Can we hound him until he resigns now?

Revere reminds us of the low esteem in which atheists are held, and specifically, that we are regarded as much less trustworthy than Mormons, a question brought up by the candidacy of Mitt Romney of Massachusetts (24% would refuse to vote for a Mormon for president, while 53% are against the idea of an atheist president). It’s hard to feel much solidarity with our Mormon countrymen, though, when one of their more prominent representatives can say something like this.

We need to have a person of faith lead the country.

It seems to me a little odd that people can have temper tantrums over a campaign worker criticizing Catholics, while a presidential candidate outright disenfranchising everyone in the country who rejects the nonsense of religious belief doesn’t seem to be stirring much concern at all. All together, everyone: Mitt Romney is a bigot who does not deserve to be in public office.

What use is an appendix?

Here’s an excellent and useful summary of the appendix from a surgeon’s perspective. Creationists dislike the idea that we bear useless organs, remnants of past function that are non-functional or even hazardous to our health; they make up stories about the importance of these vestiges. Sid Schwab has cut out a lot of appendices, and backs up its non-utility with evidence.

The study I cited most often to my patients when asked about adverse consequences of appendectomy is one done by the Mayo Clinic: they studied records of thousands of patients who’d had appendectomy, and compared them with equal thousands who hadn’t. (Back in the day, it was very common during any abdominal operation to remove the appendix. Like flicking a bug off your shoulder. No extra charge: just did it to prevent further problems: took an extra couple of minutes, is all.) The groups were statistically similar in every way other than presence of the worm. There were no differences in incidence of any disease. It’s as convincing as it gets, given the impossibility of doing a prospective double-blind study.

I have a personal interest in this: I was nearly killed by my appendix at the age of 9, and had it removed. I haven’t missed it since.

There are some things we shouldn’t do

Blake Stacey just asked me to pick on Scott Adams and the Dilbert blog some more—he wants practice taking potshots at fools. Well, Blake, I did a quick browse through the latest entries at the Dilbert blog, and I had a hard time finding anything with even a tiny germ of substance to attack. He spits up a lot of froth, you know, and there has to be at least a hint that he’s taking a stand on something in order to have an argument.

I did see that he is now calling what he does “philosotainment“, which I translate to mean “really stupid philosophy for the feeble-minded.” You might have more luck getting a philosopher like Wilkins to take umbrage at his diminution of a significant field of human endeavor. Or more likely, he’d refuse, as I do, on the grounds that it is impolite to interrupt someone in the middle of masturbation. Sorry.

Dr Michael Egnor challenges evolution!

Time magazine has a science blog, Eye on Science, and the writer, Michael Lemonick, doesn’t hesitate to take on the Intelligent Design creationists. A recent entry criticizes the Discovery Institute’s silly list of dissenters from ‘Darwinism’. Not only is the number that they cite pathetically small, but they rely on getting scientists whose expertise isn’t relevant.

[Read more…]

I haven’t been doing any Vulcan mind-melds, either

Contrary to popular myth, I do not sit around instructing my family in the fine points of evolutionary biology, nor do I subject them to tirades against creationists. In fact, I almost never discuss those subjects at home. So why is my daughter giving competent discussions of Intelligent Design creationism? I know it’s because her facebook pals have been babbling about creationism, but still…

I wish she’d absorb genetics and developmental biology out of the atmosphere around here, so she could go off and give my lectures for me instead.

The Haeckel-Wells Chronicles

Lately, the Discovery Institute has stuck its neck out in response to the popularity of showings of Randy Olson’s movie, Flock of Dodos, which I reviewed a while back. They slapped together some lame critiques packaged on the web as Hoax of Dodos (a clunker of a name; it’s especially ironic since the film tries to portray the Institute as good at PR), which mainly seem to be driven by the sloppy delusions of that poor excuse for a developmental biologist, Jonathan Wells. In the past week, I’ve also put up my responses to the Wells deceptions—as a developmental biologist myself, I get a little cranky when a creationist clown abuses my discipline.

In case you are completely baffled by this whole episode, here’s a shorter summary.

[Read more…]