Many of you have heard stories about Micheal Behe's testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Some of you have even made fun of him for saying that astrology is science.
The transcript of Behe's testimony is here. The important bits are when the lawyer for the plaintiffs is discussing the definition of "theory."
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.
Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?
A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.
I've seen lots of people mock Michael Behe for saying that astrology is science but I doubt they have read the actual transcript. Even if they have, I doubt that they appreciate the difficulties in deciding whether something is science or not.
These days, there is general agreement that astrology, homeopathy, etc, are examples of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is something that masquerades as science. The proponents claim that their "theory" is supported by evidence and the conclusions are arrived at by a process of rational thinking. The reason we dismiss these views as pseudoscience is because they have been subjected to the rigors of scientific investigation and found to be false. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community agrees with this conclusion.
Bad science doesn't always become pseudoscience. Most bad hypotheses just die a quiet death when they are discredited. The transition to pseudoscience only happens when the proponents refuse to give up and insist that their theory is still valid science.
The point is, bad science and pseudoscience are science or at least they were accepted as possible scientific explanations until they were discredited. If they weren't within the realm of science then they could never have been falsified by science.
If you think you know how to define science in a way that eliminates all those ideas that you don't like then read: Is Astrology a Science?
You might not be so inclined to make fun of Michael Behe after that.
Charles Robert Darwin was born on this day in 1809. Darwin was the greatest scientist who ever lived.
In honor of his birthday, and given that this is a year of politics in America, I thought it would be fun to post something about Darwin's interactions with politicians. The historical account is from Janet Browne's excellent biography (Brown 2002).
William Gladstone (photo below) was an orthodox Christian. He was not a fan of evolution. In March 1877 Gladstone was leader of the Liberal party and a former Prime Minister of the most powerful country in the world. He was spending the weekend with John Lunnock—a well-known liberal—and a few other friends, including Thomas Huxley.
They decided to walk over to Darwin's House in Downe. This was 18 years after the publication of Origins and Darwin was a famous guy. The guests were cordially received by Darwin and his wife Emma. Darwin and Emma were life-long liberals and they were honored by Gladstone's visit. A few days later, Darwin wrote a note to his friend saying,
Our quiet, however, was broken a couple of days ago by Gladstone calling here.—I never saw him before & was much pleased with him: I expected a stern, overwhelming sort of man, but found him as soft & smooth as butter, & very pleasant. He asked me whether I thought that the United States would hereafter play a much greater part in the history of the world than Europe. I said that I thought it would, but why he asked me, I cannot conceive & I said that he ought to be able to form a far better opinion,—but what that was he did not at all let out.
A few years later Gladstone sent Darwin one of his essays on Homer. Darwin gratefully acknowledged the gesture.
In 1881, when Gladstone was Prime Minister again, Darwin and some of his friends petitioned Gladstone to award a pension to Alfred Russel Wallace, who was in dire financial straits at the time. Gladstone granted the request. Two months later Gladstone offered Darwin a position as trustee of the British Museum but Darwin declined. (Remember, Gladstone did not agree with Darwin about evolution, or religion.)
When Darwin died, Gladstone was instrumental in arranging for him to be buried in Westminster Abbey. The funeral was held on April 26, 1882. William Gladstone was too busy to attend. He went to a dinner at Windsor.
Brown, J. (2002) Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Vol. II). Alfred A. Knopf, New York (USA)
We're discussing the nature of science by attempting to answer the question, "What is science?"
The example I've chosen is the debate over intelligent design (ID) and whether it is science or not. Many people believe that the question was settled by Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Decision of the Court. His answer was "no," intelligent design is not science.
In my first post I went over part of his decision in order to show that the issue is a lot more complicated than most people think [What did Judge Jones say in 2005? (Part I)]. It turns out that there are many ways to define science and Judge Jones picked one in order to prove that ID is not science. But there are other definitions of science where ID would qualify as science.
A lot of my ideas come from a recent book called Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Much of that book is based on philosopher Larry Laudan's view of the demarcation problem. Here's a relevant passage (p. 111)...
It is generally recognized that we don't do a very good job of teaching the nature of science. We also don't do a good job of teaching students how to think critically. This issue is going to heat up in a few months when Jerry Coyne's new book comes out.
Let's light a few fires right now. We'll look at the decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. It was written by Judge John E. Jones III and it reflects on the nature of science and whether intelligent design (ID) is science. You can find the complete transcript on the TalkOrigins Archive website at: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District: Decision of the Court. The decision was published in December 2005.
Let's look at Section E4: "Whether ID is Science." I'll put Judge Jones' statement in boldface italics and my comments in regular type.
I've been trying to get my colleagues to change the way they teach university courses. So far, I haven't had much success.
Part of the problem is the culture of the university (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada). Here's a description of the problem. It was sent to me by a former public school teacher (thanks, Helen) but it captures the essence of what's happening in higher education—especially the last decade.1
1. Teaching Maths In 1950s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit?
2. Teaching Maths In 1970s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?
3. Teaching Maths In 1980s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit ? Yes or No
4. Teaching Maths In 1990s
A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20 Your assignment: Underline the number 20.
5. Teaching Maths In 2000s
A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands.
He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok).
I don't think the last part is quite accurate. In a real modern classroom we would refer to the logger as "she" or at least "he/she."
1. Normally I don't reproduce these internet clips but this one is so relevant.
There's a new book on junk DNA due to be published at the end of March. It's called Junk DNA: A Journey through the Dark Matter of the Genome. The author is someone named Nessa Carey. Here's her bio ....
Nessa Carey has a virology PhD from the University of Edinburgh and is a former Senior Lecturer in Molecular Biology at Imperial College, London. She worked in the biotech and pharmaceutical industry for thirteen years and is now International Director for the UK's leading organisation for technology transfer professionals. She lives in Norfolk and is a Visiting Professor at Imperial College.
Pretty impressive.
Here's how she describes her view of the human genome.
Bill Maher is a kook. Nobody should listen to him about anything because he's blown whatever credibility he ever had. Just look at the sycophants he lined up for this show broadcast on Feb. 6, 2015.
I am always on the lookout for evidence that some sort of god actually exists. The reason I'm an atheist is because I've never seen any evidence that's the least bit convincing. I keep asking for evidence but nobody ever supplies any. Somebody suggested to Barry Arrington that there was no evidence for god(s) and that really set him off [Astonishingly Stupid Things Atheists Say].
He responded with a list of all the evidence for god(s). Here's the list. I don't find it very convincing but some of you may want to head off to the the nearest church after reading the list.
The fine tuning of the universe.
The moral sense.
The fact that a natural universe cannot logically have a natural cause.
The fact that there is something instead of nothing.
The overwhelming odds against the Darwinian story being true (estimated at 10^-1018 by atheist Eugen Koonin).
The irreducible complexity of biological systems.
The vast amounts of complex computer-like code stored in DNA.
The miracles that have been reported throughout history.
My subjective self-awareness.
The fact that we do not even have plausible speculations to account for the origin of life.
There are legal issues about teaching anything that smacks of religion in American public schools. This is why the leading Intelligent Design Creationists are very careful to avoid saying that they want to mandate teaching of Intelligent Design Creationism in the public schools.
Recently, a reporter for the Sioux Falls (South Dakota, USA) Argus Leader wrote an article about teaching IDC. He implied that the Discovery Institute lied to him when they said they weren't pushing Intelligent Design Creationism in public schools. The Discovery Institute didn't like that at all [Journalistic Malpractice in South Dakota: Argus Leader Won't Correct Misleading Story.
Don’t Require The Teaching of Intelligent Design
All of the major pro-intelligent design organizations oppose any efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. The mainstream ID movement agrees that attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scientists and within the scientific community.
Teach More About Evolution
Instead of mandating intelligent design, the major pro-ID organizations seek to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks by teaching students about both scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution. Most school districts today teach only a one-sided version of evolution which presents only the facts which supposedly support the theory. But most pro-ID organizations think evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.
Protect Academic Freedom
Although pro-ID organizations do not advocate requiring the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, they also believe there is nothing unconstitutional about voluntarily discussing the scientific theory of design in the classroom. Pro-ID organizations oppose efforts to persecute individual teachers who may wish to discuss the scientific debate over design in an objective and pedagogically appropriate manner.
Get it? The policy clearly states that the Discovery Institute doesn't want to require, or mandate, teaching Intelligent Design Creationism. Instead, it greatly favors a policy where evolution will be "correctly" taught. That includes "voluntary" coverage of design theory in the classroom.
... school boards and administrators need to bear in mind that any presentation of a science curriculum dealing with evolutionary theory should focus on scientific evidence and theories reasonably inferable from that evidence, rather than upon claims that rest upon religious beliefs. Resources discussing scientific criticisms of aspects of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories include the Icons of Evolution Study Guide and the Icons of Evolution Curriculum Modules.
In other words, if you voluntarily choose to teach the controversy then the Icons of Evolution book by Jonathan Wells would be a good choice.
Now you know. The Discovery Institute wants very much to get Intelligent Design Creationism into the public schools but they'll sneak it in the back door by pretending that it's part of legitimate scientific criticism of neo-Darwinism.
Note: I think it would be a great idea to get students to read Icons in high school biology classes in my home province of Ontario, Canada. I'd be happy to visit any schools who want to try this and explain why the book is a load of crap. It would be a good exercise for students to engage in critical thinking and examine the evidence. I like the idea ot teaching the controversy. It usually ends up by revealing that one side is wrong.
There's an article on the PBS website that's making the rounds. It's by Wendy Thomas Russell and the bottom line is admirable. She's proud of the fact that her husband is getting their daughter interested in science by telling stories [Skip the fairy tales, and tell your daughter science bedtime stories].
That's not the part that's attracting the attention of science bloggers. What bothers us is the opening part of the article where Wendy Thomas Russell explains why she never liked science.
I decided to re-write those opening paragraphs with a slight twist. Hopefully you will see what's wrong.
I was never very good at English. Mostly because it was taught to me the same way history was taught to me: It wasn’t. I mean it was, technically. But not in a way that inspired me or held my interest for very long.
In elementary school, English literature was something contained in a much-too-heavy textbook adorned with things I didn’t care about: sonnets, Shakespeare in a funny collar, grammar, the elements of style, pathetic fallacy. (I hated pathetic!) Not even the occasional picture of Jane Austen could save English literature for me. As much as I would have loved to meet James Joyce, learning in school about his drinking habits or various abodes just made him seem more distant from me.
In high school, most of my English teachers were middle-aged women who seemed to aim their instruction right over my head. Everything struck me as dry and unemotional. I always felt I was missing something — some basic brain function. I learned things as though they were random pieces of information to be memorized and quickly forgotten, rather than stacks of wisdom neatly piled on a solid foundation of understanding.
Later, at the University of Nebraska, I was able to avoid English and the humanities for the most part (the biology department was kind to me). I did take one history class — and was pretty excited about it! — until I realized that the teacher was a very old Japanese man whose heavy accent destroyed any chance I had at making sense of the universe.
He pronounced “war” like this: “wah-waaaah.” I barely scraped by with a C-.
Most people would react negatively to something like that. They would quickly recognize that the problem was me, and not my teachers. After all, what kind of person can't manage to learn English literature? I must be very stupid.
Why is it socially acceptable for a woman to write those things about her inability to appreciate science?
I think it's ridiculous for atheists to get dragged into the argument from evil. As soon as you start down that path you are conceding that you are willing to debate "sophisticated theology" and not whether god(s) actually exist. The atheist must then be prepared to read a massive amount of literature beginning with St. Augustine of Hippo through Thomas Aquinas and including the most famous "sophisticated" theologians of the 20th century like Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne. If you don't engage the arguments made by those people, and many others, then you are not being honest.
The "problem of evil" is not simple and atheists do not do themselves any favors by pretending that it is. That's exactly the criticism we level at theists who don't even try to understand nonbelievers.
Let's look at an example of a stupid argument used by a Christian. Barry Arrington thinks that atheists are "simpering cowards" [The New Atheists Are Simpering Cowards]. Why in the world would he think that?
Because he's using the argument of angst to promote the idea that atheist logic is flawed. What is the argument from angst? It's a favorite of naive Christians like Barry Arrington and it goes like this. Friedrich Nietzsche was a troubled man and part of his problem was that he couldn't cope with the moral freedom that came from abandoning god. It drove him crazy. (Syphilis may have helped, but he was certainly manic-depressive.)
Christians would have you believe that this is what should happen to all intelligent people who don't believe in any gods. Here's how Barry Arrington explains it ...
Nietzsche was wrong and tragic and, in the end, insane. But at least he was brave and honest. Brave enough to stare into the abyss and honest enough to report back what he saw there. He would be disgusted by the puerile, simpering cowardice that characterizes atheism in the 21st century.
Apparently, the people of Denmark are just not experiencing enough angst and that's because they are "simpering cowards." They have built a secular society that avoids facing up to the extremely troubling aspects of not believing in god(s). This pretty much applies to most of the people in my neighborhood as well. We seem to be getting along just fine without any gods to guide us but, according to Barry Arrington, we aren't suffering enough.
I feel like my ears are going to bleed at the bleating of the new atheists who write in these pages. They go on and on and on and on about how morality is rooted in empathy and the avoidance of suffering. Nietzsche would have spit his contempt on them, for they are espousing the “herd animal” Christian slave-morality he disdained and which, ironically, they claim to have risen above. How many times have the atheists insisted, “we are just as ‘good’ as you”? Why have they failed to learn from Nietzsche that “good” means nothing. Why do they insist that they conform to a standard that they also insist does not exist?
The answer to these questions is the same: They refuse to acknowledge the conclusions that are logically compelled by their premises. And why do they refuse? Because they are simpering cowards.
I can respect while disagreeing with a man like Nietzsche, a man who follows his premises where they lead, even if they lead to asking questions such as “Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us?” I have nothing but contempt for smiley-faced, weak-kneed, milquetoast atheism that insists that God is dead and all is well because we are just as nice as you.
For the record, I do not insist that gods are dead. They never existed in the first place. Being good was an important value for all societies long before they invented the Christian god.
In addition to their ridiculous "problem of evil," it looks like Christians also have a "problem of good." They don't understand how you can be good without god. It's probably better if they keep believing in their gods because, otherwise, the streets would be full of ex-Christian mass murderers. Here's what Barry Arrington thinks ...
When Nietzsche urges us to go beyond good and evil, he is urging us to recognize the implications of God’s death for morality. God is the only possible source of transcendent objective moral norms. If God does not exist then neither do transcendent objective moral norms. And if transcendent objective moral norms do not exist, neither do “good” and “evil” in the traditional senses of those words. There is only a perpetual battle of all against all, and “good” is a synonym for prevailing in that battle, and “evil” is a synonym for losing.
Here's a video of a commercial by Carnival Cruises. Apparently it aired during some recent football game in the USA. (They play football in January?)
The voice is that of US President John F. Kennedy. He says ...
I really don’t know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it is because in addition to the fact that the sea changes and the light changes and ships change, it’s because we all came from the sea. And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and, therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears. We are tied to the ocean. And when we go back to the sea, whether it is to sail or to watch it we are going back from whence we came.
Here are the facts as I explain them in the latest edition of my textbook (p. 33).
BOX 2.2 BLOOD PLASMA AND SEAWATER
There was a time when people believed that the ionic composition of blood plasma resembled that of seawater. This was supposed to be evidence that primitive organisms lived in the ocean and land animals evolved a system of retaining the ocean-like composition of salts.
Careful studies of salt concentrations in the early 20th century revealed that the concentration of salts in the ocean were much higher than in blood plasma. Some biochemists tried to explain this discrepancy by postulating that the composition of blood plasma didn’t resemble the seawater of today but it did resemble the composition of ancient seawater from several hundred million years ago when multicellular animals arose.
We now know that the saltiness of the ocean hasn’t changed very much from the time it first formed over three billion years ago. There is no direct connection between the saltiness of blood plasma and seawater. Not only are the overall concentrations of the major ions (Na+, K+, and Cl-) very different but the relative concentrations of various other ionic species are even more different.
The ionic composition of blood plasma is closely mimicked by Ringer’s solution, which also contains lactate as a carbon source. Ringer’s solution can be used as a temporary substitute for blood plasma when a patient has suffered blood loss or dehydration.
Here's a copy of something I posted on talk.origins on Oct. 5, 1998.
It turns out that one of the most important researchers who investigated this problem was A.B. Macallum who was chair of my department from 1907-1917. [See Archibald Byron Macallum (1858 - 1934)] Macallum wrote a major review in 1926 (1) in which he debunked the idea that the ionic composition of blood plasma was nearly the same as that of sea water. Here's what he said seventy years ago,
"Quinton, in 1897 (2), advanced the view that in the great majority of multicellular animals organisms the internal medium, the circulatory fluid, or hemolymph, is, as regards its organic composition, but sea water.... Analysis of the salts of the blood plasma, Quinton holds, indicates that they are the same as those which obtain in sea water and the elements of both appear in the same order of importance; Chlorine, sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, chuphur, silicon, carbon, phosphorus, fluorin, iron, nitrogen, etc. ...
This indicates how uncritical he is in the examination of his data in his aim to demonstrate that the internal medium is but sea water. The elements do not appear in the same order of importance as stated. In sea water they rank thus: chlorine, sodium, magnesium, potassium, sulphur, calcium, etc., whereas in the blood plasma they rank: chlorine, sodium, potassium, calcium, sulphur, magnesium etc. In sea water the sodium is to the magnesium in amount as 100:12, whereas in the blood plasma of the higher vertebrates the ratio is as 100:0.7, which reveals a wide discrepancy. As regards the sulphur, which occurs almost wholly in sea water as sulphates, it is in amount in proportion to the sodium as 8.4:100, whereas in mammalian blood plasma if all the sulphur therein is reckoned as present in the form of sulphate, the proportion is 1.4:100."
p. 320-321
Macallum reviews his own extensive data on ionic composition and points out that not only the proportions but also the concentrations do not agree. The salt concentration of plasma is "less than one-fourth that of sea water".
Macallum was a confirmed evolutionist and he went on to argue that the salt concentration of mammalian plasma may reflect that of the ancient ocean where our ancestors lived. He was under the impression that the salinity and composition of the oceans has changed over the past several hundred million years. (We now know that this is not correct.) Furthermore, the ionic composition of cells is quite different from that of the plasma and Macallum suggests that this is a reflection of an even more ancient origin of cells in a Archaen ocean.
The point is that our blood is NOT like sea water. The sea is much more salty and the relative concentrations of the various ions is different.
1. Macallum, A.B. (1926) The Paleochemistry of the Body Fluids and
Tissues. Physiol. Rev. 6, 316-357.
2. Quinton, R. (1898) Hypothese de l'eau de mer, milieu vital des
organisimes eleves. Compt. rend. de la Soc. de Biol. 935
I added more information on May 30, 2005.
The concentration of salts in seawater is more than three times higher than the concentration in most organisms. For example, the ionic concentration of seawater is 600 millequivalents and that of human blood plasma is only 150 milliequivalents. The same difference holds true for most species, including many single-cell organisms. Many bacteria can live quite happily in the sea or in fresh water because they are not dependent on the ionic composition of the surrounding medium. Many organisms are not isotonic with their surrounding if by "isotonic" one means within a few percent.
Perhaps modern salt concentration in human plasma reflects that of the ancient ocean? This idea has been around for a long time. The original chair (1907) of my department was A.B. Macallum and he was a leading proponent of this concept. The most widely cited paper was a review published near the end of three decades of work on this subject.
Macallum, A.B. (1926) The Paleochemistry of the Body Fluids and Tissues.
Physiol. Rev. 6: 316-357.
(Finding this paper was quite an adventure - I've told the story before on talk.origins)
Macallum published estimates of the salt concentration of the Cambrian sea and these estimates agree closely with the salt concentrations in modern human plasma. Unfortunately the salt concentrations in sharks and lobsters are twice as high as in humans so this meant that sharks and lobsters originally had salt concentrations that were higher that seawater. No problem. The salt in sharks and lobsters has increased over time as the ocean got more salty but the human values reflect the time when their ancestors emerged from the sea.
It's a nice idea but it was spoiled by a nasty little fact. The salt concentration of the oceans has not changed very much since they reached equilibrium about three billion years ago. Gould has a nice little essay about this in "On Rereading Edmund Halley" (EIGHT LITTLE PIGGIES p.168). In addition to discovering comets, Halley proposed a method for calculating the maximum age of the Earth based on the increase of salt in the ocean.
He was wrong for the same reason that Macallum was wrong.
It's interesting that the myth of blood plasma resembling sea water persisted for over a century in spite of the fact that leading biochemists knew the truth 75 years earlier. Part of the problem was textbook writers who perpetuated the idea because it seemed so sensible in light of evolution. (In fact, it's not sensible at all if you really understand evolution.) Those textbook writers didn't bother to check the scientific literature. Neither did the typical lecturer in a biochemistry course.
That's still a problem today. Here's the former President of the American Society of Hematology repeating the myth in 2008 [The Wonders of Blood].
Our blood is the foundation of our very existence as multicellular animals, said Andrew Schafer, a professor at Weill Cornell Medical College and the outgoing president of the American Society of Hematology. Blood is the one tissue that comes into contact with every other tissue of the body, and it is through blood that our disparate parts communicate, through blood that our organs cooperate. Without a circulatory system, there would be no internal civilization, no means of ensuring orderly devotion to the common cause that is us.
“It’s an enormous communications network,” Dr. Schafer said — the original cellphone system, if you will, 100 trillion users strong.
Blood can also be thought of as a private ocean, a recapitulation of what life was like for all the years we spent drifting as microscopic, single-celled organisms, “taking up nutrients from sea water and then eliminating waste products back into sea water,” Dr. Schafer said. Not only is blood mostly water, but the watery portion of blood, the plasma, has a concentration of salt and other ions that is remarkably similar to sea water.
This video is making the rounds and a lot of atheists are wetting their pants over Stephen Fry's response to the question of what he would would say to "he, she, or it" if he encountered god when he dies.
My questions would be "Who are you? Which groups of humans (if any) got it right when making up a religion? Tell me about yourself and why you didn't reveal yourself to me."
That's not what Stephen Fry would do. He makes the assumption that he knows the mind of god and attacks the god for not being nice to humans. In other words, he accepts the problem of evil and assumes that the god he is facing gives a damn about some obscure species on a minor planet in one of billions of galaxies. Later on Stephen Fry concedes that he could be talking to the Greek gods or some other gods but by then it's too late.
The god he is addressing may or may not have done any of the things in the Bible. If he isn't that god then he will know that Stephen Fry is attacking a strawman. If he is the god of the Bible then presumably he/she/it had his/her/its reasons for doing apparently evil things and Stephen Fry is about to get educated about the real mind of god. That may turn out badly for Stephen Fry.
If you ever run into any real gods I'd advise you not to mess with them.
Many of my atheist friends think that Fry's response is fantastic because he really shocks the interviewer, Gay Byrne [Stephen Fry on God]. That's naive. Most intelligent Christians have developed some very good rationalizations concerning the problem of evil. They've heard it all before and they know how to respond. One of the classic responses is that cannot they know the mind of god. But Stephen Fry knows the mind of god and this is puzzling because Fry is an atheist.
The results of the latest PEW/AAAS survey are getting a lot of attention [Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society]. Most people focus on the fact that the American public doesn't accept evolution and anthropogenic climate change. That's not news.
The real issue is what can we1 do about it. Alan Leshner, Chief Executive Officer of AAAS and Executive Publisher of Science, thinks he has the answer. Here's what he writes in an editorial "Bridging the opinion gap" ...
Speaking up for the importance of science to society is our only hope [my emphasis, LAM], and scientists must not shy away from engaging with the public, even on the most polarizing science-based topics. Scientists need to speak clearly with journalists, who provide a great vehicle for translating the nature and implications of their work. Scientists should also meet with members of the public and discuss what makes each side uncomfortable. In these situations, scientists must respond forthrightly to public concerns. In other words, there needs to be a conversation, not a lecture.
Isn't that insightful? Here we are in 2015 and nobody ever thought of that before now! Can you imagine how much better off we'd be if scientists have only started speaking up 40 years ago, or even 10 years ago?
Scientists have been engaging with the American public about evolution for half a century and it has not worked. They've also been speaking to journalists.2
Fortunately, there are some people who have gone way past these naive views and actually thought seriously about the problem. Here's are the results of two questions from the survey.
Only 16% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the general public rank U.S. STEM education for grades K-12 as above average or the best in the world. Fully 46% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the public rank K-12 STEM as “below average.”
75% of AAAS scientists say too little STEM education for grades K-12 is a major factor in the public’s limited knowledge about science. An overwhelming majority of scientists see the public’s limited scientific knowledge as a problem for science.
I agree with those scientists. We are part of the problem because we are not doing a very good job of educating students in the ways of science. The long term solution is to do a far better job of teaching about science. We should not be graduating students from university who reject evolution and climate change. We should not be giving out degrees to students who fall for pseudoscience gobbledegook like homeopathy and astrology. If we do that then we are not doing our job as educators and survey results like these are not going to change in the forseeable future.
Now, to be fair, Alan Leshner recognizes the problem even if he's wrong about the solution.
The public's perceptions of scientists' expertise and trustworthiness are very important, but they are not enough. Acceptance of scientific facts is not based solely on comprehension levels. It can be compromised whenever information confronts people's personal, religious, or political views, and whenever scientific facts provoke fear or make people feel that they have no control over a situation. The only recourse is to have genuine, respectful dialogues with people. Good venues are community clubs, science museums, science fairs, and religious institutions. Working with small groups is more effective than working with large groups.
Perhaps he and some other scientists can sit down in small groups with Republican members of Congress and change their minds. Maybe you could do it in their churches. (Remember to be respectful when dialoguing with John Boehner.) Meanwhile, I believe that's not the "only hope." I think educating our young people is a better investment in time and effort even though it won't pay off for a generation.
1. I say "we" because the same problems exist in Canada.
2. Maybe Alan Leshner should have a little chat with Elizabeth Pennisi.
