AAAS Panel: Communicating Science in a Religious America

 
Matt Nisbet has organized a panel for the American Association for the Advancement of Science meetings in Boston next January. The title of the panel is Communicating Science in a Religious America. According to Nisbet's posting [AAAS Panel: Communicating Science in a Religious America], the panel will discuss framing. Here's the synopsis for the panel.

Over the coming decades, as society faces major collective choices on issues such as climate change, biomedical research, and nanotechnology, scientists and their organizations will need to work together with religious communities in order to formulate effective policies and to resolve disputes. A major challenge for scientists will be to craft communication efforts that are sensitive to how religiously diverse publics process messages, but also to the way science is portrayed across types of media. In these efforts, scientists must adopt a language that emphasizes shared values and has broad appeal, avoiding the pitfall of seeming to condescend to fellow citizens, or alienating them by attacking their religious beliefs.

Part of this process includes "framing" an issue in ways that remain true to the science, but that make the issue more personally meaningful, thereby potentially sparking greater interest or acceptance. With these themes in mind, the proposed panel combines the insights of scientists who have been successful at engaging religious publics with the findings of researchers on how media messages and opinion-leaders shape the perspectives of citizens. The panelists draw upon their experience working across the issues of evolution, climate change, stem cell research, and nanotechnology.

Who's on this panel, you might ask? It's some of the usual suspects and some others who I don't recognize.

... the panel features Brown University biologist Ken Miller, Vatican astronomer Brother Guy Consolmagno, William & Mary anthropologist Barbara King, Kansas science standards chair Steve Case, and University of Wisconsin communication researcher Dietram Scheufele. The panel is moderated by David Goldston, former chief of staff for the House science committee, now a lecturer at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School and a columnist for Nature magazine.

As part of the panel, I will be presenting on the topic of "The New Atheism and the Public Image of Science," a first paper based on a research project I am currently working on here at American University with the help of two graduate students.

I have sent the following letter to Professor Goldston, the panel moderator.

Professor Goldston,

I have just read Matt Nisbet's blog article on the upcoming AAAS meeting in Boston.

As I'm sure you know, Nisbet has some very strong views on this issue and he is known to be a vocal opponent of athiests like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris. He has attacked the positions of many atheist scientist bloggers such as PZ Myers, Jason Rosenhouse, and me. He refers to this group as the "New Atheists," a term that is widely perceived as misleading at best, and offensive at worst.

Nisbet believes that scientists should spin their scientific messages in a way that avoids upsetting religious people and religious groups. That point of view has been hotly contested in the blogosphere. Many of us believe that this is a fundamentally dishonest way for scientists to behave. We believe that science should not be deliberately "framed" by the personal beliefs of scientists whether they are atheists - as are the majority of scientists - or Christians, or whatever.

We believe that science should be presented as uncompromised pure science and that it is wrong for scientists to consciously alter their message in order to appease religious citizens who might be offended by hearing the scientific truth. It is not the business of scientists to second guess what the religious public wants to hear, or not hear. Furthermore, it is not the business of scientists to tailor their message to the citizens of a particular country as the title of the panel implies. Is it realistic to expect scientists to communicate science one way in America, and another in Saudi Arabia, China, or France?

We all know there are scientists who have strong opinions about religion. Richard Dawkins is a vocal atheist, for example, and Ken Miller is a vocal Roman Catholic. Both of them have written books putting forth their points of view on religion. They are free to do so as long as they do not distort or misrepresent science.

But this is not what Nisbet is talking about when he refers to the public presentation of science - at least it's not what he should be talking about. Both Dawkins and Miller are perfectly capable of communicating scientific information without referring to religion, and they do so quite capably in many forums. Nisbet strongly implies that the Ken Millers of this world should be given preference over Richard Dawkins and other atheists when it comes to science education. This a form of censorship that should not be tolerated by AAAS.

I don't object to Nisbet presenting his point of view at a AAAS meeting but my respect for AAAS and your panel would be greatly diminished if the other side did not get a chance to make its case. Surely you do not want to give the impression that AAAS will only support scientists who agree with Nisbet? Surely you do not want to have a panel where the so-called "New Atheist" perspective is excluded and only religious scientists, or their close allies, are allowed to speak? Is that fair?

Please make sure that you have appropriate balance on your panel. Please make sure you don't give the impression that AAAS endorses Nisbet and his ideas about framing. The other side needs to be heard.


Laurence (Larry ) A. Moran
Professor of Biochemistry
University of Toronto

UPDATE: Jason Rosenhouse and Mike Dunford have also suggested that the panel might be biased.

Who Is David Tyler?

 
In an earlier posting, I quoted David Tyler's views about evolution and the peppered moth story [Peppered Moths and the Confused IDiots]. I didn't know who David Tyler was but he's obviously considered to be an authority (i.e., prominent IDiot) by Denyse O'Leary, among others.

Since posting that article, I've become more informed about this man. I thought I'd share this information so that everyone will know who's considered to be a leading IDiot on evolution.

David Tyler is a Young Earth Creationist who belongs to The Biblical Creation Society. Tyler believes in the literal truth of Genesis. It's no wonder that he has some doubts since there's nothing in Genesis about peppered moths.

Tyler has a day job. He is a Senior Lecturer (Professor, in North American terms) in the Department of Clothing Design and Technology, Hollings Faculty of Food, Clothing & Hospitality Management, Manchester Metropolitan University [Homepage for David J. Tyler]. He has a Ph.D. in physical sciences and his current interests focus on the textile industry, according to the Manchester Metropolitan University [Dr. David Tyere].

After joining the Department of Clothing Design and Technology at Manchester Metropolitan University, he has pursued a number of research interests related to responsive manufacturing and systems modelling. Earlier work was concerned with flow line systems and management strategies to optimise performance. Research interests over the past decade relate to teamworking in new product development and its relation to operational practices, and the optimisation of performance of textile/apparel supply chains. Since March 2000, he has managed the North West Advanced Apparel Systems Centre, a European-funded initiative to support clothing and textile companies in NW England.

This is an example of the sort of expert the IDiots think is a good spokesman for Intelligent Design Creationism: a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) with no obvious background in biology.

I really don't understand people like Denyse O'Leary and some of her friends. Denyse is Roman Catholic. She is not a Young Earth Creationist. How can she put any faith in the credibility of a man who thinks that science is compatible with a 6000-year-old Earth?

Parsing John Pieret

 
John Pieret has posted an intersting article in which he criticizes Mary Jordan for writing something silly about atheists in the Washington Post [Harebrained Hairpins]. I agree with John that she went way overboard.

However, I'm more interested in John's opening paragraph where he repeats a position he has long mantained.

I'm not overly sympathetic to the complaints of the "New Atheists" that they are unfairly being told to mute their criticism of religion lest they drive religious people further away from science in particular and rationalism in general. In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism. And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times. And, it seems to me, if a dialogue is what you intend in which you hope to convince the religious to become atheists, starting off calling them delusional may be a tad counterproductive.

This is a bit confusing. Let's see if we can parse the sentences to get at the essence of John's problem. If I understand him correctly, he is saying ...

It is fair to tell atheists to mute their criticism of religion because it might be driving religious people away from science.

How, exactly, does this work, John? What is the ethical reasoning that justifies telling someone to keep quiet because you don't like their message? There is none. It's pefectly okay to disagree with us—something you do quite often—but it's a whole different thing to tell us to shut up, and maintain that it's fair to do so. It's not fair. It's unfair, ... and reprehensible.

If there's a rational argument there, then it has to be something like the following. You believe that religious people are going to embrace science—a good thing—but they won't do it if we atheists start telling them that there's no such thing as God or miracles. Hmmm ... very interesting. Does it also apply to other groups? Will astrologers embrace science as long as we stop telling them that astrology is a bunch of superstitious nonsense?

I interpret John to be saying.

It is fair to tell atheists to mute their criticism of religion because it might be driving them away from rationalism.

John, Aren't you making an unwarranted assumption here? Aren't you assuming that the average religious person already embraces rationalism? Otherwise, how could they be driven away?

What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that by criticizing religion we are making religious people abandon rationalism? And if we stop the criticism they will become rational? What arguments do you use to support that claim?

In my opinion, science is definitely not coextensive with atheism.

I agree. "Science" and the lack of belief in supernatural beings are two different things. It is possible to avoid believing in supernatural beings and be opposed to science. There are many examples. In addition, there are some people who fully accept all the fundamentals of science, and its implications, while still being religious. Deists are one example. Buddhists are another.

And atheism, far from having a lock on rationalism, is, in fundamental ways arational, at least, if not outright irrational at times.

The atheists are saying that they don't buy into the superstitious belief in the existence of supernatural beings. They don't accept most of the basic tenets of the major religions because they are not based on evidence. How in the world is this "irrational"?

And, it seems to me, if a dialogue is what you intend in which you hope to convince the religious to become atheists, starting off calling them delusional may be a tad counterproductive.

The evidence so far is against you. We've never had so much dialogue between atheists and religious leaders as we've had since the publication of The God Delusion. It is no longer possible for religious people get away with making the unchallenged assumption that there is a God. Millions of people are hearing for the first time that their core belief is being questioned. Not only that, it's being questioned in a particularly forceful way. That makes you sit up and take notice.

I'm sick and tired of this phony argument. It is completely irrational.

Casey Luskin Lies about Dawkins

 
I know, I know, so what else is new?

But this lie is so outrageous that it just has to be exposed. Over on the Discovery Institute website, Casey Luskin gloats over the famous video where Richard Dawkins pauses for 11 seconds when asked to give an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome [Richard Dawkins on the Origin of Genetic Information].

The explanation for this pause is well-known. Dawkins had just realized that he had been duped into giving an interview in his house by creationists from Australia. The pause was to collect his thoughts after realizing the dishonesty of the interviewers. He then asked that the cameras be turned off and he asked them to leave. You can see the video and read the essay Dawkins wrote on dozens of websites [see Creationist Delusions about Transitional Fossils and Information].

Casey must know about this. He can't be that stupid. Therefore, he is lying.

Peppered Moths and the Confused IDiots

I'm teaching part of a course on Popular Scientific Misconceptions. In my section we'll be talking about the evolution/creationism controversy and part of the discussion involves analysis of the techniques used by Jonathan Wells to denigrate evolution in his book Icons of Evolution. One of the chapters is Peppered Moths.

Creationists used to love the peppered moth story because they thought the evidence had been refuted by modern science. They were wrong, and most creationists will admit it. Not Jonathan Wells. He says,

Industrial melanism in peppered moths shows that the relative proportions of two pre-existing varieties can change dramatically. This change may be due to natural selection, as most biologists familiar with the story believe. But Kettlewell's evidence for natural selection is flawed., and the actual causes of the change remain hypothetical. As a scientific demonstration of natural selection—as "darwin's missing evidence"—industrial mealanism in peppered moths is no better than alchemy.

Open almost any biology textbook dealing with evolution, however, and you'll find the peppered moth presented as a classical demonstration of natural selection in action—complete with faked photos of moths on tree trunks. This is not science by myth-making.

Unfortunately for poor old Jonathan, the original work of Kettlewell has been replicated and natural selection is the explanation. The creationists were recently dealt a serious blow when Michael Majerus reported the results of his observations on peppered moths to the European Society for Evolutionary Biology. So what do they do now?

Denyse O'Leary thinks there's still propaganda to be made from the peppered moth story so she links to an article from last week that shows the new strategy. Denyse's link is here [Evolution in the light of intelligent design encyclopedia - new entries]. The article by David Tyler is The Peppered Moth: when will Darwinians admit that mistakes have been made?.

I'm going to quote part of David Tyler's article. I swear I'm not making this up.

The concluding words of Majerus' lecture are these: "If the rise and fall of the peppered moth is one of the most visually impacting and easily understood examples of Darwinian evolution in action, it should be taught. It provides after all: The Proof of Evolution." This quote explains why the issue is still important: Darwinists have always sought to use the peppered moth story as a proof of Darwinian evolution. This is a burden that cannot be carried by the evidence. Even with Majerus' new improved methodology, we have an example of natural selection within the peppered moth population with differential predation being the causal mechanism. It is an extraordinary mental leap to go from this to the origin of novelty, complexity and new body plans - which remain the central challenges for any theory of evolutionary transformation.

Okay, let's take this slowly so that even IDiots like David Tyer and Denyse O'Leary can understand.

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Richard DawkinsWhen people like Majerus talk about evolution they're talking about the process of evolution. In this case he's referring to the process of evolution by natural selection within populations. He is perfectly correct in saying that the peppered moth date is proof that evolution occurs. It's proof of Darwinian evolution.

The problem with the IDiots is that they don't even understand what evolution is. Evolution does not require the creation of new body plans and the peppered moth example does not pretend to account for such things directly. All it does is show that evolution by natural selection is an observable fact.

Is it scientifically defensible to find an example of natural selection within a population of an animal, and then use this as an evidence for evolutionary transformation from the first single cell to the extraordinary diversity of life that we find in the biosphere?

No.

When this simple question is answered with a negative, then we can have a more constructive dialogue.

David, or Denyse, I'm ready whenever you are. To start with, do you understand the minimal definition of evolution [What Is Evolution?]. Get back to me when you do.

---

[Photo Credit: The photographs are from bill.srnr.arizona. The original source is unknown.]

Extra Credit

 
On Adventures in Ethics and Science they're having a little debate about something called "extra credit" [Question of the day: Is extra credit fair?]. The debate seemed kind of interesting but I really didn't have a clue what they were talking about, so I asked.

Nobody answered. I gather the concept of "extra credit" for a course is so widespread in American schools that they must have thought I was joking. After a bit of internet searching I think I'm beginning to understand what this "extra credit" is all about. There seem to be universities that permit students to raise their grades by doing extra work. For example, they might get a grade of 75/100 on all the exams and tests but they could add another 5 marks to bring their final mark up to 80% if they do some project that is not required of all students in the class.

Here's an example from an introductory biology course at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign [Integrative Biology 101].

During the semester you have an opportunity to earn up to 6% worth of extra credit points to be added to your course grade at the end of the semester. You may earn any number of extra credit points up to the maximum of 6 points. To earn the whole 6% you must start early and sustain your extra credit work throughout the semester. There is also an option for one additional bonus point if you complete one of the two "Bonus" projects in addition to the maximum number of projects determined by the date you start your extra credit work.

Extra Credit projects require that you engage in some independent learning in areas of biology that interest you, write a brief report or review and then read the work of your classmates and interact with them via the Web Crossing computer conferencing system to share and discuss what you and your classmates have learned.

Extra credit projects are due at three specific times during the semester - before each of the hour exams and at the end of the semester. You may earn two extra credit points at each of these due dates.

For most extra credit projects, one extra credit point can be earned by writing one project review and completing two interactions (dialog entries) by reading and replying to two classmate's extra credit projects. While you must write at least one dialog entry to a classmate for each extra credit point, you may count another student's dialog entry to your project as your second dialog entry. If no one writes to you, you must then write a second dialog entry to another student.

I'm dumbfounded. How widespread is this practice?

Does this mean that when we're evaluating transcripts from the University of Illinois we have to consider the possibility that, while a student may have an "A" on the transcript, they may have only gotten a "B" when it comes to understanding the required material in the course?

There may be a logical reason for giving out extra credits but the logic escapes me. Can someone explain it?

Non-Religious Weddings and Funerals

 
An article on EurekAlert reports that in the UK Funerals without religion set for huge increase.

The number of people in the UK who opt for non-religious funeral services is set to rise dramatically over the coming years, according to a presenter at the Death, dying & disposal conference organised by the University of Bath today (Friday 14 September).

Around two per cent of UK funerals are currently non-religious, but according to 2001 census figures 27 per cent of the population consider themselves to be non-religious.

This, says Simon Allen, a Humanist Officiant, suggests that the current growth in secular funerals is just the beginning of an immense and rapid change in funeral practice.

I want to make sure that everyone in the Toronto area knows that non-religious weddings and funerals have been available for 10 years through the Humanist Association [Humanist Association of Toronto: Ceremonies].

The website lists Humanist officiants who are legally registered to perform marriages—they will also do funerals and childnaming ceremonies. We recently engaged one of these officiants, Kathryn Cook, for our daughter's wedding in June. I highly recommend her. There's no reason that one should be forced to hire a religious person for any of these ceremonies.

What Is DMCA and Why Should We Care?

 
YouTube is taking down a number of anti-religious videos on the grounds that they violate copyright. The accusations are being organized by Creationist groups, especially those associated with Kent Hovind, who is currently in prison for tax evasion [Hovind’s Goons use Fraud to Remove Critical YouTube Videos].

The Rational Response Squad is the latest group to lose their YouTube account [We're ready to help sue Creation Science Evangelism Ministries].

The legal tool that's being used is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This is an American law that imposes stiff penalties for copyright infringement on the internet. The problem is that the law encourages websites to take down material whenever a "charge" of copyright infringement is made. By doing this the websites avoid the threatened legal action.

Here's how the Wikipedia article describes the problem,

The DMCA has been criticized for making it too easy for copyright owners to encourage website owners to take down infringing content and links when it may not in fact be infringing. When website owners receive a takedown notice it is in their interest not to challenge it, even if it is not clear if infringement is taking place, because if the potentially infringing content is taken down the website will not be held liable. The Electronic Frontier Foundation senior IP attorney Fred von Lohmann has said this is one of the problems with the DMCA.[2]

Many sites are receiving DMCA notices and taking down links to infringing material as a result. Because the links are taken down it is rarely challenged in court resulting in link liability being a grey area of the law, although based on previous legal cases it leans in favor of copyright owners.[3] Stephan Ott of LinksandLaw.com states that "linking to infringing content is unlawful and that is also what most of the courts say."

I'm constantly amazed at how easy it is to use legal trickery to curtail basic freedoms such as free speech. In this case, the freedom/anarchy of the internet seems to be too much to stomach for those people who want to control peoples' thoughts. I suppose we should have seen this coming. After all, the other kinds of media are also highly censured in America.

Now I suppose there's going to be a big legal fight and the courts will have to decide whether these YouTube videos violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Oh well, it keeps the lawyers off the streets and gives all the amateur lawyers something to blog about.

Perhaps the experts could answer a question? If a company like YouTube were to relocate to another country would the act still apply? Could the act be used to censor foreign websites?

The Domino Theory

 
I watched President Bush on TV the other day. I was wondering where his buddy was hiding. Ahh, here he is ...

According to the Washington Post Vice President Dick Cheney has some words of advice on Iraq [Cheney: chaos if U.S. pulls out too soon from Iraq].

If U.S. and coalition forces left Iraq before Iraqis could defend themselves, moderates would be "crushed," extremists would push the country into "chaos," and competing factions including groups backed by Iran "would unloose an all-out war, with the violence unlikely to be contained within Iraq," Cheney said.

"The ensuing carnage would further destabilize the Middle East and magnify the threat to our friends throughout the region," he said.

Now, where have I heard that before. Google is my friend ....

Here it is. It's called the Domino Theory.

The domino theory was a mid-20th century foreign policy theory, promoted by the government of the United States, that speculated that if one land in a region came under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow in a domino effect. The domino effect suggests that some change, small in itself, will cause a similar change nearby, which then will cause another similar change, and so on in linear sequence, by analogy to a falling row of dominoes standing on end. The domino theory was used by successive United States administrations during the Cold War to justify American intervention around the world.

Referring to communism in America and Mexico, Eisenhower vocalized the theory:

"Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the "falling domino" principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."

It worked before. Americans stayed in Viet Nam for years because of the Domino Theory. Eventually 58,000 soldiers died and another 350,000 were wounded. Between one and two million Vietnamese citizens died. And the dominos didn't fall when America pulled out.

But who cares about history?

Genome Size, Complexity, and the C-Value Paradox

Forty years ago it was thought that the amount of DNA in a genome correlated with the complexity of an organism. Back then, you often saw graphs like the one on the left. The idea was that the more complex the species the more genes it needed. Preliminary data seemed to confirm this idea.

In the late 1960's scientists started looking at the complexity of the genome itself. They soon discovered that large genomes were often composed of huge amounts of repetitive sequences. The amount of "unique sequence" DNA was only a few percent of the total DNA in these large genomes.¹ This gave rise to the concept of junk DNA and the recognition that genome size was not a reliable indicator of the number of genes. That, plus the growing collection of genome size data, soon called into question the simplistic diagrams like the one shown here from an article by John Mattick in Scientific American (Mattick, 2004). (There are many things wrong with the diagram. Can you identify all of them? See What's wrong with this figure? at Genomicron).

Today we know that there isn't a direct correlation between genome size and complexity. Recent data, such as that from Ryan Gregory's website (right) reveals that the range of DNA sizes in many groups can vary over several orders of magnitude [Animal Genome Size Database]. Mammals don't have any more DNA in their genome than most flowering plants (angiosperms). Or even gymnosperms, for that matter.

Many of us have been teaching this basic fact for twenty years. The bottom line is ....

Anyone who states or implies that there is a significant correlation between total haploid genome size and species complexity is either ignorant or lying.

It is notoriously difficult to define complexity. That's only one of the reasons why such claims are wrong. Ryan Gregory wants everyone to know that the figure showing genome sizes in different phylogenetic groups is not meant to imply a hierarchy of complexity from algae to mammals.

A recent paper by Taft et al. (2007) says complexity can be "broadly defined as the number and different types of cells, and the degree of cellular organization." We can quibble about the definition but there's nothing better that I know of. The real question is whether organism complexity is a useful scientific concept.

Here's the problem. Have some scientists already made up their minds that mammals in general, and humans in particular, are the most complex organisms? Do they construct a definition f complexity that's guaranteed to confer the title of "most complex" on humans? Or, is complexity a real scientific phenomenon that hasn't yet been defined satisfactorily?

I, for one, don't know whether humans are more complex than an owl, or an octopus, or an orchid. For all I know, humans may be less complex by many scientific measure of complexity. Plants can grow and thrive on nothing but water, some minerals, and sunlight. We humans can't even make all of our own amino acids. Does that make us less complex than plants? Certainly it does at the molecular level.

Back in the olden days, when everyone was sure that humans were at the top of the complexity tree, the lack of correlation between genome size and complexity was called the C-value paradox where "C" stands for the haploid genome size. The term was popularized by Benjamin Lewin in his molecular biology textbooks. In Genes II (1983) he wrote.

The C value paradox takes its name from our inability to account for the content of the genome in terms of known function. One puzzling feature is the existence of huge variations in C values between species whose apparent complexity does not vary correspondingly. An extraordinary range of C values is found in amphibians where the smallest genomes are just below 10⁹bp while the largest are almost 10¹¹. It is hard to believe that this could reflect a 100-fold variation in the number of genes needed to specify different amphibians.

So, the paradox arises even if we don't know how to rank flowering plants and mammals of a complexity scale. It arises because there are so many examples of very similar species that have huge differences in the size of their genome. Onions, are another example—they are the reason why Ryan Gregory made up the Onion Test.

The onion test is a simple reality check for anyone who thinks they have come up with a universal function for non-coding DNA. Whatever your proposed function, ask yourself this question: Can I explain why an onion needs about five times more non-coding DNA for this function than a human?

Imagine the following scenario. You are absolutely convinced that humans are the most complex species but total genome size doesn't reflect your conviction. The C-value paradox is a real paradox for you. Knowing that much of our genome is possibly junk DNA still leaves room for plenty of genes. You take comfort in the fact that under all that junky genome, humans still have way more genes than simple nematodes and flowering plants. You were one of those people who wanted there to be 100,000 genes in the human genome [Facts and Myths Concerning the Historical Estimates of the Number of Genes in the Human Genome].

But when the genomes of these species are published, it turns out that even this faint hope evaporates. Humans, Arabidopsis (wall cress, right), and nematodes all have about the same number of genes.

Oops. Now we have a G-value paradox, where "G" is the number of genes (Hahn and Wray, 2002). The only way out of this box—without abandoning your assumption about humans being the most complex animals—is to make up some stories about the function of so-called junk DNA. If it turns out that there are lots of hidden genes in that junk then maybe it will rescue your assumption. This is where we get some combination of the excuses listed in The Deflated Ego Problem.

On the other hand, maybe humans really aren't all that much more complex, in terms of number of genes, than wall cress. Maybe they should have the same number of genes. Maybe the other differences in genome size really are due to variable amounts of non-functional junk DNA.

---

1. Thirty years ago we had to teach undergraduates about DNA reassociation kinetics and C_ot curves—the most difficult thing I've ever had to teach. I'm sure glad we don't have to do that today.

Hahn, M.W. and Wray, G.A. (2002) The g-value paradox. Evol. Dev. 4:73-75.

Mattick, J.S. (2004) The hidden genetic program of complex organisms. Sci Am. 291:60-67.

Taft, R.J., Pheasant, M. and Mattick, J.S. (2007) The relationship between non-protein-coding DNA and eukarotic complexity. BioEssays 29:288-200.

[Photo Credits: The first figure is taken from a course webite at the University of Miami (Molecular Genetics. The second figure is from Ryan Gregory's Animal Genome Size Database (Statistics).]

We're Number 2!!!

 
There is much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Toronto today as word has just been received that the Burj Dubai, under construction in the United Arab Emirates (UAR), has surpassed 553 metres. This makes it the tallest building in the world. The record has been held by the CN Tower in Toronto for over 30 years.

The bad news is reported in The Toronto Star [CN Tower no longer world's tallest].

"The accomplishment of being the world’s tallest free-standing structure is another defining moment for the multinational team of over 5,000 people who are using their collective intelligence to make this iconic structure a symbol of human achievement," said Mohamed Ali Alabbar, head of Emaar Properties, which owns the new tower. "This architectural and construction master-piece is truly an inspirational human achievement that celebrates the can-do mindset of Dubai."

CN Tower officials are playing it cool and, so far, the website still calls it "the world's tallest building." A short statement, sent out by email, said, "When the time comes and the building is complete, we will congratulate the Burj Dubai project on their unique achievement."

Okay, so we're not quite ready to officially concede just yet but the writing is clearly on the wall, so to speak.

A separate article in The Toronto Star attempts to console us by pointing out that we're #2 in a lot of things. It's nothing to be ashamed of [CN Tower topples to Number 2]. Some people wonder what all the fuss is about. An unidentified woman is prominently quoted in the print version of the story—the one that's being sold on the newsstands and delivered to suburban doors.

One woman, who didn't want to give her name, shrugged off the slight to Toronto as "such a guy thing."

"Who really cares? Trust me, length doesn't matter."

Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution

I'm teaching part of a course on Popular Scientific Misconceptions. In my section we'll be talking about the evolution/creationism controversy and part of the discussion involves analysis of the techniques used by Jonathan Wells to denigrate evolution in his book Icons of Evolution. One of the chapters is Fossil Horses and Directed Evolution.

For those of you who haven't read the book, the essential point is that scientists used to show the evolution of horses as a linear transformation from a small primitive horse-like creature to large modern horses. Over the years, this idea has been replaced by a branching representation where there are many different lineages, some of which have gone extinct. The history of this change is described in today's posting by Laelaps, which contains numerous examples of the figures and drawings that have been published over the years [The Branching Bush of Horse Evolution]. The most recent one is shown above. I'm posting the link here in part so my students will read it and it part so that everyone else will check it out. Laelaps has put a lot of work into the posting and he deserves the attention.

Jonathan Wells doesn't really object to the fact that the pattern of horse evolution has changed, although it does reinforce his point about scientific evidence being ephemeral. What upsets him is that the old version implied some direction to evolution and this, in turn, implies a director. According to Wells, the campaign by scientists to change the diagrams was only part of a larger, more sinister, goal.

The reason for their campaign, however, is more interesting than the horse icon itself. People used to regard the old icon as evidence that evolution was directed, either supernaturally or by internal vital forces. Neo-Darwinists now ridicule directed evolution as a myth, and cite new evidence that evolution is undirected.

But the doctrine of undirected evolution is philosophical, not empirical. It preceded all evidence for Darwin's theory, and it goes far beyond the evidence we now have. Like several other Darwinian claims we've seen, it is a concept masquerading as a neutral description of nature.

This is a strange line of reasoning. The original claim that horse evolution was directional surely falls into the same category that Wells criticizes. It must be philosophical, not empirical. Therefore, Wells should approve of scientists who refute the false evidence of directionality in order to remove a philosophical myth from the story of horse evolution. It seems logical that reverting to the null hyporthesis—no evidence of directionality—is preferable to promoting a mechanism that by Well's own admission might be supernatural.

That's not how Well's sees it.

Clearly, biology students are being taught materialistic philosophy in the guise of empirical science. Whatever one may think of materialistic philosophy, there is no doubt that it is being imposed on the evidence rather than inferred from it. And this is the real significance of neo-Darwinian efforts to reverse the picture of horse evolution. Although there are scientific issues involved, what really matters is the myth.

I'm looking at the tree of horse evolution. I don't see any evidence of directed evolution, do any of you? What's wrong with saying that there's no evidence of directed evolution; therefore we have to conclude that it wasn't directed?

Jake Young Wants Atheist Scientists to Keep a Low Profile

 
We've heard it all before. Those "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris are doing far more harm than good. They're turning off the general American public and making it more difficult to get them interested in science. Why is that? It's because the New Atheism links science to a lack of belief in God and the public won't buy into science if they think it requires atheism.

Here's how Jake Young summarizes his position [Why Pairing Science and Atheism is High-Brow].

Listen, I am an atheist. I do not believe that religion and science are internally consistent. However, if there is one thing that I have learned about politics, it is that political discussions are not predicated on internal consistency. (Example: Prior to WW2, the American public was in favor of lend-lease, yet was not in favor of entering the war. These two propositions are mutually exclusive.) Whether or not, religion and science are internally consistent is largely beyond the point. The point is what we can reasonably expect the public to accept. The public is not going to accept both atheism and science over the short-term.

Jake isn't very clear about how he intends to proceed. I can only surmise that he will disguise his true feelings (that religion and science are internally consistent) in order to appease theists who want to learn about science.

This concept—hiding what you believe to be true for some "higher" purpose—is called framing by Jake's fellow accommodationists. Indeed, as you might expect, Jake quotes approvingly from the master framers, Nisbet and Mooney, who also want the New Atheists to go away quietly. And as quickly as possible.

I wonder how Jake Young feels about the books by Francis Collins, Ken Miller, and Simon Conway Morris that strongly advocate the compatibility of organized religions and science? Does he think that atheist scientists should refrain from making any comment about them even if they totally misrepresent science?

The next paragraph is.

Further, embracing a big-tent approach will not prevent scientific or even atheistic values from taking over. While the majority of the American public is religious, the number of atheists is growing. New atheists will be created in the same way that new atheists have always been created: by a kid waking up in class one day and saying, "You know that invisible man business doesn't make sense."

Jason Rosenhouse over at Evolutionblog demolishes the idea that keeping a low profile is the best strategy for making atheism acceptable [Young on Dewey on Being High-Brow]. It didn't work for gays. It didn't work for women either [Suffragettes].

Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Persistent Irrelevance

 
I'm discussing the Freedom in the Classroom (2007) report from the American Association of University Professors [Freedom in the Classroom (2007].

The first posting covered the issue of indoctrination and made the point that Professors have to allow for debate in the classroom [Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Indoctrination]. The second posting discussed the report's comments on balance in the classroom—the proposition that Professors are obliged to present both sides of a controversy Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Balance. In the third posting, I present the discussion about intolerance and a hostile learning environment [Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Intolerance].

This posting addresses the criticism that "instructors persistently interject material, especially of a political or ideological character, irrelevant to the subject of instruction."

Persistent Irrelevance

The 1940 Statement of Principles provides that teachers "should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject." The origin of this admonition lies in the concern of the authors of the 1925 Conference Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure for immature youth or, more accurately, a concern by the administrators of small and often denominational colleges for potential adverse parental reaction to their children's exposure to thought contrary to the conventional pieties of small-town America.14 The admonition was reconsidered and addressed in an interpretive comment to the 1940 Statement, appended by the joint drafting organizations in 1970:

The intent of this statement is not to discourage what is "controversial." Controversy is at the heart of the free academic inquiry which the entire statement is designed to foster. The passage serves to underscore the need for teachers to avoid persistently intruding material which has no relation to their subject.

The 1940 Statement should not be interpreted as excluding controversial matter from the classroom; any such exclusion would be contrary to the essence of higher education. The statement should be interpreted as excluding "irrelevant" matter, whether controversial or not.

The question, therefore, is how to determine whether material is "irrelevant" to classroom discussion. In some contexts, the meaning of "irrelevance" is clear. Students would have every right to complain if an instructor in ancient history dwelled on internecine conflict in her department or if an instructor in American literature engaged in lengthy digressions on his personal life. But such irrelevance is not the gravamen of the contemporary complaint.

The question is not so much about trivial irrelevance, it's about serious deviations from the advertised course content. But how do we define those serious kinds of irrelevance? Are all irrelevant comments out-of-bounds? Should the university set up some sort of "irrelevance police" to check out every classroom?

Clearly not. But students and members of the general public don't seem to have a problem with this sort of tactic. The greatest danger these days comes from threats that are outside of the academic community. This report should be required reading for students at university.

The group calling itself Students for Academic Freedom (SAF), for example, has advised students that "your professor should not be making statements . . . about George Bush, if the class is not on contemporary American presidents, presidential administrations or some similar subject." This advice presupposes that the distinction between "relevant" and "irrelevant" material is to be determined strictly by reference to the wording of a course description. Under this view, current events or personages are beyond the pale unless a course is specifically about them. But this interpretation of "relevance" is inconsistent with the nature of higher education, in which "all knowledge can be connected to all other knowledge." Whether material is relevant to a better understanding of a subject cannot be determined merely by looking at a course description.

Excellent point. Surely we don't want classrooms where the Professor is forbidden to make comments about real world events and how they might relate to the material in the course or to the ideas that are being discussed?

Might not a teacher of nineteenth-century American literature, taking up Moby Dick, a subject having nothing to do with the presidency, ask the class to consider whether any parallel between President George W. Bush and Captain Ahab could be pursued for insight into Melville's novel? Might not an instructor of classical philosophy, teaching Aristotle's views of moral virtue, present President Bill Clinton's conduct as a case study for student discussion? Might not a teacher of ancient history ask the class to consider the possibility of parallels between the Roman occupation of western Mesopotamia and the United States' experience in that part of the world two millennia later? SAF would presumably sanction instructors for asking these types of questions, on the grounds that such questions are outside the purview of an official course description. But if an instructor cannot stimulate discussion and encourage critical thought by drawing analogies or parallels, the vigor and vibrancy of classroom discussion will be stultified.

This committee of the American Association of University Professors had some smart people. They were able to summarize the problem succinctly. Here are their names.

• MATTHEW W. FINKIN (Law), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, chair
• ROBERT C. POST (Law), Yale University
• CARY NELSON (English), University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
• ERNST BENJAMIN (Political Science), Washington, D.C.
• ERIC COMBEST, staff

The committee deals with a number of specific examples, including that of Prof. Turner who was dismissed from the University of Pittsburgh in 1934 for comparing contemporary political figures to historical figures in his history course. The committee concludes with,

How an instructor approaches the material in classroom exposition is, absent breach of professional ethics, a matter of personal style, influenced, as it must be, by the pedagogical goals and classroom dynamics of a particular course, as well as by the larger educational objective of instilling in students the capacity for critical and independent thought. The instructor in Melville or classical philosophy or Roman history must be free to draw upon current persons and events just as Professor Turner did seventy years ago. Instructors must be free to employ a wide variety of examples in order to stimulate classroom discussion and thought. If allusions perform this function, they are not "irrelevant." They are pedagogically justified.

At root, complaints about the persistent interjection of "irrelevant" material concern the interjection of "controversial" material. The complaints are thus a variant of the charge that instructors have created a "hostile learning environment" and must be rejected for the reasons we have already discussed. So long as an instructor's allusions provoke genuine debate and learning that is germane to the subject matter of a course, they are protected by "freedom in the classroom."

Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Intolerance

 
I'm discussing the Freedom in the Classroom (2007) report from the American Association of University Professors [Freedom in the Classroom (2007].

The first posting covered the issue of indoctrination and made the point that Professors have to allow for debate in the classroom [Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Indoctrination]. The second posting discussed the report's comments on balance in the classroom—the proposition that Professors are obliged to present both sides of a controversy [Freedom in the Classroom (2007): Balance].

This posting addresses the third item in the report; namely the charge that "instructors are intolerant of students' religious, political, or socioeconomic views, thereby creating a hostile atmosphere inimical to learning."

Hostile Learning Environment

Contemporary critics of the academy have begun to deploy the concept of a "hostile learning environment," which was first developed in the context of antidiscrimination law. The concept has been used in universities to support speech codes that suppress expression deemed offensive to racial, ethnic, or other minorities. The concept is now being used in an attempt to suppress expression deemed offensive on religious or political grounds.

The statement On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes, adopted as Association policy in1994, acknowledges the need to "foster an atmosphere respectful of and welcoming to all persons." An instructor may not harass a student nor act on an invidiously discriminatory ground toward a student, in class or elsewhere. It is a breach of professional ethics for an instructor to hold a student up to obloquy or ridicule in class for advancing an idea grounded in religion, whether it is creationism or the geocentric theory of the solar system. It would be equally improper for an instructor to hold a student up to obloquy or ridicule for an idea grounded in politics, or anything else.

Hmmm ... while I agree with the sentiment here I'm not sure I agree entirely with the words. If a student in an astronomy class started arguing with their Professor by claiming the sun goes around the Earth, it would be almost impossible for that Professor to respond to the attack without making fun of the student's beliefs. There really are some ideas that are so far removed from reality that they can be mocked in public.

Similarly, a student who claimed that women are inferior beings who deserve to be stoned to death for adultery does not have to be treated with undue reverence in the classroom just because their views are based on religion. And students who advocate the position that scientists are frauds and liars because evolution conflicts with the Bible do not necessarily deserve to be treated with kid gloves. I agree that obloquy is almost always inappropriate. I certainly agree that harassment and discrimination are wrong. But a little bit of ridicule may be okay.

But the current application of the idea of a "hostile learning environment" to the pedagogical context of higher education presupposes much more than blatant disrespect or harassment. It assumes that students have a right not to have their most cherished beliefs challenged. This assumption contradicts the central purpose of higher education, which is to challenge students to think hard about their own perspectives, whatever those might be. It is neither harassment nor discriminatory treatment of a student to hold up to close criticism an idea or viewpoint the student has posited or advanced. Ideas that are germane to a subject under discussion in a classroom cannot be censored because a student with particular religious or political beliefs might be offended. Instruction cannot proceed in the atmosphere of fear that would be produced were a teacher to become subject to administrative sanction based upon the idiosyncratic reaction of one or more students. This would create a classroom environment inimical to the free and vigorous exchange of ideas necessary for teaching and learning in higher education.

Right on! Once again, the authors of this report have hit the nail on the head. Students should be encouraged to speak out but they can't hide behind charges of intolerance or "hostile learning environment" when their opinions are criticized.