The Problem with Psychology

Ed Yong of Not Exactly Rocket Science has just published a scathing criticism of the entire field of psychology [Replication studies: Bad copy]. The fact that this article appears in Nature should be of great concern to all psychologists. Here's the two opening paragraphs.

For many psychologists, the clearest sign that their field was in trouble came, ironically, from a study about premonition. Daryl Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, showed student volunteers 48 words and then abruptly asked them to write down as many as they could remember. Next came a practice session: students were given a random subset of the test words and were asked to type them out. Bem found that some students were more likely to remember words in the test if they had later practised them. Effect preceded cause.

Bem published his findings in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP) along with eight other experiments1 providing evidence for what he refers to as “psi”, or psychic effects. There is, needless to say, no shortage of scientists sceptical about his claims. Three research teams independently tried to replicate the effect Bem had reported and, when they could not, they faced serious obstacles to publishing their results. The episode served as a wake-up call. “The realization that some proportion of the findings in the literature simply might not replicate was brought home by the fact that there are more and more of these counterintuitive findings in the literature,” says Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, a mathematical psychologist from the University of Amsterdam.

There's lots more where that comes from. Read the entire article.

One of the most remarkable things about Ed Yong's paper is that he doesn't even mention evolutionary psychology! I think that the absurdity of most evolutionary psychology papers is more than sufficient reason to question whether the entire field is fatally flawed [Boobies and Evolutionary Psychologists].

There's clearly something wrong. Can it be possible that an entire discipline has gone off the rails?¹

---

1. Saying that there's a problem with a discipline is not the same as saying that there's a problem with every single psychologist. What I'm saying is that the good psychologists don't seem to have the same influence that good biochemists and good evolutionary biologist (mostly) have on their respective disciplines.

Cellphones in the Classroom

Here's an interesting video clip on the advantages (?) of encouraging students to use cellphones in the classroom.


Students have been using laptops in my classes for more than a dozen years. They were never using them for the sole purpose of taking notes, especially since the installation of WiFi. Smart phones don't change anything.

If you teach a class that engages students and gets them to debate and discuss the issues then they won't have time to live tweet or do anything else on their smart phones. If you are teaching difficult and challenging concepts and principles, then you are likely to keep their attention. If you teach a class that allows students to busy themselves with lots of other tasks during the lecture, and still get a good grade, then they will do that.

I pose the following question ... if your students can spend a considerable amount of time using their smart phones during class then they are not giving the class their full attention. Are you teaching effectively?

And whatever happened to note-taking? How can you take notes with a smart phone in your hand? Is taking notes an old fashioned concept that should be abandoned?

---

On Changing Education Because It's What the Students Want

In a previous post I mentioned an article by Sidneyeve Matrix who advocates changing the "traditional" form of undergraduate university education by incorporating more technology [Challenges, Opportunities, and New Expectations]. In that post, I concentrated on one of the arguments for online courses [On the Quality of Online Courses].

In this post I want to bring up one of the arguments for introducing new technology into a course. I'm going to pick a quote from Sidneyeve Matrix's article but she's not the only one who brings it up.

There’s a torrent of research demonstrating the costs and benefits of using social, mobile, and digital technology enhancements to teach; yet it’s inconclusive whether these result in higher student outcomes. Of course, there are multiple bottom lines to consider. What’s undeniable is that even though digital divides exist, today’s students expect to see some technology used in their classes. It follows that we can expect increased engagement and higher student satisfaction when profs power-up. In my experience, exceedingly positive end-of-term student surveys and reviews in my ed-tech enhanced courses document a beneficial halo effect.

The first statement is true, as far as I know. There are no sound pedagogical reasons for incorporating social media and other technologies into a course. That means there must be other, not-pedagogical, reasons for change.

The third statement says that it's "undeniable" that students expect to see some technology in their class. What does this mean? Will they be satisfied if they see a power point presentation and a website? Do they expect their professors to befriend them on facebook or follow their tweets? We don't know. The statement is devoid of meaning.

However, what seems to be "undeniable" is that there are some professors who think that it's important to give students whatever they want. These professors seem to think that it's the students, not them, who are the experts on undergraduate education. Is there any evidence for that?

Of course not. The reason for giving students what they want is clearly spelled out in the last sentence. If you give them what they want then you'll get good student evaluations.

In fairness, she also mentions "engagement." If student engagement is one of your goals—it's one of mine—then that's a reason for exploring technology options. That may, or may not, be associated with student satisfaction. My experience suggests that it's not. I first started an online discussion forum for students in 1987-88 using a usenet forum running on a VAX. Very few students used it but the ones who did liked it a lot.

Over the last 25 years, I've tried various ways of encouraging student engagement on the internet including, in the last iteration, trying to get students to read and comment on blogs. The result is always the same. A subset of the class has a great time "engaging" and a larger subset resists all attempts to draw them in. The most effective way to encourage, and reward, engagement is to do it in class with the students right there with you. The downside is that a good chunk of your class are miserable because they don't want to "engage" in their own learning. They would rather be passive learners.

In order for professors to engage in podcasting or online lectures or tweeting, or supporting their colleagues who opt to publish in open source journals or participate in online conferences, they must see real benefits and an immediate, significant return on investment. Perhaps for some profs evidence of increased student satisfaction and engagement will win them over.

I hope that "increased student satisfaction" will never be a primary motive for change. It may be a secondary benefit but that's not the same thing. Our job is to teach effectively. If the proper teaching methods don't "please" the students then our job is to convince them that they need to change their minds about what gives them pleasure. If they can't do that then they might have only two choices: (1) be miserable throughout their stay in university, or (2) drop out.

Option three: (3) make the professor change the course in order to cater to the student's view of how a course should be taught, is not a reasonable option.

Many of these debates and discussions about the use of new technology in the classroom assume that there's resistance from old professors who are uncomfortable with new technology and/or social media. That may be true of some professors but many of my mature colleagues have been computer literate since before many young professors were born. Many of my colleagues have been using email for thirty years. They have had webpages, including course webpages, since the web was created twenty years ago. In spite of the fact that they are not intimidated by technology—what science professor is intimidated by new technology?—they have not radically transformed their way of teaching in the past several decades. Why is that? Is it because they have the wisdom and experience to know that new technology is not the best way to improve undergraduate education?

---

On the Quality of Online Courses

Are online courses a good thing, a bad thing, or relatively neutral? There's much to debate.

The main issue, as far as I'm concerned, is pedagogical. Are online courses a good way to teach critical thinking—the primary goal of undergraduate education?

There are tangential issues that often get in the way of dealing with the important questions and I'd like to deal with one of them here.

In a previous post [Is Canada Lagging Behind in Online Education?] I criticized a newspaper article by Michael Geist because he made an incorrect assumption. He assumed that any online course from a "top-tier" university would be serious competition for the average Canadian school. I selected two courses from MIT and showed that the quality of their biochemistry teaching was not a threat.

This point needs to be emphasized. Just because an online undergraduate course comes from Harvard, MIT, or Stanford does not mean that it's a good quality course. In my own field of biochemistry I know of many, many teachers in small schools throughout North America who can teach biochemistry better than famous research professors at the so-called "top-tier" schools.

It still may be true that students will flock to the Harvard, MIT, and Stanford courses and pay those schools for biochemistry credits but let's not assume, without justification, that they are getting a better education.

Today I received a copy of Academic Matters: OCUFA's Journal of Higher Education, a magazine published by the Ontario Federation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). The articles are devoted to technology in the classroom ("Professor 2.0." ugh!). An article by Sidneyeve Matrix [Challenges, Opportunities, and New Expectations] caught my eye. She says,

When Stanford University offers massively open online courses (MOOCs) in science and engineering, in one case drawing over 150,000 participants, people take notice. When the Khan Academy wins significant Microsoft funding, posts 3,000 instructional videos online, and attracts massive traffic, stories proliferate about the future of self-directed, online, informal e-learning. ... Critics ask, what’s the value of having students attend a lecture in real time if essentially the same material is covered by world-renowned professors on professional-quality video courtesy of free services at TED-Ed or YouTube Education? ... Why pay enormous fees to learn from faculty in an accredited university program, when MITx offers free online courseware with options for students to get peer-to-peer and professor feedback, assessment and earn branded certificates of achievement? What is the return on investment for students (and perhaps their parents) opting to earn their credentials at a bricks-and-mortar university when they could join the 30,000 others enrolled at the London School of Business and Finance in their Global MBA program—delivered online via a Facebook app?

There's a myth here that needs exposing. The quality of undergraduate education in the sciences¹ should be judged by the content of the course and not the prestige of the university that offers it. Let's not get bamboozled into thinking that just because Stanford and Khan University Academy offer an online course in biochemistry that it's necessarily a good course.

The MIT examples I highlighted in my previous post says that this is a a bad assumption. You can look at the Stanford University Courses and make up your own mind.

Here's the important point: don't just assume that because an online course exists, it is necessarily a good course. You may have legitimate reasons for thinking that online courses are good things, but that doesn't excuse you from actually looking at the quality of an online course before declaring that the producers of such a course did a good job. Putting a bad course online is worse than putting no course online no matter what you might think of online courses.

---

1. I restricted myself to the sciences because we are presumably judging quality by the ability to teach critical thinking and factually correct material. There may well be degrees and programs where this isn't important. For example, it may not be important who teaches MBA courses since the goal is just to get a degree to put on your CV. In that case the prestige of the London School of Business and Finance may be far more important than whether you are actually learning something useful, or correct.

Michael Richards on the Sandwalk

Technically, this isn't Michael Richards on the Sandwalk but I'm posting it anyway. He sent me this drawing from a recent visit. It's the same view as in the Steve Watson and Seanna Watson photos (links are below). Thanks Michael.

Larry Moran
PZ Myers
John Wilkins
Ryan Gregory
The God Delusion
Cody
John Hawks
Michael Barton
Seanna Watson
Steve Watson
Michael Richards

---

Next Generation Science Standards: Evolution

Next Generation Science Standards is an organization dedicated to developing new K12 science standards for schools in the United States. The partners are the American National Research Council, The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and Achieve, a nonprofit education reform organization.

The draft standards are posted on the website and you are invited to make comments until June 1st. Let's see what the new standards have to say about teaching evolution.

Here's what should be taught in middle school.

LS4.A: Evidence of Common Ancestry and Diversity

• Fossils are mineral replacements, preserved remains, or traces of organisms that lived in the past. Thousands of layers of sedimentary rock not only provide evidence of the history of the Earth itself but also of changes in organisms whose fossil remains have been found in those layers. (a)
• The collection of fossils and their placement in chronological order (e.g., through the location of the sedimentary layers in which they are found or through radioactive dating) is known as the fossil record. It documents the existence, diversity, extinction, and change of many life forms throughout the history of life on Earth. Because of the conditions necessary for their preservation, not all types of organisms that existed in the past have left fossils that can be retrieved. (c)
• Anatomical similarities and differences between various organisms living today, and between them and organisms in the fossil record, enable the reconstruction of evolutionary history and the inference of lines of evolutionary descent. (b)
• Comparison of the embryological development of different species also reveals similarities that show relationships not evident in the fully-formed anatomy. (d)

LS4.B: Natural Selection

• Genetic variations among individuals in a population give some individual an advantage in surviving and reproducing in their environment. This is known as natural selection. It leads to the predominance of certain traits in a population, and the suppression of others. (e),(f)

LS4.C: Adaptation

• Adaptation by natural selection acting over generations is one important process by which species change over time in response to changes in environmental conditions. (g)
• Traits that support successful survival and reproduction in the new environment become more common; those that do not become less common. Thus, the distribution of traits in a population changes. (f)
• In separated populations with different conditions, the changes can be large enough that the populations, provided they remain separated (a process called reproductive isolation), evolve to be separate species. (g)

Not bad, all things considered. I'd like to add that some evolution occurs by the chance increase in certain traits in a population, a process known as random genetic drift. Drift is part of the standards in my province of Ontario.

I'd also like to delete "in response to changes in environmental conditions" and "in the new environment" from LS4.C. The idea that natural selection only occurs when the environment changes is a common misconception and there's no reason to perpetuate that misconception.

Here are the high school standards.

LS4.A: Evidence of Common Ancestry and Diversity

• Genetic information, like the fossil record, also provides evidence of evolution. DNA sequences vary among species, but there are many overlaps; in fact, the ongoing branching that produces multiple lines of descent can be inferred by comparing the DNA sequences of different organisms. Such information is also derivable from the similarities and differences in amino acid sequences and from anatomical and embryological evidence. (e)

LS4.B: Natural Selection

• Natural selection occurs only if there is both (1) variation in the genetic information between organisms in a population and (2) variation in the expression of that genetic information—that is, trait variation—that leads to differences in performance among individuals. (a),(c)
• The traits that positively affect survival are more likely to be reproduced, and thus are more common in the population. (b),(c),(d),(f)

LS4.C: Adaptation

• Natural selection is the result of four factors: (1) the potential for a species to increase in number, (2) the genetic variation of individuals in a species due to mutation and sexual reproduction, (3) competition for an environment’s limited supply of the resources that individuals need in order to survive and reproduce, and (4) the ensuing proliferation of those organisms that are better able to survive and reproduce in that environment. (a)
• Natural selection leads to adaptation, that is, to a population dominated by organisms that are anatomically, behaviorally, and physiologically well suited to survive and reproduce in a specific environment. That is, the differential survival and reproduction of organisms in a population that have an advantageous heritable trait leads to an increase in the proportion of individuals in future generations that have the trait and to a decrease in the proportion of individuals that do not. (b),(c),(f)
• Adaptation also means that the distribution of traits in a population can change when conditions change. (d)
• Changes in the physical environment, whether naturally occurring or human induced, have thus contributed to the expansion of some species, the emergence of new distinct species as populations diverge under different conditions, and the decline–and sometimes the extinction–of some species. (d)
• Species become extinct because they can no longer survive and reproduce in their altered environment. If members cannot adjust to change that is too fast or drastic, the opportunity for the species’ evolution is lost. (d)

I have more of a problem with the high school standards. High school students must learn about random genetic drift, especially if they are comparing sequences since most of the changes they will see are nearly neutral changes that have been fixed by drift.

I think the standards should specifically mention that selection can occur in a constant environment since no organisms are perfectly adapted.

I hope the standards include specific attention to the relationship between humans and other species as shown by the combination of sequence comparisons, anatomical similarities, and the fossil record.

The source of mutations is covered in another section (LS3.B).

It would be nice to describe the differences between the fact of evolution and evolutionary theory.

---

Monday's Molecule #170

This is a rather unusual molecule that I suspect most of you are unfamiliar with. You need to identify the molecule (correct trivial name will do). I also want you to identify the most important enzyme that uses this molecule as a substrate in the normal direction of flux. Describe the dominant symptom of patients who can't make this enzyme.

Post your answers as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answers wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.

There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)

Some past winners are from distant lands so their chances of taking up my offer of a free lunch are slim. (That's why I can afford to do this!)

In order to win you must post your correct name. Anonymous and pseudoanonymous commenters can't win the free lunch.

Winners will have to contact me by email to arrange a lunch date.

Comments are invisible for 24 hours. Comments are now open.

UPDATE: The molecule is 4α-carbinolamine, one of the products of the phenylalanine hydroxylase reaction. 4α-Carbinolamine is transformed into 5,6,7,8-tetrahydrobiopterin in two steps. In the first step it is the substrate for 4α-carbinolamine dehydratase. Mutations in that enzyme cause a mild form of phenylketonuria that usually has no serious consequences for the patient.

There are no winners this week.

Winners
Nov. 2009: Jason Oakley, Alex Ling
Oct. 17: Bill Chaney, Roger Fan
Oct. 24: DK
Oct. 31: Joseph C. Somody
Nov. 7: Jason Oakley
Nov. 15: Thomas Ferraro, Vipulan Vigneswaran
Nov. 21: Vipulan Vigneswaran (honorary mention to Raul A. Félix de Sousa)
Nov. 28: Philip Rodger
Dec. 5: 凌嘉誠 (Alex Ling)
Dec. 12: Bill Chaney
Dec. 19: Joseph C. Somody
Jan. 9: Dima Klenchin
Jan. 23: David Schuller
Jan. 30: Peter Monaghan
Feb. 7: Thomas Ferraro, Charles Motraghi
Feb. 13: Joseph C. Somody
March 5: Albi Celaj
March 12: Bill Chaney, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
March 19: no winner
March 26: John Runnels, Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 2: Sean Ridout
April 9: no winner
April 16: Raul A. Félix de Sousa
April 23: Dima Klenchin, Deena Allan
April 30: Sean Ridout
May 7: Matt McFarlane
May 14: no winner

---

Is Canada Lagging Behind in Online Education?

"Is Canada lagging behind in online education?" is the title of an article in today's Toronto Star. The title in the print edition is "Education not evenly distributed."

The author is Michael Geist who is described as follows ...

Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law. He has a Bachelor of Laws degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Master of Laws degrees from Cambridge University in the UK and Columbia Law School in New York, and a Doctorate in Law from Columbia.

Hmmm ... that's interesting. A lawyer with no obvious expertise in education is writing about education. Let's see what he has to say ...

... in recent weeks it has become increasingly clear that the future of education is here, though it is not evenly distributed. The emerging model flips the current approach of expensive textbooks, closed research, and limited access to classroom-based learning on its head, instead featuring open course materials, open access to scholarly research, and Internet-based courses that can simultaneously accommodate thousands of students. The concern is that other countries are becoming first adopters, while Canada lags behind.

Multi Faith Room Disappears!!

I forwarded a link to my blog post [Look What Just Appeared Right Beside My Office!!!] to the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. Less than 24 hours later the sign has been removed, the furniture taken away, and the door is locked.

I'm pretty sure the Dean is behind this. As soon as she learned about it, she recognized that someone had done something inappropriate (i.e. stupid). We'll probably never learn who was responsible but I thank the Dean for taking care of the problem so quickly.

This is just one more in a long list of good things she has done recently. We are lucky to have her as Dean.

Now, if only she had a better staff in the Dean's Office ....

---

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism

For the sake of completeness, I thought I'd include the basic tenets of Darwinism as outlined by Bill Dembski in his BioLogos essay: Southern Baptist Voices: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?.

Non-Negotiables of Darwinism:

• (D1) Common Descent: All organisms are related by descent with modification from a common ancestor.
• (D2) Natural Selection: Natural selection operating on random variations is the principal mechanism responsible for biological adaptations.
• (D3) Human Continuity: Humans are continuous with other animals, exhibiting no fundamental difference in kind but only differences in degree.
• (D4) Methodological Naturalism: The physical world, for purposes of scientific inquiry, may be assumed to operate by unbroken natural law.

My question is for any scientist who defines themselves as a Darwinist. Do you agree with these non-negotiables? Are there any you would like to add or modify?

---

Non-Negotiables of Christianity

Many of us have been wondering what it means to be a Christian. Can Christianity be made compatible with science?

Bill Dembski has the answer on BioLogos at Southern Baptist Voices: Is Darwinism Theologically Neutral?.

Non-Negotiables of Christianity:

• (C1) Divine Creation: God by wisdom created the world out of nothing.
• (C2) Reflected Glory: The world reflects God’s glory, a fact that ought to be evident to humanity.
• (C3) Human Exceptionalism: Humans alone among the creatures on earth are made in the image of God.
• (C4) Christ’s Resurrection: God, in contravention of nature’s ordinary powers, raised Jesus bodily from the dead.

Decide for yourselves. Is Christianity compatible with science? Are there Christians who are prepared to abandon one of more of these "non-negotiable" in order to make science and Christianity compatible? Are there accommodationsts who think that Dembski's version of Christianity is compatible with science? with evolution?

---

On the Difference Between "Evolutionary Theory" and Scientific Fact

There's been a lot of discussion about Elliott Sober's talk at the University of Chicago. You can watch the entire talk and the questions & answers at [The Problem with Philosophy: Elliott Sober].

Most of the debate is taking place on Jerry Coyne's site [Can God create mutations? Elliott Sober says we can’t rule that out.] and on Jason Rosenhouse's blog [The Reason For the Ambivalence Towards the Philosophy of Science]. Things aren't going well for Elliott Sober and, by implication, for the philosophy of science.

I want to discuss another troubling aspect of Sober's talk. Throughout the talk he refers frequently to "evolutionary theory" or "the theory of evolution." This is consistent with the introduction by Robert Richards where he says they are considering "... the application of evolutionary theory to the humanities and social sciences" (27 sec). The title of Sober's talk is "Naturalism and Evolutionary Theory."

What do they mean by "evolutionary theory"? To me, evolutionary theory means the kinds of things that are discussed in Stephen Jay Gould book "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory." It includes things like population genetics and the potential influence of genome size on the fixation of alleles. It includes things like species sorting and punctuated equilibria. It even includes speculation about selfish genes and the level of selection.

Evolutionary theory does NOT include whether birds and dinosaurs share a recent common ancestor, the age of the Earth, the amount of junk DNA in our genome, or the causes of mutation. Those are interesting questions that bear on evolution but the answers to those questions are not a fundamental part of evolutionary theory. The are questions of scientific fact, in my opinion.

Do philosophers like Elliott Sober agree with this distinction? I don't think so. The main point of Sober's talk is whether evolutionary theory can show that mutations are random. He concludes that evolutionary theory cannot conclusively prove that all mutations arose by chance; therefore, there's room for God-directed mutations as long as their frequency is indistinguishable from randomness.

Sober has a paper that discusses this issue [Evolution without Naturalism]. Here's the part that describes "evolutionary theory" (page 5).

What is this thing called “evolutionary theory,” which theistic evolutionism is able to encompass consistently? It includes the origin of life from nonliving materials by physical processes, the branching genealogical process whose upshot is that current organisms are connected to each other by relations of common ancestry, the random origin of new mutations, and the processes that govern trait evolution within lineages, such as selection and drift. Among these several propositions, the idea that mutations are “random” may seem to be a sticking point.

This is not what I think of when I use the term "evolutionary theory." I don't think the origin of life is a part of evolutionary theory. I don't think that the random origin of new mutations is part of evolutionary theory. As far as I'm concerned, the discovery that mutations occurred preferentially in hotspots or that there was a base composition bias—which there is—would not refute evolutionary theory. I think my understanding of evolutionary theory is closer to that of the majority of evolutionary biologists and it's troubling to me that philosophers seem to use a different definition.

Here's another example from that same paper (page 4) ...

Although evolutionary theory is silent on the question of whether there is a God, it is not neutral with respect to logically stronger hypotheses about God. Consider, for example, the statement

Life appeared on earth about 10,000 years ago due to divine intervention.

This statement is inconsistent with evolutionary theory.

The Young Earth Creationist statement is inconsistent with all available scientific evidence on the age of the Earth. This evidence is so overwhelming that it is a scientific fact (sensu Gould) that the Earth is billions of years old. Why does Sober think that "evolutionary theory" plays a role here?

This is not just a semantic quibble. By confusing "evolutionary theory" with scientific facts Sober makes it much more difficult to follow his line of reasoning.

Is it true that the majority of philosophers of science use "evolutionary theory" when they should frequently be referring to scientific facts? Is it true that most philosophers think that the age of the Earth is a "theory"? Do they also think that evolution is only a theory?

---

The Burden of Proof

Hemant Mehta of Friendly Atheist posted this video a few weeks ago: When It Comes to God’s Existence, Who Has the Burden of Proof.

It's quite good. I think it deserves more atrention so I'm reposting it here. It's relevant to the discussions about Elliott Sober and the value of philosophy. Thanks Hemant!

---

Look What Just Appeared Right Beside My Office!!!

My next door neighbor used to be the chair of the Immunology Department but Immunology recently moved to another floor of this building. The entire corridor became part of the Department of Biochemistry—or so we thought.

Last week, the old office was renovated and I assumed that the space would become offices for biochemistry students. So did my biochemistry colleague whose office is on the other side.

Surprise! The sign went up yesterday. This room is now a religious chapel, or prayer room, with the rather misleading title of "Multi Faith Room." I assume that its purpose is allow people of all faiths to visit the room from time to time (it's open from 7am to 10pm) and pray behind the screen.

The room has not been transferred to biochemistry, it has been assigned to the Faculty of Medicine. A little island of faculty controlled space in the middle of the Department of Biochemistry.

The Dean knows me. She is well aware of the fact that I'm a prominent defender of evolution in the war against creationism. She also knows that I am an atheist who doesn't shy away from the the conflict between science and religion. She probably doesn't know that I'm a strong supporter of the Centre for Inquiry and adviser to the University of Toronto Secular Alliance.

I put posters and banners on the wall outside my door advertising atheist events and I often post articles promoting evolution over creationism and science over religion.¹ I'll be putting up even more posters in the near future since the Faculty of Medicine has decided to send me the very people who need to hear my message.

Thanks to the Dean for giving me this opportunity to reach out to the other side.

UPDATE: The Multi Faith Room no longer exists. See Multi Faith Room Disappears!!.

---

1. I'm looking for more posters. Please let me know if you find something appropriate.

What Does James Shapiro Think?

James Shapiro is one of those scientist who think that evolutionary theory is due for a "paradigm shift." His schtick is that mutations often involve genome rearrangements and that reorganization of the genome may be a sort of "natural genetic engineering" that cells use to direct evolution. It's hard to figure out what Shapiro actually means and even harder to figure out his motives. I posted an earlier comment from him that suggests he is looking for a middle ground between science and Intelligent Design Creationism. Here's part of that earlier post: The Mind of James Shapiro

What is wrong with "dancing in the DMZ" between intelligent design (as articulated by Michael Behe and others) and neo-Darwinism? Are these two positions the only alternatives? I doubt it. That is why my 1997 article in Boston Review on evolution debates was called "A Third Way." What Dembski calls the "DMZ" (i.e. a zone free of futile conflict) is the place where the real evolutionary science is taking place. I am proud to be there, and I see that an increasing number of people are joining me when they realize that natural genetic engineering, horizontal DNA transfer, interspecific hybridization, genome doubling and symbiogenesis provide solutions to problems recognized to be intractable under the limitations of conventional evolutionary thinking.

Now Susan Mazur has gotten into the game of trying to figure out James Shapiro. You may recall that Susan Mazur has made a minor career out of touting the upcoming revolution in evolutionary theory. Here are some excerpts from her interview with James Shapiro on a website called Counterpunch: The Evolution Paradigm Shift.

Suzan Mazur:... Are Coyne and his pal Richard Dawkins, by not publicly recognizing that a sea change has occurred, milking lucrative performances and book deals? And if so, isn’t this a disservice to science?

James Shapiro: Well that’s a loaded question.

I’ve gone on record in my blog as saying that I thought that Dawkins and his ill-conceived atheist crusade hurts science education and hurts evolutionary science. I’ve criticized Jerry Coyne for making statements that he can’t support. Both Coyne and Dawkins have been characterized as having a neo-atheist agenda in attacking religion. And it is true that many of the comments on my blog reflect a deep reservoir of anti-religious sentiment. I’ve noted in the blog that we should get out of the business of attacking supernaturalists. It’s not in science’s interest to make a war with religion or religious belief.

Suzan Mazur: And get on to the science.

James Shapiro: And get on with the science. And also to have a little bit of humility. Science never provides ultimate answers.

Both Coyne and Dawkins are doing well for themselves by being vitriolic and vehement in their campaign against religious belief and against some of the more foolish things that religious fundamentalists do. But I suspect ego gratification is the major driver more than financial gain. Obviously it’s nice if you make money at the same time.

This appears to be a typical accommodationist position, assuming that Shapiro is an atheist. I just wish he'd be a little more up front about his stance.

James Shapiro: ...The moth cover was ultimately chosen because the kind of exquisite mimicry it represents is an evolutionary puzzle.

How does that come about? I think gradualist explanations are difficult to sustain in the case of mimicry. Recently it’s been discovered that there are master control regions, sort of like Hox complexes but more complicated, that control wing patterns in butterflies. I suspect as people analyze those we’ll know more about how the mimetic patterns evolved.

The book hasn’t been reviewed by any of the major journals yet. Nature and Science have not reviewed it. The National Center for Science Education is reviewing it in June. I’m interested to see whether they want to show that evolution science is alive and doing novel and controversial things.

As I said in my blog, science is not doing very well in this evolution vs. religion dispute. I think part of the reason why we’re doing poorly is that the most recent and exciting science is not being presented to the public. Clearly, the issues are not being presented in a way that shows evolution science isn’t stuck in ideas from the last century and the last century before that.

I wrote the review that will soon appear on the NCSE site. I can assure him that I'm well aware of many exciting developments in evolutionary theory. The ones that are important (population genetics, random genetic drift, Neutral Theory, punctuated equilibria, speciation) are ones that Shapiro doesn't understand or mention in his book. (Gould isn't even in the index!) The ones that are trivial and were dismissed as minor embellishments decades ago are the ones that, in his mind, are going to cause a paradigm shift.

---