broadly—as “empirical investigation combined with reason,” while Russell takes a narrower definition of traditional scientific investigation (chemistry, biology, physics, etc.). Thus, when I say that there is no way other than science to find out things about our world and universe, I’m pretty much agreeing with Brother B. The important point, which we both recognize, is that pure intuition, revelation, and unchallenged dogma are not ways of finding out things, other than about the subjective nature of the person who experiences them. In other words, they’re not “ways of knowing,” if by “knowing” you mean “something that nearly all rational people agree on as truth.”
Do remember that the phrase “there are other ways of knowing besides science” is almost always used as a justification not for the value of the humanities, but for the value of faith.
Brother B:
Why did I say “or at least new to the academy”? It’s because humanities scholars are generally dealing with human experience on Earth, so the stuff they find out will often be stuff that is or was known to somebody. If textual-historical scholarship on the Bible reveals that the Gospel of Matthew relies heavily on the Gospel of Mark and must have been written later, that is finding out something that was once known (very likely by whoever authored the Gospel of Matthew!). If someone manages to resolve what happened to Queen Zenobia after the fall of Palmyra (was she beheaded, as some sources say, or was she taken back to Rome, led in triumph, but ultimately set free, as other sources say?), that will be finding out something that we don’t currently know. Obviously, however, it was once known, for example to the Emperor Aurelian, who defeated her in battle.
I don’t think there is any sharp line between the sciences and the humanities, but you can see, I hope, how humanistic scholars are often trying to find out stuff that was once known by human beings who are not around to ask but have left traces, or sometimes by human beings who are still around but have not organised their knowledge in a sufficiently systematic and public way for the purposes of the academy. . .
However, there’s nothing spooky about the fact that humanities scholars and scientists are often trying to find out different things and that different techniques are likely to work for finding out these different things. An advanced knowledge of mathematics may be much more useful to a physicist than to an historian trying to settle what really happened to Zenobia. The latter may need to develop advanced skills in understanding a raft of ancient languages that are used in our conflicting records of poor Zenobia’s fate. These languages may be of little use to a physicist.
There are no “other ways of knowing”, if this refers to esoteric techniques that get us in touch with a supernatural realm. There are, however, numerous techniques for finding out stuff. Some of these techniques require no unusual training (I can look out the window and find out various things). Others may require advanced training, whether in mathematics, languages, the acquisition of extensive knowledge bases, developing certain ways of thinking about problems (yes, lawyers really are trained to think in a certain way, but there’s nothing spooky about it … it’s continuous with how we’re all trained in critical thinking), and so on.
I have two more “vacation-snap” posts about Colombia: this one and one on harlequin (“poison arrow”) frogs. When I was in Bogotá, my hosts kindly took me to the Plaza del Mercadeo de Paloquemao, a great central market for fruits, vegetables, flowers, and meat. What struck me most was the technicolor array of flowers and especially tropical fruits, many of which we never see in the US. Here are some photos:
The largesse (click to enlarge; this one is worth it!):
Granadilla:
Guanabana (makes a lovely drink):
Chirimoya (another luscious fruit):
Lulos (makes a tasty drink):
Mangos:
Papayas:
Zapote:
Avocados:
Plantains, ordered by ripeness:
Rectangular bananas!:
Let’s not forget the veggies. Here are some tiny potatoes (“papas criollas”); these are muy tasty:
Corn:
Pepino (a melon), with some limes:
And les fleurs. Bogotá and its environs comprise one of the world’s great sources for cut flowers. Many of these are sold at the market, at incredibly cheap prices. A dozen nice roses, for example, will set you back about two dollars.
The flower market is open-air, including many stalls:
Lily vendor and his product:
Roses were everywhere:
Water lily blossoms:
Heliconius and other tropical stuff:
A morning’s acquisitions (not mine, but I got to hold them):
