Mixing Science, Religion, and Politics

 
The first draft of the human genome sequence was announced on June 26, 2000. There was a huge press conference in the East Room of the White House with Craig Venter, President Bill Clinton, and Francis Collins. British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared via videolink from London.

The event is recounted on pages 2 & 3 of Francis Collins' book The Language of God. It's worth recalling because it reminds Americans of what they can expect if Collins were to become head of NIH.

But the most important part of his speech that most attracted public attention jumped from the scientific perspective to the spiritual. "Today," [Clinton] said, "we are learning the language in which God created life. We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, and the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift."

Was I, a rigorously trained scientist, taken aback at such a blatantly religious reference by the leader of the free world at a moment such as this? Was I tempted to scowl or look at the floor in embarrassment? No, not at all. In fact I had worked closely with the president's speechwriter in the frantic days just prior to this announcement, and had strongly endorsed the inclusion of this paragraph. When it came time for me to add a few words of my own, I echoed this sentiment: "It's a happy day for the world. It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God."

What was going on here? Why would a president and a scientist, charged with announcing a milestone in biology and medicine, feel compelled to invoke a connection with God? Aren't the scientific and spiritual worldviews antithetical, or shouldn't they at lest avoid appearing in the East Room together? What were the reasons for invoking God in those two speeches? Was this poetry? Hypocrisy? A cynical attempt to curry favor from believers, or to disarm those who might criticize this study of the human genome as reducing humankind to machinery? No. Not for me. Quite the contrary, for me the experience of sequencing the human genome, and uncovering this most remarkable of all texts, was both a stunning scientific achievement and an occasion of worship.

---

Faith and Evolution at the Discovery Institute

The Discovery Institute has a new website called Faith + Evolution. It's designed to explore the relationship, if any, between the Christian faith and science.

Prominently featured on the home page is an article by Jonathan Wells.

Is Francis Collins Right about Evolution?

Francis Collins feels that intelligent design poses a serious problem to Christian belief because it rejects Darwinian evolution, which he feels is supported by overwhelming evidence. But the only evidence Collins cites for Darwin’s mechanism of variation and selection is microevolution—minor changes within existing species. And the principal evidence he cites for Darwin’s claim of common ancestry is DNA sequences that he says have no function—though genome researchers are discovering that many of them do have functions.

Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that must retreat as we learn more about the genome—in effect, a Darwin of the gaps.

Wells is referring to the evidence of shared pseudogenes and other genomic signatures of common descent. This won't do, according to Wells. Collins is not one of the good guys.

I wonder if Jonathan Wells has read a book called The Edge of Evolution? It was published in 2007. The author is Michael Behe—a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Behe also describes the evidence from pseudogenes. Here's an excerpt from pages 70-71.

When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of chimps and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation.

More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin—not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene, too. .... In the region between the two gamma genes and a gene that works after birth, human DNA contains a broken gene (called a "psedugoene") that closely resembles a working gene for a beta chain, but has features in its sequence that preclude it from coding successfully for a protein.

Chimp DNA has a very similar pseudogene at the same position. The beginning of the human pseudogene has two particular changes in two nucleotides that seem to deactivate the gene. The chimp pseudogene has the exact same changes. A bit further down in the human pseudogene is a deletion mutation, where one particular letter is missing. For technical reasons, the deletion irrevocably messes up the gene's coding. The very same letter is missing in the chimp gene. Toward the end of the human pseduogene another letter is missing. The chimp pseudogene is missing it, too.

The same mistakes in the same gene in the same positions of both human and chimp DNA. If a common ancestor first sustained the mutational mistakes and subsequently gave rise to those two modern species, that would very readily account for why both species have them now. It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans.

That strong evidence from the pseudogene points well beyond the ancestry of humans. Despite some remaining puzzles, there's no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.

Behe and Collins are on the same page. They both recognize the powerful genetic evidence of common descent (macroevolution).

I wonder if Jonathan Wells and Michael Behe talk to each other? I'd love to be a fly on the wall.

---

Francis Collins and the National Institutes of Health (USA)

 
After many years of service as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), Francis Collins resigned from NIH last year. His reasons for quitting were widely reported in the media. Here's the press release from NIH [Francis S. Collins to Step Down as Director of National Human Genome Research Institute].

Dr. Collins explained that his decision to step down as leader of NHGRI came after much personal deliberation. "My decision was driven by a desire for an interval of time dedicated to writing, reflection and exploration of other professional opportunities in the public or private sectors," he said. "The demands and responsibilities of directing an NIH institute do not allow the time commitment necessary for this. In addition, I may need greater latitude than my current position allows to pursue other potential positions of service without encountering any possible conflicts of interest, whether real or perceived."

We now know that the "real or perceived" conflict of interest relates to the creation of The BioLogos Foundation. Here's the mission statement.

Dr. Francis Collins established The BioLogos Foundation to address the escalating culture war between science and faith in the United States. On one end of the spectrum, “new atheists” argue that science removes the need for God. On the other end, religious fundamentalists argue that the Bible requires us to reject much of modern science. Many people - including scientists and believers in God - do not find these extreme options attractive.

BioLogos represents the harmony of science and faith. It addresses the central themes of science and religion and emphasizes the compatibility of Christian faith with scientific discoveries about the origins of the universe and life. To communicate this message to the general public and add to the ongoing dialog, The BioLogos Foundation created BioLogos.org.

Funded by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, the Web site is a reliable source of scholarly thought on contemporary issues in science and faith that highlights the compatibility of modern science with traditional Christian beliefs. BioLogos.org features responses to a myriad of questions received by Collins, author of The Language of God, Karl Giberson, author of Saving Darwin, and Darrel Falk, author of Coming to Peace With Science since the publication of their books.

It's pretty obvious why running such a foundation is not compatible with a leadership role at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

That's what makes this report in Scientific American so disturbing [Former Human Genome Project leader Francis Collins likely next NIH director].

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) will likely bring on geneticist Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, as its new director, Bloomberg News reported on Saturday.

The agency, which has been run by acting director Raynard Kington since October 2008 after Elias Zerhouni stepped down, is in late stages of screening Collins, noted Bloomberg.

Fortunately, we can be confident that the rumor isn't true. With Barack Obama as President of the United States, the appointment of someone like Francis Collins should never happen. Things are going to change in Washington.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the rumor were true and the new head of NIH did not have the enthusiastic support of most scientists? That's the sort of thing that happened under the previous President.

---

Lies, Damn Lies, etc

 
Thomas Baekdal advises his clients on how to communicate in the 21st Century. He has posted an analysis of current sources of information and his predictions for the future on his blog baekdal.com: Market of Information: Where Is Everybody?.

Here's the graph that everyone's raving about ...


According to Thomas Baekdal, our society is already getting almost 75% of its information from the internet. By 2020 it will be 90%, according to Baekdal.

The surprising thing about this nonsense is the number of people who believe it.¹ The Web 2.0 cult and its various sects have grown into a kind of social movement populated mainly by people under thirty years old, as far as I can tell. These people are predicting that the world will be radically changed in just a few years as newspapers, books, television, and radio die off. They believe that most citizens will be getting all their information from social networks, social news, blogs and websites.

It's reasonable to ask how such predictions are made and, to their credit, some of the people commenting on baekdal.com have asked. Tom Baekdal replies in comment #30.

The graph was based on combination of a lot of things, a number of interviews, general study, general trend movements, my experience etc. I cannot give you a specific source though, because I used none specifically.

The graphs before 1990 are all based on interviews, and a large number of Google searches to learn about the history of Newspaper, TV and Radio - and more specifically, what people uses in the past. The graphs from 1998 and up to today, is based on all the things that have happened in the past 11 years, of which I have probably seen 1000 surveys ( it is what I do for a living). And the graph from 2009 and forward is based on what I, and many other people predict will happen in the years to come.

One very important thing though, this is not a reflection of my opinion. This is the result a careful analysis. There are always variations, and different types of people. But I believe that this graph accurately reflects consumer focus.

That's it folks. This "careful analysis" is what he does for a living and it is NOT just a reflection of his personal opinion.

It sounds to me a lot like the Oprah Winfrey sort of reasoning that we all respect so highly (not!). This is a dangerous trend. What we're seeing here is the abandonment of rational thought in favor of personal experience, wishful thinking, and pseudo-intellectual, scientific-looking analyses.

Nobody doubts that the internet plays an important role in the lives of many people—this is a blog, after all, and it's really, really important.

Nobody doubts that the internet will take up a larger percentage of people's time in the future. But the change will be incremental and supplemental, just as radio, television, email, and cell phones, became part of our lives without transforming them. Newspapers, magazines, and books did not disappear when every home acquired a radio in the 1930s or a television set in the 1960s and they won't disappear when every home has a personal computer.

I tell by students to look at those big boxes hanging from the ceiling in their classroom. They're from 1969 when everyone predicted that television would take over the classroom. My building was even designed with a television studio on the main floor. It's now offices for research administration.

If it's true that in a few short years we will get 90% of our information from the internet then we need to be afraid, very afraid.

The business world will adapt to incremental changes in the way we communicate and gather information. But the proper response is to base business decisions on real scientific analysis of current trends and behaviors and not on the wishful thinking of someone who makes a living by promoting the death of traditional media.

One of the advantages of being an old foggy is that I've lived through several cycles of so-called "futurists" who are convinced they are the prophets of change (e.g. Alvin Toffler, author of Future Shock, 1970; and George Gilder, co-founder of the Discovery Institute). It gets a bit boring after the first fifty years.

---

1. That means you, Bertalan Meskó of ScienceRoll

Happy Towel Day!

 
Yesterday was Towel Day in honor of Douglas Adams.

The photograph is from the streets of Innsbruck, Austria, in 2005. That's where Adams got the idea to write The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
                              Douglas Adams

---

Monday's Molecule #123: Winners

 
UPDATE: The "molecule" is a normal electrocardiograph (ECG) of a human heartbeat [see Wikipedia: Electrocardiography]. The Nobel Laureate is Willem Einthoven.

There were eight responses in the first hour. The winner is Òscar Reig of Barcelona! This is our first European winner in many months. I guess I'll have to start posting Monday's Molecule much earlier in the day to give Europe a chance. (Australia doesn't get a chance.)

The undergraduate winner is Maria Altshuler of the University of Toronto who just became eligible after winning last month. Congratulations to Òscar and Maria.

This week there were four Europeans and one South American in the hunt. Not only do my Canadian friends need to be worried, but the Americans are also being challenged! I even had a correct entry from Singapore. That presents a real challenge when I try to calculate the winning time. Why can't they use the same day we use?

---

You've probably noticed already that today's "molecule" isn't exactly a molecule. That's OK, you can still try to guess what it is. I want a fairly complete description of what you see here. This is supposed to be easy in order to encourage some new readers to enter the contest. There was no winner last week!!!

There's a Nobel Prize associated with this diagram.

The first person to describe the graph and identify the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are five ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Laura Gerth of the University of Notre Dame, Stefan Tarnawsky of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Adam Santoro of the University of Toronto., and Michael Clarkson of Waltham MA (USA).

The Americans have pulled ahead of the Canadians and the rest of the world is being shut out. Where are the Europeans? Are they just stupid or don't any of them stay up late? BTW, I want to thank all those smart Canadians who have been holding back in order to give the rest of the world a chance.

I still have one extra free lunch donated by a previous winner (Michael Clarkson) to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch.

THEME:

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

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.

---

Denyse Hears Lawrence Krauss

 
Denyse O'Leary is in Sudbury attending the Canadian Science Writers Conference. One of the speakers was Lawrence Krauss&mdahs;who is speaking in Toronto tomorrow evening.

Here's how Denyse reports on what she heard [Science writing: There are not - repeat, NOT - two sides to the story].

Dr. Krauss went on to say that there is an innate tension between journalism and science. The problem is, “journalists think there are two sides to every story.” According to him, this is not true: “Most times, one side is simply wrong.”

Oh well, that’s all right then. Having been informed that one side is simply wrong, the journalist can forget about getting a range of opinion and simply act as a shill for the approved view.

The beauty of that strategy is that if there are problems with the approved view, the journalist is guaranteed never to find out, so she will always be sure she and her sources are right.

Dr. Krauss later conceded that “The editors are the bad guys.” Yes, indeed, in the sense that editors often come up with additional people for us writers to interview, people who offer additional perspectives. They, like us, see most stories as having many sides, not just one, so they are guilty of multiple sins, and we are complicit (when we are doing our job, that is).

The problem with Denyse O'Leary is that she hears but doesn't listen. Krauss said that "most times, one side is simply wrong." He also said that journalists and editors don't get this, they almost always pretend that there are two sides to every story.

Denyse then proves his point.

---

Brian Switek on the Darwinius Affair

 
Brian Switek is an undergraduate at Rutgers University in New Jersey (USA). He's the man behind Laelaps.

Brian knows a lot about fossils and the history of life so it's no surprise that he has an opinion about "Ida" the new fossil primate being hyped in the media. Read his article in The Times of London (UK): The dangerous link between science and hype. Brian covers all the bases from whether the science is correct to whether the media hype is justified.

Brian calls himself a science writer and that's a good choice. This is science writing at its very best.

---

[Photo Credit: Laelaps]

The Perfect Gift

 
We've all had this problem. Try to choose the perfect gift for your partner without asking their opinion. Chances are, you got yourself in hot water—especially if you're a man choosing for a woman. I still remember¹ buying that cool flash attachment for her 21st birthday ....

It should come as no great surprise that sociologists have studied this phenomenon. Dave Munger at Cognitive Daily has all the details: Why my mom didn't buy me a slot car track for Christmas in 1978, even though I told her that's what I wanted.

The good news is that we aren't alone. The even better news is that women aren't any better at choosing the perfect gift for a man. (It's just that they're less likely to hear about it!)

We've solved the problem in our family. Now we just ask the gift recipient what they want. Last week I got a new GPS system for my car—it was exactly what I wanted for my birthday. How did she know?

---

1. Because I'm not allowed to forget it!

[Image Credit: How to Choose the Perfect Personalized Sister Gift]

The Fallacy of the Continuum

 
I once wrote an essay called "Theistic Evolution: The Fallacy of the Middle Ground." The point I was trying to make is that Theistic Evolution does not occupy the middle ground between superstition and rationalism or between science and religion. Theistic evolution is religious, it advocates superstition over rationalism—albeit a milder form of superstition than that of Young Earth Creationists.

Joshua Rosenau supports the evolution/creationism continuum shown in the above diagram [see Creation/evolution continuum, or NCSE is too nice to theists … and to atheists!]. It's from the NCSE website [The Creation/Evolution Continuum].

Josh claims that the continuum is the proper way to illustrate the differences between those who accept evolution and those who don't.

The nice thing about the continuum graphic is that, regardless of its faults, it emphasizes an easily obscured point: one need not set evolution against belief in a deity who acts in the world, and it is possible to move toward acceptance of evolution without moving out of the realm of theistic belief. The continuum oversimplifies by making it seem like there's just one path one might take in doing so, but NCSE is not in the business of endorsing particular religious philosophies, and making an exhaustive list is beyond the scope of the continuum.

He's got one thing right. It is, indeed, possible to move toward rationalism and science without moving out of the realm of theism. What Josh doesn't understand is that there's a breakpoint not shown on the continuum. I've put it on the modified version I show here.

When you view it like this, it's a different sort of diagram. There is a sort of continuum as theists move farther and farther away from the most outrageous forms of anti-science belief. But there's no continuum between science and most forms of religious belief. That's a sharp line.

Is there a reason for spinning the debate in the form of a continuum? Yes, there is ... you've heard it before.

More significantly, the continuum is helpful as a way to reach out to folks who have simply never thought about the issue before, and naively assume there are two camps: one for creationism and the other for evolution. So when forced to choose (as, for instance, by a pollster) they glom onto whichever camp they think best fits them. If the question is asked in a way that frames the decision in terms of science, they'll tend to favor evolution, if framed around religion or morality, they tend to choose creationism (at least in the US). Pointing out that there is a broad and diverse middle ground, that the choice is not nearly so stark, can help people get comfortable accepting evolution before confronting religious issues.

I understand why framing the debate in this way can be helpful to your cause. What I object to is the implication that moving from theism to atheism via agnosticism is a smooth transition. That's just not true and NCSE is very much endorsing a certain philosophical position when it promotes this diagram.

The continuum is a tool, and a useful one. It helps introduce the complexities of the interplay between science and religion to audiences who may simply think that everyone has to choose one or the other. It often surprises audiences to learn that many people do not see a need to choose, do not find an inherent conflict. (Standard disclaimer/troll repellent: Those people might be wrong, and I take no position on that topic.)

No, Josh, that's not true. You are taking a position on that topic. You are saying that one does not have to choose one or the other. You are saying that the view of evolution espoused by Francis Collins differs only in subtle degrees from that espoused by atheist scientists. You must know that isn't true.

As such, the simple tactic of drawing a bridge between what people think of as two mutually exclusive beliefs is pedagogically powerful.

There is no "bridge" between the belief in supernatural being and non-belief in such beings. How can something be "pedagogically powerful" if it's wrong?

---

An Ethical Question

 
Eva Amsen was reading a book in a student study lounge when she was asked to participate in a survey [Spent - Review]. The question was ....

It was a short questionnaire about what you would do if you were standing in line at the post office for more than 30 minutes, waiting to mail a package, and someone offered to take you to the front of the line in exchange for $3. Would you pay the three dollars or keep waiting?

My answer is different than Eva's so this got me thinking.

See the poll in the left sidebar. What would you answer?

Is there a "right" answer?

---

Monday's Molecule #123

 
You've probably noticed already that today's "molecule" isn't exactly a molecule. That's OK, you can still try to guess what it is. I want a fairly complete description of what you see here. This is supposed to be easy in order to encourage some new readers to enter the contest. There was no winner last week!!!

There's a Nobel Prize associated with this diagram.

The first person to describe the graph and identify the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are five ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Laura Gerth of the University of Notre Dame, Stefan Tarnawsky of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Adam Santoro of the University of Toronto., and Michael Clarkson of Waltham MA (USA).

The Americans have pulled ahead of the Canadians and the rest of the world is being shut out. Where are the Europeans? Are they just stupid or don't any of them stay up late? BTW, I want to thank all those smart Canadians who have been holding back in order to give the rest of the world a chance.

I still have one extra free lunch donated by a previous winner (Michael Clarkson) to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch.

THEME:

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

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.

---

The Darwinius Affair Continues to Embarrass

 
Today's the day we get to see the global event of the century, or is it millennium?. Sometime this evening there will be a TV show on one of the cable channels. It will reveal the astonishing fossil find that proves once and for all that humans have evolved. (Or something like that.)

The Darwinius Affair continues to embarrass everyone, including the creationists.

A friend alerted me to an article in The Bapstist Press (don't ask): Experts: Fossil find exciting but lacks significance . The article quotes certain "experts" including Kurt Wise the creationist who was a graduate student of Stephen Jay Gould.

"It is always exciting to find a well-preserved fossil, especially of something as rarely preserved as a juvenile primate," Wise wrote in a statement to Baptist Press. "The Messel site has generated a large number of spectacular fossils. Although the sediments seem to have been from a lake, it is an unusual one, somehow allowing remarkable preservation of animals both of the lake and the land.

"The unusual conditions of the Messel lake were probably created by a combination of global warmth (a much warmer earth than that of the present day) and the presence of active supervolcanoes (much larger than any known today) -- both a consequence (I believe) of the earth recovering from the effects of Noah's Flood," Wise, professor of science and theology and director of the Center for Science and Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said.

There's more than enough embarrassment to go around, however, evolutionists should take heed when Answers in Genesis (AiG) says ....

The group also said the pitch of Ida as the missing link is "full-out sensationalism by people who are bypassing the scientific community with a direct-to-the-public appeal on behalf of Darwinism."

"All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may," AiG said.

I agree with Answers in Genesis.¹ We handed this to them on a golden platter and they are right to make it into a big deal. Shame, shame on all the scientists and media types who turned this minor, but interesting, discovery into a public-relations disaster.

---

1. Whew! I never thought I'd say that.

Franzen, J.L., Gingerich, P.D., Habersetzer, J., Hurum, J.H., von Koenigswald, W., et al. (2009) Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5723. [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723]

I'm really, really hoping this is a joke.

 

---

No Democrats Allowed at Liberty University

 
Liberty University has shut down the students Democrats club. You can read all about it on Pharyngula [“Liberty” University really ought to look at the first word in their name].

The email message has been published by the Washington Post. It needs to be widely circulated to illustrate just how Liberty University is treating its students.

From: Hine, Mark (VP Student Affairs)
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 1:37 PM
Subject: LU College Democrats

I must inform you that the College democrats' club is no longer going to be recognized as a Liberty University club. We are unable to lend support to a club whose parent organization stands against the moral principles held by Liberty University. I expressed these concerns when we met, earlier in the spring semester.

The Liberty Way states, "It is the duty of every student to respect Liberty's Statement of Doctrine and Purpose. They may not engage in any activity on or off campus that would compromise the testimony or reputation of the University or cause disruption to Liberty's Christian learning environment."

The Liberty University School of Law had been working on a policy to govern their clubs and organizations for quite some time. They have now completed that policy and we have adopted it for Liberty University as well. Now that it has been adopted and will apply to all clubs and organizations, it is clear that this club does not comply.

Below is a copy of the policy which governs clubs and organizations at Liberty University. This policy is posted on the website.

STUDENT CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS POLICIES

Student clubs or organizations must request and receive permission from the Liberty University administration before they may meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use any University facilities for their activities or events. All such clubs or organizations and their activities or events must be consistent with the University's mission, and must be and remain in compliance with the Liberty Way, the Honor Code, and any policies or procedures promulgated by the University. The University reserves the right to refuse the use of its facilities for any reason to any student club, organization, activity or event.

Consistent with the Honor Code, all students, student clubs and organizations, faculty and staff of Liberty University, have a responsibility to uphold the moral and ethical standards of this institution and personally confront those who do not.

No student club or organization shall be approved, recognized or permitted to meet on campus, advertise, distribute or post materials, or use University facilities if the statements, positions, doctrines, policies, constitutions, bylaws, platforms, activities or events of such club or organization, its parent, affiliate, chapter or similarly named group (even if the similarly named group is not the actual parent, affiliate or chapter) are inconsistent or in conflict with the distinctly Christian mission of the University, the Liberty Way, the Honor Code, or the policies and procedures promulgated by the University.

Even though this club may not support the more radical planks of the democratic party, the democratic party is still the parent organization of the club on campus. The Democratic Party Platform is contrary to the mission of LU and to Christian doctrine (supports abortion, federal funding of abortion, advocates repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, promotes the "LGBT" agenda, Hate Crimes, which include sexual orientation and gender identity, socialism, etc). The candidates this club supports uphold the Platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of LU. By using LU or Liberty University and Democrat in the name, the two are associated and the goals of both run in opposite directions.

We are removing the club from the Liberty website and you will need to cease using Liberty University's name, including any logo, seal or mark of Liberty University. They are not to be used in any of your publications, electronic or internet, including but not limited to, any website, Facebook, Twitter or any other such publication.

If you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Mark Hine
VP for Student Affairs
Liberty University

This is just the beginning. Mark my words. In a few weeks they're going to shut down the "Liberty University Gays and Lesbians Club" and the "Liberty University Secular Humanist Club." And it's only a matter of time before the "Liberty University Teletubbies Fan Club" is kicked off campus.

---

Teaching Evolution in Natural History Museums

 
In an article published last November in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, Bruce MacFadden urges that natural history museums explore the use of new displays, such as those involving genomics and molecular biology, to educate the general public [Evolution, museums and society].

He writes ...

Public understanding of evolution has changed little over the past quarter-century [4]. The challenge therefore remains for natural history museums to improve communication about evolution, particularly the more difficult concepts.

MacFadden notes that museum visitors are more likely to accept evolution. Museums need to do a better job of taking advantage of this fact in order to enhance understanding of evolution.

Evolution represents a complex array of concepts, some of which are well understood whereas others are poorly understood by museum visitors. If an institution is committed to improving public understanding about evolution, then additional resources and effort should be directed toward more effectively communicating the more poorly understood concepts such as natural selection.

Yes, natural selection is difficult but random genetic drift is even more difficult. Unfortunately, I don't get the impression that MacFadden is counting random genetic drift as one of the basic concepts that museum visitors need to learn about.

One solution is to create displays about molecular evolution.

In this regard, there is much room to highlight research traditionally not considered to be natural history, such as genomics and molecular biology [9], although these subjects are not usually specimen based and therefore potentially less attractive to the public. In these instances, visitors are more likely to grasp difficult concepts when they have some prior understanding of a topic [10], or can place these concepts in a modern-day societal context. For example, disease vectors such as influenza and malaria mutate rapidly to become drug resistant, and therefore have negative consequences for world health.

This is a good idea. I recently visited the American Natural History Museum in New York and it had an excellent display on molecular evolution. It showed how you could compare DNA sequences and it explained that many of the mutations were just accidents that became fixed in the population by genetic drift. It even mentioned junk DNA and messy genomes.

It was a very popular display. Not only did it highlight some of the most important evidence for the history of life, it also explained the two main mechanisms of evolution. There were more people reading the material in the molecular evolution area than in the more traditional fossil areas. DNA is exciting.

Kotiaho et al. (2009) disagree. In the June issue of Trends in Ecology & Evolution they write [Evolution education in natural history museums ] ...

In his essay, MacFadden advocates the allocation of resources into novel contents, such as genomics or molecular biology, in order to increase the public understanding of evolution. We argue that museums should concentrate more on demonstrating the basic principles and outcomes of natural selection, rather than presenting fashionable novel contents such as genomics (which, it seems, even scientists often have a hard time understanding [4]).

It's clear that Kotaiho et al. see natural selection as the main (only?) mechanism of evolution. What they want is the kind of display that illustrates natural selection. They like dioramas.

If we want to educate the visitors of natural history museums about evolution by means of natural selection, we should aim at delivering the message that across species there is enormous within-species variation, that some of this variation is likely to cause differences among individuals in their lifetime reproductive success and that these differences will result in a constant change – evolution. In museums, we have a great opportunity to do this; as well as the exhibits open to the public, museums usually have extensive collections containing numerous individuals of each species. A simple illustration of the replacement of one generation by the next generation might work in making the operation of natural selection more tangible. With such an illustration, we can easily see why and how a population can undergo constant change, and thus grasp the basic principles of evolution by means of natural selection.

Natural history museums are our collective memory of the past. Their collections can, and have been, used to study evolution (e.g. [7]). Perhaps even more importantly, however, they could also be used to illustrate to the general public the evolutionary changes that have taken place. We challenge the exhibit designers of natural history museums to emphasize variation within species, and to demonstrate change due to natural selection, rather than stasis in nature.

Here's the problem. It might be fine to mount a display showing variation within a population. It might be possible to construct a display where the next generation has a different degree of variation. But it would be wrong to attribute that to natural selection unless you could present evidence that there were fitness differences associated with those variants.

I fear that these authors are not distinguishing between evolution and natural selection. They think that evidence of evolution is evidence of natural selection.

I don't understand why Kotaiho et al. would want to ignore molecular evolution and genomics. There's no better way to illustrate random genetic drift and there's no excuse for eliminating one of the most important fields in modern evolutionary biology.

---

The Darwinius Affair

 
The Darwinius Affair is getting messier. Not only did some scientists commit a serious breach of scientific ethics by exaggerating their claims about the fossil, but they also prevented legitimate science journalists from doing their job.

As most of you know, I think that science journalists should examine the claims of scientists in order to ensure they are accurate. They should not just take the word of the scientist, no matter how famous he or she is.¹

In order to do their job, the science journalists need access to the scientific paper before it is released to the public. This is standard practice. Journalists are used to, and respect, news embargos.

In this particular case, it appears that scientists and the editors of PLoS ONE prevented journalists from seeing the paper until the press conference and all the associated hoopla was under way. Carl Zimmer has the story at Science Held Hostage.

Shame on PloS ONE, on the scientists who wrote the paper, and on everyone else who is associated with this media event. This is not how science is supposed to work. This is not how we should be communicating with the general public.

Franzen, J.L., Gingerich, P.D., Habersetzer, J., Hurum, J.H., von Koenigswald, W., et al. (2009) Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology. PLoS ONE 4(5): e5723. [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723]

---

1. Most professional science journalists don't do this, but that's another issue.

It's that time of year, again.

The course is over, the exam has been written, the marking is done, and the grades have been submitted. There's a short lag while the marks are checked and then they're posted so that students can learn how they've done in the course.

At my university we submit grades as percentages. They are converted to grade points (out of 4) in order to calculate a grade point average. The percent score is reported on the transcript and so is the grade point average. A mark of 76% is a 3.0, a mark of 77% is a 3.5 and a mark of 80% is a 3.7. A mark of 76% is a 3.0, a mark of 77%-84% is a 3.7, and a mark of 85% or above is a 4.0. There is no 3.5—shows you how much attention I pay to those sorts of things.

The email messages start as soon as the marks are posted. Every year there are students who want more marks. Usually it's just a few more marks to raise their grade points from 3.3 to 3.7 or something similar. That's by far the most common request. Sometimes the student wants lots more marks because they worked really hard in the course and deserve a much higher grade.

The most common reasons for asking for more marks are ...

• losing a scholarship
• not going to get into medical school/graduate school
• grade doesn't reflect effort
• parents will be disappointed
• the final exam was unfair
• student wasn't feeling well during the test that gave the lowest score
• this is the lowest grade ever received

Some of the letters just ask me to give them more marks because I feel sorry for them. But many contain the suggestion that they are willing to pay for a higher grade. Fortunately, I can handle all these requests by just referring students to the standard appeal process. Once the grades are submitted to the Faculty I can't change them. It's one of the few times that I like the rules and regulations.

Every Professor in the Department gets these requests at this time of the year.

Here's the important part—it's not fair to put the entire blame on the students. There's something about the way we run the university that makes it seem acceptable to beg for higher marks. What are we doing wrong? How can we fix it?

I have a trivial solution that will deal with many of the problems.

ABOLISH GRADE POINTS AND GRADE POINT AVERAGES

---

Nobel Laureate: Charles Robert Richet

 

The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1913

"in recognition of his work on anaphylaxis"

Charles Robert Richet (1850 - 1935) won the Noble Prize in 1913 for discovering the phenomenon known as anaphylaxis. This is a condition where the administration of an antigen causes severe symptoms, even death. Richet found that anaphylactic shock occurs only after an animal had been previously immunized and even then only after some days had passed.

It appeared as though the first immunization took several days to develop but when the process was complete a second attempt at boosting immunization causes a severe reaction. Anaphylactic shock was rare, it only happens in a small percentage of cases. We are familiar with the risk when people are known to be allergic to peanuts or insect stings.

Today we know what causes the symptoms of anaphylaxis; it's due to massive release of histamines, prostaglandins, and leukotrienes from mast cells. The release of these chemicals produces rapid heartbeat, sweating, and constriction of the airways. The symptoms can be relieved, and death prevented, by rapid treatment with epinephrine.

The primary cause of most anaphyaxis is overproduction of antigen-specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) molecules on the mast cells.¹ It's the IgE molecules that interact with the antigen to cause release of histamines etc. It's not known why some antigens lead to overproduction of IgE such that subsequent exposure to the same antigen cause a massive allergic reaction. (Normal antibodies are immunoglobulin G or IgG.²)

Immunology is complicated. That's why we can't cure asthma and other allergic reactions even though the phenomena have been intensely studied for more than 100 years.

Here's an excerpt from the 1913 Presentation Speech.
THEME:
Nobel Laureates

In an age in which the leading members of the medical profession tend to concentrate on innumerable experiments demonstrating the growing immunity of the organism towards poisons already resisted successfully once, you, Sir, have found that in certain cases a completely opposite result is produced. You did not restrict yourself to this isolated observation: studied in depth by you, it has become the foundation on which you have based the evidence of a reaction that is sometimes just as regular as the phenomenon of immunity. We are not concerned solely with specific prophylaxis; thanks to you, we are now aware of a specific anaphylaxis.

We do not discount the work of those who, following your lead, have observed similar phenomena, but to you goes the honour of having established the basis of a new biological reaction, anaphylaxis, and of having been the first to demonstrate it clearly. Thereby you have opened up to medical science an enormous field of study as yet unexplored. The Staff of Professors of the Caroline Institute wishes to reward you for this achievement by conferring on you the prize instituted by our compatriot Alfred Nobel for those «who have made the most important discovery in the field of physiology or medicine».

Please accept the warm congratulations of the Institute and myself, together with the wish of us all that success will continue to crown your devoted work.

---

1. I do not mean to imply that IgE molecules are produced by mast cells. They are not.

2. There are several different classes (isotypes) of antibodies; IgG, IgD, IgM, IgA, and IgE. The most abundance class is IgG—that's the one most often depicted in the textbooks. It's probably the type most people think about when they think about antibodies. I did not mean to imply that the other classes are not "normal."

[Photo Credit: Wikipedia]

The images of the Nobel Prize medals are registered trademarks of the Nobel Foundation (© The Nobel Foundation). They are used here, with permission, for educational purposes only.

Science Journalism at its Worst

 
This video is an embarrassment. At a time when we are trying to convince the public that science is credible, along comes a trashy exploitation that sets science back several decades.

This is not how science works. It is not accurate science and it is not an accurate depiction of how scientists will react to the discovery of Darwinius masillae.

---

Cafe Inquiry: Freedom of Speech and the Atheist Bus Campaign

 
Join us on Friday night for a discussion about Freedom of Speech and the Atheist Bus Campaign.

Modeled on the highly popular Cafe Scientifique, Centre for Inquiry presents Cafe Inquiry. Join us for a series of interactive forums exploring contemporary issues in science, reason, philosophy and politics. We bring you 2 or 3 guest experts that open by addressing the issue from a variety of perspectives and responding to moderator questions. Then we open it to the floor for your questions and comments to the panel and each other. This is your chance to interact with a diverse group of people on CFI's broad topics.

I've met some of the people who were involved in the atheist bus campaign. This promises to be a fun evening. If you've never been to an event at the Centre for Inquiry you can get in touch with me. I'll be happy to meet up with you and take you to the location.

---

What Fools Those Atheists Be!

 
Read Lord! What Fools Those Atheists Be! in Report Magazine. (Report Magazine is published in Edmonton, Texas Alberta. It bills itself as "Western Canada's Conservative Voice.") The author of the offensive article is Pastor Shafer Parker, a Texas native who is now with the Hawkwood Baptist Church in Calgary.

Before you read the article, answer the poll question in the left-hand sidebar: "Do you believe that there is a 'God'"? So far, the answer "Absolutely!" is leading over "Absolutely Not!" but it's early days.

Heathen Mike of Mike's Weekly Skeptic Rant has dissected most of the article at: Shafer Parker, Answered. You should read what Mike has to say. I'm sure you'll be convinced that it's not the atheists who are the fools.

Most of Pastor Parker's rant is against the bus ads promoting atheism. I want to address one particular point in Parker's article. He says ...

The Christian West's centuries-old tradition of free expression and open debate is unique in that nothing like it exists anywhere else on earth. No such tradition exists in any society dominated by a single non-Christian faith, including the atheistical Communist-materialist nations of China, North Korea and the former Soviet Union. It is not an accident that these ads have deliberately set out to offend the majority Christian theists living in London, Madrid and Washington, D.C. They would not have been allowed in Beijing, New Delhi or Riyadh.

Parker believes that Christianity is associated with free expression and open debate. He claims that no other religion has a similar tradition. This would have been news to the people of Cordova in the Moorish Kingdom from 800-1200 AD. It would also have been news to most Catholics throughout history and to most Protestant sects (e.g. Puritans). They aren't exactly noted for tolerating free expression and open debate. (Were the ancient Greeks Christians?)

But let's put history aside. It's obviously not one of Parker's strong points. Let's just look at Christian nations in the last century or so. Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain come to mind. So does Czarist Russia. I'm sure there are plenty of other Christian nations where free expression and open debate were not common—I'm thinking of several nations in Central and South America. I don't think he's making a valid point. I don't think the concept of free expression is in any way a product of Christianity.

What about modern states? Israel, Japan. and India seem to be non-Christian states that have a certain degree of free expression and open debate. Parker says that the atheist signs would not be allowed on buses in New Delhi. I suspect he's wrong about that. In any case, he ignores the fact that the atheist signs will never be allowed in some of the most Christian parts of America. Isn't that strange?

---

Monday's Molecule #122: Winner?

 
UPDATE: The molecule is epinephrine or adrenaline. IUPAC name = (R)-4- (1-hydroxy-2- (methylamino)ethyl)benzene-1,2-diol.

The Nobel Laureate is Charles Robert Richet who discovered and described anaphylaxis or anaphylactic shock. Epinephrine, in the form of an EpiPen, is used to treat anaphylactic shock.

Ten people got the molecule but Dima Klenchin was the only person to guess the correct Nobel Laureate. He isn't eligible so there is no winner this week.

---

Today's molecule is a drug as well as a biological molecule that's found in some species. You need to supply the common name and the correct IUPAC name for this molecule. The stereochemistry isn't shown in the figure but you have to specify it in your answer.

As a drug, this molecule is used to treat a common but life-threatening condition. Identify that condition and name the Nobel Laureate who first described and characterized it.

The first person to identify the molecule and the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Mike Fraser of Toronto, Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, Laura Gerth of the University of Notre Dame, Stefan Tarnawsky of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Adam Santoro of the University of Toronto., and Michael Clarkson of Waltham MA (USA).

The Canadians are still ahead in the competition between Canadians the rest of the world but their recent dominance is coming to an end. I want to thank all those smart Canadians who have been holding back in order to give the rest of the world a chance.

I still have one extra free lunch donated by a previous winner (Michael Clarkson) to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch.

THEME:

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

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow.

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

---

Science for Humanity

 
Today's issue of The Toronto Star has an article on Andras Nagy, a colleague who works at one of the hospital research institutes here in Toronto. Apparently Nagy made a list of "Top 10 awards for work in science-related endeavours" in a magazine called Scientific Magazine [Scientist honoured for stem-cell coup].

I tried to find this magazine and the names of the other winners but nothing seemed to work. Google was not my friend today.

Later on, after lunch, I noticed a press release from "Scientific American." That magazine was naming "Ten researchers, politicians, business executives and philanthropists who have recently demonstrated outstanding commitment to assuring that the benefits of new technologies and knowledge will accrue to humanity" [Scientific American 10: Guiding Science for Humanity].

Sure enough, Andras Nagy was on that list. Here's the complete list. Congratulations to Genie Scott.

1. Todd Brady
   Corporate environmental manager
   Intel, Santa Clara, Calif.
   A chip company makes expansion of its environmental footprint a priority


2. Shai Agassi
   Founder and chief executive
   Better Place, Palo Alto, Calif.
   A wonderfully simple recharging scheme may ensure a future for electric vehicles


3. Wafaa El-Sadr
   Chief
   Infectious Disease Division, Harlem Hospital Center, New York City
   The physician leads a multipronged public health campaign to fight the scourge of HIV


4. Robert J. Lin­hardt
   Professor of Biocatalysis and Metabolic Engineering
   Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
   A chemical sleuth unravels the cause of deaths from a tainted drug


5. Eugenie Scott
   Executive director
   National Center for Science Education, Oakland, Calif.
   A champion for the teaching of evolution steps up her advocacy


6. Bill Gates/Michael Bloomberg
   Co-chair
   Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
   Mayor of New York City
   Celebrity heft propels a campaign to limit smoking


7. Bryan Willson
   Professor of mechanical engineering
   Colorado State University
   An engineer facilitates clean energy technology for the developing world


8. Kristian Olson
   Program Leader
   Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology, Boston
   Simple, low-cost resuscitators and incubators can save newborns in the developing world


9. Andras Nagy
   Senior investigator
   Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto
   A biologist discovers a practical method of making stem cells from mature cells


10. Barack Obama
    President of the U.S.
    The new chief executive begins his term by initiating a radical shift in science policy

It would be fun to see the top ten scientists—men and women who have contributed the most to our understanding of the natural world.

---

Monday's Molecule #122

 
Today's molecule is a drug as well as a biological molecule that's found in some species. You need to supply the common name and the correct IUPAC name for this molecule. The stereochemistry isn't shown in the figure but you have to specify it in your answer.

As a drug, this molecule is used to treat a common but life-threatening condition. Identify that condition and name the Nobel Laureate who first described and characterized it.

The first person to identify the molecule and the Nobel Laureate wins a free lunch at the Faculty Club. Previous winners are ineligible for one month from the time they first won the prize.

There are seven ineligible candidates for this week's reward: Mike Fraser of Toronto, Alex Ling of the University of Toronto, Laura Gerth of the University of Notre Dame, Stefan Tarnawsky of the University of Toronto, Dima Klenchin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Adam Santoro of the University of Toronto., and Michael Clarkson of Waltham MA (USA).

The Canadians are still ahead in the competition between Canadians the rest of the world but their recent dominance is coming to an end. I want to thank all those smart Canadians who have been holding back in order to give the rest of the world a chance.

I still have one extra free lunch donated by a previous winner (Michael Clarkson) to a deserving undergraduate so I'm going to continue to award an additional free lunch to the first undergraduate student who can accept it. Please indicate in your email message whether you are an undergraduate and whether you can make it for lunch.

THEME:

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

Correct responses will be posted tomorrow.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.

---

Who Knew?

 
The misreporting of the evolution issue is one key reason for this site. Unfortunately, much of the news coverage has been sloppy, inaccurate, and in some cases, overtly biased. Evolution News & Views presents analysis of that coverage, as well as original reporting that accurately delivers information about the current state of the debate over Darwinian evolution.

Evolution News & ViewsJonathan Wells has a Ph.D. He can explain why "Darwinism" is false in only two paragraphs [Persisting in Spite of the Evidence: Why Darwinism Is False].

Darwin called The Origin of Species “one long argument” for his theory, but Jerry Coyne has given us one long bluff. Why Evolution Is True tries to defend Darwinian evolution by rearranging the fossil record; by misrepresenting the development of vertebrate embryos; by ignoring evidence for the functionality of allegedly vestigial organs and non-coding DNA, then propping up Darwinism with theological arguments about “bad design;” by attributing some biogeographical patterns to convergence due to the supposedly “well-known” processes of natural selection and speciation; and then exaggerating the evidence for selection and speciation to make it seem as though they could accomplish what Darwinism requires of them.

The actual evidence shows that major features of the fossil record are an embarrassment to Darwinian evolution; that early development in vertebrate embryos is more consistent with separate origins than with common ancestry; that non-coding DNA is fully functional, contrary to neo-Darwinian predictions;¹ and that natural selection can accomplish nothing more than artificial selection — which is to say, minor changes within existing species.

Amazing.

When it comes to evaluating Creationist arguments, we are often faced with a difficult decision. Is the Creationist just ignorant or is he lying? I think it's much easier to answer that question in Wells' case. He has a Ph.D. in biology from a reputable university. It's not possible for him to be that ingnorant about the basic facts of biology.

---

1. It's a lie that non-coding DNA is fully functional and it's a lie that "neo-Darwinism" predicts the presence of large amounts of junk DNA in some species.

One Angry Christian

 
Charlotte Allen doesn't like atheists very much. She writes in Los Angeles Times [Atheists: No God, no reason, just whining].

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

She then proceeds to describe all the "boring" things that upset her.

I'd like to comment on one of the points that she makes.

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering.

This is becoming a mantra for Christian apologists and it's about time we put an end to it.

The reason why atheists aren't interested in making serious arguments against God's existence is that it's impossible to prove the non-existence of something. On the other hand, we can easily show that the arguments in favor of supernatural beings are nonsensical. There are no "serious mtaphysical or epistemological arguments" for God and that's what we point out to anyone who takes the time to listen.

I suppose that makes us boring.

Furthermore, atheists are not interested in "taking on" the "serious" (sic) arguments of theologians when they attempt to reconcile their God with free will and evil. Why should we be interested in such arguments? The premise behind these arguments is that God exists. Atheists reject the premise. If they want to be taken seriously, "serious" theologians have to first prove that God exists before they begin their apologetics.

Christians like Charlotte Allen make me angry. It's not because they're Christians, it's because they are so irrational.

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

OK. Here's an attempt to engage believers seriously.

If believing is so hard in the face of the real world, and if your belief is "just beyond the ... senses," then why do you continue to believe?

---

[Hat Tip: RichardDawkins.net]

Happy Victoria Day!

 
Today's the day we celebrate Queen Victoria's birthday (Victoria Day) in most Canadian provinces. Queen Victoria was actually born on May 24th but the modern holiday is the first Monday before or on May 24th.

Since the death of Queen Victoria, the holiday does double duty as a celebration of the birthday of the current monarch. Queen Elizabeth II was actually born on April 21st—it must be nice to have two birthday parties every year!

Although Queen Elizabeth II is officially Canada's head of state, the duties are actually carried out by her representative, the Governor General. Governors General are appointed every few years and their duties are largely ceremonial. I really like a system where the head of state is not the same person as the head of government. It avoids a lot of problems.

Officially, Canada's form of government is called a Constitutional Monarchy with a Parliamentary System of government.

---

[The painting of Queen Victoria's Family in 1846 is by Franz Xaver Winterhalter.]

Michael Bliss - Anti-Science Conservative

 
Michael Bliss is a Professor Emeritus at the University of Toronto. He has written some excellent books on the history of science, notably a book about the discovery of insulin.

Bliss has always been a small-c conservative and many of his opinion pieces have supported conservative policies.

On Thursday, May 14th, Michael Bliss entered the debate on Canadian science funding [Michael Bliss: Anti-Harper campaign politicizes research to the detriment of science]. His main point is that Canadian scientists are whiners and complainers who should keep their mouths shut because they are damaging the reputation of science in Canada.

It’s time that responsible leaders of the Canadian science and research communities began thinking of ways to cool down their more hot-headed colleagues. The strategy of declaring war on a government because some of its policies are temporarily inconvenient and vexatious can generate cheap short-term applause and support in some quarters, but in the long run tags its adherents as unreliable and unworthy, or worse. Eventually doors get shut in their faces, and/or they’re left to wither on the vine.

It’s a sad way to tarnish what often has been and still could be one of the success stories of Canadian public policy.

I've never been a fan of Michael Bliss but this diatribe goes way over the line. Scientists are justifiably criticizing a science policy that they feel is doing great damage to Canada's ability to be competitive in the 21st century. Michael Bliss is saying that scientists should not speak out when they disagree with government policy. That's a strange position for someone who has made a reputation of speaking out on controversial topics.

But it's at least consistent with conservative thinking.

Michael Bliss thinks it's OK for governments to direct scientific research. He thinks the only important kind of research is that which directly benefits business and consumers. Applied research and technology is "accountable."

By and large, Canadian researchers have not had a bad inning in recent years. Some observers think that the research community has actually had an easy ride, never having been forced to show exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people by the money given researchers. If the government of Canada ever decided, for example, that this country should lead the world in demanding hard accountability from researchers who live off taxpayers’ largesse, today’s discontents would seem like extremely small beer.

I suppose that's why Bliss admires Banting and Best and the others who discovered and produced insulin. I suppose he hates those scientists who discovered recombinant DNA technology to help with their curiosity motivated research even though it led directly to the production of human insulin—a far more effective form than the old insulin from pigs.

The main product of research is knowledge and knowledge is always of more benefit to the Canadian people than ignorance. During his many decades at the University of Toronto, Michael Bliss and his students contributed to that knowledge base in many ways. Some of the work in history that he published was paid for by research grants. I wonder if he can meet the demand of "hard accountability" that he demands of others? With respect to his own scholarly work, I wonder if he can explain "exactly what benefits are being generated for the Canadian people"?

(Read Commentary strives to politicize science funding debate on Researcher Forum for a similar perspective on Michael Bliss.)

---

Stephen Harper: Just Leaving

 

---

Godless Radio

 
Yesterday I was interviewed on Godless Radio by Godless Dave and Godless Rob. It was a fun time. We spent an hour talking about the conflict between science and religion. I think we pretty much solved all the problems.

There will be a podcast version for those of who missed the live broadcast.

Godless is an internet radio show designed to give atheists at the University of Toronto, Scarborough Campus, a voice. We aim to reach out to non-believers, whether they call themselves atheists, agnostics, secular humanists or anything else, and provide a platform for the promotion of reality-based thinking.

---