Debating Creationists: Kicking the Habit

I went to ERV where I learned about the Sedalia MO high school band t-shirt kerfuffle. The band teacher created a graphic to represent the evolution of brass intstruments from the 1960s to the present, using the olde timey image of monkey-hominids-humans in sequence.

Sadly, some parents and students felt the allusion to biological evolution -even if only as metaphor- was offensive. I suppose that's no suprise, given the thickness of anti-intellectualism in many small towns.

But this bit on the part of a school official surprised me:

While the shirts don’t directly violate the district’s dress code, Assistant Superintendent Brad Pollitt said complaints by parents made him take action.

"I made the decision to have the band members turn the shirts in after several concerned parents brought the shirts to my attention," Pollitt said.

Pollitt said the district is required by law to remain neutral where religion is concerned.

WTF? Evolution = religion?

Here I am, end of my less-than productive workday, considering the time I wasted reading the comments posted on the two articles at the Sedalia Democrat. My emotional reaction to the burning toopid has left me fatigued and disoriented.

I gotta stop getting suckered into these creationist debates.

Y'all must save the world without me. I'm beat.

Religion as LARP

Nice essay by Steve Zara: Creationists are honest.

Dr. Zara informs us that we are doomed to disappoint when we try to convince creationists that the theory of evolution and some variant of creationism are compatible notions.

It's true. God isn't required for natural selection and the emergence of humans as a distinct species. And by implication, God probably isn't necessary to explain other events in the history of the universe, such as the origin of self-replicating molecules from non-living matter or the Big Bang at the start of it all.

Maybe there is a God who fiddles with our material world somehow. Who knows? I dunno. But I do note that the physicists, chemists, biologists, and mathematicians to date have not required God in their explanations of how stuff works.

Creationists assert that humans require God. God is not optional. From the creationist viewpoint, any model of the history of the universe that makes no reference to God is not just wrong. It's willfully wrong and offensive, as all lies are offensive.

But what of the liberal believer who is content to read Genesis as metaphor? The believer who respects science but who also finds the notion of a loving Creator-God comforting? Can't the theory of evolution get along well enough with such mild religious claims?

Well, typically, the religious propositions asserted by liberal believers are incoherent. What they say they believe and how they live and what they accept as evidence in a court of law and what they understand about the actual world we share don't add up. The mess of personal belief is self-compatible only insofar as it's shielded from scrutiny.

Ever wondered why some liberal religionists called you cold when you threw a bit of logical argument their way? It's the wool in their heads. Apparently it does more than merely dampen cognitive dissonance. It also helps to keep them feeling cozy-warm. Consequently they are not keen to give it up, you heartless godless bastards.

Maybe one day everyone will recognize that God is not required to explain much of anything. Per the parsimony rule, any entity not required is a non-entity, and so there will be no God. No real God, anyway. The LARP or "live action roll play" God(s) humans have enjoyed for centuries can carry on as before. All that will change is our mindfulness of the boundary between LARP and IRL action.

Thanks, Walt Ruloff, for Boot to de Head

Now on DVD, Expelled! rises zombie-like from the mud eager to om nom nom the few science-informed brain bits left among the general public. Read an interview with Walt Ruloff here: No Apologies Allowed: Producer defends anti-Darwin movie.

Please, Mr. Ruloff, allow me to explain science:

We measure our confidence in the truth of various claims about the world using a method called "reason" or "science" or "methodological naturalism" or "critical thinking" or "hypothetico-deductive reasoning." All these terms and a few others refer to a method involving four basic tests:

1. Corroboration: Claims which can be independently corroborated deserve more of our confidence than claims which cannot be corroborated.
2. Falsification: Hypotheses or explanations must be subjected to some effort to prove them false before we take them seriously.
3. Logic: Hypotheses and their implications must not be self-contradictory and must not contradict what we already know.
4. Parsimony: The fewer unfounded assumptions, the better.

ID proponents have not yet formulated any hypotheses that can be tested and independently corroborated. This is why ID is not science. At best it might be termed a "conjecture."

A scientist who says, "I think there might be something to this ID thing," isn't going to get fired. Gut feelings, hunches, speculations, are part of the human condition. However, any scientist unable to distinguish a conjecture from a claim that passes the four tests above should be fired.

My request to the uber-wealthy who think filmmaking might be fun: Try not to confuse America. You wouldn't like America when it's confused.

Roger Ebert Gets Two Thumbs Up!

Expelled! is now on DVD. Roger Ebert reviews.

Roger, you're one of the good ones. Sorry to hear about your hip.

The rock wall analogy

Imagine laying a natural rock wall without mortar. Good rock walls minimize the empty space between the rocks. Bad rock walls leave a lot of empty space and tend to fall apart.

To lay a rock wall, you start by setting some rock. Then you appreciate the empty space beside it. Then you look to your rock pile for something that will best fit that empty space. If you're slow and careful you will probably build a pretty good wall.

But imagine building not just a good wall but the best wall possible given the stones available. Could you accomplish this? I don't believe I could.

If you've ever constructed a rock wall, you've likely had the experience of discovering a spot that would be perfect for a rock you've already set. Ugh! Sometimes you'll unpack a little of the wall to get the rock for that space. But the unpacking sometimes creates new spaces that are hard to fill.

It's just too difficult predicting at the outset where each rock should ideally be placed.

Now, imagine you've got a large steel box in the shape of the wall you're building. The box sits on top of a platform that can be made to vibrate. Put all the rocks in your pile into the box and let the thing vibrate a while.

Q: Which wall will have less empty space in it, the human designed wall or the wall that results from vibration?

A: The vibration method will have a better outcome. Here's why:

1. Rocks that share large surface areas will vibrate less than other rocks, thanks to friction.

2. The variation in movement among the rocks allows for a kind of natural selection: rocks that don't move will "pass on" their stability to future rock arrangements while mobile rocks will continue to bounce until they find a snug spot.

Evolution is like an adding machine that can add together all sorts of interacting forces all at once. We find this process hard to understand. As humans, we can only add two numbers together at a time. So we look at evolution and we call it "random" because we can't see all the interacting links. But it isn't random. It's complex.

Creationist logic

Behavior or Behaviors?

The report in front of me contains this sentence:

His behaviors include property destruction, aggression to others, disrobing, noncompliance (drops to the floor), wandering, and food seeking.

Years past I would have cautioned the author of such a sentence to avoid "behaviors" as "behavior" is an uncountable noun. But I have grown weak. The tide has turned and "behaviors" now seems generally acceptable if one is speaking of particular types of behavior.

Language evolves. With enough time a language can become so different that the older version is incomprehensible to modern speakers.

Biological evolution is a very similar process. Yet creationists deny that an accumulation of small changes over time can add up to larger changes. I find this denial baffling.

I've developed a conditioned sense of exhaustion in response to the words "microevolution verses macroevolution." The words signal the presence of a vast mountain of wrong that must be removed stone by stone before there's any hope of useful conversation.

The defense of "species" against evolutionary change is so silly. It's like saying, "yes, you can go from red to red-orange or from red-orange to orange; but you can't ever go from red to orange!"

It's not always about you

Does a fish know he's wet? If water is all the fish has ever known, perhaps not.

Does a creationist recognize when he's anthropomorphizing? Does he consider that human ideas and heuristics such as purpose, order, benefit, or progress may not have any meaning from the vantage point of some other being or impersonal entity?

Here's a comment from a creationist posting at RichardDawkins.net, followed by my response:

I believe things are in descent having begun in perfection. Evolution is trying to say that organisms have ascended to where they are now from a single cell by way of mutations. I believe living organisms are in a downward spiral.

Biologists may speak of the ascent of man or other species. But this is poetry. There is no ascent or descent per se. There is simply a sea of replicators replicating.

To get the hang of biology you must lose your anthrocentrism. Have a look at the world from the vantage of a bird, a fish, a spider, a bacterium, a mitochondrian, or a gene. Would T Rex feel that this era of mammalianism is an improvement compared to the age of reptiles? In terms of the menu, maybe.

Approximately 90 percent of the cells within your body belong to various non-human species. They call your body "ours" just as you call it "mine." Your arms, legs, and brain work for these others as much as for yourself.

Of those cells within you which are human you'll note no loyalty oaths. They generally cooperate with the rest of you, clearly. But they do murder their brothers with some frequency. These fratricides are often to your benefit but not always.

Even within that which is most you --your own genome-- you are overrun with foreigners. Your chromosomes are chock-a-block with endogenous retroviruses and fragments of genes once useful to other species but of no use to you.

Now that you have shrugged off your speciesism you can answer this question: Who conquered the New World, the European or his parasites?

Punked!

Hey Ben Stein, Walt Ruloff, Discovery Institute, et al. I have a question for you: How are you going to deal with the evangelicals once they realize they've been punked?

You've used these people. You've appropriated the mantle of Judeo-Christian righteousness and played upon fears of the anti-Christ to make a buck. Maybe you also had some hope of rallying the faithful politically, as these "Academic Freedom" bills in several states seem to indicate.

But the evangelicals may not be as dim as you imagine. They may notice that your rhetoric doesn't match reality.

Gene sequencing technology is starting to change the practice of medicine. Soon we'll routinely sequence patients' liver enzymes, in order to better select drug dosages. Popular awareness of the genetic code shared among all living things is bound to increase.

People do not enjoy being manipulated.

Newtonists hate kids

In 1687 Isaac Newton published his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica. This revolutionary work outlines a theory of gravitation capable of explaining the motion of apples falling from trees and planets moving around the sun.

Newton's theory has dominated the teaching of science in our schools and universities to such a degree, that alternate theories about mass and force are hardly given any consideration. Newtonists will admit that their theory isn't perfect. Yet few academics openly question or criticize Newtonism, as any dissent from the status quo is generally met with ridicule and worse. Try asking a Newtonist about some of the problems with Newton's theory, and you'll soon find yourself ... EXPELLED!

I've met several people who didn't particularly enjoy their high school physics experience. These creative souls just happened to see things a little differently. But were they given equal time to express their opinions? Sadly, no.

In fact these questioners suffered discrimination and humiliation. Their Newtonist classmates would receive comments on their homework like, "good job!" whereas the non-Newtonists would read statements like, "see me after class." The dissenters were warned that if they didn't start towing the Newtonist party line, they'd flunk out.

Hey Newtonists, what happened to free speech? What happened to America?

Very few faculty members at our leading institutions openly admit the problems with Newtonism. For example, Newtonism says nothing about where life came from, or what caused the Big Bang, or what happens when we die. With so many holes in their theory, it's surprising how arrogant and intolerant the Newtonists behave toward anyone who simply wants to hear other points of view.

Newtonists have been teaching our children that larger objects exert more force than smaller objects. A brief visit to any classroom in the US reveals what happens when these ideas are taught without criticism: the average child today weighs a lot more than the average child of a few decades past.

Yes, there's a terrible obesity epidemic in this country. Obesity is associated with diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, early death, and social stigma. Is this what we want for our kids?

Newtonists are forever going on about matter and energy as if nothing else existed. Ask a Newtonist about God or love or morality and you'll notice how quickly they try to change the subject. Many leading Newtonists even describe themselves as materialists! Shocking yes, but all too true.

Materialism and the culture of constant consumption are driving this obesity epidemic. I'm not saying Newtonism alone is making us fat. But I don't think we'd have this obesity problem today were it not for Newton's ideas of mass and inertia.

Anyone willing to question the Newtonist dogma can easily see the dangerous, slippery slope these people want us to walk: Newtonism leads to materialism leads to obesity leads to a whole lot of kids dying.

Hey, I don't have all the answers. But neither do the Newtonists. What right have they to call the rest of us ignorant fools? At least we care about the children.

I science; you science; he sciences

In his article, "Evolution: what's the real controversy?" Josh Timmer compares the manufactroversy of intelligent design v evolution to some bona fide debates among scientists today. Would "teach the controversy" make sense for any of these genuine disputes? His conclusion: no.

I can't argue.

Science is a method for assigning an appropriate level of confidence to claims about the world. It's a skill, like math or cooking. The more you do it, the better you get at it.

You can learn a fair amount of history from TV documentaries. But you won't learn much science while sitting on the couch. Yes, you can absorb a number of interesting facts from well-written science shows. But a collection of sciency facts does not a science make.

Science, like math, is a skill that benefits from frequent practice. Lectures and readings only take you so far. To really get the hang of it, you have to knuckle down and work your way through some problems on your own.

I hear the word "scientific" used to suggest a fashion or style evocative of test tubes, chemicals, blackboards, equations, conservative attire, monotone voice, and mechanical mannerisms. With respect to style, I prefer "sciency" to "scientific." I'd like to save "scientific" for something more useful, i.e. "defensible per accepted rules of evidence."

If I say that a claim is scientific, the onus is upon me to defend that claim using evidence and reasoned argument. But if I say, "well that's what I was taught in science class," I've actually demonstrated a non-scientific basis. This is not to say that a scientific basis doesn't exist; just that my basis is not scientific.

High school students, with rare exception, haven't developed the skills needed to independently critique or defend most basic scientific claims. Discussion of conjectures on the frontiers of current scientific understanding certainly won't grant them an opportunity to do the maths for themselves --i.e., to independently weigh the arguments and evidence forming the basis of each rival position.

When you can't double-check the maths, what's your basis for accepting what you're told? A vague hope that the teacher's got things right? Gosh, isn't that an appeal to authority --the basis for nearly everything that isn't science?

If we confuse kids about the nature of science, if we lead them to believe that knowing science means knowing a lot of sciency facts rather than knowing how to do science, we'll wind up with a generation of gullibles who can be made to believe a claim is "scientific" simply because someone sciency said so.

Oh wait. We've got that already.

Is there an "F" in Moron?

Steve Zara has started a conversation about whether Intelligent Design is science or not on his blog.

Someone pointed out that a specific claim that some biological structure is "irreducibly complex" can be falsified. Therefore, the common assertion that ID is non-falsifiable is wrong.

But hold on. Don't you smell something kinda fishy about this notion of "irreducible complexity"? Perhaps we ought to stop and take a closer look.

When someone declares that a natural structure is irreducibly complex, he's saying effectively, "I have no idea how the hell that got like that." Phrased thusly, it's easy to recognize an old friend: the argument from ignorance.

Notice that the argument from ignorance says something about the speaker, but actually nothing about the object of his remarks.

So yes, I concede that the statement: "I am an effin' moron" is falsifiable.

But I ask, dear reader, does the effort to challenge this hypothesis advance the cause of science?

Hmm. I think not.

Ye Olde Sweets

Once upon a time, there was a candy factory making something called "Ye Olde Sweets." Over 90% of the candies were fairly good. A few made certain people sick, and occasional pieces caused a strange reaction in some that resulted in an irrisistible urge to kill someone.

Then a new factory sprang up that made something called Reason's Pieces. It was tasty stuff. Absolutely no mass murders in any box.

Sadly, many chocolate lovers had grown attached to Ye Olde Sweets and resisted making a change. They pointed to all the delicious bon bons that never did anyone any harm. They were angry with the Reason's Pieces supporters, who "want to condemn all Ye Olde Sweets confections, when only a very few cause any problems."

Why Richard Dawkins No Debate Me?

Theist: Dawkins is in there, isn't he.
Reason: Yep.
Theist: Ask him to come out to debate me.
Reason: I'm sure he'd prefer for you to meet him inside.
Theist: Great! (steps toward door)
Reason: Hang on, where's your ticket?
Theist: I've got it.
Reason: Let me see it.
Theist: That's what the debate is for. I'll prove I have a ticket.
Reason: I'm not letting you in without a ticket.
Theist: Oh alright. Give me a second.... (pulls out a slip of paper) There you go.
Reason: This isn't a ticket.
Theist: Of course it is.
Reason: It says, "teeket."
Theist: Your point?
Reason: That's not a proper spelling.
Theist: (chuckles) Goodness, my young lad. Have you never been in love?
Reason: Eh?
Theist: Have you never felt an ocean breeze against your skin?
Reason: (lifts an eyebrow)
Theist: This thing you call "spelling" cannot contain the laughter of a child.
Reason: Oh, will you quit this wanking.
Theist: Look I gave you my ticket; let me in!
Reason: You made this using a crayon.
Theist: Philistine!

Ticket Please

Reason stands at the door to the movie saying, "ticket please."

Theist: Oh, give me a minute and I'll show you my ticket.
Reason: OK, I'll wait...
Theist: Say, how 'bout the Redsox this year? inches toward door
Reason: Hang on, I didn't see your ticket.
Theist: I showed it to you. In fact, I showed you several times.
Reason: Show me again then.
Theist: You just don't want to see it.
Reason: I'd love to see your ticket.
Theist: Ha! You called me a 'wanker' last time. You don't 'love' anything, hater!
Reason: Ticket please.
Theist: You are so repetitive and boring. My life is filled with joy. Don't you want joy?
Reason: No getting in without a ticket.
Theist: That's not true! Loads of people in there now didn't show you their ticket.
Reason: I haven't seen your ticket.
Theist: And I haven't seen your ticket. Show me yours first.
Reason: That's not how things work.
Theist: Things have to be your way, do they? Know what you are? You're a bigot! You're a fundamentalist!
Reason: Look, you wouldn't want Lord Xenu getting in without his ticket. The rules are the same for everyone.
Theist: There's more to life than your precious "rules." Take, for example, this apple I just finished. And look at this puppy. How can you resist such a cute puppy?
Reason: Nice puppy. Ticket, please.
Theist: Oh, so you like the puppy! That means that deep down, you know I'm right.

A Moment of Awesome

Hustle on over to Scientific American for this: A Conversation with Expelled's Associate Producer Mark Mathis. Download both parts of the interview, kickback, and enjoy. The SciAm team, including John Rennie, Steve Mirsky, Phil Yam, Dan Schlenoff, and Aaron Fagan, open a big can o' smart on a whole lotta toopid.

My offering among the comments there:

As Chuck Norris is to the roundhouse kick, John Rennie is to critical analysis.

John Rennie eliminates wooliness so effectively, he's a danger to sweaters.

John Rennie has a special "spidey sense" for impending bullshit.

If Tops released a line of "Good Guy" cards for kids to trade and collect, John Rennie would be the Hank Aaron of the set.

Way to go SciAm!

I am so proud of you guys.

Hope my reaction gave the boys some lulz.

Someone is Wrong on the Internet!

Keeping up with Expelled! chatter is eating into my relax time. The latest skirmish can be seen here: How science gets swiftboated , an MSNBC piece by Alan Boyle. Excerpts from the comments section, including my two cents, below:

Rob Crowther Seattle WA: Expelled is not a film about Intelligent Design. Rather, it's about Academic Freedom.

Talk of "freedom" apart from the rules that define its limits is nothing more than pandering and feel-good-speak.

Joe, Michigan: For too long elitists have swiftboarded anyone who dared challenge Darwin. Wouldn't it be fair if MSNBC offered a counterpoint to this opinion? That's really the thesis of the movie, that those who dare question Darwin get excommunicated. [ed: clarity]

ID never met the admission requirements for science, so it can't be "Expelled":

1. ID proponents have offered no corroborative evidence that stands up to review.

2. ID proponents have not formulated their ideas in a manner that can be subjected to falsification or testing.

Saying "God created the world" isn't science. That doesn't mean people can't say this or think about this.

Gene: The point of Mr. Stein is that our children and the people who teach them are not allowed to consider certain evidence or theories. Only Darwinian/Naturalist models are allowed, which even scientists admit are flawed as we gain more knowledge of our physical world (e.g., the cell as 'simple'). Any 3rd grade science student knows that you can't find answers if you're not allowed to look at all the facts. And evolution is not a proven fact by any measure. This ongoing debate involves some of the smartest men and women. It's just that one side wants to quiet the other. What science book is that in? [ed: clarity]

If your car won't start, you'll try to figure out why. Maybe it's the battery. Will the lights go on? Maybe it's the starter. Maybe there's no gas.

As you puzzle over the problem, you'll stick to material, testable explanations. You won't bother with supernatural ideas. Does your exclusion of God from the problem make you an atheist? Of course not.

Natural selection is a well established, fundamental biological principle. Yes, it says nothing about God. But that doesn't mean it's something evil.

Expelled! is thinly disguised propaganda designed to manipulate the emotions of religious Americans. By associating images of Stalin and Hitler with science, the film undermines the public's trust in the scientific establishment.

Who stands to gain? Anyone promoting policies or selling products with associated risks and benefits that can't be fully appreciated without a strong scientific background. Poisoning public opinion toward genuine scientists makes the pseudoscientist's job a lot easier --and more profitable.

Joe, Chicago, IL: The “facts” don’t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren’t separate sets of “evidences” for evolution without design and ID—we all deal with the same evidence (i.e., we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study.

A common pro-ID argument. It's true that we filter facts through pre-existing expectations or biases. To some extent, we see what we imagine we ought to see.

Yet science doesn't end here. If it did, we'd never make any intellectual progress.

After one cycle of looking at facts and creating an explanatory hypothesis, another cycle begins. We use our hypothesis to make predictions. Then we check to see how well our predictions match observed reality. The record of our observations becomes a new set of facts to explain. These facts may cause us to refine or abandon our original hypothesis in favor of some alternate explanation. But whatever the status of our explanatory model at that point, we will again subject it to some test. That test will produce new facts. Those new facts will be used to further refine our hypothesis. And on and on the cycle will repeat.

Thus we gradually bootstrap our way from superstition and guesswork toward a more realistic understanding of this world we share.

Tell me, ID proponents, what does your hypothesis predict? When will you subject your hypothesis to some test?

T. L. W. Hood, Wildomar, CA: Why are evolutionists so defensive?

Because, without a basic understanding of the scientific method among the general population, the enterprise of science becomes vulnerable to corruption.

We humans are fragile creatures at the mercy of our hopes and fears. Our needs are constantly getting in the way of our understanding of how things work.

Modern, controlled research is a relatively recent development in human history (post WWII for medicine, just to give some perspective). Every inch forward has been a battle. We could lose the whole, fragile system of scientific progress in a very short period of time. Superstition and pseudoscience are far more natural for us than rigorous, rule-based methods of analysis.

The fact that a well-educated person like Ben Stein cannot distinguish rhetoric from rational argument is concerning. The fact that millions of Americans will take this bad movie seriously scares the crap out of me.

If the day arrives when we can no longer respect and trust the opinions of mainstream scientists in their fields of expertise, we've lost our democracy. Once truth becomes a political commodity... then Hello 1984.