An excellent resource (Credit Reddit) on YEC Geology and Catastrophism

In my daily poking around in the reddit.com hivemind, I occasionally find something of true brilliance and usefulness. One such item showed up in my feed this evening; a response to the all-too-common attacks on geological dating techniques (much more frequent than the dating techniques of geologists) levied by proponents of Young Earth Creationism. This set of links, along with a few suggested laboratories for teaching children springs from one of my almae matres, Indiana University.
Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is more or less predicated on the old geological interpretation of catastrophism, basically saying that most, if not all, of the geological phenomena and strata we now see were laid down in the Genesis flood. It is easy to see the appeal of this idea if one is trying to accommodate the literal Genesis account into the natural evidence. It is not a new idea, stemming in part from Cuvier (Although his viewpoint was far from a supernatural one, and his work was greatly amended and altered by Jameson to indicate support for a flood event origin). The problem with it is two-fold. First off, as scientists (and, for that matter, intelligent human beings), our hackles should be raised instinctively by the thought of tailoring our evidence to a specific conclusion, rather than the other way around. Secondly, the vast evidence simply does not support catastrophism, especially a flood-based viewpoint of it. Even William Buckland, a proponent of flood-theory who sought it as evidence of the genesis account, eventually abandoned it when the evidence didn't support it.

So, why do YEC's like Ken Hamm want this so badly? It's a clear assault on Evolutionary biology. If we can show a possibility that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and all the strata and geology that we now see occurred suddenly, then there simply isn't enough time for the mechanisms of natural evolution to occur. That's what the argument is. Pity for them that the rocks don't support their point of view.

T-Rex was the rugby team from "Alive"!

In this study from Yale, it is revealed that there are examples of Tyrannosaur bones which show bite marks from other Tyrannosaurs. Cannibalism in predators is far from unknown. However, this doesn't really give us any new insight on the issue of whether T. rex was a hunting predator or a scavenger. The bite marks appear to have been made post-mortem, and while analogous cannibalism occurs in the modern day after conflict between individuals, the fact that the bites are on extremities rather than on the core (where meat would be more plentiful) may imply that the marks are a result of scavenging post-mortem. So, we're left with more data (which is never a bad thing), but no clear balance one way or the other on the predator/scavenger debate.

Why is this important? Well, in propounding his own theory, Bill Watterson of "Calvin and Hobbes" gave us the best theory of all:

ID hits the UK.

Lest we think that the conflict over Intelligent Design is a specifically American problem, there comes this story out of Scotland.   The group's director doesn't even attempt to hide the eventual goal:

"... Dr Alastair Noble, told the Sunday Herald it was “inevitable” the debate would make its way into schools"

Intelligent Design is not science. Never has been, never will be. It's tantamount to arguing that since we don't understand something, a Wizard did it (to quote the Simpsons). The most compelling argument the ID folks have leveled follows these lines: To disprove the Theory of Evolution, all we have to do is show an instance of a biological structure which could not have arisen through natural means. Two immediate problems arise: first off, no such structure has been found. Michael Behe *OSoD* posited two major ones: The flagellum and the human clotting factor. Dr. Kenneth Miller devotes a chapter to each of these, showing how both could have arisen through natural selection and natural means (If I have a chance, I'll devote posts to this in more depth in the future). Secondly, even if they could disprove that element of Darwinian thought, we would not automatically assume that scriptural-based ID is the correct "Theory". It's not a binary system. If you are unfamiliar with this aspect of the debate, I recommend reading up on FSM-ism, a proposed alternative to ID. It has the same level of validity.

The president of the ID front in the linked article tips the balance to infuriating with the following quote, which frustrates me on multiple levels:

“Genesis chapter 1-11, which indeed many Darwinists and evolutionists say is myth or legend, I believe is historical, and it is cited 107 times in the New Testament, and Jesus refers himself to the early chapters of Genesis at least 25 times.”

Logically, his argument can be reduced to 'The account is consistent with other elements of the same account'. If I were to claim that I had spent my weekend on Mars, and point to the fact that I talked later about how I got to Mars in my Magical Raptor-crewed Rocket Ship as supporting data for the assertion that I went, this would be logically consistent to the same level as Professor Norman Nevin's assertion above. It would not, however, confer any level of validity to my claim of interplanetary excursion. Logically speaking, a statement cannot prove itself.

Additionally, I bristle at his implication that it is a sign of a lack of faith for someone to read the Genesis account as a mythology. In the biblical account, as in the naturalistic model, no human could have first-hand experiential knowledge of those events prior to the 6th day of creation. The Mosaic accounts in the book of Genesis are written as an explanation for the mysteries of the natural world where no explanation is readily available. That should sound pretty darn close to a definition for a mythology.

Of course, the creationists and ID folks have in their back pocket the greatest rhetorical cheat code of all time: an omnipotent designer could have, by nature, done anything. But that's not a logical or scientific argument. It's a cop-out, and - worst of all - one that eliminates, rather than expands, the debate.

All right, this is just making me more upset. I'm off to train my Raptor Rocket Crew. The weekend's only five days away.

Petvelociraptor is infested! (Rebuttal Project)

No, it's not a virus or anything in the strictest sense, but I have noticed that since I wrote This Blog Entry, mentioning Michael Behe *Obligatory spit of disgust* and the Intelligent Design movement, Google ads have been bombarding the blog with ads for the Discovery Institute, and other Creationist think tanks. Many of these tout "Scientifically based" tracts and brochures you can order for free or a nominal fee. These are nothing more than propaganda, intended to do two things: cloud the issue for people who are still confused, and preach to the choir to buttress the already brainwashed and ignorant. Usually, this should be beneath our notice, but people are listening to this hogwash couched in science-y phrasing. So, I have decided to take on the challenge. I have been requesting copies (under the pseudonym Darwin X. Huxley) of these pamphlets from each group that has shown up in the ad feed, and will be attempting to slog through them line by line, posting scientific (and in some instances, theological) rebuttals to each of the arguments made. I plan on asking for outside help if I need it from people with more specialized knowledge. This is a battle of the highest order, one of science vs. willful ignorance. These people would be a quaint curiosity if not for one thing... school boards. There's a powerful movement in this country to pack school boards with science deniers, and Kitzmiller was just a first salvo.

So, Petvelociraptor is wading into the fray, line by line. Stay tuned.

Heloderma suspectum in the classroom!

While it's not exactly "Raptors in the Kitchen", today, in Community Ecology, Dr. Beck brought in his office-mate, a male gila monster named Jorge. Of particular interest to me was the reaction of my classmates. When they had been presented with a Northern Pacific Rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus), the vast majority recoiled. Yet, Jorge was instantly surrounded by intrigued students. Why the recoil for the snake (which was much more securely controlled), and not for the venomous lizard (whose venom "makes you wish you were dead")? It has to come down to some basal-level aversion to snakes. I just don't understand it. All animals (especially the venomous ones) should be handled properly and with a proper modicum of respect. No animal should be feared.
(Picture off of Wikipedia )

We're short-changing them

This is less a descriptive post than one simple rant.

We're short-changing young children with the way we expose them to science. The prevailing tendency that I've noticed is to "dumb it down" and give them only what we think they can handle. This is horrifically short-sighted and insulting to the child's intelligence.

How many of you have seen a three or four year old playing with dinosaur toys? The kid will grasp and absorb every ounce of information that they are given. I've seen many a four year old who may not be able to pronounce his siblings' names, but can rattle off the name "daspletosaurus" with ease. So, why are we only spoon-feeding these children minute amounts of science knowledge at the age they're the most receptive?

Developmental psychology is clear that young kids' brains are like sponges, picking up anything thrown at them. I propose that we serve children better if we throw everything at them, as early as possible. As a generality, kids love animals, especially dinosaurs. Use this, give them all the information you can cram into the conversation. Will all of it stick? Probably not, but it's not going to stick 100% with many college freshmen either. Every piece of information is one that the kid has been exposed to by the time he or she reaches school age, and a head start on the complex issues ahead of time.

Best situation is one where you're working with a child and you can both learn about a topic. Kids aren't stupid. If you're enjoying learning about, say, plate tectonics, the kid that you're teaching is going to pick up on that, and the kid is going to be enriched for it. Challenge a child, and you won't be disappointed.

If you think my idea of dumping as much information on a child puts too much pressure on the kid, I present you the The Two Year Old Astrophysicist . This is what I'm talking about. The next time I hear an adult tell me things like "That's too advanced for my kid", or "He's too young for science stuff", this is an example of what you can do by harnessing the natural wonder inherent to each and every child.

Book Review: Devil in Dover (Lauri Lebo)

Fairly regularly, I hope to highlight books new and old in this space, primarily in the fields of Biology or Education. For this first quasi-review, I selected one that touches on both.

For those of you who know me, you know that I consider the debate between Evolution and "Intelligent Design" to be the most important substantive conflict facing science education today. In 2005 in Dover, Pennsylvania, the issue made it to the courts. Lauri Lebo was there. A journalist with little background knowledge in the Sciences, she presents in this book a civilian's perspective on the issue that came before the court. This book is - at its core - a very personal work, autobiographical as much as documentary. In fact, some of its truest moments arise from conversations between the author and her deeply religious father. As the reader is drawn further into the battle between the school board and the community in Dover, Pennsylvania, a common thread emerges in Lebo's writing: The Christian soldiers fighting for the teaching of creationism (seen through its bastardized stepchild, Intelligent Design) behave in very un-christian ways. Some of them appear to willingly and freely discard their ethics in order to further their cause. The zeal and occasionally misguided strands go a long way to illustrating how foundational the matter of evolution in education is for those on both sides. Lauri Lebo still manages to humanize the strong personalities on both sides of Dover.

The book's most glaring weakness (Lebo's lack of a scientific background) actually turns into the greatest asset of the piece, allowing her to cover the areas in question at a basic level that often eludes more professional and technical works on the issue. A particular highlight in the book for me is her analysis of the testimonies of both Drs. Michael Behe (of the creationist Discovery Institute of Seattle) and Kenneth Miller. In a not-unbiased reading, the testimony accounts serve to reinforce my opinion of both men (My distaste for Dr. Behe is, and will never be, hidden). Yet, even this is handled by Lebo in a reporter's measured tone. Perhaps the starkest aspect of the story told here is how easily and damaging ideologue takeover of a school board can occur. These continue to be the battlegrounds for the hearts and souls of our children's educational and intellectual future.

This is - at its core - a book about people, set against the background of a deeply important and divisive court case. There are many books on the substance of the debate itself (Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and its brilliant rebuttal by Miller, "Only a Theory"), but Lebo knows her wheelhouse for delving into the humanity of both sides of the issue and stays there, leaving the reader with a more comprehensive perspective for it.

Order this book (from Barnes and Noble)

This I believe

As I open this blog, I had to try and pick what I thought would be the best foot to put forward, so to speak, in order to introduce my viewpoint to the world. After some internal debate, and consulting with the spouse, I chose to repost a response I gave to an exam question from Dr. Skip Smith's Evolution Survey course at CWU's Lynnwood campus. As a scientist and a catholic, how do I reconcile the spiritual and the natural? That will continue to be a major discussion point on this blog, and I hope it will be informative and useful to both myself and the reader.

Why is there no conflict between religious creation myths and an evolutionary explanation of human (or other) origins?

Much is made of the perceived incompatibility between the realms of religious thought and evolutionary biology, where little if any such incompatibility exists. Science makes no claims on the spiritual nature of humanity, demanding only the portions of our psyche that processes and collates perceived data. The Genesis account of the creation is full of flowery language, but does not offer any scientifically testable explanation for the diversity of species. The internal logic expressed in the tautological statement that “an omnipotent God can do anything”, while simplistically elegant, is by nature untestable, and therefore not a matter of scientific method. And neither should it be expected to be so. The Mosaic creation mythology has, at its core, the very same facet of the breadth of life on earth that fascinates the evolutionary biologist: the complexity and truly awesome nature of the natural world. The author's goal is undiminished even if the Genesis myth is a figurative, rather than literal, imagining of the formation of life on earth.

Additionally, looking at the question from a theological perspective, the Christian religious tradition defines faith as "the evidence of things not seen"(Hebrews 11:1). As science deals strictly with theories about the observable world, it would seem that there exists no conflict in the domain of concern between the two spheres. Problems arise only when people on either side of the divide attempt to argue from their perspective against the other, to imply that faith can invalidate scientific method, or vice versa. A person's faith in the divine creator of the Genesis myth cannot be invalidated by scientific observation (the old saw about “Absence of proof not being Proof of absence” comes to mind). Likewise, the scientific theory of Evolution is not invalidated by someone's faith any more than calling a lump of iron a doughnut makes it edible.