Charles Darwin Is Coming to Toronto

The Darwin Exhibit is coming to the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) from March 8 - August 4, 2008! I can hardly wait. Let's have a Howlerfest in July 2008. Save the date.

Creationist Engineer Demonstrates the Meaning of IDiot

Check out 'Looney' - another creationist engineer with all the answers from Scott Page on All-Too-Common Dissent.

On talk.origins there's something called the "Salem Hypothesis" which states that when a creationist claims to understand science they are much more likely to be an engineer than a real scientist.

Excited Molecules

One of our students just gave a seminar on molecular dynamics simulations. She's attempting to model an important biochemical process as part of her thesis project. She showed us the image above from a website on Molecular Dynamics Simulations and I thought I'd share it with the rest of you. It shows the three basic ways in which chemical bonds can vary; they can stretch, they can rotate, and the bond angle can change.

Walk the Sandwalk!

The American Natural History Museum has prepared a short video that lets you Take a Short Video Tour of the Sandwalk. You can walk the path that Darwin walked. If you can't go there in person, this is the next best thing.

Thanks to Colin Purrington for letting me know about this. It was part of the Darwin Exhibit.

If you've walked the Sandwalk, send me a photo. That's PZ Myers on the left.

Physarum

The University of British Columbia (UBC) Botanical Garden publishes a Botany Photo of the Day. Today's photo is Physarum cinareum, a slime mould. Slime molds are important protists—single-cell eukaryotes. A related species Physarum polycephalum is studied in several labs and we are anxiously awaiting the results of the Physarum polycephalum Genome Project.

Back in the 1970's, Physarum was a leading candidate for the protist model organism but it fell out of favor 'cause it was too hard to work with. It's still studied in some labs because of its unusual RNA editing. Unlike all other species, Physarum can edit RNA by inserting new nucleotides and by substituting nucleotides.

See the IDiots Gloat

Dave Scott and Uncommon Descent have "discovered" that the homepage of TalkOrigins Archive has links to porn sites [Talkorigins.org Delisted by Google for Porn Links On Home Page]. It sure didn't take them very long did it?

Naturally, being IDiots, they attribute this to some sort of evil evolutionist conspiracy in spite of the fact that the real explanation has been widely disseminated. Read the comments. Dave Scott openly wonders whether the site was really hacked. Shame on him.

Teaching and New Technology

 

"Academic Matters" is a journal of higher education published by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). The Winter 2006 issue contains several articles on a subject that's dear to my heart—the role of new technolgy in university teaching.

I'm old enough to remember when television was going to revolutionize university teaching. Back in the 1960's all new lecture theaters were constructed with multiple TV sets dangling from the ceiling. The new technology was going to change lectures forever. No longer would Professors be standing at the front of the lecture room. Instead, they would prepare their lectures in a TV studio and students would watch them on the small screen. Only the best Professors from all over the world would be giving the introductory lectures in biology and physics.

When I arrived at the University of Toronto in 1978 there was a huge TV studio on the main floor of this building. Two years later it was gone. What happened?

Computers were the new technology. By the end of the 1980's we were teaching students how to access remote databases and how to communicate by email. We set up our first course newsgroup in 1989. A few years later (1995) we created class websites and by 2000 everyone was using powerpoint. Today there are entire courses given electronically (e-learning) and podcasts are all the rage in some circles.

Does any of this improve education? I doubt it. There are still Professors who write on the blackboard and don't know the first thing about Dreamweaver (ugh!) or XML. There's no evidence that students in their class are suffering.

This is the issue that's explored in the latest edition of Academic Matters.

But when all is said and done, how much has information and communications technology changed university life? What has been its effect on faculty and students? Has it made a meaningful difference in the quality and quantity of learning that takes place on campuses?

Heather Kanuka is a Professor at Athabaska University, a school that has specialized in e-learning. She cautions that there is little empirical data to support the grandiose claims of e-learning [Has e-learning delivered on its promise?]. There's no evidence that it is as effective as standard lectures, and there's no evidence that it is even cost-effective. Peter Sawchuck (University of Toronto) cautions us to keep e-learning in its proper place [Curbing our enthusiasm: the underbelly of educational technology.

There are three other articles. They all express skepticism about the claims of the new technology. None of the articles are written by Luddites who don't know how to use the new technology and that's what make them so interesting.

Monday's Molecule #4

Name this molecule. You must be specific, we need the exact name! Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open. Remember that you have to name the exact molecule!

Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?

Wow! I've never scored this high on a test before. And I didn't even study, .... well, not very much.... Okay, so I crammed all night. But it was worth it.

Do you think the Prof will adjust the grades?

Your 'Do You Want the Terrorists to Win' Score: 98%

You are a terrorist-loving, Bush-bashing, "blame America first"-crowd traitor. You are in league with evil-doers who hate our freedoms. By all counts you are a liberal, and as such cleary desire the terrorists to succeed and impose their harsh theocratic restrictions on us all. You are fit to be hung for treason! Luckily George Bush is tapping your internet connection and is now aware of your thought-crime. Have a nice day.... in Guantanamo!

Do You Want the Terrorists to Win?
Quiz Created on GoToQuiz

The British Centre for Science Education

 

From the BCSE Home Page ...

The British Centre for Science Education (BCSE) is a newly formed organisation with the primary purpose of stopping the teaching of Creationism in UK state schools. Our main role is to act as a coordinating group, providing support to other groups and individuals who share our purpose, and to develop and implement activist tactics to achieve our purpose.

The BCSE is fully supported by its members throughout the UK, and draws on the experience and expertise of like minded professional people resident in North America, Australia, South Africa and continental Europe. Our members come from a broad variety of fields - science, business, theology, education, academia, engineering, IT and research. We have two things in common - knowledge of the creationist movement and a deep concern for the proper science education of children.

BCSE is a part of the broader international campaign against Creationism. The creationist movement itself is international with strong connections in the USA, where much of the money comes from, and Australia. We believe that working with similar groups throughout the world considerably strengthens the organisation in terms of contacts, knowledge and expertise.

Natalie Angier's God Problem

 

It's been three years since Natalie Angier first wrote "My God Problem." There's a copy of the essay on Edge. It should be required reading for every scientist. Here are some excerpts,

No, most scientists are not interested in taking on any of the mighty cornerstones of Christianity. They complain about irrational thinking, they despise creationist "science," they roll their eyes over America's infatuation with astrology, telekinesis, spoon bending, reincarnation, and UFOs, but toward the bulk of the magic acts that have won the imprimatur of inclusion in the Bible, they are tolerant, respectful, big of tent....

So why is it that most scientists avoid criticizing religion even as they decry the supernatural mind-set? For starters, some researchers are themselves traditionally devout, keeping a kosher kitchen or taking Communion each Sunday. I admit I'm surprised whenever I encounter a religious scientist. How can a bench-hazed Ph. D., who might in an afternoon deftly purée a colleague's PowerPoint presentation on the nematode genome into so much fish chow, then go home, read in a two-thousand-year-old chronicle, riddled with internal contradictions, of a meta-Nobel discovery like "Resurrection from the Dead," and say, gee, that sounds convincing? Doesn't the good doctor wonder what the control group looked like?

More from an Appeaser

John Brockman is literary agent for many authors, including Richard Dawkins. His website, "Edge," carries interesting debates. The latest is started by Scott Atran's diatribe against the views of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Atran, Dawkins, and Harris were together at the recent "Beyond Belief" conference at the Salk Institute. Atran writes,

I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist. There is no historical evidence whatsoever that scientists have a keener or deeper appreciation than religious people of how to deal with personal or moral problems. Some scientists have some good and helpful insights into human beings' existential problems some of the time, but some good scientists have done more to harm others than most people are remotely capable of.

This is a silly argument. Atheists do not claim they can solve all the problems of an irrational society. What they (we) claim is that one important step is to reduce irrationality and promote rationality. One big step in that direction is to eliminate religion.

I am one of those people who would rather live in a society that was rational and evidence based. Surprisingly, Scott Atran is happy to remain in an irrational society that doesn't care about evidence. He's right to be embarrassed.

Daniel Dennett and Sam Harris respond to Atran. Read the Harris response. He elaborates on the following point ...

Atran's comments, both at the Salk conference and in his subsequent essay, miss the point. The point is not that all religious people are bad; it is not that all bad things are done in the name of religion; and it is not that scientists are never bad, or wrong, or self-deceived. The point is this: intellectual honesty is better (more enlightened, more useful, less dangerous, more in touch with reality, etc. ) than dogmatism. The degree to which science is committed to the former, and religion to the latter remains one of the most salient and appalling disparities to be found in human discourse.

There's another interesting point made by Harris. He explains that there are only three good reasons for appeasing the superstitious.

(1) Certain religious beliefs are true (or likely to be true); here's why…
(2) Religious beliefs, while not likely to be true, are so useful that they are necessary; here's the evidence…
(3) Many religious people are so irrational that it is simply too dangerous to criticize their beliefs. Please keep your mouth shut.

I agree. I'd like to hear from the Neville Chamberlain Appeasers. Which one of these three arguments do you support?

Bacteriophage Therapy

 

It was all the rage in the 1920's. Bacterial infections were controlled by treating patients with massive amounts of bacteriophage—small viruses that killed the bacteria. The idea was promoted by Félix d'Hérelle, a Canadian working at the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

Today bacteriophage therapy is rare but it might be making a comeback. Kurt Kleiner writes about it in The Toronto Star [The new age of the phage?].

Google Shuts Down the TalkOrigins Archive

 

Last week Google decided that the TalkOrgins Archive, a leading evolution website, should be de-indexed. All references to any article were removed because the site violated Google policy. Wesley Elsberry writes about it in Me Against Google. Shame on Goggle!

The IDiots Don't Understand Junk DNA

So what else is new?

The chief IDiot (Casey Luskin) over at Discovery Institute claims that junk DNA is a science-stopper. This is such old news.

Every time scientists find a function for some non-coding DNA we are treated to another diatribe against junk DNA. In fairness, it's not just the IDiots who do this. Some so-called scientists are just as guilty. They don't understand junk DNA.

Here's a clue. Junk DNA is DNA that has no function. It is not non-coding DNA. Lots of non-coding DNA has a function (regulatory sequences, origins of replication, centromeres, telomeres, SARs, etc. etc). But, in mammals, most of it doesn't. Most of the human genome is junk.

Just because we discover a function for some little bit of non-coding DNA does not mean that all of it has a function. Use your head. This is elementary rationalism. Oops, I almost forgot, that's not their strong point.

Think of pseudogenes or degenerative alu sequences, for example. They will always be junk DNA.