Beth Shapiro at Chautauqua

 
Beth Spiro is a Professor at Pennsylvania State University: Her field of expertise is the study of ancient DNA (fossil DNA) in order to learn how organisms, and species, responded to changes in the environment [Molecular Evolution]. She told us about her field work in Siberia and how she collects material from fossilized wooley mammoths and other species that lived there before, during, and after the last ice age.

Beth is an entertaining lecturer. She's a little bundle of energy on the stage, wandering back and forth sharing her obvious joy in doing science (except for the mosquitoes). Although she is best known for How to Make a Dodo, on Tuesday morning she described ways in which she might bring a wooley mammoth back to life. The experiment was illustrated with 56(?) colored ribbons representing the wooley mammoth chromosomes. Many members of the audience got to hold a "mammoth chromosome." As it turns out, the experiment might be possible but it won't be easy.

Beth Shapiro is as bright and interesting in real life as she is on the stage. That evening I met Beth and her husband when Carl Zimmer brought her along for drinks after dinner. (She drinks beer. Carl doesn't.) It was a delightful evening. I'm so happy to have met her. I was even happier to learn that she actually reads blogs!

---

A Blog for Secular Students

 
Check out Edger, a Center for Inquiry student initiative.

About

Edger presents hard-hitting and reasoned news, views, and event promotion on issues pertaining to secularism, atheism, science, humanism, and the cosmos, and actively promotes and celebrates international freethought activism. Written in a youthful tone, but mature in content, Edger is sure to be a driving force in the new intellectual enlightenment.

Mission

To create an outlet for prominent young freethought leaders to express their views and get them heard. Blogs are becoming very commonplace, and alone many blogs fail, but together, with the proper direction and an engaging and professional site, these blogging leaders can come together to make an impact far beyond what they could have achieved on their own.

---

Convergence

 
Convergence is a hot topic these days because several theistic evolutionists are using it as scientific evidence for the existence of God.¹

The most prominent scientists to fall into this trap are Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris. Both of them are impressed by certain similarities between Australian marsupials and mammals in the rest of the world. Nobody seems to have noticed that there are no antelope-like or elephant-like species in Australia and no kangaroo-like species in Africa. And what about primates? If primates are so important then how come there are no intelligent primate-like marsupials?

I was going to write a lengthy article about the teleological fallacy behind these attempt to prove intelligent design but, as usual, PZ Myers beat me to it. (Does he ever sleep? Is there more than one of him?) Check out We don't need teleology — so why bother?.

The bigger question is whether scientists like Ken Miller and Simon Conway Morris (and Francis Collins) are (mis)using science to try and prove the existence of God. I think they are.

---

1. Strictly speaking, they are using it as evidence that there's a plan or purpose that's built into the laws of chemistry and physics. They may not specifically mention that the "grand design" is the work of God but nobody is fooled.

[Image Credit: BACKGROUNDERS]

Citation Classic: The Bible

 
This week's citation classic on The Evilutionary Biologist is the Bible. But it's not the bible you're thinking of.

---

Not Just Education

 
The Chautauqua Institution isn't just about education. It has outstanding programs in dance, art, theater, and music. Every night there's some kind of performance going on in the amphitheater. Here's the lineup for this week.

Monday: 4:00 Chautauqua Wind Quintet, 8:15 PHILADANCO: The Philadelphia Dance Company

Tuesday: 8:15 Chautauqua Symphony Orchestra. Stefan Sanderling, conductor; Julie Albers, cello

Wednesday: 8:15 '100th Anniversary of the Great Automobile Race of 1908'

Thursday: 8:15 An Evening with Jim Brickman

Friday: 8:15 Special Acoustic Evening with Vince Gill

I'm going to everything, even Vince Gill. After all, when else do you get a chance to experience these things? It's not just because Ms. Sandwalk makes me go.

I couldn't resist taking a photo of this lady painting a picture of the Hall of Philosophy. It's soooo Chautauqua. (She gave me permission to take her picture.)

---

On the Waterfront

 
Views of the Chautauqua waterfront and some of the inns and houses that overlook the water.

---

Science, Religion, and Separate Magisteria

 
In a recent interview, Daniel Dennett was asked about Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisteria. Here's his excellent reply [Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man] ...

The problem with any proposed detente in which science and religion are ceded separate bailiwicks or "magisteria" is that, as some wag has put it, this amounts to rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which Caesar says God can have. The most recent attempt, by Gould, has not found much favor among the religious precisely because he proposes to leave them so little. Of course, I'm certainly not suggesting that he should have left them more.

There are no factual assertions that religion can reasonably claim as its own, off limits to science. Many who readily grant this have not considered its implications. It means, for instance, that there are no factual assertions about the origin of the universe or its future trajectory, or about historical events (floods, the parting of seas, burning bushes, etc.), about the goal or purpose of life, or about the existence of an afterlife and so on, that are off limits to science. After all, assertions about the purpose or function of organs, the lack of purpose or function of, say, pebbles or galaxies, and assertions about the physical impossibility of psychokinesis, clairvoyance, poltergeists, trance channeling, etc. are all within the purview of science; so are the parallel assertions that strike closer to the traditionally exempt dogmas of long-established religions. You can't consistently accept that expert scientific testimony can convict a charlatan of faking miracle cures and then deny that the same testimony counts just as conclusively—"beyond a reasonable doubt"—against any factual claims of violations of physical law to be found in the Bible or other religious texts or traditions.

What does that leave for religion to talk about? Moral injunctions and declarations of love (and hate, unfortunately), and other ceremonial speech acts. The moral codes of all the major religions are a treasury of ethical wisdom, agreeing on core precepts, and disagreeing on others that are intuitively less compelling, both to those who honor them and those who don't. The very fact that we agree that there are moral limits that trump any claim of religious freedom—we wouldn't accept a religion that engaged in human sacrifice or slavery, for instance—shows that we do not cede to religion, to any religion, the final authority on moral injunctions.

Most people don't understand that Gould advocated a very small magisterium for religion.

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Ken Miller at Chautauqua

 
The Chautauqua Institution is the ideal place for Ken Miller. Almost everyone here is religious and accepts science. I'm surrounded by theistic evolutionists.

Miller gave his usual talk about Intelligent Design and why it's not science. He described his role in the Dover trial. He spent some time explaining why Americans are more inclined to reject evolution. Basically it's the reason he explains in his book Only a Theory; namely that Americans are more independent than the citizens of other countries. This independence, and lack of respect for authority, is what makes America the greatest scientific nation in the world but, ironically, it also leads to the rejection of scientific authority by a majority of citizens. He didn't mention how scientists like Darwin and Linnaeus managed to do so well without ever visiting America.

He mentioned that he is religious and that science is compatible with religion (in his opinion). He did not explain his version of theistic evolution.

---

Monday's Molecule #84

 
Continuing with our Olympics theme, this is another molecule that many athletes fear. As with last week's molecule, the competitors in Beijing do not want to be caught with too much of this in their bodies. You probably won't recognize this molecule from the structure so there's a really big clue below.

You need to identify the specific molecule shown here and explain why this might be an important molecule at the Olympics. Be careful to get the name correct as there are several close relatives that might confuse you.

MATGSRTSLLLAFGLLCLPWLQEGSAFPTIPLSRLFDNAMLRAHRLHQLAFDTYQEFEEA
YIPKEQKYSFLQNPQTSLCFSESIPTPSNREETQQKSNLELLRISLLLIQSWLEPVQFLR
SVFANSLVYGASDSNVYDLLKDLEEGIQTLMGRLEDGSPRTGQIFKQTYSKFDTNSHNDD
ALLKNYGLLYCFRKDMDKVETFLRIVQCRSVEGSCGF

The connection between today's molecule and a Nobel Prize is quite indirect. The Nobel Prize was awarded for developing a very sensitive assay to detect these types of molecules. We don't know if the same assay is being used in the Olympics—probably not.

The first person to correctly identify the molecule and name the Nobel Laureate(s), wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first collected the prize. There are three ineligible candidates for this week's reward. You know who you are.

THEME:

Nobel Laureates
Send your guess to Sandwalk (sandwalk (at) bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca) and I'll pick the first email message that correctly identifies the molecule and names the Nobel Laureate(s). Note that I'm not going to repeat Nobel Laureate(s) so you might want to check the list of previous Sandwalk postings by clicking on the link in the theme box.

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow. I reserve the right to select multiple winners if several people get it right.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: This week's winner is Mike Fraser who wrote, "The molecule is human growth hormone 1, which can be (mis)used to enhance
muscle mass and strength in athletes. Obviously, this would constitute
illegal doping at the Olympics; athletes would not want to be caught with too
much hGH.

The Nobelist is Rosalyn Yalow, 1977 (Medicine) for the development of the
radioimmunoassay of peptide hormones, such as hGH."

Congratulations Mike!

---

Classroom at Chautauqua

 
This is Hultquist Center where many of the classrooms are located. It's also the headquarters of the Chautauqua Literary and Scientific Circle, a book club that's more than 120 years old.

---

Chautauqua Bookstore Is Ready for Evolution

 
The Chautauqua bookstore is ready for a week of evolution. There's going to be a lot of talk about the compatibility of science and religion so it's a bit disappointing to see that the atheist perspective isn't represented. A few weeks ago they had The God Delusion and God Is Not Great on display but now they are missing.

---

Ready for Church

 
Sunday morning in Chautauqua and almost everyone goes to the main amphitheater for a Protestant church service. This is the amphitheater where morning lectures are held. Here's what it looks like from the outside.


Here's a view of the inside—it holds about 1500 people.


The choir is assembling ...

---

Intelligent Design Creationism Is Just Anti-Evolutionism

 
Intelligent Design Creationists are fond of telling us that they have a real scientific theory. They are not just attacking evolution, they are providing real evidence for intelligent design.

Yeah, right.

Let's see how one of the leading advocates of Intelligent Design Creationism actually performs when given the chance to make her case. Denyse O'Leary has an op-ed piece in yesterday's issue of The Calgary Harald [ My op-ed piece in The Calgary Herald - Albertans are right to reject Darwinian evolution]. To me it looks like the typical anti-science rant that we've come to expect from creationists. I don't see any attempt to promote the virtues of Intelligent Design Creationism. Am I missing something?

---

Evolution at Chautauqua

 
I'm at the Chautauqua Institution for a week on Darwin and Linnaeus: Their Impact on Our View of the Natural World.

It's going to be a busy week. From 9-10:30 every morning I'm teaching a course, and leading a discussion, on evolution for a group of 35 Elderhostel students. Then there's the morning lecture from 10:45-12. In the afternoon I teach a course called "What Is Evolution." This is followed by the afternoon lecture. From 3:30-5 I'm taking a course on "Evolution and Christianity."

Here's the line-up of speakers. I'll try and blog something every day on what they had to say but given the busy schedule I'm not making any promises.

Monday, August 18

10:45 Kenneth Miller, prof. of biology, Brown University; author, Finding Darwin's God

2:00 Rev. Bruce Sanguin (Evolution and Christianity)

Tuesday, August 19

10:45 Beth Shapiro, asst. prof. of biology, Penn State Univ.; researcher in field of ancient DNA

2:00 Carl Zimmer, science journalist, author, Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea

Wednesday, August 20

10:45 Edward Larson, prof. of law, Pepperdine Univ; Pulitzer Prize-winner for Summer for the Gods

2:00 Barbara J. King, prof. of anthropology, College of William & Mary; author, Evolving God

Thursday, August 21

10:45 Spencer Wells, population geneticist; director of Genographic Project

2:00 Eugenie C. Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education

Friday, August 22

10:45 Mattias Klum, National Geographic Society photographer; documentary filmmaker, "The Linnaeus Expedition"

2:00 Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy, Florida State University; director of program in history and philosophy of science, Bristol Univ.

---

Superstition vs Rationalism Charts

 

---

[Image Credit: My[confined]Space via Friendly Atheist]