You have got to be kidding me

Come February, we are going to be privileged to see a brand new movie that stars Ben Stein and portrays Intelligent Design creationism as the cool rebel oppressed by the stodgy old Darwinist bullies. Did you know that “scientists are not allowed to even think thoughts that involve an intelligent creator”? I didn’t either. I think a lot of scientists have thought about it and noticed that there is no evidence for such a hypothesis, and have therefore rejected it.

This movie fits with the intelligent design strategy of declaring itself the victim of an unfair exclusion (which isn’t true, of course: they haven’t ponied up the science that would legitimize them), but interestingly, its central theme seems to be that Big Science has excluded god from the classroom and the lab … it’s a raw demand for a violation of the separation of church and state and for the inclusion of superstitious dogma in science. That’s very convenient. It’ll make it easier to use the courts to keep their religious propaganda out of the classroom.

Oh, and putting Ben Stein in short pants and playing “Bad to the Bone” does not make him a rebel. He’s a Republican apologist, and he’s not “cool” at all.

Denialists exposed

Scienceblog’s own Tara Smith, with Steve Novella, has an article in PLoS on HIV Denial in the Internet Era. It describes some of the major players among the HIV deniers, and most importantly talks about their tactics. It’s useful even if you aren’t at all involved in that branch of biology or invested in that particular argument: one section is titled “Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma” and that certainly struck a chord with me — that is one of the most common creationist arguments, as well.

No comment

On the advice of counsel, I’m not going to say a word, yet.

However, I’ve been getting lots of email and seeing lots of articles on the web; I’ve been getting offers of pro bono lawyering and to set up donations for a defense fund. Thanks to everyone! I haven’t been replying to most of those offers because, on the advice of counsel, yadda yadda, but I appreciate them all. If the need develops I may take advantage of them, but until then, I just crouch, gnawing on the muzzle, mad eyes rolling, doing my best to be a good little doggie.

But really, thanks, thanks, thanks — and now we just sit back and wait. Let the pros do their job.

Ungodly: vote!

It’s a stupid internet poll, and it’s very badly phrased, but you should vote anyway. Larry King wants to know “which religion do you associate with?” — and atheism is one of the choices.

(I know, I know, atheism isn’t a religion. Argue about it later.)

Heh. The poll is currently registering 71% of the voters as atheists. They say you can’t herd cats; if you point the pride at a slow, stupid, old gazelle, though, you can get them all to take a bite. Now we just have to work our way up to bigger and less gamey prey.

Male pregnancy?

Yesterday’s discussion of future biological advances that will piss off the religious right had me thinking about other innovations that I expect will happen within a few decades that might just cause wingnuts to freak out. First thing to come to mind is that it will be something to do with reproduction, of course, and it will scramble gender roles and expectations…so, how about modifying men to bear children? It sounds feasible to me. Zygotes are aggressive little parasites that will implant just about anywhere in the coelom — it’s why ectopic pregnancies are a serious problem — so all we need to do there is culture a bit of highly vascularized tissue in the male abdomen that will serve as a secure home for a few months. We’ll have to play some endocrine games, too, which may effect his love life but will also prepare him to lactate post-partum. There’s the minor anatomical problem that the vagina is a unique tissue, and no, the urethra is not homologous or analogous (fortunately; we wouldn’t want to have to push an 8 pound baby through the penis, even if female hyenas can manage it) — but that’s what c-sections are for. Given money, time, and a few weird volunteers, it could be done.

The next question is, has it been done? Are there any other vertebrates that have males doing the hard work of pregnancy? There were the gastric brooding frogs, which one would think could have made the leap easily — the eggs were just swallowed and developed in the stomach — but only the mothers seemed to have done the job. They’re all extinct, anyway. Male frogs of the genus Rhinoderma brood their young in their mouths, but this is after external fertilization and development, so they’re actually simply holding larvae in a safe place — and they’re also endangered. The precedents aren’t promising.

There is an extremely interesting and successful example, though: the syngnathid fishes, sea horses and pipefish. In all 232 species, the female lays her eggs in a specialized male structure called the brood pouch, where they are fertilized and develop. It’s a true male pregnancy!

[Read more…]

My plan to become a household name continues apace!

It’s nice to see these casual references to PZ Myers, as if anyone would have heard of me:

The lab is at 101 Theory Drive, a developer’s idea of a scientific street name that Lynch found presumptuous.

It is a mark of the difficulty of life sciences — biology and its many descendants — that to call something a theory is to honor, not slight it. Theory, evolutionary biologist P.Z. Myers has written, is what scientists aspire to. Lynch, for all of his bombast, was respectful of the intellectual protocols of his science.

“I would have called it Hypothesis Drive,” he said.

The article is part of an interesting series on research into learning and memory, that is also unfortunately marred by some casual sexism on the part of its subject. See, Zuska, you just had to ruin it for me!

P.S. I think of myself as more of a developmental biologist than evolutionary biologist, but OK, I am very interested in evolutionary issues.