How Should Scientific Societies Treat Religion?

 
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) describes itself as ...

The American Association for the Advancement of Science,
"Triple A-S" (AAAS), is an international non-profit organization dedicated to advancing science around the world by serving as an educator, leader, spokesperson and professional association. In addition to organizing membership activities, AAAS publishes the journal Science, as well as many scientific newsletters, books and reports, and spearheads programs that raise the bar of understanding for science worldwide.

AAAS has taken a position on religion. It's position is that science and religion are compatible and it has no qualms about promoting religious scientists as spokepersons for their position. As far as I know, they do not have any publications representing the view of the majority of their members who are non-believers. The idea that science and religion may not be compatible isn't presented.

Should the AAAS, and other scientific societies take a stance on religion? And, if so, what position should they take? Should they try to raise the level of understanding of science by pointing out all those instances where religion attacks science or should they emphasize that, as science experts, they see no conflict with religion? I think that scientific societies should concentrate on those controversies where science is under attack and avoid taking a stance on the overall compatibility, or lack of compatibility, with religion [see Are Science and Religion Compatible? AAAS Says Yes].

The Royal Society is a similar organization in the UK and the Commonwealth.

The Royal Society, the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth, is at the cutting edge of scientific progress.

We support many top young scientists, engineers and technologists, influence science policy, debate scientific issues with the public and much more. We are an independent, charitable body which derives our authoritative status from over 1400 Fellows and Foreign Members.

In Great Britain, unlike in America, there is at least debate on the issue of whether The Royal Society should take a position on religion. The latest round is an article posted on The Observer website, Our scientists must nail the creationists.

Robin McKie writes,

It is the duty of scientists to fight such onslaughts and be examples of rationality in a darkening world, it is argued. Hence the anger at the Royal Society for failing to firmly nail its colours to its mast. The organisation has a motto: 'Nullius in verba' (roughly, 'Take nobody's word for it'). In other words, verify everything by experiment and think for yourself. Both are noble aspirations. It is therefore baffling how an ordained minister - a man committed to believing the word of God without question - could have been asked to play a senior role in the society. Equally, the society's acceptance of money from the Templeton Foundation raises further concerns.

The Royal Society - which should set the fiercest of examples in its commitment to rationality - has shown worrying signs of spiritual sloppiness. (Its current president, Lord Rees, is a cosmologist who attends church 'as an unbelieving Anglican', it should be noted.) Those of a religious persuasion might welcome this softening. I would sound a note of caution, however. Britain is still a broadly secular society which guarantees freedoms not just to atheists but to all religions, no matter how few its adherents. If we follow the example of America then all are threatened by the rise of a powerful Christian right.

We badly need our premier scientific society to stand firm and present a clear vision of how our planet, our species, and the cosmos came into existence. It needs to be unequivocal about the wonders of nature as revealed through rational, scientific investigation. As Douglas Adams put it: 'Isn't enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it too?'

Hear, hear.

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Squirrel Smasher Ready to Go on Dec. 19, 2008

 
This just in from BBspot.

Dallas, TX – Scientists from the Evolutionary Acceleration Research Institute (EARI) announced that the first test of the Giant Animal Smasher (GAS) will begin on December 19, 2008, the 41st anniversary of the premiere of Dr. Dolittle.

Squirrel SmasherDr. Thomas Malwin, head of the research project, said, "The first test runs will only accelerate microscopic life-forms like bacteria and viruses to high speeds, but theoretically the GAS can handle animals as large as squirrels, hence the squirrel smasher moniker."

Biologists from around the globe hope the GAS will unlock the secrets of the so-called "Darwin particle" that could unlock the secrets to life.

"If we discover the Darwin particle we could possibly create new life-forms, or accelerate evolution to unimaginable levels," said Malwin.

Go to BBspot for more information.

---

[Hat Tip: John Hawks]

Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

 
Opposing Views has posted a debate on the question Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?. Here's the complete question ...

With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.

All the players are there so this is a good chance for everyone to see what the "debate" is all about. For the "yes" side we have the Discovery Institute (Casey Luskin), Michael Behe, and Jay Roberts. On the "no" side there's the National Center for Science Education, Americans United, and the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Here's my take on some of the things that are being debated.

1. The question is whether intelligent design has merit and it presupposes that the formation of the universe was "guided by a larger force."¹ We all know that Intelligent Design Creationism is about religion and about God as a creator. That's not the question and any article that focus on whether IDC is religious and whether religious ideas should be taught in school are off topic. Same applies to whether IDC is unconstitutional in one country or another.


2. There are many definitions of "design" but it seems quite appropriate to use this word to describe at least some biological features. Richard Dawkins does it all the time. So the question isn't whether there is "design" in nature, it's how do you explain that design. Evolution is a perfectly reasonable explanation of "design" in nature. Any articles whose main point is that there is design in nature are completely useless. Let's stipulate that there is "design" in at least some parts of nature and get on with debating how best to explain that design.


3. In order for Intelligent Design Creationism to have merit it has to offer a reasonable explanation of design in nature. It's not sufficient to just say "God did it." We need to know when, where, and how God did it if it's going to count as an explanation for particular features. Any article that fails to do this isn't defending the proposition. Attacks on evolution do not count as Intelligent Design explanations for things like the bacterial flagella. If we don't see a single attempt on the "yes" side to offer a explanation, then IDC loses by default. It's just the same-old, same-old, cry-baby complaints about evolution that we've been hearing for decades.

I find it astonishing that after almost twenty years the Intelligent Design Creationists can't come up with any better arguments than what we see on this website. I find it mind-boggling that people like Casey Luskin are the best they can offer.

---

1. The opening article from NCSE tries to deal with this in the first paragraph by saying, "The notion that the universe was created by God may have merit as a religious idea, but it has no merit as science. To some people, the phrase “intelligent design” evokes the belief that the universe, and especially human beings, were crafted by the guiding hand of a loving God. This is a belief shared by many people, including many scientists. NCSE takes no position on the merits of these religious beliefs, except to say that these are not scientific statements, and should not be presented as such." This is pretty dangerous territory. It essentially concedes that IDC has merit and that many scientists agree with it.

PZ Myers Is Coming to Toronto

 

PZ Myers will be giving a talk in Toronto in an event sponsored by the University of Toronto Secular Alliance (UTSA) and the Toronto Center for Inquiry.¹

CFI ONTARIO HOSTS PZ MYERS IN TORONTO

TICKETS AVAILABLE FOR WORLD LEADING ATHEIST & SCIENCE BLOGGER

"SCIENCE EDUCATION: THE WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND RELIGION!"²

Friday, October 31, 7:30 pm - 9:30 pm
location - MacLeod Auditorium Medical Science Building, 1 King's College Circle, Room 2158, Toronto, ON, M5S1A8

Centre for Inquiry - Ontario and the University of Toronto Secular Alliance present the popular biologist and author of the stimulating blog Pharyngula. Pharyngula is the world's leading blog dealing with science, atheism, religion and education, especially the creationism-evolution controversy. Dr. Myers was featured prominently in the recent film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, dealing with the supposed conspiracy to keep ID out of American universities. Dr. Myers was famously "Expelled" from the premiere screening of the very same film.

Dr. Myers is an associate professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, Morris. He obtained his B.S in zoology from the university of Washington and his Ph.D. in biology from the Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon.

TICKETS and PRICES!

*NEW AND RENEWING CFI MEMBERS: FREE!!
By becoming a CFI member you will gain free admission to our events, discounts on conferences at all branches, 15% discount on selected Prometheus books, access to FREE MEMBERS ONLY receptions with selected speakers, and reduced subscription rate to Free Inquiry and Skeptical Inquirer.  Upcoming events include JAMES BISS - Magician and Mentalist, NICA LALLI - Author, 9/11 DEBATE, DAN FALK - Science Journalist, and many more!

*STUDENTS AND MEMBERS: $5

*REGULAR ADVANCED: $8

*REGULAR AT THE DOOR: $10

Get your tickets in advance to ensure a spot! Buy early as prices may rise. You may:

1. Buy tickets online through paypal at PZ Myers Comes to Toronto.


2. Buy tickets in person at the Centre for Inquiry - Ontario (216 Beverely St.) during our opening hours (1-9pm Mon-Fri, 1-5pm Sat-Sun).


3. Buy tickets through a cheque to: Centre For Inquiry 216 Beverley St. Toronto, ON M5T 1Z3
   *Please note if you are sending a cheque please send it before October 24th

Please note that you WILL NOT be given a physical ticket. Your name will be added to a ticket list. Thus you should *arrive early*  at the event location to find the appropriate line-up and gain access to the event. Please arrive at least a half an hour before the event. Box Office opens at 6pm.

Full event info: PZ Myers Comes to Toronto.
Please Note:  The J.J.R. MacLeod Auditorium is located in the Medical Sciences Building, University of Toronto on the north-west corner of College and University Ave. The closest subway station to the Medical Sciences Building is the Queens
Park exit.

---

1. We will be sponsoring a number of parties and social events in honor of PZ's visit to Toronto. Watch this blog for more information as the date approaches. We may even invite PZ to some of the events so you can meet him in person. He's actually a pretty nice guy when you get to know him.

2. Here's what PZ says about this talk as he leaves for Denver, "I'm going to gargle some tabasco before giving it, because this one needs to contain some bile and pepper, sorry to say. I'm going to say exactly what's wrong with the state of science education today, and it's all those weasely suck-ups who make excuses for religious idiocy. Anyway, if you can't make the talk, now you know what I'm going to say. It should be fun. It's OK if people argue with me, too. I expect people to fight back."

Lucky Dinosaurs

 
More and more biologists are beginning to realize that the history of life is not as determined by natural selection as they once thought. They are beginning to take to heart the idea that if you rewind and rerun the tape of life it will not turn out the same. A lot of the history is due to chance, luck, and accident.

This week's issue of Science contains a paper by Brusatt et al. (2008) discussing the evolution of dinosaurs. The dinosaurs (Dinosaura) rose to prominence around 200 million years ago in what is often called an "adaptive radiation." The idea was that dinosaurs outcompeted all other land animals because they were better able to adapt to new environments.

At the beginning of this period, the main competitors were the crurotarsans, animals that resembled dinosaurs in many ways but which aren't classified as dinosaurs. Crocodiles are crurotarsans but all other families have gone extinct.

Recent work has revealed that the crurotarsans were as diverse and abundant as the dinosaurs 200 million years ago. The authors explain the problem ...

The critical interval to consider is the Late Triassic, especially the Norian and Rhaetian (Fig. 1), a 28-million-year span between the CNEE [Carnian-Norian extinction event] and TJEE [Triassic-Jurassic extinction event]. The key "competitors" of the early dinosaurs were the crurotarsans, the "crocodile-line" archosaurs, which show a range of morphologies and adaptations during this time: long-snouted fish- and flesh-eating phytosaurs, armored herbivorous aetosaurs, and large to giant carnivorous "rauisuchians." The crurotarsans even replicated many dinosaurian body plans (large terrestrial predators; small swift predators; mid- to large-bodied low-browsing herbivores; agile bipedal herbivores). Several new discoveries show striking convergences between crurotarsans and dinosaurs (10), and many Triassic crurotarsans were previously erroneously identified as dinosaur ancestors (11) or even as true dinosaurs (12). Such morphological convergence suggests that dinosaurs and crurotarsans were exploiting similar resources in the Late Triassic. In some Norian faunas, crurotarsans were numerically more abundant than dinosaurs (3) and seem to have exploited a wider range of body plans. However, by the end of the Triassic all crurotarsans were extinct, save a few lineages of crocodylomorphs.

The key question is why the major dinosaur lineages survived the TJEE, ushering in the 135-million-year "age of dinosaurs," while most crurotarsan groups went extinct.

Brusatte et al. measured evolution rates, speciations, and morphological disparity for the two groups (crurotarsans and dinosaurs) before the Triassic-Jurassic extinction event. They found no evidence that the dinosaurs were evolving more quickly or were becoming better adapted than the crurotarsans.

So, if crurotarsons were so successful why did they die out and why did the dinosaurs survive? Maybe the dinosaurs weren't better adapted, maybe they were just lucky.

The lead author of the study, Steve Brusatt, an M.Sc. student, puts it very well in the press release [Good Luck, Not Superiority, Gave Dinosaurs Their Edge, Study Of Crocodile Cousins Reveals].

"If we were standing in the Late Triassic, 210 million years ago or so, and had to bet on which group would eventually dominate ecosystems, all reasonable gamblers would go with the crurotarsans. There was no sign that dinosaurs were eventually going to succeed so why did they? The answer is two mass extinction events: the dinosaurs not only got lucky, but they got lucky twice.

"They first weathered the storm during the Carnian-Norian event 228 million years ago, but so did the crurotarsans. In contrast, many other potential competitor groups went extinct. Then dinosaurs weathered a second, much bigger, storm 200 million years ago. This was the end Triassic extinction event, which was a sudden and catastrophic extinction caused by rapid climate change, possibly facilitated by an asteroid impact. Strangely, and suddenly, all crurotarsans except for a few lineages of crocodiles went extinct. On the other hand, the dinosaurs did not. They survived and then radiated in the Early Jurassic, and very quickly established themselves as the dominant vertebrate group on land across the world.

"Why did crurotarsans go extinct and not dinosaurs? We don't know the answer to that, but we suspect that it was nothing more than luck, plain and simple.

This paper is relevant for a number of reasons unrelated to the history of dinosaurs.

1. It shows a trend away from pure adaptationist thinking toward consideration of other explanations (e.g., accident).
2. It emphasizes the importance of understanding mass extinctions and incorporating them into macrevolutionary studies. The conclusions echo those of David Raup in his book Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck [see Good Science Writers: David Raup].
3. It is relevant to the discussion about convergent evolution—a feature of the history of life used by theistic evolution proponents to indicate that there's a plan to evolution [Convergence]. Note that there are many examples of convergence in the crurotarsan and dinosaur lineages. Similar examples with marsupials and placental mammals are used as evidence that evolution may have had a purpose in mind. But if we apply the same reasoning to crurotarsans and dinosaurs, the purpose becomes less obvious, since both groups eventually become extinct.

---

[Image Credit: The drawing of a crurotarsan archosaur is from the Palaeos website, specifically Archosauromorpha: Rauisuchiformes]

Brusatte, S.L., Benton, M.J., Ruta, M. and Lloyd, G.T. (2008) Superiority, Competition, and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs. Science 321:1485-1488. [DOI: 10.1126/science.1161833]

S. L. Brusatte, M. J. Benton, M. Ruta, G. T. Lloyd (2008). Superiority, Competition, and Opportunism in the Evolutionary Radiation of Dinosaurs Science, 321 (5895), 1485-1488 DOI: 10.1126/science.1161833

Daylight Saving Causes Global Warming

 
Friday's Urban Legend: True

Is it true that the following letter was published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette on 16 April 2007?

You may have noticed that March of this year was particularly hot. As a matter of fact, I understand that it was the hottest March since the beginning of the last century. All of the trees were fully leafed out and legions of bugs and snakes were crawling around during a time in Arkansas when, on a normal year, we might see a snowflake or two.

This should come as no surprise to any reasonable person. As you know, Daylight Saving Time started almost a month early this year. You would think that members of Congress would have considered the warming effect that an extra hour of daylight would have on our climate. Or did they?

Perhaps this is another plot by a liberal Congress to make us believe that global warming is a real threat. Perhaps next time there should be serious studies performed before Congress passes laws with such far-reaching effects.

CONNIE M. MESKIMEN
Hot Springs

Yes, it's true. But Connie Meskimen is lawyer whose hobby is writing sarcastic letters to the local newspaper according to Snopes.com [Daylight Exacerbates Warming].

---

[Image Credit: simplehuman]

Leaving Afghanistan

 
Canada is in the middle of an election campaign. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced that Canadian troops will be pulled out of Afghanistan when the current mission is up in 2011. This is a change in policy since previously Harper had argued that setting a deadline for withdrawal was a bad idea.

The announcement prompted a comment from Jim Davis, the father of a soldier killed in Kandahar two years ago. Here's what the father said according to CTV News [Tories suspend key aide over remarks on soldier's dad].

Earlier Thursday, Davis said it would be ideal to have Canadian soldiers home by 2011 but setting a deadline "undermines the work our soldiers are doing and it undermines the mission."

He said the deadline makes it difficult for Canadian soldiers to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people if they know troops will be gone in two years.

"I would never want to see another soldier go in harm's way so I can justify my son's death," Davis told CTV's Canada AM.

"But at the same time if we pull up stakes and come home when we're not ready to -- when the mission is not complete -- if we did that then my son died in vain."

I think we should cut and run right now. We are not going to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people as long as we continue to occupy their country and bomb them.

Does that mean that all of our Canadian soldiers died in vain in a failed mission? Yes, unfortunately, it does mean that. Should we continue the mission just because some soldiers have already lost their lives? No, that doesn't really make sense, does it? If we realize that we made a mistake and will have to withdraw sooner or later before winning hearts and minds, then what's the point of staying and sacrificing more Canadian lives?

I wish people would stop trying to justify continued involvement in Afghanistan by using the argument that our soldiers will have died in vain. Sometimes we make mistakes and soldiers pay the ultimate price for our errors. It's not their fault. They are doing their job and should be respected for that—perhaps they should be respected even more for doing their job in spite of the flawed policies of our politicians.

---

An Interview with Richard Lewontin

 
Most of you know Richard Lewontin as one of the authors on a paper that every student of evolution must read [The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm].

He's also famous for other reasons [Good Science Writers: Richard Lewontin] [The Cause of Variation in a Population].

Lewontin was interviewed last February by Susan Mazur as part of her coverage ot the Altenberg 16 [see We Need to Soften the Modern Synthesis]. Lewontin starts off well by explaining that natural selection isn't the only game in town [THE ONE AND ONLY RICHARD LEWONTIN].

Suzan Mazur: Is it your opinion that natural selection is here to stay?

Richard Lewontin: Natural selection occurs. The problem for the biologist is that natural selection is not the only biological force operating on the composition of populations. There are random forces because after all population is only finite in size. And even if there’s no natural selection, everybody does not have exactly two children. Every couple doesn’t exactly have two children to replace it. And there’s randomness in which sperm fertilizes which egg. So things change for that random reason. And things change because species go extinct. Nobody knows why any particular species ever went extinct. But every species goes extinct.

---

Matt Tries Framing for the Umpteenth Time

 
Matt Nisbet promotes two of his essays that have just been published. He summarizes them in Two Essays on Expelled, Dawkins, and PZ by saying ...

In both essays, I draw attention to the confusing messages that scientist pundits such as Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers continue to send to the wider American public. By combining their attacks on religion with their defense of evolution, they blur the lines between science, religion, and atheism, providing fodder to creationists who claim that evolution is part of a larger atheist agenda. These confusing messages are only likely to be amplified next year during the anniversary celebration of Charles Darwin, as Dawkins goes on a publicity tour for his new book and Myers is reported to also have a book in the works.

Poor old Matt. He just doesn't get it. There's no confusion. Dawkins and PZ (and me) are on the side of rationalism in the war between rationalism and superstition. Evolution is part and parcel of the rationalism perspective while religion and creationism are on the other side.

The only person who is confused is Matt Nisbett because he wants to spin frame the debate differently. It isn't working for him 'cause Dawkins and PZ aren't playing his game.

At the end of the second essay Matt Nisbet comes very close to saying that Dawkins and Myers should shut up because they are interfering with the Nisbett spin frame.

---

Everything Is There for a Reason?

 
Nils Reinton of The Sciphu Weblog has just posted an article entitled Junk, DNA, RNA, Brain, Biology and Possible Solutions.

Nils makes the point that biology is very complex and we may only have scratched the surface. He then writes,

New ideas, approaches and tools are needed to explain how this seemingly chaotic system works. Dismissing reasons for the obvious complexity using terms like “junk-DNA” is not going to get us anywhere.

Instead, let’s start by acknowledging that we know very little. All we know is that function comes out of an apparent chaotic mixture of DNA protein and RNA. Let’s assume that everything is there for a reason. Without reason you loose hope and visions and those are qualities that science is vitally dependent upon.

This statement combines two of my pet peeves. First, our use of the term "junk" DNA is not based on ignorance in spite of what Nils implies. We know, for example, that 50% of our genome consists of defective transposons. That looks like junk to me [Genomes & Junk DNA]. It makes me really, really annoyed when fellow scientists assume that junk DNA supporters are basing their entire argument on lack of knowledge about biology. Instead, it appears that the other side is the guilty party.

Second, by explicitly stating that one should assume that everything is there for a reason, Nils is making the case for adaptationism. It's a weak case. Why should we assume, without evidence, that everything is an adaptation? Why not consider the possibility that it may have no function and proceed to investigate while keeping an open mind? [Adaptationomics] If becoming a pluralist makes you lose hope and visions then maybe you're in the wrong business.

---

We Need to Soften the Modern Synthesis

Lately there's been a lot of talk about updating evolutionary theory. Much of the hype has been generated by journalist Susan Mazur who has been drawing attention to a meeting that took place in July. At that meeting there were 16 people interested in evolution. They met at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research in Altenberg, Austria. Their goal was to reach a consensus on what needs to be added to evolutionary theory in order to bring it up to date. They've been dubbed the "Altenberg 16."

The current version of evolutionary theory is often referred to as the Modern Synthesis—a term coined by Julian Huxley to describe the consensus reached by evolutionary biologists in the late 1940's. That version of evolutionary theory was appropriately pluralistic, giving prominence to random genetic drift as an important mechanism of evolution.

By the time of the Darwinian centennial celebrations in 1959, the Modern Synthesis had hardened to the point where random genetic drift was barely mentioned. Most prominent evolutionary biologists were confirmed adaptationists—including those who had been more open-minded a decade earlier.

The Altenberg 16 have some interesting ideas but unfortunately, they are also lending their reputations to some ideas that are just plain crazy. Let's see how a prominent science journalist, Elizabeth Pennisi, handles the issue in an article for Science magazine [Modernizing the Modern Synthesis].

That hyperbole has reverberated throughout the evolutionary biology community, putting Pigliucci and the 15 other participants at the forefront of a debate over whether ideas about evolution need updating. The mere mention of the "Altenberg 16," as Mazur dubbed the group, causes some evolutionary biologists to roll their eyes. It's a joke, says Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago in Illinois. "I don't think there's anything that needs fixing." Mazur's attention, Pigliucci admits, "frankly caused me embarrassment."

That's a pretty accurate commentary on how the Alternberg 16 are viewed by most evolutionary biologists. They don't think the Modern Synthesis needs fixing. But—and this is a big "but"—they are referring to the hardened version of the Modern Synthesis; the version that can be described as ultra-Darwinian. The version that Stephen Jay Gould and others have been trying to change since 1970.

Elizabeth Pennisi seems completely unaware of this controversy in evolution. Here's how she describes modern evolutionary theory ...

Modern tradition

The modern synthesis essentially represents a marriage of the 19th century concept of evolution with Mendelian genetics, which was rediscovered at the beginning of the 20th century; the birth of population genetics in the 1920s added to the intellectual mix. By the 1940s, biologists had worked out a set of ideas that put natural selection and adaptation at evolution's core. Julian Huxley's 1942 book, Evolution: The modern synthesis, brought together this work for a broad audience.

Simply put, the modern synthesis holds that organisms have a repertoire of traits that are passed down through the generations. Mutations in genes alter those traits bit by bit, and if conditions are such that those alterations make an individual more fit, then the altered trait becomes more common over time. This process is called natural selection. In some cases, the new feature can replace an old one; in other instances, natural selection also leads to speciation.

This is definitely not the pluralism promoted by Gould and others and it's not even the original version of the Modern Synthesis published in the 1940's. Two of the key principles of the original Modern Synthesis were ...

5. Evolutionary change is a populational process: it entails, in its most basic form, a change in the relative abundances (proportions or frequencies) or individual organisms with different genotypes (hence, often with different phenotypes) within a population. One genotype may gradually replace other genotypes over the course of generations. Replacement may occur within only certain populations, or in all the populations that make up a species.

6. The rate of mutation is too low for mutation by itself to shift a population from one genotype to another. Instead, the change in genotype proportions within a population can occur by either of two principle processes; random fluctuations in proportions (genetic drift), or nonrandom changes due to the superior survival and/or reproduction of some genotypes with others (i.e., natural selection). Natural selection and random genetic drift can operate simultaneously. (Futuyma, 2005)

The hardened version of the Modern Synthesis only talks about natural selection and random genetic drift barely gets mentioned. It's too bad that Pennisi only interviewed adaptationists and it's too bad that she didn't bother to read an evolution textbook.

The current, most popular view of evolutionary theory needs to be changed. Random genetic drift needs to be restored to its rightful place. At the same time, other points of view should be considered. The problem with the current debate is that the emphasis is on the wrong problem. It's not that we need to incorporate evo-devo; instead. we need to re-incorporate well-established ideas (random genetic drift) that have been known for fifty years!

---

Futuyma, D. (2005) Evolution, Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA, USA (p. 10)

Should Science Speak to Faith?

 

The Scientifi American website has articles on the Evolution vs. Creationism debate. My students might be interested in a debate over how to present science to people of faith [Should Science Speak to Faith?]. The debate is between Lawrence M. Krauss and Richard Dawkins. Here's a teaser ...

Krauss: Both you and I have devoted a substantial fraction of our time to trying to get people excited about science, while also attempting to explain the bases of our current respective scientific understandings of the universe. So it seems appropriate to ask what the primary goals of a scientist should be when talking or writing about religion. I wonder which is more important: using the contrast between science and religion to teach about science or trying to put religion in its place? I suspect that I want to concentrate more on the first issue, and you want to concentrate more on the second.

I say this because if one is looking to teach people, then it seems clear to me that one needs to reach out to them, to understand where they are coming from, if one is going to seduce them into thinking about science. I often tell teachers, for example, that the biggest mistake any of them can make is to assume that their students are interested in what they are about to say. Teaching is seduction. Telling people, on the other hand, that their deepest beliefs are simply silly—even if they are—and that they should therefore listen to us to learn the truth ultimately defeats subsequent pedagogy. Having said that, if instead the primary purpose in discussing this subject is to put religion in its proper context, then perhaps it is useful to shock people into questioning their beliefs.

Dawkins: The fact that I think religion is bad science, whereas you think it is ancillary to science, is bound to bias us in at least slightly different directions. I agree with you that teaching is seduction, and it could well be bad strategy to alienate your audience before you even start. Maybe I could improve my seduction technique. But nobody admires a dishonest seducer, and I wonder how far you are prepared to go in “reaching out.” Presumably you wouldn’t reach out to a Flat Earther. Nor, perhaps, to a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the entire universe began after the Middle Stone Age. But perhaps you would reach out to an Old Earth Creationist who thinks God started the whole thing off and then intervened from time to time to help evolution over the difficult jumps. The difference between us is quantitative, only. You are prepared to reach out a little further than I am, but I suspect not all that much further.

...

Dawkins: I like your clarification of what you mean by reaching out. But let me warn you of how easy it is to be misunderstood. I once wrote in a New York Times book review, “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).” That sentence has been quoted again and again in support of the view that I am a bigoted, intolerant, closed-minded, intemperate ranter. But just look at my sentence. It may not be crafted to seduce, but you, Lawrence, know in your heart that it is a simple and sober statement of fact.

---

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

 
The Scientific American website has several articles on Creationism Vs. Evolution.

One of the articles is 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense from their June 2002 issue. The answers suffer from the same confusion about evolution that I've been addressing for years. It does not distinguish between evolution and natural selection and it fails to mention random genetic drift as a dominant mechanism of evolution. This is most obvious in the response to a question about speciation.

11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.

Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.

Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.

One can easily imagine cases where speciation is driven entirely by natural selection but most of the textbooks are more pluralistic. The standard models have two populations diverging in phenotype due to either natural selection or random genetic drift or a combination of the two mechanisms.

The standard models postulate that divergence is initiated when two populations become geographically isolated as described above. If the two locales are different then the population that occupies the new environment might undergo adaptive selection, causing the divergence in morphology. However, if the two locales are similar the populations might just diverge by chance when they become geographically isolated.

Speciation occurs when the two populations have diverged to the point where they can no longer interbreed. At this point they become not only geographically isolated but also reproductively isolated.

There's no obvious way that the evolution of reproductive isolation could be due to natural selection. This would require that one population keep testing itself against the other with lack of cross-fertility providing some benefit to individuals in one of the populations. Instead, it's extremely likely that reproductive isolation is due to chance mutations that become fixed by random genetic drift. John Wilkins, our blogger expert on speciation, described this in a 2006 article that introduces sympatric speciation. Here are the relevant parts concerning the much more common mode of allopatric speciation.

Nobody denies, not even the most ardent antiadaptationist [that's me!], that aspects of organisms are strongly subject to selection, whether during speciation or after it. The critical issue is whether selection is a cause of speciation itself.

The allopatric consensus view allows for local adaptation, of course, when isolated from the parent metapopulation. What it denies is that selection for RI [reproductive isolation] occurs - how could it when speciation is occurring without contact with the reproductively isolated populations? There is selection of RI, of course, since RI on that account is a byproduct of changes in the population that are selectively favoured for ecological reasons. But not selection for RI itself [the selection of and selection for distinction is due to Elliot Sober]. So, argue allopatrists such as Jerry Coyne and Allan Orr, selection is not a cause of speciation in allopatry. And this seems right.

... If we think of speciation as "what makes a species" then we get ecological and other selective processes. If we think of speciation as "what makes it not the same species", then the explanatory focus shifts, and here the answer is, in cases when divergent selection is not going on, populations simply drift away from the reproductive reach of the ancestral population.

The bottom line here is that much of what we call speciation—especially the crucial reproductive isolation—is probably not due to natural selection. Instead, random genetic drift is the culprit. What this meams is that the answer to the question above is somewhat misleading. As it turns out, natural selection cannot account entirely, or even mostly, for all speciation events.

Some of you might recall a discussion I had in July with my colleague Spencer Barrett on this issue. He acted very annoyed when I suggested that random genetic drift might play an important role in speciation [see Species Diversity, Darwinism at the ROM]. This disagreement was made obvious to me today when I took a poll of my students in our class on Scientific Misconceptions. I asked them what they had learned from Professor Barrett in their first year class on evolution and more than 70% of them defined evolution as adaptation and were unable to identify random genetic drift as a mechanism of evolution. This means I'm going to have to explain evolution before we can discuss the evolution vs creationism controversy.

Go back and look at the second paragraph of the Scientific American answer (above). Isn't it strange that they don't even mention random genetic drift when listing other mechanisms of evolution? What's going on here? Do the science writers¹ at scientific American not know about random genetic drift or do they not think that it's a valid mechanism of evolution according to their definition of evolution. I suspect both.

---

1. The article was written by John Rennie, a science writer who currently serves as editor in chief of Scientific American.

[Image Credits: The top image comes from webpages on evolution at CUNY Brooklynn (New York). The accompanying text reads, ""In small populations, other forces are at work. When a population is small, the presence or absence of a single individual can have a profound effect on the population gene pool. A sudden reduction in population size can also alter the remaining gene pool. This is the bottleneck effect.

A change in the gene pool brought about by chance is a genetic drift.

An extreme form of genetic drift, combined with the bottleneck effect is called the founder effect, which depends on a small group becoming isolated from the larger group, and can rapidly lead to the creation of a new species."

The bottom image comes from another article by John Wilkins, Explanation, that discusses, among other things, the role of stochastic events, such as random genetic drift, in speciation.]

Six Different Kinds of Slime Moulds

 
Which one doesn't belong on the list?

1. Myxogastrea
2. Dictyostelia
3. Protostelia
4. Buddenbrockia
5. Myxococcales
6. Labyrinthulea
7. Acrasea

Check out Catalogue of Organisms, The Diversity of Slime Moulds for the correct answer.

---

The Nature of Science: Is Science the only Way of Knowing?

In my course today I described science as a way of knowing based on evidence and rational thinking. The key point is that science is a process, or a way of thinking. Science—the process—is not confined to the "natural" sciences. It can be used in any type of investigation that's designed to seek factual knowledge about the universe we inhabit (see Sokal, 2008).

Are there any other ways of knowing? Well, that depends on what kind of knowledge you seek. If you're interested in "truth", which I loosely define as factually correct information, then my answer is no. The application of evidence and rationality is the only way to go.

Lots of people disagree. For the sake of discussion, I've selected some examples from an article on The Nature of Science and Scientific Theories published by the Arkansas Science Teachers Association 2006. They propose four different ways of knowing.

People have several ways that they know about their world.  The chart below lists some of the ways of knowing.  One way of knowing is no more valid that another to most people.  However, as you read the chart please note that science is a way of knowing that requires the use of certain rules and methods that differs from the other means of knowing.  Scientific knowledge limited to the natural world. Scientific knowledge and religious knowledge do not have to be contradictory.  It is important to know these differences, so that they can be complementary.

Religious Knowledge

• Seeks answers to any question that can be posed including answers to the ultimate questions (What is my purpose? What is the meaning of life? Is there a supreme being? etc.).
• Explanations can include supernatural forces.
• Is a belief system and seeks truths.

Philosophic Knowledge

• Seeks answers to any question that can be posed including answers to the ultimate (What is my purpose? What is the meaning of life? Is there a supreme being? etc.).
• Explanations can include supernatural forces and viewpoints
• Is a point of view and seeks truths.

Cultural Knowledge

• Seeks answers to any question that can be posed including answers to the ultimate questions (What is my purpose? What is the meaning of life? etc.), but generally relates to how people treat one another.
• Explanations can include supernatural forces and other historical viewpoints.
• May be a belief system rooted in historical views and seeks truths.

Science Knowledge

• Can only seek answers about the natural world but cannot answer ultimate questions (Is there a god? What is the meaning of life?).
• Explanations cannot include supernatural forces.
• Is not a belief system nor seeks truths.

Why can't the science way of knowing address questions like "Is there any evidence of purpose in evolution?" "Does life have any meaning?" and "Is there any evidence of Gods?" Why are these questions arbitrarily ruled out of bounds? Does it mean that we can't apply evidence and rationality to questions about the possibility of purpose?

If religious, philosophical and cultural knowledge can be "beliefs" or "points of view" then what kind of knowledge is that? These may be some sort of "ways of knowing" but knowing about what? Surely not factual knowledge of the sort that would be convincing to an impartial observer?

Finally, why are the other three "ways of knowing" referred to as ways of "seeking truths" but science is the only one that does NOT "seek truth"? What does the scientific way of knowing seek ... lies?

---

Sokal, Alan (2008) What is science and why should we care?, Third Annual Sense About Science lecture February 27, 2008, University College London (UK)