Faitheist t.v.: Historian of science joins young-earth creationist in an old fashioned Coyne-and-Dawkins roast

July 25, 2009 • 3:20 pm

This morning an alert reader called my attention to a Bloggingheads discussion between Ronald Numbers, a historian of science at the University of Wisconsin/Madison and self-described agnostic, and Paul Nelson, Discovery Institute young-earth creationist.  I watched the debate with an increasing sense of unease in my lower mesentery.  Nelson and Numbers engaged in an oh-so-civil discourse, with Numbers standing idly by as Nelson attacked both Dawkins and myself. I come in for some disapprobation for criticizing Francis Collins’s appointment as head of the NIH and for making unwarranted  “theological arguments” in my book.

I was going to dissect this debate here but, damn him, P. Z. Myers went and did it first.  I swear, the man is all over the blogosphere, no doubt aided by his horde of informants. I have little to add to what P.Z. said except to note that the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one.  The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it), but makes no sense under the idea of special creation — unless, that is, you believe that the creator designed things to make them look as if they evolved.  No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections, but they all, as Dobzhansky said, “make sense in the light of evolution.”

Numbers was pusillanimous and failed to engage Nelson as strongly as he should have.  I was ashamed of his performance, especially because I considered him one of us. And shame on Bloggingheads t.v. for putting on a young-earth creationist on Science Saturday. (Bloggingheads t.v. is sponsored by The Templeton Foundation; could this have something to do with it?)

Numbers’ performance was a fine example of faitheism, and of the kind of non-threatening discourse that faitheists think we should all have with religion.  Watch it if you can, and then tell me if Numbers’ “civility” is certain to win more friends for evolution than, say, Richard Dawkins would have done in the same position.  I doubt it.

Why there are no “fundamentalist atheists”

July 25, 2009 • 6:08 am

From a surprising source, The Economist, comes this essay on the stupidity of the term “fundamentalist atheist” (the same goes for “militant atheists” and the like).  Short excerpts:

First and most salient, as Oxford’s Tim Garton Ash writes, “there are no al-Darwinia brigades making bombs in secret laboratories in north Oxford.” Yes, sigh, many atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennet are just as convinced that there is no God as Osama bin Laden is convinced that there is no god but God and Muhammad is his messenger. On one hand you have faith that makes people fly planes into buildings, genitally mutilate young girls, murder abortion doctors (in church), stone adultresses, outlaw certain forms of consensual sex or even just make it impossible to buy beer on Sunday in some states. On the other hand there is the atheist “faith” that makes people write smug op-eds, put ads on buses (see photo), file frivolous lawsuits against nativity scenes on public property, and the like. Show me what harm in the world a prominent atheist intellectual has done. . .

(If you’re thinking of Stalin and Mao here, read the essay first.)

Atheists can be smug and annoying. So can Christians and Jews, Yankee fans and Red Sox fans. The claims of religious writers and atheist writers should be debated on their merits. But let’s can the “fundamentalist atheist” meme. The fundamentalist mindset is defined as one that cannot be changed by evidence. As Sam Harris, another atheist, has said, God could easily prove all the world’s atheists wrong. (Mr Harris’s challenge: “I have just written a 30-digit number on a scrap of paper and hidden it in my office. If God tells you [or any of our readers] what this number is, I will be appropriately astounded and will publicize the results of this experiment to the limit of my abilities… Hint to the Creator: I’m thinking of an even number, and it’s not 927459757074561008328610835528”.)

For more on this, see Anthony Grayling’s nice piece, “Can an atheist be a fundamentalist?”

Caturday felids

July 25, 2009 • 4:46 am

A double header today to celebrate Mark Buehrle’s perfect game for the White Sox on Thursday — the first such game for the team since 1922.

First up is Jessie, the attention-seeking cat.  Pathetic, isn’t he (or she)?  The moggie reminds me of my own days in grad school.  If you were the human, how long could you have held out?

h/t: PrimeMate

And the awwgasm of the day: a deer giving his kitteh a bath.

Why toucans have big bills

July 24, 2009 • 7:33 am

If you’re like me, you’ll have asked yourself many times, “Jerry, why do toucans have such ridiculously big bills?” (See Figs. 1 and 2.)  The first answer that might strike you is that the bill — like bodies, plumage ornaments, and other traits in birds — was driven to extreme size by sexual selection.  But that won’t wash because male and female toucans have identical-sized bills, and if the male’s bill is brightly colored, so is the female’s. (There are several dozen species of toucans in five genera, all Central or South American.)

The next most obvious hypothesis is diet: maybe toucans eat a type of food that requires large bills to handle.  But that doesn’t seem likely, either.  Toucans are frugivores (fruit eaters; Fig. 3), and there’s no obvious reason why they need such a big bill to handle fruit.  Indeed, there are many frugivorous birds, like parrots, and none of the others have such hypertrophied beaks.

A paper in today’s Science gives a clue: the bill is a radiator. You might suspect this because the bill is full of small blood vessels and is uninsulated. But can the birds control the flow of blood to the bill as needed?

The authors used thermal-imaging video cameras to record the temperature of the birds’ bills and bodies in rooms adjusted to different temperatures ranging from 10 degrees C to 34 degrees C (the species was the toco toucan, Ramphastos toco, which has the largest bill of all toucans).  What the authors found, and what you can see in the movies below, is that the toucan can adjust blood flow to the bill depending on ambient temperature.  When the room heats up, the surface of the bill heats up rapidly, allowing body heat to be dumped.  The reverse happens at cooler temperatures.

When birds are flying — a time when they produce 10 to 12 times more metabolic heat than when they are resting — the bills can heat up by as much as 6 degrees Centigrade.  And when the birds get ready to sleep, a time when their body temperature is reduced (this saves metabolic energy), the surface of the bill transiently heats up, allowing them to dump heat (see movie #1 below).  There are also, as you can see in movie #2, transient changes in bill temperature during sleep, presumably to regulate body temperature (like many birds, the toucan tucks its bill under its feathers while asleep, presumably also to buffer heat loss).

Movie 1.  Body heat moves to the bill right before the bird goes to sleep (note bill glowing bright orange, while body stays darker; temperature scale to right). “Heat dumping to the bill during entry into sleep. Thermal imaging video demonstrating transient movement of body heat to the bill during initiation of sleep in a toco toucan. Time-lapsed data obtained at 10-s intervals. Total frames = 724, total length = 2 hours.”

Movie 2. “Sleep-state transitions witnessed as changes in bill temperature. Thermal imaging video of transient changes in bill temperature that occur during sleep while the bill is tucked between the wings. Time-lapsed data obtained at 10-s intervals. Total frames = 724, total length = 2.7 hours..”

Now none of this answers the question of why the beaks are often brightly colored.  That probably has the same answer to the question of why some other non-dimorphic birds, like parrots, are also brightly colored.  There are lots of theories (ease of recognizing members of your own species is one), but, in short, we don’t know why.  And we also don’t know why toucans, but no other species, have beaks this large.  Why do toucans need to thermoregulate more than other species? A final question — one that probably can’t be answered — is this: did natural selection increase bill size because that increase directly helped with thermoregulation, or is the thermoregulatory function an exaptation, a beneficial byproduct of a feature selected for some other reason?

800px-Keel-billed_toucan,_costa_rica

Fig. 1.  The ridiculously large bill of the toucan. This is a keel-billed toucan, Ramphastos sulfuratus.

normal_Toco ToucanFig. 2. The toco toucan, subject of this study.  Is that a banana in your mouth or are you glad to see me?

toucan_sam2

Fig. 3.  Toucan Sam

___________

G. J. Tattersall, D. V. Andrade, A. S. Abe. 2009. Heat exchange from the toucan bill reveals a controllable vascular thermal radiator. Science 325:468-470.

Guidelines for posting

July 24, 2009 • 6:01 am

A couple of recent threads have begun to turn into flame wars.  To prevent this website from degenerating, here are a few guidelines for posting.  If you flout them, your posts are subject to removal.

1.  Do not call people names.  I don’t like to see people called “idiots” or “morons” to their e-face, no matter who they are.  Let’s keep the discourse calm and civil, although of course passionate arguments are welcome — indeed, encouraged.

2.  If you’re coming here to claim that the “theory” of evolution is a hoax, or is in some important way incorrect, you’re probably at the wrong place.  Realize that you are fighting 150 years of solid evidence.  The evidence for evolution is of course the topic of my book, which is also the title of this website.  If you think you have new and dramatic evidence that modern evolutionary theory is wrong, give it.  If you just want to rant, there are plenty of other blogs where they welcome that.  If you’re seeking education about evolution, ask politely for it and then go consult the references you’re given. If you assert something that my book — or many of the other books describing what evolution is and how it works — debunks, you’ll be spanked for not doing your homework.

3.  If you’re here to tout some form of intelligent design/creationism, you’re probably at the wrong place as well.  ID and creationism have been thoroughly refuted for years.  I won’t tolerate somebody coming here and announcing that, say, Michael Behe has a lot of great ideas about irreducible complexity.  If you have dramatic new evidence for ID/creationism, give it.

More lying creationists, now with Biblical justification

July 23, 2009 • 7:34 am

There seems to be no limit to the duplicity of creationists when trying to sell their snake oil to the public.  The latest example involves the movie “The Voyage That Shook the World,” a movie that looks very like a historical documentary, produced by the Australian Company “Fathom Media”.  But this company turns out to be a front for Creation Ministries International.

“Fathom” secured the participation of three eminent historians of science, Sandra Herbert, Peter Bowler, and Janet Browne, who appear as talking heads in the movie. None of these people knew who was really backing that movie nor that it would have a creationist slant.

Now the familiar story unfolds: these interviews were subsequently edited to paint a denigrating picture of Darwin and evolution.  Herbert, Bowler, and Browne report how they were taken in and bowdlerized in a short piece in the History of Science Society’s newsletter:

The interviews filmed with us have been edited to highlight certain aspects of Darwin’s views and character. Janet Browne’s remarks about his childhood delight in making up stories to impress people is used to imply that the same motive may have driven his scientific thinking. Peter Bowler’s description of Darwin’s later views on racial inequality is used in the film, but not Bowler’s account of Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s thesis that Darwin was inspired by his opposition to racism and slavery. Sandra Herbert’s comment that Darwin’s theory required explanation of many aspects of life was edited down to imply that his theory required explanation of all aspects of life. The overall impression is given that Darwin had an enquiring mind but was led astray by his theoretical preconceptions, a view backed up through interviews with several scientists, including one who expresses open doubts about evolution. The film also suggests that what is ultimately at stake is a clash of world views rather than the resolution of scientific questions.

The producers admit that they were duplicitous, but claim that this lying was for the greater good. As William Crawley, a blogger for the BBC, reports:

Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged [sic] that his organisation established a “front company” called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an “overtly Creationist” production. “At the end of the day,” he said, “[when] people see ‘Creationist’, instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.”

I asked Phil Bell if this method of securing an interview was “deceptive”. He said: “Well, it could be called deceptive. But I think, at the end of the day, I would say that more people are concerned about how we’ve made a documentary, that’s a world-class documentary, clearly with wonderful footage, with excellent interviews, and balanced open discussion.”

The Creation Ministries website also posted a defense of their actions:

In short, we wanted the film to be judged on its content, not its associations. We did not want people to be “scared off” by our advertising a link to CMI, but at the same time we were determined not to bear false witness. If people had asked us, we determined from the outset that the team would answer honestly, and we instructed the film crew that went to get the interviews along those lines. Of course, we hoped and prayed (literally, and earnestly) that such questions simply would not be asked—e.g. whether creationists were driving it. We wanted straight answers to the questions on these important matters from all, whether creationist or evolutionist—unhampered by prejudice and all the other ‘baggage’ that has accumulated, much of it quite unfairly, around the issue.

And of course they manage to justify this duplicity by cherry-picking the Bible:

We were and are under an obligation to speak the truth, but not to provide exhaustive information where it was not sought. The Bible says of Jesus that “no deceit was in his mouth” (1 Peter 2:22), yet he withheld information from those who were not ready to receive it, including the Pharisees (Matt. 21:23–27) and even his own disciples (John 16:12).

Let this be a lesson to all evolutionists.  I, for one, will be sure to ask who’s funding the project before I agree to any more interviews.  And I’m racking my brain furiously to remember which foreign companies interviewed me about Darwin in the last year.  There was one from South Korea, and another from Australia . . . .

h/t: Butterflies and Wheels

Stephen Meyer lies again

July 22, 2009 • 9:27 am

Discovery Institute creationist and lying liar Stephen Meyer now claims that I think Francis Collins should be disqualified as head of the National Institutes of Health (or indeed,  of any “scientific organization”!) because of his religious beliefs.  This piece contains a quote from Meyer:

Dr. Stephen Meyer is the director of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture.

“Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago [is an] evolutionary biologist and thinks it’s inappropriate for someone who believes in God and who further believes that science and God are compatible to be the head of a scientific organization,” he notes. “But the double-standard involved in that condemnation is kind of breathtaking because Coyne is an outspoken atheist — and atheism is every bit as much a worldview as theism.”

. . While Collins has never supported the idea of intelligent design, Meyer contends the idea that he should be disqualified to head an organization such as the NIH because of his religious beliefs amounts to bigotry.

Chalk up another lie to Meyer and the Discovery Institute. For the record, what I said about the matter is this:

I’ve been chewing over what I think of Obama’s picking Francis Collins as head of the National Institutes of Health. (See the New York Times piece here, which includes some reactions by other scientists.)  I guess my first reaction would be to give the guy a break, and take a wait-and-see attitude towards his stewardship of the NIH.  After all, he doesn’t seem to have let his superstition get in the way of his other administrative tasks, and he doesn’t seem to be the vindictive type, either. (I do have an NIH grant!)  I won’t grouse too much about this, but do want to emphasize again that the guy is deeply, deeply superstitious, to the point where, on his website BioLogos and his book The Language of God, he lets his faith contaminate his scientific views.  So I can’t help but be a bit worried.

And this:

Collins may indeed be a good administrator, but this appointment is a mistake.  At the very least, Collins must remove himself as director of the BioLogos foundation, as holding both posts would represent an unwanted incursion of religion into the public sphere.  I call for him to resign from BioLogos if he’s appointed as head of the NIH. (That, of course, has the attendant benefit of putting the ever-amusing Karl Giberson in charge of BioLogos!)

Yes, I think the appointment was mistaken, but I do understand why Obama did it. And I certainly don’t think Collins should have been disqualified because of his faith.

Responses to creationist piece in Boston Globe

July 21, 2009 • 7:24 am

Last week Discovery Institute resident creationist Stephen Meyer managed to get a pro-intelligent-design letter piece published in the Boston Globe. It was the usual nonsense, with the added fillip that Meyer quoted Jefferson’s “design” view against evolution, though Jefferson died decades before Darwin published The Origin.

Yesterday there were two responses, one by Harvard linguist/psychologist/evolutionist Steve Pinker, the other by Owen Sholes, an associate professor of biology at Assumption College.

And over at Recursivity, Jeffrey Shalit calls Meyer a liar.

h/t Jason Rosenhouse and SLC.