Wheaton is a weird place

Wheaton has a good academic reputation, but man, it’s the little things that make it frightening. I would not want to live in the theocratic world it represents. Hank Fox has a couple of stories about Wheaton.

The first is the blog of a recent graduate of Wheaton who determined halfway through his undergraduate education that he was an atheist. It sounds like it was rough. He’s ended the blog, though, with a statement that “…now that I’m slightly closer to the real world, I just don’t think it’s that important whether you’re an atheist or a Christian” — which is true. The differences are accentuated when you’re wrapped up in a culture that makes religious belief central to everything; when Christians back off and don’t make their ridiculous superstitions a prerequisite to participation in politics and everyday life, they are entirely tolerable. I think the anonymous student is a little bit optimistic in his confidence that religion won’t intrude on him as much in wider American culture, but perhaps compared to Wheaton, that’s also true.

The second is more disturbing. A professor of English at Wheaton got a divorce from his wife — which the university considers grounds for firing him. The college actually has staff people who assess faculty divorces to determine whether they meet “Biblical standards,” and if they don’t, pffft, you’re gone. This isn’t a guy who was doing substandard work, nor, as his comments reveal, did he abandon Christianity. Other faculty have lost their job for converting to Catholicism. This is just plain freaky: “Wheaton requires faculty and staff to sign a faith statement and adhere to standards of conduct in areas including marriage.”

Has anyone noticed that our evil secular universities do not monitor the personal beliefs of their faculty, and do not consider going to the church of your choice grounds for dismissal? We even let our students believe whatever they want!

If you’ve been wondering what Sean B. Carroll thinks of Expelled…

Here’s an interesting review of the movie that gets Carroll’s perspective on it. It mostly gets it right, especially in its argument that this movie is an attempt to swiftboat science.

“If you have a losing hand, you’re going to use every amount of rhetoric you can to distract people from the fact that you don’t have any facts,” Sean B. Carroll, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, told me in his lab last week. “And that’s what ‘Expelled’ is all about.”

Carroll is little too generous here…

Carroll had similar advice for today’s biologists: “The biology community will tell you that understanding genetics and evolution is fundamental to being a literate biologist. … Do you want your kids to be taught by people who are living in the 18th century? I don’t think so. They have a right to think these things or believe these things, but they have an obligation to be technically competent.”

18th century? Hah! In my recent debate with Angus Menuge (I keep meaning to write it up, but every time I recall that evening I fall asleep), I pointed out that one of the goals of the ID movement was to redefine science; he agreed, but said that what they wanted to do was restore the true meaning of science, to that of … Aristotle. I had to reply that apparently, then, they wanted to roll back progress by 25 centuries.

I do have to disagree with this bit in the review, though:

The movie also prods several interviewees who happen to be outspoken atheists – such as biologists Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers as well as philosopher Daniel Dennett – to indulge in some metaphysical speculation that goes beyond the biology (thus demonizing them for the movie’s core audience). The perspective from respected scientists who happen to be religious (for example, Francis Collins and Ken Miller) is largely lacking, although physicist-turned-priest John Polkinghorne is a welcome exception to the rule.

The result is that the film casts the debate largely along the false battle lines of science vs. religion. That rhetorical approach ironically builds up the very wall Ben Stein says he wants to tear down.

We were not indulging in metaphysical speculation — we were actually addressing the stated purpose of our interviews, which we were told were specifically about the intersection of science and religion, not about the scientific validity of intelligent design. We would have given very different interviews if we’d been asked about ID; that’s a subject both of us can discuss at length without mentioning religion at all, as the primary objection to it is that it isn’t science, and good science refutes it. It’s a little annoying to be constantly told that we were straying from the central premise of this movie, when we were actually doing our best to address the subject of the nonexistent movie for which we were told we were being interviewed.

But as for that last bit, the line separating science and religion is not a false one. That is ultimately the actual, central source of the conflict: how are you going to figure out how the world works, from inquiry into natural causes, or from metaphysics, superstition, and evidence-free revelation? That is a significant piece, even the central piece, of this long-running argument in our culture.

Solid Condell

i-824d0a2ab3c4ed3c7387a20b7523b2cb-PatCondell_Ad1.jpg

I don’t know about this. All this concentrated wit and venom in one place could be dangerous … and three straight hours of Pat Condell? Whew. Get copies for your local ministers, and either they’ll die of fuming apoplexy or they’ll give extremely animated and entertaining sermons the next Sunday.

That’s right, the Richard Dawkins foundation is selling a DVD containing the distilled, consecutive output of Pat Condell’s youtube rants. Get one for your mother. Play them at your atheist group’s next meeting. I might just rip out the audio and put it on a CD for my next long drive. Hey, we’ve got these loud chimes that play hymns every hour in my neighborhood — I could crank up the speakers, aim them out the window, and play Condell in reply. I can think of quite a few militant activities I could carry out with wall-to-wall Condell.

Proposed site redesign

Since I changed my profile photo, the ideas for radical revision of the site have come pouring in. Here’s a possible new logo:

i-96756077fdbe5708feae8de2605ff378-PZsPlayhouse.jpg

What do you think? I thought it was keen, until I read all the new speculation about why I was kicked out of a movie theater. Oh, no!

In the same freakishly weird spirit, here’s a new poll for you to crash: it asks what your favorite marine animal is, and the choices are otter, squid, blowfish, and “land animals are far superior”. You know what to do.

Can we please just establish this one principle?

Prayer doesn’t work. Enshrine it in the law — prayer is not a helpful action, but rather a neglectful one. Teach it in the schools — when the health class instructs students in how to make a tourniquet or do CPR, also explain that prayer is not an option. Faith in prayer kills people.

The Wisconsin parents who allowed their daughter to die in a diabetic coma because they believed prayer was sufficient aid have been charged with second degree reckless manslaughter. That seems about right to me.

[Read more…]

A single insect can’t demonstrate evolution

I have to criticize the video below. It’s a beautiful piece of work, and the animal it shows is spectacularly well-adapted, but it does not demonstrate the fulfillment of a uniquely Darwinian prediction.

An orchid was found with a nectary that was only accessible by way of a long, narrow tube, and Darwin predicted the existence of an insect pollinator with an almost equivalently long tongue. However, an Owen or a Cuvier, scientists of that century who did not accept evolution, could have easily made the very same prediction, on the basis of created functionality: a god would not have made the flower that way unless he also, in his infallible foresight, also made a complementary pollinator. One could also make an argument based on an orchidized version of the anthropic principle: the flower is there, therefore it must have been produced by a parent flower that had been pollinated, therefore there must exist a long-tongued pollinator.

The special Darwinian character comes from the explanation of how such a phenomenon came to be; not by the fiat of some arbitrary creator, but by a set of processes that must still operate. It is to the advantage of the flower that the pollinator has to struggle a bit to reach the nectar reward, pressing itself against the flower and covering itself with pollen, while the pollinator would prefer to be able to reach in easily and without mess and fuss to get its dinner. This means that there is selection for flowers that have slightly longer nectary tubes than the insect tongues, while there is selection for insects that are able to reach all the pools of sweet nectar — but this is a race in which the insects will always be slightly behind.

What Darwin predicted was not a perfect match between nectary and proboscis, but that the insect proboscis would be slightly shorter than the nectary, and that’s what you find in his work On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects, and the Good Effects of Intercrossing. Another prediction that I haven’t found that he made explicitly is that there should be a range of heritable variation in nectary length — it could just be that that was so obvious in the collections he examined that it wasn’t necessary to state it.

Anyway, lovely as it is, a video of an insect with a remarkably long proboscis is not confirmation of Darwin’s theory. The key element of that theory is a description of a process which generates diversity over time in populations, which isn’t assessed by examining a single organism at a single moment in time.

(via Atheist Media Blog)

Molecular biology for babbling Christianists

I thought Jebons were supposed to be a joke … so what is this lunatic ranting about?

Warning: this is from GodTube, so unless you’ve got a fair amount of tolerance for crazy, deluded talk, you might not want to click on it.

Just in case you didn’t want to puke up your dinner by actually watching this kook, it’s an evangelical apologist teaching his version of molecular biology to his audience — he is immensely and undeservedly impressed by the fact that the cell adhesion molecule laminin is cruciform in diagrams. Forget the fact that it is a floppy glycoprotein, and the arms can fold around into many configurations; never mind that the Christian symbol is trivial, a mere two slashes, one across the other, and apparently anything with four arms will fit it (nobody tell them about tRNA!); it probably doesn’t even matter that there are many adhesion molecules, such as NCAMs, cadherins, and integrins that are not cross-shaped. Laminin is a secreted adhesion molecule that gets enmeshed in the extracellular matrix; it has 3 similar, short arms that adhere to other laminin molecules, which promotes their assembly into a feltwork.

From this feeble, pathetic, coincidental shape, the preacher spins out an incredible interpretation — Jesus holds us together! The audience of dumb yokels oohs and aahs over this nonsense. This is depressing, since this seems to be the level of comprehension we can expect from the public.

Also depressing: google for laminin, and aside from the Wikipedia entry, the top references right now are all to Christian kooks babbling about this trivial shape story. What a sad fate for a developmentally and evolutionarily significant molecule that has roots right down at the base of the metazoan family tree. I cringe to see these loons abusing molecular biology to cheerlead for superstition.

I was asked if there were any swastika shaped molecules in the cell. Sure.

i-137ad0e7456b06748557b8c03148a26b-kchannel.jpg

That’s a potassium channel. Your brains are full of them.