Religion, philosophy, homeopathy, acupuncture…which one doesn’t belong?

Lewis Wolpert has a pleasant interview in Salon today — I find most of what he says copacetic. I very much like his developmental biology textbook, but I’m afraid I found his recent popular book, Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), far too scattered and unfocused to be memorable. It’s a pleasant enough read — get it and you won’t regret it — but it was more like an agreeable conversation with an intelligent and eccentric fellow than a work that will either shake you up or strengthen your views…and that also comes through in the interview. He’s pretty much a sensible skeptic who doesn’t put up with much woo-woo nonsense.

There is one part that I didn’t much care for, that would probably prompt me to start an argument if this were a conversation:

You call David Hume your “hero philosopher.” Why do you like him so much?

First of all, I don’t like any other philosopher. I think philosophers are terribly clever but have absolutely nothing useful to say whatsoever. I avoid philosophy like mad. But David Hume does say such interesting and important things. He’s very good on religion, for example. I like him for that.

That’s just me, though. If I had my druthers, I’d have a philosophy of science requirement in place for our biology majors, as an essential piece of background in a good liberal arts education—biology has gotten so huge, though, that something had to go, and that’s one we aren’t even going to try to push into the curriculum, and I’m probably the only person in my discipline who’d consider it useful.

No rest for the wicked

Didn’t I just say “Woo hoo” yesterday? False alarm. Scarcely do I clear one set of major tasks away than another set rise up. I already mentioned that I was going to be the speaker at the Humanists of Minnesota banquet on Saturday evening. I neglected to tell you all that I’m leaving for the University of Michigan tomorrow to give the keynote at the Genetic Programming Theory and Practice Workshop.

I know virtually nothing about genetic programming, so this is a wonderful opportunity to learn something about it.

Since I’m certainly not going to be able to tell them a thing about genetic programming, I’m planning to tell them a little about my own skewed perspective as one of those metazoan-centric fans of developmental processes. I’m hoping they might learn a little something from me, and that we’ll all have some fun with ideas about embryos. Here’s my very brief abstract:

A developmental biologist’s view of evolution

The ongoing integration of molecular genetics, developmental biology, and evolution (the field of evo-devo) is stirring up new ideas and new questions. I will tell a few stories from the evo-devo literature that illustrate the importance of the principles of developmental plasticity and developmental constraint on evolutionary trajectories — showing that these are two competing and complementary forces operating on multicellular organisms. My argument is that the contingencies of developmental architectures may well be as significant a force on evolutionary histories as selection.

Next week I get to slack off. No, wait, there’s also…

War camp?

For only $399, you can send your kids away to spend a few days this summer with Ollie North, professional traitor, frolicking about on a military base and pretending to be brave warriors with absolutely no risk. It’s the perfect activity for young Republican chickenhawks-in-training. It’s an organization called the “Freedom Alliance Military Leadership Academy”, and it claims to be training the next generation of American leaders.

That’s really all we need: a generation of leaders who think of war as a fun summer outing.

It’s clear, though, that the real intent of this exercise is to let Republican kids put “Military Leadership Academy” on their résumés—look at what they claim for their program:

Academy graduates are highly motivated, physically fit and goal oriented. Many have pursued careers in the military and as DOD civilians, such as the Navy Criminal Investigative Service, while others go to college or directly to the workforce.

The “Academy” is five days spent on a military base, making field trips to local military hardware, and the worst hardship the kiddies might face is a little rain. I don’t think the academy can take much credit for anything, unless Republicans are really that shallow and easily impressed by the word “military” on a CV.

Somebody needs to write a book called “The McGrath Delusion” now

Alistair McGrath came out with a book called The Dawkins Delusion? a while back, in response to The God Delusion, obviously. It seems to have sank without much of a trace, and what I’ve read of McGrath on the net has been tediously unimpressive — he’s another believer who mistakes criticizing Dawkins for a positive step in defending his faith — so I haven’t bothered to read it, especially since right now we’re flooded with good books on unbelief. I was sent a scathing critique of McGrath that I’ll cite here, though; it looks like his book is nothing but a long tirade against a straw Dawkins.

If anyone has any positive reviews of McGrath’s book, go ahead and post a link. As it stands, it’s a book I don’t have to add to my summer reading list.

Also, how can you do social networking without beer?

I cower away from the horror that is MySpace, and I scarcely know what to do with facebook; I’m all at sea on this social networking buzz. Now I’ve gone and signed up for another one, the Nature Network, a social networking site for scientists. I’m still lost. Maybe if I encourage a bunch of you other scientists out there to sign up, some comprehension will begin to gel for me.

Attila Csordas has a nice writeup of the whole magilla which helps. I’m giving it a shot, anyway.

I already notice it lacks those bosomy young ladies in skimpy clothing that always greet me on MySpace, and the contributors all seem to know how to write plain English, so it’s different on those scores.

It’s a good sign when the creationists are embarrassed to answer

Avidor has a video of an exchange between a defender of science (DFL) and creationist coward (R). It’s amusing. Kate Knuth (DFL) asks a simple question—whether Tom Emmer (R) believes the earth is thousands of years old, or billions of years old—and Emmer runs away from the question. First he babbles about how he has a different science than she does, and then he justs asks her whether she’s an evolutionist.

It’s just weird. They know enough to realize that they sound awfully silly when they claim the earth is ten thousand years old, but they don’t know enough to think that maybe they’re wrong.

Woo hoo IV!

I just finished grading all the genetics final exams, and submitted final grades to the registrar!

I’ve just got two independent study papers that need to be turned in and graded, and then I will be completely done.