Core Concepts: Pathways and Transformations of Energy and Matter

The AAAS document, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education, defines five core concepts for biological literacy. One of the core concepts is Pathways and Transformations of Energy and Matter. This is an important one for biochemistry since we are the people charged with making sure undergraduates understand the basic core concept that life obeys the laws of physics and chemistry.

Here's how the authors of Vision and Change describe the core concept.

4. PATHWAYS AND TRANSFORMATIONS OF ENERGY AND MATTER:

Biological systems grow and change by processes based upon chemical transformation pathways and are governed by the laws of thermodynamics.

The principles of thermodynamics govern the dynamic functions of living systems from the smallest to the largest scale, beginning at the molecular level and progressing to the level of the cell, the organism, and the ecosystem. An understanding of kinetics and the energy requirements of maintaining a dynamic steady state is needed to understand how living systems operate, how they maintain orderly structure and function, and how the laws of physics and chemistry underlie such processes as metabolic pathways, membrane dynamics, homeostasis, and nutrient cycling in ecosystems. Moreover, modeling processes such as regulation or signal transduction requires an understanding of mathematical principles.

For example, knowledge of chemical principles can help inform the production of microorganisms that can synthesize useful products or remediate chemical spills, as well as the bioengineering of plants that produce industrially important compounds in an ecologically benign manner. These are topics of intense current interest.

At first glance this seems like an adequate description of a core concept but the more you think about it the more you realize that it's just a bunch of motherhood statements without any real teeth. It sounds very nice to say that students need to understand kinetics and thermodynamics but the recommendation has no substance unless you explain exactly what it is that they are supposed to understand. We all know that both these concepts are poorly taught in undergraduate courses.

When I was teaching introductory biochemistry I always asked my students the following question to make sure they had grasped the concept of where cellular energy comes from.

There are species that are autotrophs. They grow and reproduce using only inorganic molecules as their only source of essential elements. Carbon usually comes from CO₂. Some of these species are capable of photosynthesis (photoautotrophs) but others are not (chemoautotrophs). Where do chemoautotrophs get the energy to grow and reproduce if they can't carry out photosynthesis and they don't require organic molecules as food sources?

Let's look at the AAAS Project 2061 Science Assessment Website to see how they treat the topic of Matter and Energy in Living Systems. This site is for high school biology but it's the only place I know where we can assess what AAAS thinks is important in basic concepts. Students are expected to know that...

All organisms need food as a source of molecules that provide chemical energy and building materials.

1. Food consists of carbon-containing molecules in which carbon atoms are linked to other carbon atoms.
2. Carbon-containing molecules serve as the building materials that all organisms (including plants and animals) use for growth, repair, and replacement of body parts (such as leaves, stems, roots, bones, skin, muscles, and the cells that make up these structures) and provide the chemical energy needed to carry out life functions.
3. If substances do not provide both chemical energy and building material, then they are not food for an organism.
4. Chemical energy from carbon-containing molecules is the only form of energy that organisms can use for carrying out life functions.
5. Carbohydrates (including simple sugars and starch), fats, and proteins are molecules that are food.
6. Light is not food because it is not made of atoms and therefore cannot provide building material, and even though substances such as water, carbon dioxide, oxygen, and various minerals provide atoms for building materials for some types of organisms, they are not food because they do not contain carbon atoms that are linked to other carbon atoms and cannot be used as a source of chemical energy.

Oh dear. If this is an example of core concepts then we need to add one more item; namely "7. According to item #3, chemoautotrophs are not organisms."

I'm sure most of you recognize the problem. The focus is on plants and animals, ignoring protozoa and bacteria. This is not how to teach basic concepts in biology and it certainly isn't how to teach if evolution is supposed to be an important core concept. Complex plants and animals did not just poof into existence with specialized metabolic pathways.

But not to worry. Although the six statements above seem wrong, they are soon clarified in the next section ...

Plants make their own food in the form of sugar molecules from carbon dioxide molecules and water molecules. In the process of making sugar molecules, oxygen molecules are produced as well.

1. Unlike animals, plants do not take in food from their environment.
2. Plants make their own food in the form of sugar molecules by means of a chemical reaction between carbon dioxide molecules and water molecules. Oxygen molecules are also a product of this reaction.
3. The process of making sugar molecules involves linking together carbon atoms that come from molecules of carbon dioxide.
4. The chemical reactions by which sugars are made takes place inside the plants. In most familiar land plants, the carbon dioxide molecules that are used come from the air that enters the plant primarily through its leaves, and that the water molecules that are used in the reaction enter the plant through its roots.

Here's the core concept as I teach it. I'd appreciate feedback on which way is better.

Photosynthetic organisms, such as bacteria, algae, and plants, can use light as a source of energy. They convert this energy into chemical energy in the form of ATP and other cofactors. These "high energy" molecules are used to provide energy in biosynthesis reactions that make all of the important molecules in the cell including amino acids, proteins, nucleotides, nucleic acids, fatty acids, lipids & membranes, carbohydrates, and polysaccharides.

Note that point #2 above is absolutely wrong. Oxygen is NOT produced as a result of a reaction between CO₂ and H₂O. That is a major misconception. The oxygen given off by some photosynthetic species is derived directly from water as part of the photosynthetic electron transfer reactions. Some photosynthetic species don't produce oxygen yet they are perfectly capable of synthesizing nucleic acids, proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. How do they do it? You need to understand the answer to that question if you are going to understand how eukaryotic photosynthesis evolved.

My main criticism of undergraduate biology education is that the core concepts are not being taught and, when an attempt is made, they are often taught incorrectly. The Vision and Change document doesn't make a contribution toward fixing this problem. The "core concepts" it describes are not specific enough to be helpful and when they are specific they turn out to be wrong or misleading.

---

Vote for Omar

Here's the latest video from the Liberal Candidate in my riding. These videos are one of the many reasons why I'm going to vote for him.

---

AAAS Flunks Evolution!

As I noted yesterday, the AAAS document, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education, defines five core concepts for biological literacy [Core Concepts: Evolution]. Evolution is the first core concept and this is a very good thing. Congratulations to the committee for a wise choice.

However, the way that the core concept is described was troubling. It suggested to me that the members of the committee may not understand evolution as well as they think they do. This worry is reinforced by the AAAS Project 2061 Science Assessment Website where a series of questions and responses about evolution indicates that AAAS flunks the test.

There's no mention of the standard definition of evolution as a change in the heritable characteristics of a population over time [What Is Evolution?]. This is important because a fundamental part of the core concept is the understanding that any mechanism of change counts as evolution—not just natural selection. Another fundamental part of evolution is understanding that it is populations that evolve and not individuals. The population genetics definition of evolution was developed in the 1930s and became a key part of the Modern Synthesis in the 1940s. The definition is almost 70 years old. Why don't the authors of the report know this?

There's no mention of random genetic drift. The assessment questions are all about natural selection. In fact, the key topic concept is called "Evolution and Natural Selection." How are students supposed to understand phylogenetic trees based on sequences if they don't understand the basic stochastic process that generates these trees? How are they supposed to understand genetic variation if they've never heard of neutral mutations and how they can be fixed by random genetic drift?

There's nothing about mutation. Don't students need to understand mutation in order to understand variation? Of course they do.

There's nothing about speciation. Understanding how new species arise is an important part of evolution.

The problem with the Vision and Change document is that it identifies five core concepts but it doesn't tell us what they are beyond giving them names. If you want to reform undergraduate teaching you have to not only identify what the core concepts are but also make sure they are accurate. If you don't understand the core concepts to begin with then you aren't going to teach them properly to your students. I don't think most professors understand evolution well enough to be able to teach it effectively as a core concept. (This also applies to the other core concepts as I will explain over the next few days.)

What we really need is a committee that examines how to teach PROFESSORS the core concepts of biology. Unfortunately, ignorance of the core concept of evolution is widespread and seems to include many of the professors who created the Vision and Change document.

---

Core Concepts: Evolution

The AAAS document, Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education, defines five core concepts for biological literacy. Evolution is at the top of the list, right where it belongs.

1. EVOLUTION:

The diversity of life evolved over time by processes of mutation, selection, and genetic change. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was transformational in scientists’ understanding of the patterns, processes, and relationships that characterize the diversity of life. Because the theory is the fundamental organizing principle over the entire range of biological phenomena, it is difficult to imagine teaching biology of any kind without introducing Darwin’s profound ideas. Inheritance, change, and adaptation are recurring themes supported by evidence drawn from molecular genetics, developmental biology, biochemistry, zoology, agronomy, botany, systematics, ecology, and paleontology. A strong preparation in the theory of evolution remains essential to understanding biological systems at all levels.

Themes of adaptation and genetic variation provide rich opportunities for students to work with relevant data and practice quantitative analysis and dynamic modeling. Principles of evolution help promote an understanding of natural selection and genetic drift and their contribution to the diversity and history of life on Earth. These principles enable students to understand such processes as a microbial population’s ability to develop drug resistance and the relevance of artificial selection in generating the diversity of domesticated animals and food plants.

I would have written a different description—one that placed emphasis on Darwin's contribution but did not imply that his views represent modern evolutionary theory. I would also have mentioned genetics, especially population genetics, as the key to understanding modern evolution.

Nevertheless, one can't argue that evolution is the number one core concept in the biological sciences. Are we teaching it correctly in undergraduate courses. No, we are not. Are we teaching it enough in our undergraduate courses? No, again.

I think the main problem was completely ignored by the committee that drew up this document. The problem is that most professors don't understand evolution well enough to integrate this core concept into their courses. It's not enough for everyone to agree that evolution is a core concept. You also have to understand the core concept in order to teach it properly.

I see evidence in the description above suggesting that even the committee members were fuzzy on the core concept. What, for example, is "the theory of evolution"?

---

Vision & Change in Undergraduate Biology Education: Bruce Alberts

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has published a document called Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education. Over the next few days I'm going to introduce the main recommendations and hopefully stimulate some discussion.

Today, we'll start with a video from Bruce Alberts the former head of the National Academies and currently editor-in-chief of Science magazine (published by AAAS). Pay attention to what he has to say. I agree with everything.¹

Bruce Alberts understands that we (university professors) are the problem and it's up to us to fix it.

... the future of science education ... depends on what college professors do in their teaching much more than I would ever have expected ...

Dr. Bruce Alberts’ Message to Vision and Change

---

1. Bruce was my Ph.D. supervisor.

Are You a Canadian between the Ages of 18 and 25?

---

Evidence for Miracles?

A Sandwalk reader, Mike Sherlock, took some exception to my talk on Friday night and sent me this email message. He has given me permission to post it. I don't agree with his position. What do the rest of you think about miracles?

In the course of your talk you asserted that there was no evidence to support miracles, thereby implying that a belief in miracles was a superstitious belief. During the question period I suggested that it might be a good thing if we could concede that our philosophical opponents have a plausible case, notwithstanding the fact that we're bound to believe the case for our own position is stronger. Such a concession would imply that arguments and evidence require interpretation, and that the weight one gives to an argument or piece of evidence may legitimately vary according to a wide range of factors such as temperament, upbringing, what we already believe, what we would like to believe, etc., etc. Insisting, however, that the contest between naturalism and supernaturalism is nothing more than a contest between cold white truth and stark unreason, while it may simplify one's argument, immensely complicates the problem of human communication. The tendency will be to talk about the opposition rather than to the opposition--after all, what's the point of talking to self-deluding fools. Their arguments are only going to irritate.

At the risk of irritating, I will quickly present the case for miracles as a theist might make it:

Hume famously remarked, "A miracle is a violation of the laws of Nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established those laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can be." But we only know that the "experience" against miracles is "firm and unalterable" if we already know that all reports of miracles are false. And we only know that all reports of miracles are false if we already know that miracles never occur. Both naturalists and supernaturalists accept that it is a logical fallacy to argue in a circle, that you must not assume in your argument what your argument purports to show.

Moreover, the theist claims that so far from the case against miracles resting on "firm and unalterable experience," there is a vast amount of unimpeachable evidence in favour of miracles. The question, as John Stuart Mill rightly said, "can only be stated fairly as depending on a balance of evidence: a certain amount of positive evidence in favour of miracles, and a negative presumption from the general course of human experience against them."

Now if it were purely a question of volume of evidence, then the volume is overwhelming. Every century, every race, every culture, every kind of person has contributed to the ocean of testimony bearing witness to the possibility of interference with nature by supernatural power--in other words, we have a situation here that is very different from that of mere logical possibility, like Russell's orbiting teapot. If the explanation of this evidence be in dispute, the naturalist has to provide a series of ad hoc explanations. He explains one incident by hallucination, another by fraud, a third by faulty observation, a fourth by forged documents, a fifth by inaccurate diagnosis and so on. The supernaturalist advances one explanation which covers all the alleged facts. He claims that the supernatural exists and that supernatural beings intervene from time to time in the natural order. He cuts through a tangle of assorted explanations with the sharp edge of Occam's razor: "Explanations must not be multiplied without a reason."

Dr. Jacalyn Duffin, as you may know, is a hematologist and an atheist. Some 20 years ago she was asked to provide expert testimony--she analyzed blood samples from a leukemia patient--that was used to advance the canonization of Canada's first saint, Marie-Marguerite d'Youville. She says the Vatican's forensic work in establishing miracles is rigorous. Duffin is also a Queen's University professor and author of the 2009 book "Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing in the Modern World." It was only after the research for her book, which chronicles her investigation into 1,400 supposed miracles, that she concluded that there are things that happen--cures, for instance--that cannot be explained scientifically. Her view differs from the Vatican's in one important area: "I disagree, because I am an atheist, that God did it." Scientists believe there must always be an explanation, she adds. "Even if we don't have an explanation, we're confident it must exist. That is a belief--it is like religion."

Dr. Duffin admits that her rejection of miracles is based on the fourth definition of faith (in my desktop dictionary): "a strongly held belief or theory." Her belief, which she says is "like religion," is that all phenomena are material in origin, and therefore any alleged miracle has a naturalistic explanation, irrespective of whether science can discover it or not. I think that position is honest and unassailable. Note, however, how her position differs from that of Hume, who tells his readers that they needn't worry their minds about any evidence for miracles because he can give them general reasons why they should reject ALL evidence in favour of miracles IN ADVANCE. Not only are there obvious philosophical objections to Hume's attitude, but it is sharply at odds with the scientific method as famously laid down by Francis Bacon. That method requires theory to emerge from the evidence, unguided by preconceived notions--especially metaphysical notions.

It seems to me that all of Hume's arguments only carry weight if you are a convinced naturalist to begin with--usually for reasons that have nothing to do with miracles, such as the conviction that no omnipotent, benevolent Being would create the sort of world that we live in. In other words, Hume's whole argument is underwritten by the sceptic's answer (solution?) to the problem of evil. Fair enough. The problem of evil has always been the main reason given by philosophers and non-philosophers alike for why they can't believe in a personal God. Though not a disproof of supernaturalism, the fact of evil (and tragedy) will always be a powerful suasion for naturalism.

Obviously, not everybody who prays for miraculous healing can expect to be healed. If everybody who prayed was healed then miracles would be accepted as one of the stranger facts of life--such as the evolution of the first cell from inanimate matter. Everybody would believe because everyone would know someone whose prayer had been answered--in many cases their own. If, on the other hand, miracles were exceedingly rare, then they would lose their evidential value even for supernaturalists. The Gospels make it clear that miracles were meant to have evidential value. Here's my favourite passage, but there are a number of others: "Now John had heard in his prison of Christ's doings, and he sent two of his disciples to him; Is it your coming that was foretold, he asked, or are we yet waiting for some other? Jesus answered them, Go and tell John what your own ears and eyes have witnessed; how the blind see, and the lame walk, how the lepers are made clean, and the deaf hear, how the dead are raised to life, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. Blessed is the man who does not lose confidence in me." (Matt 11: 2-6) There are also Gospel passages to indicate that Jesus did not claim a monopoly on healing, and that miracles could be expected in the future.

To me, the incidence of miracles seems just about right--except, of course, when one could use a miracle oneself. But the naturalist is bound to think otherwise. An interesting example is Emile Zola, self-proclaimed father of French naturalism (in literature). He wrote a novel, entitled "Lourdes", during the research for which he had a chance to meet Marie Lebranchu (Miracle #16, 1892) at the Medical Bureau of Verifications. In his novel he altered the facts. Having depicted Marie Lebranchu as a hopelessly ill person, using the name of La Grivotte, he made her die on the train home! Yet, she lived in perfect health until 1920. Zola, unable to explain the cure at Lourdes which he had investigated, stated, "I do not believe in miracles: even if all the sick in Lourdes were cured in one instant I would not believe in them." Interestingly however, after witnessing several healings he no longer dismissed the evidence: "No, I do not, or, better, I cannot believe in the Lourdes miracles. What I have seen is amazing, grandiose and moving to the utmost degree, but ultimately explainable by the natural laws."

Interesting too is Jacalyn Duffin's response at the end of an interview on CBC's "The Current" (Oct 15/10 - Pt 1: Brother Andre; 13:50 minutes in). The interviewerconcludes by saying, "It does shake your faith as an atheist, I'm guessing?"
"Oh yes it does. And it makes me very happy."
She's not contemptuous of miraculous healings, whatever the explanation, and I'm betting that she's not contemptuous of those who believe their cause is supernatural--despite the fact she remains a naturalist.

http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/2010/10/oct-1510---pt-1-brother-andre.html

I realize that anybody who wants to remain a naturalist must steadfastly resist the idea that "miracles" ever have a supernatural cause, however impressive the evidence. I respect that attitude, and think it can be justified by one's personal response to the problem of evil, by the fact that we don't know everything about nature, and by the fact that many strange things happen. But the conviction that miracles don't happen is not one that is rationally binding on everyone.

---

Speaking of Delusions ....

I post this for entertainment purposes only.

Denyse O'Leary had a contest. She asked her readers to "predict Darwin's doom."

What do you see as the timeline for Darwinism to be replaced by a more inclusive theory of evolution? If ever. And if not, why not?

Today she announced the winning IDiot, it's someone named "Bantay at 10" (What in the world were its parent thinking when it was born?)

Here's the best prize-winning answer the IDiots could come up with. (Yes, folks, they are serious.)

5 years –
Significant scientific discoveries will enhance a relatively new scientific paradigm we know today as “ID” – As additional discoveries buttress a design framework from which new scientific discoveries can be predicted, we will see more scientists and materialists distance themselves from Darwinism (like Marulis and Fodor).

10 Years –
Significant numbers of academicians from biologists to astronomers, philosophers to office secretaries, will be talking about a design framework for the future of their scientific fields in a professional setting, without fear of legal reprisals.

20 years –
Someone will win a landmark legal case that will have a result of ID being shown to be good science, not religion. Scientists who are on the anti-ID side will be expelled from their jobs, suffer public embarrassment for their fearmongering (Barbara?) and will be regretting that they didn’t break ranks while the going was good. Also in 10 years, a movie will be made about the Dover trial and there will be renewed controversy when the credits roll “ACLU Document”

40 Years –
More than 50% of the Big Academy will be non-materialists and agnostics, with atheism showing a steady decline from it’s already lowly numbers to an even lesser significance. The beginnings of post-Darwinist history revisionism will rear its ugly head, with surviving Darwinist hold-outs fighting amongst themselves over who claimed what fossil was a precursor to man (but strangely will forget that none of them were).

60 Years – Darwinism will be relegated to a small, obscure paragraph in science text books, probably as a footnote. All of today’s living fundamentalist Darwinists will be dead, their Machiavellianism and unscientific fearmongering and back-pats a thing of the past. Meanwhile, the exciting world of science will be renewed with advances in technology that will enable scientists to reverse engineer the parts in the cell itself, helping to elucidate secrets of its design previously unknown. On the global design front, advances in technology will reveal orders of magnitude greater levels of design in the universe.

---

The Accommodationist Wars: Winston vs Harris

Robert Winston is a stem cell researcher with a strong interest in science education. Sam Harris is a neuroscientist who writes about the conflict between science and religion.

They recently debated whether science and religion are compatible [Is there any place for religious faith in science?].

This is part of the accommodationist wars. Winston argues that there is no conflict between one's personal religious belief and science.

accommodationist

one who adapts to or compromises with an opposing view

Mirriam-Webster Dictionary
This "war" is supposed to be about whether science and religion are in conflict or whether they are compatible. If they are compatible then it's perfectly reasonable for someone to support scientific reasoning as an important and valid way of knowing while, at the same time, believing the major tenets of some religion. However, as you can see in this debate, the accommodationist position is often confused. It's easy for them to forget the question and stray into other issues that upset them.

One of the things that upset accommodationists isn't the real question but whether it is polite or civil to "attack" the beliefs of legitimate scientists.

As Robert Winston puts it ...

You quote Collins in your book: "as I rounded a corner and saw a beautiful waterfall hundreds of feet high, I knew the search [for God] was over." You write, in commentary, "it is astounding that this passage was written with the intent of demonstrating the compatibility of faith and reason". But he is making his own personal judgement about his circumstances, not preaching to the world. Your writing is lovely, funny, but I don't think the denigration of a serious scientist like Collins does a lot of good. We should be very careful about criticising other scientists, except when their science is clearly at fault.

The problem for Winston is not really whether the scientific approach is consistent with evangelical Christianity but whether it is appropriate to even raise the issue because it "denigrates" compatibilists. As expected, Winston takes a few swaps at the attitude of the New Atheists.

The quotation from Winston also highlights another aspect of the accommodationist wars. Winston focuses on the ability of Francis Collins to "do science" as though that's what it's all about. ("But do his views detract from the outstanding work [Collins] has done?") This is not what the debate is about. As Sam Harris points out, there are Young Earth Creationists who do science but nobody would argue that Young Earth Creationism and science are compatible. Similarly, I have argued that there are scientists who believe in homeopathy and astrology but that does not make those subjects compatible with science.

The debate is about whether the principles of scientific reasoning are in conflict with the beliefs held by people of faith or whether the scientific way of knowing is compatible with another way of knowing that lies outside of science.

Whether one side or the other is being rude doesn't address the question. Whether a scientist can still pipette accurately while believing in silly things isn't relevant.

We need to keep the accommodationists focused on the main point and not on strawmen that have no bearing on the question. It's hard for us to do that but we need to keep trying.

---

[Photo Credit: David Levene: guardian.co.uk]

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

The Accommodationist Wars

Don't forget to join us tonight at the Fox & Fiddle, 27 Wellesley St., Toronto for an event sponsored by the Association for Science and Reason (ASR).

I'm going to be talking about The Accommodationist Wars.

Professor Moran will talk about the conflict between two types of atheists: those who think science and religion are not compatible, and those who think religion and science are not necessarily in conflict. The accommodationists believe it’s important to ally with moderate religious leaders to combat the intrusion of religious beliefs into our schools and political systems. An important part of this strategy is recognizing that science and religion can be compatible. The other side agrees that such alliances can be fruitful but that should not prevent atheists from speaking out against even moderate forms of religious belief. The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) in the USA is a prominent accommodationist organization and so are the science organizations such as the National Academies and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). All of these organizations take a position on the compatibility of (some) religions. Many scientists think that these organizations should not be defending religion.

---

Casey Luskin Is Confused (Again)

The IDiots have painted themselves into a corner and they don't know what to do. They have been ranting against "Darwinism" for so long that they've come to believe that their silly version of evolution is what is being taught in the schools. When scientists objected to the "Darwinist" version of evolution the IDiots assumed that this was an objection to evolution. Gradually it seems to be dawning on them that there are legitimate scientific debates over the mechanisms of evolution and the relative contributions of various processes. These controversies have nothing to do with the FACTS of evolution.

But now the IDiots are in a bind. They can't retreat by admitting that their characterization of evolution has been wrong for the past few decades. That would make them look foolish. On the other hand, they can't continue to ignore the fact that major critics of "Darwinism" (or the "Modern Synthesis" or "Neo-Darwinism") are strong supporters of evolution and opponents of creationism, including Intelligent Design Creationism. Oops!

What to do? Watch how Casey Luskin squirms as he tries to get out of the corner in Recant! Pushing Creeds as Damage Control for Darwin.

When writing in technical journals, evolutionary biologists like McPeek or Koonin admit stark problems with neo-Darwinian evolution--i.e.:

"elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists" (McPeek)

"The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair" (Koonin)

But when their criticisms are cited by a proponent of intelligent design, they quickly toe the materialist party line, designed to reassure the masses that the paradigm has everything in order. Thus, when called upon by the NCSE to publicly defend the paradigm, Koonin eagerly endorses Dobzhansky's creed. As Newton eagerly boasted:

As the geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously said - and as Eugene Koonin explicitly agreed - "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."

Since when do creeds take precedence over the evidence?

None of this, however, changes the fact that Koonin, McPeek, and many other scientists are writing technical papers stating that the neo-Darwinian model is flawed at its very core. Koonin undoubtedly believes Dobzhansky's statement is true, but I doubt he would say "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of neo-Darwinism." Why, then, must this model be taught to students as unadulterated fact?

Do you see the strategy? The IDiots are going to claim that their silly misunderstanding of evolution ("Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism") is the "fact" of evolution that's being taught in the schools. Thus, it's not their fault that their understanding of evolution is wrong—blame it on the evolutionary biologists.

Yeah, that'll work! :-)

The alternative is to admit that the IDiots are, well .... idiots. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.

I suppose we should be happy that they are finally beginning to see the very problem we've been telling them about for 25 years. They simply don't understand the real scientific version of evolution.

---

[Image Credit: I got it from James Preller's Blog.]

Do Not Vote for the Anti-Science Green Party

There is no party platform that perfectly reflects my views on all issues. However, there is one thing I look for when deciding to support a political party and that's how they arrive at a particular policy. Is it scientific? Does the policy depend on evidence, healthy skepticism, and rational thinking?

The Green Party of Canada has outlined their platform in a document called Vision Green. Here's what they say in the introduction ...

Vision Green presents a well-researched analysis of critical environmental, economic and social challenges facing Canadians from coast to coast to coast, and presents practical solutions that can be achieved if there is the political will and leadership to take forward-looking action. It was developed by our Green Cabinet and was informed by experts, activists and citizens who participated in policy workshops held across Canada. Our vision is based on policies approved by the membership of the Green Party.

Sound promising. They don't actually say that their policies are based on sound scientific reasoning but it sounds like "well-researched" might be a synonym for "good science."

As you scan this document you encounter many positions that seem somewhat dogmatic and considerably beyond what the scientific evidence actually says. The Green Party is opposed to genetically engineered organisms, for example, and they propose to, "Phase out the use of genetically modified food products and ‘terminator’ seeds" (p. 74).

The Green Party is opposed to nuclear power and advocates a ban on new nuclear power plants and a shut-down of existing ones. The party proposes to ban uranium mining and refining. While some of their arguments are valid, the overall tone does not sound scientific.

But the real give-away comes when the document discusses health care. Here's one of the promises from page 70.

Provide funds to expand provincial health insurance to cover proven alternative therapies that are less expensive and invasive such as chiropractic, massage, acupuncture.

It is simply not true that these "alternative therapies" are proven in any scientific sense. What this tells me is that the Green Party platform is not based on scientific reasoning.

That's disappointing.

Everybody wants to promote good health. It's a motherhood issue. What's important is whether a political party has a realistic policy to achieve this goal. Most don't but the Green Party actually makes things worse ...

Health promotion is about more than health care or health education. It is about recognizing the profound health impacts of determinants of health outside the formal healthcare system and working with many stakeholders (policy-makers, NGOs, health agencies, multiple levels of government, the private sector, and most important, affected communities themselves) to reduce, eliminate, or overcome those factors that harm health or act as barriers to health enhancement, and to promote those factors that enhance the health, well-being and quality of life of all Canadians.

We will promote complimentary health care – through support of chiropractic, naturopathic, homeopathic, and other non-western practices. The Green Party of Canada recognizes the value of good health as a fundamental human right, and also the key to the most vibrant, inclusive and sustainable Canadian society possible.

I will never vote for a political party that promotes naturopathy and homeopathy in such a prominent manner. Naturopathy and homeopathy are examples of anti-science quack medicine. The fact that the leaders of the party would even include this in their platform tells me that scientific thinking is not part of their worldview and it calls into question their positions on everything else.

The Green Party wants to use my tax dollars to support these quacks.

Expand healthcare coverage to include qualified complementary/alternative health professionals such as naturopaths, acupuncturists, homeopaths, licensed massage therapists, chiropractors, and dietitians.

This is very wrong.

Do not vote for the Green Party. If you want to cast a protest vote then spoil your ballot or vote for some other party that cannot be elected in your riding. Every vote for the Green Party is a vote against science.

---

[Hat Tips: Zak at Canadian Atheist: The Green Party Platform and Mitchell Gerskup at Skeptic North: Voting Green? Read This.]

Hunting and Gathering in Washington D.C.

Laurel Kartchner is a Biochem/MCB major at the University of Arizona. She is attending the Experimental Biology 2011 conference in Washington.

Laurel visited all the display booths and collected all the available free loot. Here's her collection. Congratulations, Laurel!



Her poster will be up tomorrow ...

Kartchner, L.B., Malinowski, P., and T-S.Tsao Role of glutathione S-transferase and endoplasmic reticulum chaperone DsbA-L in the assembly of adipocyte hormone adiponectin.

---

Storm

This video is posted everywhere. In case you haven't watched it before you should do so right now. It's brilliant.

Imagine that you're at a dinner party and someone announces that all knowledge is relative, alternative medicine is better than real medicine, and science relies on faith—just like religion. That's the situation Tim Minchin found himself in. Here's how he struggled to keep quiet but eventually .....

---

Guess Who I'm Voting For?

---