I Don't Understand Creationism

I have never understood creationism... it is so out of touch with reality and so disconnected from any logic that it defies any explanation. Yes, it might have been somehow compelling 500 years ago, when scientific evidence for pretty much anything around us was scarce, but by the last century, there were no reasons to stick with it. One has to have some really strong cognitive dissonance going in order to remain in the pure creationism camp (the earth being 6000 years old, geological strata deposited by a great flood, etc). Even the newer incarnation of creationism, Intelligent Design (ID), does not pass logical and scientific analysis, because it bases itself on faulty understanding of physics and biology.

To illustrate my point I give you the latest Science vs. Nonsense Debate:




What's even more interesting than the debate itself, was an "experiment" done right before it took place, when a reporter asked a bunch of people coming to see the debate to write questions for Bill Nye. Here is the result:

22 Messages From Creationists To People Who Believe In Evolution

Some of those questions are pure gold... and for most of the people who have even the basic understanding of science, they are either nonsensical, or very easy to answer, but there are two sources that are worth reading:

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Blog: Answers for Creationists
and
Steven Novella's NeuroLogica: Questions from the Nye-Ham Debate

Great Education - Not!

If you want great education for your kids (and who does not), here is a map that shows you where NOT to send them to obtain it:

Map: Publicly Funded Schools That Are Allowed to Teach Creationism.

Sunday School is one place to get religious education and that's where it belongs. Outside of that, public schools, or schools that receive public, tax funds, should be teaching solid science in science classes. I'm disturbed by how Florida looks like on this map. Hopefully, this issue can be addressed by some changes in law to prohibit my tax dollars from being used in that fashion.

Is Science an Enemy of Humanity?

There is an interesting debate going on, on the virtual pages of the New York Times. It's a rather standard creationism vs. science/evolution exchange of ideas, started by an article "Why I'm a Creationist", written by Virginia Heffernan, that attracted some well-deserved criticism, and was answered by Steven Pinker in an article titled "Science Is Not Your Enemy". I have to confess that I find myself much more attached the Pinker's side (obviously):

In other words, the worldview that guides the moral and spiritual values of an educated person today is the worldview given to us by science. Though the scientific facts do not by themselves dictate values, they certainly hem in the possibilities. By stripping ecclesiastical authority of its credibility on factual matters, they cast doubt on its claims to certitude in matters of morality. The scientific refutation of the theory of vengeful gods and occult forces undermines practices such as human sacrifice, witch hunts, faith healing, trial by ordeal, and the persecution of heretics. The facts of science, by exposing the absence of purpose in the laws governing the universe, force us to take responsibility for the welfare of ourselves, our species, and our planet. For the same reason, they undercut any moral or political system based on mystical forces, quests, destinies, dialectics, struggles, or messianic ages. And in combination with a few unexceptionable convictions— that all of us value our own welfare and that we are social beings who impinge on each other and can negotiate codes of conduct—the scientific facts militate toward a defensible morality, namely adhering to principles that maximize the flourishing of humans and other sentient beings. This humanism, which is inextricable from a scientific understanding of the world, is becoming the de facto morality of modern democracies, international organizations, and liberalizing religions, and its unfulfilled promises define the moral imperatives we face today.

than to any of his opponents, especially, the religious and the politically motivated ones. Like the one from Ross Douthat:

Because we know the universe has no purpose, we must imbue it with the purposes of a (non-species-ist) liberal cosmopolitanism! Because of science, we know that modern civilization has no dialectic or destiny … so we must pursue its “unfulfilled promises” and accept its “moral imperatives” instead!

Ouch... do I smell "ad-hominem" attack? Call Pinker some names, and disregard his stance that only rational analysis and scientific thinking has been proven to better the human race for ages.

There is also a typical "science requires faith too" gibberish:

But this belief in science collapses on itself: there is no scientific evidence to prove that science is the only reliable way to discover truth. Once we take unproven hypotheses and dogmatize them, we have moved beyond scientific evidence into philosophical reflection on truth and the scientific method. Naturalist or not, when it comes to the world’s origins, we are all in the realm of faith.

Nope... there is no faith in science. Not in the way you would want to. It's just about simple rational thinking and understanding that, only via this avenue, we can learn anything useful about the world that surrounds us.

It's good to see that there are some, who understand it:

We need not, however, enter into simplistic debates that lead to endless conflict. Rather, we can bring science and the humanities together to explore a new synergy of scientific fact and human values. Recognizing that we are now understanding these evolutionary processes through science and appreciating them through art, poetry, literature, music and spirituality gives us an opportunity to discover our own role in this unfolding story.

Science does not invalidate humanism, poetry, art, and countless other "soul-based" activities. It enhances them and makes them work pursuing, especially when we realize we have very little time to do it.

Are "Smart" and "Republican" Mutually Exclusive Terms?

Following my fascination with cognitive dissonance and how it can obstruct one's clear view of reality and reason, I give you the real world example.

First, an article from the Tampa Bay Times, from a few years back (I remember reading it in real print):

Why scientists are seldom Republicans

Have you ever wondered what the world would be like without scientists? Ask the Republican Party. It lives in such a world. Republicans have been so successful in driving out of their party anyone who endeavors in scientific inquiry that pretty soon there won't be anyone left who can distinguish a periodic table from a kitchen table.

This was a brilliant article and it's funny, how the Republicans finally noticed the same thing, after the last elections, and decided to stop being a "stupid party"... except I don't think they are actually trying at all.

Not only, the narrative from them did not change, but it seems it is getting worse. From climate change and creationism, to gun control and human rights, they are still deep in the 19th Century, and they seem to be more and more proud of it. Case in point:

Rogue State: How Far-Right Fanatics Hijacked Kansas

Where do we go from here??? Only a complete negation of reality can follow... and it's a scary, scary vision.

Why Do We Pick Idiots To Run Our Country?

Yes, I agree it's rather harsh to say that, but after Florida's very own senator, Marco Rubio said this:

I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries.

in an interview for GQ, as an answer to the question about the age of the Earth, the only two choices are:

1. Crackpot.
2. Liar, who knows the real and scientific answer, but lies to all of us for political reasons.

I admit, #2 is very probable for any politician, but I also want to believe that nobody would consciously and purposefully, expose himself or herself to this kind of ridicule, so I'll stick with my initial assessment.

Let me point to an excellent Bad Astronomy blog, for an expanded explanation of why we all should start picking our government representatives a bit more carefully: they are elected to make decisions that are very complex, require critical thinking skills and can affect all of us (and sometimes even the world). Of course, this is not new and not even rare, especially from the politicians on the right (a.k.a. the Republicans). The scary part is that Rubio is considered a "rising star" in the Republican Party and we might have to endure his misguided views more than we care for.

Quote of the Day - From a "Science-Loving" Politician

So, where are we heading as a country, if a person, who sits on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology says something like that:

“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell, and it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”

Impressive and scary, given the fact that this guy, U.S. Rep. Paul C. Broun (R., Ga.), is partially responsible for making decisions that drive science and engineering in this country and potentially affect our future.

But... Mr. Broun is not alone on the committee. Salon.com has some additional "science-literate" politicians:

Least scientific members of the House Science Committee

It's also good to see the Science Guy, Bill Nye weighting in:

Bill Nye: Paul Broun 'Unqualified To Make Decisions About Science, Space, And Technology'

I guess, your brains are not really important in politics, but it should not come as a surprise after all. You can go pretty far in this country, believing that Jews came to America in 600 B.C. and left their story written on the golden plates that can be translated by looking into a magic hat with some stones in it... Priceless!

Science Debate 2012

I think we can safely bet that we are not likely to see a live, televised science debate between Obama and Romney on CNN (or, even less likely Fox News) this year. The candidates would expose themselves and their agendas, to a field in which real facts and established theories cannot be spun into a political "newspeak", in which all political figures are so well versed.

However, it's still great to see that both of this years presidential candidates have answered questions posed by an independent, on-line initiative started four years ago, called ScienceDebate.org

While, getting answers in a written form is not as revealing as a candidate's live "performance", the answers from both Obama and Romney, do give us a general feel of where they come from and where they want to lead us in the future.

Not surprisingly, at first glance, Obama wins over Romney in this field. I say "not surprisingly", because for many, many years, the Republican Party and most of its candidates at all political levels, have presented an incredible ineptitude for science, reason and critical thinking. They are known for embracing all kinds of unscientific thinking from promoting creationism and intelligent design in our schools, to fighting and denying every environmental issue, including, most recently, global warming.

And, Mitt Romney does not disappoint again... While his running mate, Paul Ryan, is a known global warming denialist, Romney articulates the same view (granted, he does some dancing around, to make himself look a bit less dumb):

I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.

"Lack of scientific consensus?", yes, if you count some loony scientists, mostly not even in the field of climate research. That debate has been closed, at least in the scientific circles and the time is to look for solutions.

In general, the answers from the Obama campaign seem to be a bit more focused and to the point. Romney, on the other hand, has a lot of lofty ideas, with very little essence (create a "Reagan Economic Zone"? Who will join?).

However, it's still good to see those two sets of answers side by side, compare them and analyze them, which, at the end, helps all of us in making our minds in November.

As Thomas Jefferson said (which is wisely pointed by the ScienceDebate.org):

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government."

UPDATE 09/06/2012:
A summary from Slate: Romney Out-Debates Obama

Yes, out-debates... true, but is there a real essence there? I'm not so sure.

Politicians: Brains Not Required

We all know that being smart is not required for being a politician. Having a good education is also not in the requirements for this particular position, which could have been clearly seen in the recent batch of the Republican presidential candidates.
However, when it comes to politicians without brains, I firmly say "Not In My Backyard!!!" (NIMB).
This is exactly what's happening in one of the Florida State House districts, where all three Republican candidates, Kim Kendall, Mike Davis and Ronald “Doc” Renuart, support teaching creationism in our public schools.
It is amusing, and yet scary at the same time, to hear from Renuart, who is a physician (with higher education and extensive scientific training, I presume):

Evolution is still a theory. It should be taught as a theory, not as a fact. Creationism, divine intervention — a lot of people share this belief.

and then:

[Vouchers] give[s] students a way out (of a failing school). It’s not full tuition. When we don’t provide options for students, what’s really left for them? (These schools) must meet the standards of public education.

What standards? The same he just demolished bringing religion into science classes?

Florida Citizens for Science has a short post about this topic as well.

Dumb Politicians

It appears that a large portion of our society here in the USA tends to prefer and vote for not-so-bright politicians. The current flock of the right wing candidates for the highest office in the land is the best example of this frightening trend.
Sarah Palin is a poster child of this group, but the rest of them are not better at all, and don't get me even started on Christine "I'm not a witch" O'Donnell.
The scary thing is that they are a legitimate candidates in this country, where, apparently stupidity rules.
It is always encouraging to see that someone is bringing up this issue openly in the media, without sugarcoating:

In any other party and in any other country, an individual may occasionally rise to the top in spite of being an uneducated ignoramus. In today’s Republican Party ‘in spite of’ is not the phrase we need. Ignorance and lack of education are positive qualifications, bordering on obligatory. Intellect, knowledge and linguistic mastery are mistrusted by Republican voters, who, when choosing a president, would apparently prefer someone like themselves over someone actually qualified for the job.

The whole article can be found here, and I have nothing but highest respect for Richard Dawkins for calling it what it is: stupidity and willful ignorance.

Dinosaur World: Science of Fiction?

I was going over my daily reading list and found an interesting piece of information pointed out by PZ Myers on his Pharyngula blog:

You can imagine how some people who had no idea felt; they'd been reading the articles to their kids, who are enthusiastic about dinosaurs, and suddenly, boom, they discover that the authors are idiots. And idiots with a religious agenda. There is nothing about any of this nonsense in their About page; similarly, Wikipedia and none of the other reviews on the web mention that this is a creationist attraction. Sneaky!

Since my son has been to this place with his school at least once (it was a while ago, but still), I felt I needed to do some quick research. I do want to make sure that he gets the best education possible, and not some one's ideological version of how the World goes around.
The announcement from July 25th seems to be gone from their Web site, or I just can't locate it. Browsing around, most of the information appears to be factual to a layman in a field of paleontology, like myself. However, poking deeper and downloading some of the educational materials for parents and teachers, I did find it interesting that you can't find any information about how old all those dinosaurs are. The only exception, where I actually saw a date was from the Kentucky Field Trip Curriculum, which states:

One exhibit in the museum is of a fossilized turtle. Turtles are the oldest living group of reptiles, first appearing about 200 million years ago. The first known turtles appeared on Earth in the late Triassic Period, so they are older than many of the well known great dinosaurs! Turtles have evolved into more than 250 species, including about 180 species of freshwater turtles, 60 species of tortoises, and 8 species of sea turtles, with new species still being discovered.

This was also the only place I could find the word "evolved", but maybe I did not look hard enough. There is plenty of "adaptation", and "change", but "evolution" seems to be absent in most of the materials.
However, in the same document I also found this little tidbit:

There are many theories regarding why dinosaurs became extinct. One includes a catastrophic event such as a meteor or a flood that would have instantly changed the world.

A flood? I do not remember that theory, but maybe I have to brush up on my paleontology.

Finally, in "A TEACHER’S GUIDE TO DINOSAUR WORLD", the last paragraph states:

Dinosaur World hosts field trips for groups of homeschoolers and students from church schools that teach a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation. The informative plaques in the park present general facts about the dinosaurs. There are very few “millions of years ago” references.
For more information about creation science, see Science Partners (consultants for home-school and other education programs)

So, in my opinion, this place is NOT about teaching, but about business, and business only. They are trying to make sure that everyone is happy, without pretending it is real science. I wonder how they reconcile facts with "very few references" to the real time scales. It is probably a good place to skip when you driving by on I-4 in Florida (or any of their other locations). Much better to head down to MOSI in Tampa, where you and your kids will most likely get the real science and facts behind our natural world.

Science? We Don't Need No Stinking Science...

... says Jonathan Saenz of the Liberty Institute:

“We don’t need some liberal California group coming into Texas telling us how to do our science and our teaching when they have their own problems.”

Continue reading: SMU professor: Science doesn’t choose between Christians and non-believers

Fortunately, this battle ended well for Texas (and the rest of us in the U.S.), but we need to keep an eye on the crazy ones, as they tend to pop up all over the place. We have our own fair share in Florida.

Summer Slump

It's summer time and vacation time for me at the same time. Blogging gets pushed down low on my priority list, but there is some interesting news around.
You can feel the election cycle coming back in the U.S., and with it all the stupidity of some of the candidates for the highest office in the nation in 2012.
Sara Palin has been giving us a steady stream of her brilliant views for a while now, but we have a new contender to the throne: Michele Bachmann. Before even announcing officially her bid for the 2012 presidential elections, she gave us this:

"I support intelligent design," Bachmann told reporters in New Orleans following her speech to the Republican Leadership Conference. "What I support is putting all science on the table and then letting students decide. I don't think it's a good idea for government to come down on one side of scientific issue or another, when there is reasonable doubt on both sides."

See more on CNN: Bachmann: Schools should teach intelligent design

Good start Michele. You are correct. The government should not be deciding on scientific issues. Intelligent Design was put firmly in the realm of religion long time ago, and as such should remain in religion classes, not in public schools' science classes. I think Dover gave us an excellent explanation for that.

Here We Go Again: Mr. Wise - Not So Wise After All

Yes, he is an embarasment to our state again:

"Why do we still have apes if we came from them?" Wise, a retired educator, said during the interview with the Tampa radio station. "And those are the kind of questions kids need to ask themselves. You know, 'how did we get here?' And, you know, there's more than one theory on this thing. And the theory is evolution, the other one is intelligent design."

More conservative Legislature considers evolution bill


Not so wise and an embarasment to all educators as well. Let's hope the educators of today are wiser, and let's hope this bill dies quickly and we do not have to see another Dover and all the money wasted.

Book Review: Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk

I was watching "Real Time with Bill Maher" last night (Sept. 24th episode) and realized how his guests and the book I read recently came together in a nice fashion. Bill Maher had two conservatives: Andrew Breitbart and Amy Holmes on the show, going against Seth MacFarlane and Ann Druyan (the wife of Carl Sagan). The issue that created the most heated discussion (not to say yelling) was the climate change and its origins.
Andrew Breitbart gave the usual "not all scientists agree" nonsense with some additional, typical set of lies and Ann Druyan call him on it, saying straight to his face that the Right serves lies and distractions while we are still doing noting to mitigate the real issue.
The discussion brought up a very important problem that we all face almost every day, often without realizing it: how to tell what is "science" from all kinds of claims that people try to sell us?
This question, and a few possible answers are the core of the book "Nonsense of Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk"by Massimo Pigliucci:
















It is not an easy book to read, having a fair amount of philosophy in its content, but it also gives a great overview of the current "state of the game", or the anti-intellectual, anti-science attitudes so widely spread in our society. From the general rejection of science, mostly by the religious right, to the attempts of incorporating its own "soft" science into the mainstream by the "liberal" hipsters, we see this process almost every day.
Pigliucci starts off with a simple question: what is science and what is not (or what claims to be science, but in reality is pseudoscience). As we quickly find out, it is not an easy question to answer, since even within science itself there are disciplines that, while generally regarded as scientific, are having a hard time fitting into a number of predefined criteria.
We get a tour of current anti-scientific battlefronts, including various think tanks, which peddle any nonsense for which they get paid, under the covers of "real" scientific research, the current global warming debate (which is not really a debate from the scientific point of view anymore), and the Intelligent Design case from Dover. All of the above serve as great examples of how to define science and how to attempt to distinguish it from any other claims.
The final piece of this book and the one that I enjoyed the most was a discussion on how to tell an expert from a wanna-be. This is so important because, as I pointed out at the beginning, almost every day we encounter people who claim to have answers to all the issues of today's world. We also have to make our own decisions (some personal and some political) in an increasingly complex world, decisions that affect our health, our families and our way of life. It is therefore very important to know how to distinguish the real deal from "bunk".
If not for everything else, this is one reason to read "Nonsense on Stilts".

After the Debate

So, while I was unable to actually attend the debate, it seems that there was something interesting that happened there: John Tracy took a very typical right wing road, offending everyone and painting himself as the only one with any values:

John Tracy's comments at Pasco School Board candidate debate offend his rivals

So Tracy told the audience at Thursday's candidate debate at Pasco-Hernando Community College that he was the candidate of family values and integrity. Not just one of them. The one.

How funny...

There is more in the TampaBay.com Gradebook Blog:

Pasco School Board candidate Rev. John Tracy defends his debate night comments

You have to love what Mr. Tracy concluded:

This particular article misrepresents my statements and fails to accurately set the context of the debate forum. Lesson learned. Voters beware! Do not trust the press.

That's right, blame the media for your own statements and try to twist the facts around, to make up your own reality. This attitude is so typical of the far right found everywhere, not only in this country.

We have to make sure we vote for someone much better to have any influence over our school system.

Pasco School Board Candidates Debate

Interestingly, there will be a live debate tonight between 12 candidates for the Pasco School Board, as reported by St. Pete Times:

Hear the Pasco School Board candidates debate

I would love to see it, or at least have a chance to read an extensive report on what all of them had to say.
More to come...

Time To Vote

Early elections are on around Pasco County, and this year one set of votes is the dearest to my heart: County School Board members. That's because I will soon have my son in the local school system and I would like to ensure that the system gets better, remains focused on good education and is not influenced by any ideology.
There is a broad set of candidates to select from, but one stands out of the crowd as particularly BAD. That's John Tracy. I have seen it coming long time ago, as I wrote here. While Tracy's web page has softened up a bit since last year, he still is for teaching creationism in public schools, as indicated in his very recent interview with St. Petersburg Times:

Tracy said he is not out to change the curriculum. Still, he said, students should have a choice about whether they want to learn about evolution in science classes. He also called for making sure that religious references are not wiped out of history books.

Tracy spoke about student equality, saying that schools should be neutral ground for people of all political and religious beliefs. He said schools need to deal with drug problems, which are growing. And as a parent who has his children in a private church school, he backed school choice.

The whole article: Pasco School Board race features five candidates with diverse views

No, students should not have a choice what to learn in science classes! They should learn SCIENCE! If Mr. Tracy wants to teach his (or any other views) in his church, that's fine with me, but science is not based on personal opinions and beliefs. That makes it easy on who NOT to vote for.

Florida Citizens for Science has a nice summary of this issue for Pasco County: Details on Pasco school board races

This and That Before Christmas

Ahhh... the Season is upon us. So to all: Merry Christmas!!! Happy New Year!!! Happy Holidays!!! Wesołych Świąt!!! Happy Kwanzaa!!! Feliz Navidad!!! Happy Festivus (for the rest of us)!!!

And a few bits of wisdom from various places on the Net:

First, more interesting news on homeopathy, after a slight increase in chatter from the "believers", here are great responses from the real medical doctors:

More Homeopathy Apologetics - by Steve Novella
and
Mercola sells the delusion of homeopathy - by Orac

Great scientific minds take the woo-woo apart.

If you are looking for some laughs, try this: The Year in Quotes: Science, a collection of quotes from the "great minds" of Texas (some of them are elected officials!!!).

Best wishes to all!!!

Roger Ebert - A Skeptic - Who Knew?

I always turned to Roger Ebert for his movie advice, not political, or skeptical views. I guess I was wrong:

New Age beliefs are the Creationism of the Progressives. I move in circles where most people would find it absurd to believe that humans didn't evolve from prehistoric ancestors, yet many of these same people quite happily believe in astrology, psychics, reincarnation, the Tarot deck, the i Ching, and sooth-saying. Palmistry and phrenology have pretty much blown over.

New Agers and Creationists should not be President

He has a great point: for way too many in our society it is easy to bash ultra-religious views, but somehow we do not notice all those "progressive", new age beliefs that are equally nonsensical and can negatively influence our decisions in the same way. In the 21st century, there should be no place in politics for people without rational approach, as this influences their decisions in too many bad ways.

Creation Museum Science Fair

I saw news about this: Creation Museum Science Fair going around the blogosphere... but you really have to read the Guidelines to appreciate the stupidity of the whole thing...

The Stupid, It Burns!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!