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.
This is smart. Off topic, but celebratory of human beings’ endless ability to re-create beautifully. I’d love to know how the curiosity, thoughts, ideas, and pictures developed in this inventor’s mind.
For years, sociologist Elaine Ecklund has made a career at Rice University by surveying religionists, scientists, and religious scientists, and twisting her survey data to show that science and religion are compatible. Science are “spiritual,” she says, and there are surprisingly more religious scientists than we think. (Go here to see the many posts I’ve written about her devious ways of spinning her data.) And she has pretended that her agenda is neutral: that she has no overt objective. After all, a sociologist must assume the mantle of objectivity when doing such surveys. But I suppose that’s hard when one is funded by the John Templeton Foundation, as is Ecklund. Templeton, after all, wants certain results.
But now Ecklund’s totally dropped the mantle of objectivity. That’s clear from both a video I’ll put up tomorrow as well as a news release from her university outlining her latest research: “Misonceptions of science and religion found in new study.”
Apparently that new study hasn’t yet been published, but I’m sure it’s forthcoming as a Templeton-funded book, and Ecklund talked about it last week at the AAAS meetings here in Chicago (I’ll show the video from that meeting tomorrow). Ecklund has now openly admitted that her aim is to show that science and religion are compatible, that people who think they aren’t are mistaken, and that we must promote such compatibility so that religious people will not be afraid to become scientists and government funding agencies won’t cut science because they see it as a vehicle for atheists. In other words, she’s driven by an agenda. That takes the “scientist” out of her status as “social scientist.”
What are the “misconceptions” in her latest work? This: “that science and religion can’t work in collaboration.”
Ecklund apparently surveyed garden-variety scientists (as opposed to the “elite” scientists of her previous work), as well as the general population and, especially, evangelical Christians. What she found, as described in the study, is this:
We found that nearly 50 percent of evangelicals believe that science and religion can work together and support one another,” Ecklund said. “That’s in contrast to the fact that only 38 percent of Americans feel that science and religion can work in collaboration.”
The study also found that 18 percent of scientists attended weekly religious services, compared with 20 percent of the general U.S. population; 15 percent consider themselves very religious (versus 19 percent of the general U.S. population); 13.5 percent read religious texts weekly (compared with 17 percent of the U.S. population); and 19 percent pray several times a day (versus 26 percent of the U.S. population).
The latter implies that scientists are just as religious as “regular” Americans, and, as I’ll show in a minute, that’s not quite the case. Ecklund has claimed this before, but, as Jason Rosenhouse noted, she had to finagle her data to reach that conclusion. But let me first note Ecklund’s lack of objectivity, as seen in her own words:
“This is a hopeful message for science policymakers and educators, because the two groups don’t have to approach religion with an attitude of combat,” Ecklund said. “Rather, they should approach it with collaboration in mind.”
In principle, her job is not to find a “hopeful message,” but to find the facts, be they hopeless or hopeful. But of course Templeton isn’t funding her to find opposition to science and religion.
Here are some other facts that Ecklund doesn’t mention:
Reason #3 – Churches come across as antagonistic to science.
One of the reasons young adults feel disconnected from church or from faith is the tension they feel between Christianity and science. The most common of the perceptions in this arena is “Christians are too confident they know all the answers” (35%). Three out of ten young adults with a Christian background feel that “churches are out of step with the scientific world we live in” (29%). Another one-quarter embrace the perception that “Christianity is anti-science” (25%). And nearly the same proportion (23%) said they have “been turned off by the creation-versus-evolution debate.” Furthermore, the research shows that many science-minded young Christians are struggling to find ways of staying faithful to their beliefs and to their professional calling in science-related industries.
What Ecklund is doing is simply ignoring these obvious signs that there is indeed an air of combat, or at least of incompatibility. What Ecklund sees as “compatibility,” however, seems to be that both religionists and nonbelievers can work together on issues of “common good”:
“Most of what you see in the news are stories about these two groups at odds over the controversial issues, like teaching creationism in the schools. And the pundits and news panelists are likely the most strident representatives for each group,” she said. “It might not be as riveting for television, but consider how often you see a news story about these groups doing things for their common good. There is enormous stereotyping about this issue and not very good information.”
Well, given that 46% of Americans are young-earth creationists, and almost all of those are religious, I’d say that scientists and believers are considerably at odds about teaching creationism in the schools. In fact, in a 2005 Harris Poll, 55% of Americans thought that creationism, ID, and evolution should all be taught in public schools, 23% creationism only, and 4% ID only. That makes 82% of Americans who want some form of religious-origin stories taught in public schools. Distressingly, only 12% wanted only evolution to be taught! Is that working together for the common good?
And of course “common good” could mean values that some atheists and believers have in common, including issues like gay rights or fighting poverty. But we don’t need surveys to do that; we form alliances based on our interests and perceptions of our allies, not on sociological polls. I’ll tell you this, though: if I wanted to give medical care to sick Africans, I’d rather work with a secular organization like Doctors Without Borders than with a religious organization, simply because the religious groups often proselytize.
Finally, here are some more signs that Ecklund considers “counterintuitive” and hopeful (my emphasis on the first point):
Notably missing here is the crucial figure: the proportion of scientists (comared to the general public) that are atheists and agnostics. To me, that disparity clearly shows a conflict between the religious and scientific mindset, reflecting either a penchant for nonbelievers to go into science or an erosion of religious belief when one becomes a scientist. (It’s undoubtedly both, but there is clear evidence that the latter is often the case.)
Finally, the press release shows a bit of irony. Ecklund finds that evangelical Christians who work in science are actually more religious than their evangelical brethren who don’t work in science. Why is that? Here’s Ecklund’s explanation:
“Evangelical scientists feel that they’ve been put under pressure or they find themselves in what they view to be more hostile environments,” she said. “They potentially see themselves as more religious, because they’re seeing the contrast between the two groups all the time.”
Does she not realize that that undercuts her whole thesis? If science and religion are pals, where does the “hostility” come from?
My Chicago colleague Neil Shubin is about to host a three-part PBS series on his book Your Inner Fish and its explication of the evolutionary origin of the human body. As the new website notes:
Have you ever wondered why the human body looks the way it does? Why our hands have five fingers instead of six? Why we walk on two legs instead of four?
It took more than 350 million years for the human body to take shape. How did it become the complicated, quirky, amazing machine it is today?
Your Inner Fish delves deep into the past to answer these questions. Premiering Wednesday, April 9, 2014, the three-part series reveals a startling truth: Hidden within the human body is a story of life on Earth.
The site has a lot of stuff; you can find the trailer and 15 education clips, for instance, here, and teacher/classroom resources are here. There are also many other scientists involved who will talk about vertebrate evolution (you can see their bios here).
This will be one to watch if you have any interest in evolution. And be sure to bring the kids!
The good thing about the internet is that you can debate scientific or other intellectual issues in almost real time, though the downside is that you don’t have reams of time to ponder and refine your answers.
Two days ago I criticized an article by writer Kas Thomas at Big Think: “The trouble with Darwin.” Thomas made many errors in his claims about the problems with modern evolutionary theory, and I tried to answer them. So did many commenters, both on this site and at Big Think.
Thomas replied by first calling his critics “haters,” and then by flaunting his biology degrees, tw**ting, “You need to get a couple of degrees in bio sciences from a real university (like UC Irvine or UC Davis) as I did, then come back and we’ll talk.” And he said that despite noting on another site that he “never used those degrees.”
Of course none of this constituted response to my original scientific criticisms, or those raised by the many commenters on Thomas’s original post.
For example, he claimed that we had no idea how speciation worked (cue the Juggalos here: “f*cking speciation—how does that work?). He claimed that we had no clues about how natural selection created new features (although we could understand how it eliminated features). He claimed that we didn’t understand how the bacterial flagellum evolved, or how the Cambrian Explosion proceeded, and so on.
Many of these criticisms—and note that Thomas’s title clearly implied that modern evolutionary theory was in trouble because of these problems—were taken from the creationist playbook. It’s no coincidence that Thomas used the flagellum, the Cambrian Explosion, and the inability of evolutionary theory to explain “gain of function” as his Big Problems with Darwinism. Those are, of course, common tropes of Intelligent Design flunkies. Clearly, Thomas had simply digested the ID literature and regurgitated it at Big Think. I patiently tried to explain in my critique how many of these criticisms were misguided, and that our lack of understanding of how some things evolved does not constitute a fatal flaw in modern evolutionary theory.
Now, at his oddly named website assertTrur(), Thomas attempts a more substantive reply in an equally oddly named post, “Scientists should be humble, not arrogant.” You’ll recognize that title, too, as a common STFU tactic of theologians and faitheists towards scientists. But arrogance is writing provocatively titled articles without the knowledge to back them up—and that Thomas does that in spades. In calling for “humility,” Thomas aligns himself closer with theologians and other critics of science. It’s the last resort of the desperate.
Thomas’s hurt feelings are paraded at the beginning of his new piece which, as a whole, is not a response to the scientific errors noted in his original post. (His words are indented.)
It’s shocking how much venom and bile you can stir up by criticizing Darwin in public. I more or less expected, when I wrote a post critical of evolutionary theory at BigThink.com, there’d be a few heated comments. I didn’t expect so many of the 350+ comments to be so heated. Quite a few of the comments were and are just plain ugly. And the most vitriolic attacks are coming not from the religious right, but from supporters of Darwin!
Looks like I struck a nerve.
Shades of Chris Mooney! For the “struck a nerve” trope is one often used by Mooney when making silly arguments that his critics jumped all over. It is a non-answer meant to imply that you’ve said something telling and thereby angered your misguided opponents. But the “nerve” that Thomas struck was not our knowledge that evolutionary theory is deeply problematic, but our resistance to the deep-seated ignorance shown by Thomas’s piece, and the fact that it was published at a once-reputable site.
Thomas goes on to aver that he is not a creationist, and that he doesn’t believe in “magical thinking.” Why, then, did he just regurgitate arguments taken from creationists? Did he not think before he wrote?
He then flaunts his degrees again—you know, the ones he didn’t use:
More than one commenter suggested I get some biology training before writing about evolution. (One person touted his bio degree from the University of California at Irvine, unaware that I also have a degree in biology from UCI.) I guess I should have made clear, up front, that I have two degrees in biology: a B.S. from UCI and a master’s in microbiology (summa cum laude) from UC Davis, where I was a Regents’ Fellow. I took (and passed) qualifying exams for a Ph.D. One of the specialty areas I was examined in was molecular genetics.
Well, none of that training is in evolutionary biology per se, but let’s put that aside. The fact is that had Thomas done even the minimal amount of research, or consulted a real evolutionary biologist, he would have known that his criticisms of evolutionary theory were tripe. He would have known, for instance, that we know a good deal more about speciation than we did in the 1930’s, and a huge amount more than Darwin did. (Despite the title of Darwin’s book, he had very little to say about how one lineage divides into two or more.) And we know in many cases precisely how “gain of new functions” arises. Gene duplication, which I mentioned in my original critique, is one; and the cooption of old features to new (e.g., lactate dehydrogenase enzymes recycled to make lens proteins in animal eyes) is another.
In response, he either stands his ground or makes even more mistakes. Here’s an example of the latter:
What did I say in my BigThink blog that was so shocking? First let’s get clear what I did not say. One of the commenters claimed I said changes in DNA were not responsible for evolution. I never said that. What I said was that point mutations (of the kind the give rise to single-nucleotide polymorphisms) are almost certainly not a major driver of evolution. We know this because it’s been demonstrated many times that the majority of non-neutral point mutations are deleterious, leading to loss of function, not gain of function. Spend some time reading about “Muller’s ratchet” if you don’t believe me.
The fact is that in many, many cases, we know that point mutations are drivers of evolution; in fact, I’d say we have enough evidence to say that they are major drivers of evolution. Even in gene duplication, where the new functions arise after genes duplicate and then diverge (e.g., alpha versus beta hemoglobins), you have to have those post-duplication point mutations to get adaptive evolution. Or, when adaptation arises via changes in “regulatory regions” (or transcription factors: those proteins that regulate the expression of other genes), that, too, occurs via point mutations. And even in “neutral evolution” (changes in DNA that aren’t “adaptive,” but either neutral or slightly deleterious), we see divergence via the accumulation point mutations as well.
I am in fact hard pressed to think of much evolution, adaptive or not, that doesn’t involve point mutations. Simple gene duplication without divergence, so that you duplicate genes to make a lot more of an identical protein, is one example. (I believe that’s how cold-water fish make antifreeeze proteins.) But Thomas is simply wrong in his logic that because most mutations are deleterious, point mutations cannot be a major driver of evolution. Mutations are numerous and recurrent, and some of them will be beneficial. They just have to be sufficiently frequent to be the substrate of adaptation. And we know that populations have reservoirs of low-frequency mutations that are deleterious but can become adaptive when the environment changes. Her are two examples: white coat-color genes in mice that are maladaptive in their normal habitats but are useful when those mice invade white beaches. Or, the low frequency of insecticide resistance genes in mosquitoes that can become adaptive once humans apply insecticide. The success of artificial selection in almost every case testifies to the reservoir of deleterious forms of genes (kept in the population by recurrent mutation) that can suddenly become useful.
But Thomas’s real failure to educate himself is shown in what he says about speciation, a topic with which I’m well acquainted, having written an entire 500-page book on it with Allen Orr.
How, then, does speciation occur? We don’t know. No one has seen it occur in the lab. Nature no doubt relies on a variety of tactics, some of which we know a good deal about, many of which we barely understand, no doubt others of which we haven’t yet discovered. We know that sexuality (which is probably around a billion years old) has led to an explosion of diversity (and has kept Muller’s ratchet from sending countless species into extinction). On a molecular level, there are still many things we don’t understand about how chromatin is managed, how micro-RNA is regulated, when and why DNA methylases come into play, the relative importance (or unimportance) of translocases, and much, much more. To assert that we understand how speciation occurs is to assert a half-truth. It’s like saying we understand the weather because we can measure atmospheric pressure.
Of course we don’t know everything about how speciation worked, but we now understand the process a lot more than we did in, say, 1930.
We know that it involves the evolution of barriers to reproduction, so that to achieve speciation, two populations must become mutually intersterile (i.e., unable to produce fertile hybrids). We know that in many cases that intersterility is promoted by natural selection, and occurs most readily when the populations are geographically isolated. We know in some cases the precise genes involved in reproductive isolation, and how they interact with other genes. We know that speciation is unlikely to occur without the involvement of natural selection, and is promoted by things like sexual dimorphism. We know that a substantial amount of plant speciation occurs via chromosome duplication (polyploidy), and we know exactly how this happens. We also know that some species of plants and animals have evolved reproductive barriers after hybridizing with other species (“hybrid speciation”), and, as with polyploidy, we can replicate that process, at least with plants, in the lab.
Believe me, I could not have written that long book with Allen just to say, “Well, folks, we still don’t know anything about speciation.” The book, which Thomas clearly hasn’t read, is a compendium of what we do know about speciation.
As for methylases, translocases, the management of chromosomes and the regulation of RNA, Thomas is just throwing sand in our faces. We have no idea whether any of those things are involved in speciation (except for changes in chromosome number and structure, which we do understand). Thomas is just spewing molecular-biology jargon to sound knowledgeable.
Finally, Thomas emits some god-of-the-gaps arguments. That is, he doesn’t invoke God, but argues that something is wrong with evolutionary theory because we can’t yet explain everything. To wit:
One of the major embarrassments of modern biology is that more than a decade after having sequenced the human genome, we still don’t know what most of our DNA does: We can account for 30,000 human genes (which is not even ten times the number of genes in E. coli). Meanwhile our DNA has enough base-pairs to encode 3 million genes. But we’re pretty sure the “true number” of human genes is under 50,000. What does all that DNA do? We have some hints at answers, but no more than that. (Note: When the surplus of DNA in the human genome was first discovered, scientists called it “junk DNA.” It took years for that unfortunate terminology to disappear.) The honest answer is, we’re still not even close to understanding what all our DNA is doing.
So frickin’ what? First of all, that’s not evolutionary theory, but molecular genetics. It has nothing to do with “Darwinism”, as Thomas mistakenly calls modern evolutionary theory. And, yes, we don’t understand the function of all “junk DNA,” but we do understand some of it: inactive ancient viruses that have inserted themselves into our genome. We also know that we have inactive remnants of ancient DNA in our genome that were once active in our ancestors. One example: our many inactive olfactory receptor genes that we no longer need because we’re auditory and visual rather than olfactory beasts.
Of one thing I’m sure: eventually we will resolve the question of what all that extra DNA is doing. But in the meantime, in what sense is this an “embarrassment” to modern biology? Only Thomas, with his drive to discredit evolutionary biology, could see unsolved problems as “embarrassments.” They are challenges, and without them all science would grind to a halt. Is “dark matter” an embarrassment to physics? I don’t think physicists would agree. They are excited by this new possibility.
Finally, after playing the “butthurt” card and the “I haz credentials” card, Thomas plays the “humility card,” one that theologians often have up their sleeve when they’re losing at science poker:
It’s been my experience that the best scientists are humble, rather than proud. They’re willing to concede the immensity of what they don’t know. Arrogance and over-confidence are hallmarks of immaturity, in science as well as in life.
So we’re immature? Give me a break! All of us scientists concede what we don’t know, and where the unsolved puzzles lie. I mentioned several of them in my previous post.
And talk about overconfidence: what about a man who makes specious arguments about problems with speciation and inability to explain evolutionary novelty—all without having read the relevant literature? Sorry, but I won’t be lectured at by Thomas. I know where the unsolved puzzles are in my field, but I also know what we do know. So I don’t need Thomas to tell us this:
The list of things we don’t understand is far longer than the list of things we do understand. If we don’t understand that, all is lost.
That’s just a platitude. The person who is lost here is Kas Thomas, who badly needs to brush up on his evolutionary biology.
One thing is sure, though: the man is sufficiently arrogant that we’ll never hear him back down from his claims about speciation, evolutionary novelty, or point mutations. He’s not humble enough to admit that he was mistaken. And he’s not humble enough to stop flaunting the biology degrees that he admits he never used.
I have put a link to this post as a comment on Thomas’s website. But now I’m wondering why I just wasted an hour of my time—an hour when I could have been doing useful things like reading about the latest doings of the Kardashians—responding to someone who seems impervious to reason.
A: A penny for your thoughts.
Hili: I’m wondering if cats, too, share some genes with a banana.
In Polish:
Ja: Nad czym tak dumasz?
Hili: Czy to jest możliwe, że koty też mają jakieś wspólne geny z bananem?
Reader Patrick called my attention to this video showing a rare manifestation Ceiling Cat in Sochi. His Felinity was chilling in an Olympic arena when, as this CCTV video shows, the roof came down. (Of course we all know about the many infelinities at the Russian Olympics.)
YouTube gives a bit of detail.
Sochi Olympic cat burglar has eight lives remaining after falling through collapsing roof
CCTV footage captures the moment part of the Adler speed skating arena falls down, sending a feisty feline sprawling to the floor below.
Note that, as is customary, Ceiling Cat assumes the color of Basement Cat when visiting Soviet Russia. This is His protest against the homophobic policies of that country, warning them of a dire fate unless they become more gay-friendly.
The site For the Win explains more:
A black cat fell through the roof at Adler Arena in Sochi, bringing down beams, drywall, and other debris in its wake. Adler Arena is the 8,000 seat venue for speed skating which cost approximately $32 million to construct.
$32 million does not guarantee a structure is cat proof.
Kas Thomas, whose egregious anti-evolution piece at Big Think (“The trouble with Darwin“) I criticized yesterday, is trying (and failing) to respond to his many critics in the comments. Yesterday he accused these critics of being “haters” (an unjustified and ad hominem accusation), and now, instead of responding to the many scientific criticisms of his views, is playing the “credentials card”.
If you look at his readers’ comments, they’re heartening and impressive: almost every commenter is a defender of evolution and a critic of Thomas’s specious claims that evolutionary theory is in trouble. Among them I recognize former students and some or our readers.
So how does Thomas respond? This way: “I have biology degrees, so I’m more credible than you are.” Have a look:
And this one is incredible:
What an arrogant fellow! I have to admit that I went over and flaunted my credentials as well, just to tease him, but of course the issue at hand is not whether degrees give you more or less credibility in criticizing evolution, but whether those criticisms have merit. Thomas’s, as I hope I showed yesterday, do not. Like Deepak Chopra, he just compounds his ignorance by flaunting his degrees. (There should be a name for this kind of tactic.)
Reader Ed Clint, in yesterday’s comments on this site, also found that, on a site called “10 things about me,” Thomas posted this:
Clint commented dryly, “Indeed you have not, Mr. Thomas.” Why flaunt degrees if you don’t use them?
Anyway, I wash my hands of this man. If Big Think were savvy, they’d keep him miles away form their site from now on.