The Quest for Right (It’s pretty wrong)

C David Parsons, author of a series of creationist textbooks called The Quest for Right, left a comment on one of yesterday’s posts. In it, he described the bizarre content of his books, in which he apparently takes on atomic theory and quantum mechanics, as if they both are cornerstones of modern evolutionary theory. I’ll let his words speak for themselves:

The backbone of Darwinism is not biological evolution per se, but electronic interpretation, the tenet that all physical chemical and biological processes result from a change in the electron structure of the atom which, in turn, may be deciphered through the orderly application of mathematics, as outlined in quantum mechanics. A few of the supporting theories are: degrading stars, neutron stars, black holes, extraterestrial water, antimatter, the absolute dating systems, ant the big bang, the explosion of a singularity infinitely smaller than the dot of an “i” from which space, time, and the massive stellar bodies supposedly sprang into being.

The philosophy rejects any divine intervention. Therefore, let the philosophy of Darwinism be judged on these specifics: electron interpretation and quantum mechanics. Conversely, the view that God is both responsible for and rules all the phenomena of the universe will stand or fall when the facts are applied. The view will not hinge on faith alone, but will be tested by the weightier principle of verifiable truths - the new discipline.

The Quest for Right is not only better at explaining natural phenomena, but also may be verified through testing. As a result, the material in the several volumes will not violate the so-called constitutional separation of church and state. Physical science, the old science of cause and effect, will have a long-term sustainability, replacing irresponsible doctrines based on whim. Teachers and students will rejoice in the simplicity of earthly phenomena when entertained by the new discipline.

I think we should get a trial separation

Did you like that clever play on “trial” and “separation?”  As in “separation of church and state?”

No? Oh.

Anyway, this week UC Berkeley will be taken to court over a webpage they host that provides resources to teachers of evolution. According to the Pacific Justice Institute, this website contains an egregious crime against the secular government guaranteed by the Constitution, an unspeakable assault on the Wall of Separation erected by the great Thomas Jefferson.

The crime?

They said that most religions don’t have a problem with evolution.

Why fight for evolution?

Today’s post may ramble a bit. Fairly warned ye be.

I had never intended to start an evolution/creation blog, but that seems to be the direction the blog has taken for the present. That’s fine with me; I’m certain that exciting happenings in science will tug at my fancy. For now, it’s evolution, and as I regard victory in the war on evolution as vital for our continued survival, I’m happy to give it center stage for a time.

That may have seemed like idle hyperbole. Certainly it’s important to protect evolutionary theory from the ideological attacks on it, in this country (the US) and in all others. If we fail, the US stands to fall behind the rest of the world in scientific competency. Not only that, but if the soldiers of religious wingnuttery are able to censor science, what’s to prevent their influence from entering other areas of public life? What’s to stop them from outlawing homosexuality, or undermining religious freedoms? All these are nontrivial concerns, but none of them threaten our survival as a species.

I fight so hard for evolution not only for the theory itself, but for its necessary implications. The fact that humans share a common ancestor with all other life makes one long-held notion virtually untenable: that humans are somehow above and separate from the rest of life. Evolution makes it uncomfortably difficult to believe that humans were made “in God’s own image.” We are a part of the life of this world, we came to be in the same way as anything else, and we are subject to the same laws of nature as anything else. It is unspeakably vital that we all grasp this fact, and soon.

Again, the urgency with which I advocate this idea may seem strange. What harm is there in some people’s believing that humans are somehow exalted over other organisms? The danger is in the actions such a belief permits. If humans are exalted over all other life, than we are free to do what we will with all other life. In fact, “civilized” humans have done whatever they would with all other life for thousands of years, and the results are all around us. Fisheries are collapsing, vast areas of forest are destroyed daily, the products of agriculture and industry are driving global temperatures up, and estimates hold that dozens of species are driven extinct every day. This is a direct result of the idea that the world was made for us, and that we were made to make what we would of the world.

Accepting the more humble origin of humanity does not utterly banish this notion, but it does make it difficult to maintain. If we are simply a natural outgrowth of the processes that shaped this planet, it is hardly possible to justify our treating it as our personal property.

I fight, because fighting for evolution means fighting for humanity.

This should make it easier

The venerable and mighty Calilasseia of RichardDawkins.net forum fame has forged a powerful tool in the war on creationism: a spreadsheet that allows quick calculation of Hovind Factors. One simply has to open the spreadsheet, press ALT+F8, click Run, and choose the appropriate options in the dropdown menus. I’ve included a screenshot of the macro to give you all a taste.

I’m hosting the spreadsheet on Media Fire, so please let me know if you have any trouble getting or using it! I personally will be using it in all my Hovind Factor calculations from now on.

If I had to give it a number…

I made a slight oversight in yesterday’s posts about the Biologic Institute.  Specifically, I failed to quantify the exact amount of stupidity in their mission statement using the Hovind Scale. 

Let’s do that now.

A specific example

There isn’t much on the Biologic Institute’s webpage right now, but something there caught my attention. And also my sense of righteous anger.

In the one and only article I can find on the page, the implication is made that the enzymes present in cells are irreducibly complex, and therefore could not have evolved. Then, eminent biologist John Maynard Smith’s reply to this type of argument is provided:

The Poorly Named Biologic Institute

Remember all those times you heard people claim that intelligent design folks don’t do any research of their own? Well, that’s all about to change (apparently)! Meet the Biologic Institute, a group of research scientists that claims to be going out there and doing the dirty work in favor of ID. Odd, since most scientists study the universe to find out about the universe, not to prop up a tired pseudoscientific religious perspective. Oh well, let’s check their mission statement!

Biologic Institute brings together scientists with diverse expertise, unified by the realization that a revolution in biology—with far reaching implications—is well under way. Like many revolutionary ideas, this one is powerful in its simplicity:

The more we learn about the organization of life,
the more clearly it reveals design.

Wait. This whole enterprise is based on Paley’s Watch? An argument that was shot down by David Hume centuries ago? I thought this was a “revolution in biology,” not a tired retread of creationist talking points.

Another school district’s assault on science

The blogs are ablaze with a school district in Maine whose director wants evolution expelled from the curriculum. Matthew Linkletter, director of School Adminstrative District No. 59, has said evolution, along with other “origins” theories such as the Big Bang, have to be believed by faith, that “you can’t show, observe, or prove it.” He also said, “If it’s not scientifically verifiable, then maybe we should leave it out of the science classes. When you make a statement that’s not backed by facts and just represents a world view, then it has no place.”

This has been well covered already, so I’ll let you find other capable coverage elsewhere. For now, I think Linkletter provides an excellent opportunity to put to use The Hovind Scale, a method for quantifying the stupidity of creationist statements.

Here we go:

Hovind Factor = (X + s + i + p) x (m + 1)

Belief in Scripture:
X = 0 - No doctrinal belief required

Now it seems rather obvious that the person making this statement is coming from a literalist religious perspective, but the Hovind Scale is about statements, and Linkletter’s particular statements don’t rest on a particular dogmatic interpretation. Thus, he gets off easy on this one.

Science Illiteracy:
S = 4 - Rejection of basic scientific facts/laws/robust theories and/or denial of any evidence that contradicts scripture

Linkletter has said that evolution is scientifically unverifiable. This, in spite of the fact that the theory of evolution is as well established as the theory of gravity (if not more.) Should we take the theory of gravity out of the classroom too, Mr. Linkletter?

Idiocy scale
i = 8 - unlikely to be accepted by anyone with more than two functioning neurons

Really, Mr. Linkletter? You really believe that evolution (and the Big Bang, for some reason) are not based on sound observation and experimentation? Despite displaying an obvious and utter lack of understanding of science? That’s pretty stupid.

Paradox
p = 3 - Self contradiction invalidates statement completely, and is left unaddressed.

Linkletter says that evolution can’t be proven. Well watch out for the news flash, because nothing in science is proven! If we have to throw out every unproven scientific theory, we should just chuck ‘em all, because not one of them is proven in the slightest. There’s plenty of evidence for the best ones, of course.

Mendacity
m = 4 - Complete, burn-in-Hell, perjury grade, super-lie - for example, one that is strategically designed to mislead authorities or the general public (e.g. as witnessed in the Dover trial and Expelled).

Ah, mendacity: the first and choicest refuge of the scoundrel. Mr. Linkletter deserves the highest mendacity value for several reasons. First, he is in a position of power, and is using that position to attack science. That makes any dishonesty far more egregious than a simple creationist blog (or Venom Fang X video.) Second, he’s pretending to be acting purely in the interest of good science education, despite the self-evident fact that his lack of any expertise in science should disqualify him from making such sweeping recommendations. Finally, he deserves a high value here because of the target of his mendacious attack: Children. Whatever he feels about it, if his attack on science education is successful, it will have the effect of undermining the future of the area’s children. A great deal of humanity’s future (and whether there is much future to speak of) will center on science, and for that reason we must give our students every advantage in gaining a scientific education. Linkletter’s ludicrous motion would leave them far behind the rest of the world.

All right, if we add all that up, we get a Hovind Factor of 75%; just 5% less than Expelled. Not bad, Mr. Linkletter; not bad.

Anyone in the area interested in registering their disgust with Mr. Linkletter can attend the school board meeting on May 19th. I’ll bet it’s a lively time!

Monkey Murdered, Mate Missing

Sometime last Tuesday night at the Greater Vancouver Zoo, a heinous crime was committed. It was a murder-kidnapping, in which a 17-year-old female was carried off, and it seems probable that her male partner died defending her.

Judging by the reactions to this crime, it was made no less poignant by the fact that the victims were spider monkeys.

Because spider monkeys are rare, it’s probable that the kidnapped female (named Mia) could be sold for a large amount on the black market. In fact, that’s probably what inspired this crime. That people would be willing to sacrifice such a desperately scarce animal (when it’s gone, it’s gone forever) for such short-term gain is a sad reflection on the priorities within civilized countries.

I want to like Michael Crichton

He was a major part of my adolescence, I kid you not.  I read Jurassic Park over and over when the movie came out, excited as any young man would be at the thought of reviving the dinosaurs. I also devoured Sphere and The Andromeda Strain. His science fiction was so accessible, and yet surprisingly plausible. Plausible enough, at least, for me to imagine that I might be feeding a hadrosaur out of my hand in ten years. (I didn’t know very much then.)

Then State of Fear came along. I know that fiction is fiction, but I’ve heard enough people mention it to me in defense of global warming denialism to dismiss the “It’s only a story” line. I was thrown into cognitive dissonance. I had always thought he had a grip on the science. What was going on?

It seems as though he really believes the schlock that pads that book. This Audobon profile of him has a lot of relevant information. The worst, however, came from a Scientific American podcast from November 6, 2007: the interviewee mentioned that, in a Senate hearing, Crichton confidently asserted that he knew the climate change issue better than the National Academy of Sciences.

Just a touch of egotism, perhaps?

This is confusing, as the case for human-influenced climate change is scientifically all but unassailable. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this is simple physics. We know that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing at a rate that is unprecedented in Earth’s known history. We also know that most of this carbon dioxide is produced by human activity. What is there to misunderstand here?

Another fond childhood memory has been lost. My estimation of Michael Crichton has been irreparably shattered.

If the new Indiana Jones movie sucks, I’ll have nothing left.