Εξέλιξη τού Ανθρώπου

2008-10-25T10:15:00.000+03:00

*

Language, Cognition, and Evolution: Modularity versus Unity

by Peter Turney

When I first started reading about evolutionary psychology, I was excited by the insights into the human mind. The Adapted Mind gave me a new way of thinking about the mind. These insights were reinforced by my research on the Baldwin effect. As an AI researcher, I was eager to apply these new (to me) ideas to my own research. Arguably, the most relevant lesson of evolutionary psychology for the AI researcher is the modularity of mind. I began thinking of the mind in terms of modules (vertical, domain-specific modules, as opposed to horizontal, general-purpose modules), and I thought about how I could implement some of these modules in software. However, after a few years of trying to push this idea forward, with little success, I began to doubt the modularity of the mind. I now believe that the mind has much more unity than most evolutionary psychologists suppose.

The mind is neither entirely modular nor entirely unified; there is a continuum of possibilities. Some of the people on the modular end of the spectrum are Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker, Jerry Fodor, Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby. On the unified end of the spectrum are the proponents of cognitive linguistics, such as George Lakoff and Gilles Fauconnier, and some neurologists and psychologists, such as Terrence Deacon and William Uttal. Much of the debate between these two ends of the spectrum is concerned with the modularity of language. Is language quite different from other forms of cognition; is there a module in the brain that is devoted to language? Or are language and cognition very closely connected, as the cognitive linguists argue?

My own beliefs now lie much more toward the unified end of the spectrum. It seems to me that the cognitive linguists, in books such as Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things and The Way We Think, are giving us much deeper insights into language and cognition than the evolutionary psychologists. Chapter 5 of Pinker’s latest book, The Stuff of Thought, examines Lakoff and Johnson’s thesis that metaphorical language is based on metaphorical cognition. At the beginning of the chapter, Pinker seems quite critical of Lakoff and Johnson, but his tone becomes very conciliatory towards the end of the chapter. In fact, it seems to me that Pinker’s own research, as described in The Stuff of Thought, shows a deep connection between language and general cognition, which is not entirely consistent with Pinker’s strong support of evolutionary psychology.

This debate is related to the controversial Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, often expressed as “language determines thought”. Recent evidence in support of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis undermines the view the language is modular.

I fully agree that evolution has shaped the brain. The question is whether it has shaped the brain more towards the modular end of the spectrum or more towards the unified end of the spectrum. In my own research, my interest has moved away from the Baldwin effect, which connects evolution and learning, towards analogy-making, which might be the general mechanism that underlies cognition and language.

Filed under: Computational Linguistics, Evolution, Philosophy of Mind | Tagged: evolutionary psychology, modularity

2008-10-24T20:30:00.000+03:00

Warm hands, warm hearts

Oct. 23, 2008
Courtesy University of Colorado
and World Science staff

Just holding a hot cup of coffee can improve one's attitude toward a stranger, scientists have found-people are more trusting when they feel physical warmth.

Lawrence E. Williams of the University of Colorado at Boulder and John A. Bargh of Yale University found a link between how people rated a hypothetic person's personality, and whether or not they had just held a warm or cold beverage.

Image courtesy Science/AAAS

"The basic scientific implication is about exploring the link between the physical world and the psychological world," said Williams, an assistant professor of marketing at CU's Leeds School of Business. "It's at the same time subtle and very powerful-a repeated association of physical warmth that is learned over a lifetime."

The study is reminiscent of an earlier one, in which people who had just done something bad were found to be more likely to wash their hands-as if they felt a link between physical and moral cleanliness. That research appeared in the Sept. 8, 2006 issue of the research journal Science.

Williams noted that people naturally speak about others being "warm" or "cold," and prefer to spend time with those they perceive as "warm."

"When we use these terms, we're not really concerned with physical temperature, but our findings suggest that our dual use of the word 'warm' is neither haphazard nor accidental."

For his study, also published in Science, Williams enlisted the help of a confederate, who escorted test subjects from the lobby of a building and rode the elevator to a test area with them. The confederate carried a clipboard, two textbooks and a cup of hot or iced coffee and knew nothing of the hypothesis being tested. During the trip to the test area, the confederate asked the subject to hold the cup of coffee while she recorded their name and the time of their participation.

Holding the hot cup, Williams hypothesized, would "prime" the subject to have a more positive appraisal of a hypothetical person they read about once they reached the testing room. Indeed, Williams reported, those who had briefly held the hot coffee cup perceived the target person as being significantly "warmer" than did those who had briefly held the cup of iced coffee.

In a similar study, Williams repeated the experiment using not coffee, but hot and cold compress pads. To eliminate any inadvertent influence on the experiment by the confederate, the study subjects were asked to retrieve either a hot or cold pad and to evaluate it under the guise of a product test.

After rating the effectiveness of the pads, the study subjects were given a choice of reward for participating in the study: either a Snapple beverage or a $1 gift certificate to a local ice cream shop. In some cases the reward offer was framed as a gift to "treat a friend" and in others as a personal reward. Regardless of which gift was offered, those primed with coldness were more likely to choose a gift for themselves, while those primed with warmth were more likely to choose the gift for a friend.

"Experiences of physical temperature per se affect one's impressions of and pro-social behavior toward other people, without one's awareness of such influences," said Williams. "At a board meeting, for instance, being willing to reach out and touch another human being, to shake their hand, those experiences do matter although we may not always be aware of them. In a restaurant, it's been shown that wait staff who touch customers usually get a better tip. It's a nice gesture, but it also has a warming effect."

Williams said the research could have marketing implications because it shows just how strong the bond is between the physical and the psychological world. The study appears in the journal's Oct. 24 issue.

Source: World Science
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/081023_warmth

*************************************************************************************

2008-10-24T20:14:00.001+03:00

Vatican says it does not owe Darwin an apology

15:24 17 September 2008
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist staff and Reuters

The Vatican said on Tuesday the theory of evolution was compatible with the Bible but planned no posthumous apology to Charles Darwin for the cold reception it gave him 150 years ago.

The Church of England this week also accepted that it was over-defensive and over-emotional in dismissing Darwin's ideas. A leading Anglican churchman, Rev. Malcolm Brown, said that "anti-evolutionary fervour" is an indictment on the Church, and that the Church of England owed Darwin an apology for the way his ideas were received by Anglicans in Britain.

Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, the Vatican's culture minister, was speaking at the announcement of a Rome conference of scientists, theologians and philosophers to be held next March marking the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species.

Christian churches were long hostile to Darwin because his theory conflicted with the literal biblical account of creation.

No apology

In 1950, Pope Pius XII described evolution as a valid scientific approach to the development of humans, a view that was reiterated by Pope John Paul II in 1996. But Ravasi said the Vatican had no intention of apologising for earlier negative views.

"Maybe we should abandon the idea of issuing apologies as if history was a court eternally in session," he said, adding that Darwin's theories were "never condemned by the Catholic Church nor was his book ever banned".

Creationism is the belief that God created the world and all life in six days as described in the Bible. The Catholic Church does not read the Genesis account of creation literally, saying it is an allegory for the way God created the world.

Some other Christians, mostly conservative Protestants in the US, read Genesis literally and object to evolution being taught in biology class in public high schools.

Sarah Palin, the Republican candidate for the US vice presidency, said in 2006 that she supported teaching both creationism and evolution in schools but has subsequently said creationism does not have to be part of the curriculum.

God's evolution

The Catholic Church teaches "theistic evolution", a stand that accepts evolution as a scientific theory and sees no reason why God could not have used a natural evolutionary process in the forming of the human species.

It objects to using evolution as the basis for an atheist philosophy that denies God's existence or any divine role in creation. It also objects to using Genesis as a scientific text.

As Ravasi put it, creationism belongs to the "strictly theological sphere" and could not be used "ideologically in science".

Phillip Sloan of the University of Notre Dame in Indiana, which is jointly holding next year's conference with Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said the gathering would be an important contribution to explaining the Catholic stand on evolution.

"In the United States, and now elsewhere, we have an ongoing public debate over evolution that has social, political and religious dimensions," he says. "Most of this debate has been taking place without a strong Catholic theological presence, and the discussion has suffered accordingly."

Pope Benedict XVI discussed these issues with his former doctoral students at their annual meeting in 2006. In a speech in Paris, France, last week, he spoke out against biblical literalism.

The Galileo treatment

In the UK, Rev. Brown says that Christians, in their response to Darwin's theory of natural selection, repeated the mistakes they made in doubting Galileo's astronomy in the 17th century.

His statement reads: "Charles Darwin: 200 years from your birth, the Church of England owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. We try to practise the old virtues of 'faith seeking understanding' and hope that makes some amends."

Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report.

2008-10-24T20:09:00.001+03:00

Creationists declare war over the brain

22 October 2008
From New Scientist Print Edition.
Amanda Gefter

"YOU cannot overestimate," thundered psychiatrist Jeffrey Schwartz, "how threatened the scientific establishment is by the fact that it now looks like the materialist paradigm is genuinely breaking down. You're gonna hear a lot in the next calendar year about... how Darwin's explanation of how human intelligence arose is the only scientific way of doing it... I'm asking us as a world community to go out there and tell the scientific establishment, enough is enough! Materialism needs to start fading away and non-materialist causation needs to be understood as part of natural reality."
His enthusiasm was met with much applause from the audience gathered at the UN's east Manhattan conference hall on 11 September for an international symposium called Beyond the Mind-Body Problem: New Paradigms in the Science of Consciousness. Earlier Mario Beauregard, a researcher in neuroscience at the University of Montreal, Canada, and co-author of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul, told the audience that the "battle" between "maverick" scientists like himself and those who "believe the mind is what the brain does" is a "cultural war".
Schwartz and Beauregard are part of a growing "non-material neuroscience" movement. They are attempting to resurrect Cartesian dualism - the idea that brain and mind are two fundamentally different kinds of things, material and immaterial - in the hope that it will make room in science both for supernatural forces and for a soul. The two have signed the "Scientific dissent from Darwinism" petition, spearheaded by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, headquarters of the intelligent design movement. ID argues that biological life is too complex to have arisen through evolution.
In August, the Discovery Institute ran its 2008 Insider's Briefing on Intelligent Design, at which Schwartz and Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon at Stony Brook University in New York, were invited to speak. When two of the five main speakers at an ID meeting are neuroscientists, something is up. Could the next battleground in the ID movement's war on science be the brain?

&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://adserver.adtech.de/?addyn|2.0|289|113656|1|170|ADTECH;target=nsad;loc=700;grp=180447681;"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/script&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;noscript&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href="http://adserver.adtech.de/?adlink|2.0|289|113656|1|170|ADTECH;grp=180447681;loc=300;" target="nsad"&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;img src="http://adserver.adtech.de/?adserv|2.0|289|113656|1|170|ADTECH;grp=180447681;loc=300;" border="0" width="300" height="250" alt="Advertising" /&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt; &amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/noscript&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;

Well, the movement certainly seems to hope that the study of consciousness will turn out to be "Darwinism's grave", as Denyse O'Leary, co-author with Beauregard of The Spiritual Brain, put it. According to proponents of ID, the "hard problem" of consciousness - how our subjective experiences arise from the objective world of neurons - is the Achilles heel not just of Darwinism but of scientific materialism. This fits with the Discovery Institute's mission as outlined in its "wedge document", which seeks "nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies", to replace the scientific world view with a Christian one.

Now the institute is funding research into "non-material neuroscience". One recipient of its cash is Angus Menuge, a philosophy professor at Concordia University, Wisconsin, a Christian college, who testified in favour of teaching ID in state-funded high-schools at the 2005 "evolution hearings" in Kansas. Using a Discovery Institute grant, Menuge wrote Agents Under Fire, in which he argued that human cognitive capacities "require some non-natural explanation".

In June, James Porter Moreland, a professor at the Talbot School of Theology near Los Angeles and a Discovery Institute fellow, fanned the flames with Consciousness and the Existence of God. "I've been doing a lot of thinking about consciousness," he writes, "and how it might contribute to evidence for the existence of God in light of metaphysical naturalism's failure to provide a helpful explanation." Non-materialist neuroscience provided him with this helpful explanation: since God "is" consciousness, "the theist has no need to explain how consciousness can come from materials bereft of it. Consciousness is there from the beginning."

To properly support dualism, however, non-materialist neuroscientists must show the mind is something other than just a material brain. To do so, they look to some of their favourite experiments, such as research by Schwartz in the 1990s on people suffering from obsessive-compulsive disorder. Schwartz used scanning technology to look at the neural patterns thought to be responsible for OCD. Then he had patients use "mindful attention" to actively change their thought processes, and this showed up in the brain scans: patients could alter their patterns of neural firing at will.

From such experiments, Schwartz and others argue that since the mind can change the brain, the mind must be something other than the brain, something non-material. In fact, these experiments are entirely consistent with mainstream neurology - the material brain is changing the material brain.

But William Dembski, one of ID's founding fathers and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, praised Schwartz's work as providing "theoretical support for the irreducibility of mind to brain". Dembski's website shows that he is currently co-editing The End of Materialism with Schwartz and Beauregard.

Meanwhile, Schwartz has been working with Henry Stapp, a physicist at the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, who also spoke at the symposium. They have been developing non-standard interpretations of quantum mechanics to explain how the "non-material mind" affects the physical brain.

Clearly, while there is a genuine attempt to appropriate neuroscience, it will not influence US laws or education in the way that anti-evolution campaigns can because neuroscience is not taught as part of the core curriculum in state-funded schools. But as Andy Clark, professor of logic and metaphysics at the University of Edinburgh, UK, emphasises: "This is real and dangerous and coming our way."

He and others worry because scientists have yet to crack the great mystery of how consciousness could emerge from firing neurons. "Progress in science is slow on many fronts," says John Searle, a philosopher at the University of California, Berkeley. "We don't yet have a cure for cancer, but that doesn't mean cancer has spiritual causes."

And for Patricia Churchland, a philosopher of neuroscience at the University of California, San Diego, "it is an argument from ignorance. The fact something isn't currently explained doesn't mean it will never be explained or that we need to completely change not only our neuroscience but our physics."

The attack on materialism proposes to do just that, but it all turns on definitions. "At one time it looked like all physical causation was push/pull Newtonianism," says Owen Flanagan, professor of philosophy and neurobiology at Duke University, North Carolina. "Now we have a new understanding of physics. What counts as material has changed. Some respectable philosophers think that we might have to posit sentience as a fundamental force of nature or use quantum gravity to understand consciousness. These stretch beyond the bounds of what we today call 'material', and we haven't discovered everything about nature yet. But what we do discover will be natural, not supernatural."

And as Clark observes: "This is an especially nasty mind-virus because it piggybacks on some otherwise reasonable thoughts and worries. Proponents make such potentially reasonable points as 'Oh look, we can change our brains just by changing our minds,' but then leap to the claim that mind must be distinct and not materially based. That doesn't follow at all. There's nothing odd about minds changing brains if mental states are brain states: that's just brains changing brains."

That is the voice of mainstream academia. Public perception, however, is a different story. If people can be swayed by ID, despite the vast amount of solid evidence for evolution, how hard will it be when the science appears fuzzier?

What can scientists do? They have been criticised for not doing enough to teach the public about evolution. Maybe now they need a big pre-emptive push to engage people with the science of the brain - and help the public appreciate that the brain is no place to invoke the "God of the gaps".

Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report.

The Human Brain - With one hundred billion nerve cells, the complexity is mind-boggling. Learn more in our cutting edge special report.

Weblinks

From issue 2679 of New Scientist magazine, 22 October 2008, page 46-47

2008-10-23T20:51:00.000+03:00

http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/an-interview-with-eo-wilson-the-father-of-the-encyclopedia-of-life/index.html

October 23, 2008, 12:34 pm

An Interview With E.O. Wilson, the Father of the Encyclopedia of Life

This past Sunday, "CBS News Sunday Morning" aired my report on the Encyclopedia of Life project. (I'm campaigning hard for them to post the segment online.)

As usual, putting this story together involved conducting a number of interviews, which were fascinating-but I had time to use only a few sentences of each one in the finished story. It always seems such a shame to let the rest of these interviews go to waste.

So today, I offer a much longer version of my interview with E.O. Wilson (friends call him Ed), the two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, naturalist and Harvard research professor who's the father of the Encyclopedia of Life.

DAVID POGUE: So how did this project come about?

DR. E.O. WILSON: I've been in systematics and the mapping of biological diversity all my life. And a little more than ten years ago, I thought the time had come to undertake a complete mapping of the world's fauna and flora.

Because remarkably-and this is little known even in the scientific community-we've only begun to explore this planet. It was 250 years ago this year that Karl Linneus, the great naturalist in Sweden, began what became the official form of biological classification: two names, like "homo sapiens" for us, and ranging the species in hierarchies according to how much they resemble one another. 250 years ago.

And in that period of time, we have found and given names to perhaps one-tenth of what's on the surface of the earth. We have now found 1.8 million species. But the actual number is almost certainly in excess of 10 million, and could be as high as a hundred million, when you throw in bacteria.

Let me give you an example. Fungi. The world depends on fungi, because they are major players in the cycling of materials and energy around the world. They're necessary for the health of other organisms. (We should get rid of the idea that fungi are what gives you athlete's footŠfeet.) Some 60,000 species are known, and it's been estimated by experts that more than 1.5 million exist. So we've just begun to explore it. And that's true, group after group. We're just beginning.

For a period of time, I was a voice in the wilderness, with a few others, wandering around and trying to raise a lot of money, unsuccessfully, saying, "You know, we need to bulk up the exploration of the planet, the living part." And finally, in 2003, I wrote a paper called "The Encyclopedia of Life." And I said, "What we need is to get out there and search this little-known planet, and then put all the information that we get on species already known into a single great database, an electronic encyclopedia, with a page that's indefinitely extensible for each species in turn, and that would be available to anybody, any time, anywhere, single access, on command, free."

We were about to enter the age of Google. We were about to enter an age where, technically, we could have everything available to everybody all the time.

So I published that article and began to promote it. And some others picked up on it. The key, however, was the warm reception made to it by the MacArthur Foundation. [The MacArthur and Sloan foundations eventually contributed $12 million to launch the project. Later, Dr. Wilson also won the TED Prize, which brings with it $100,000 and, more importantly, a lot of exposure and contacts to help three visionaries each year make their wishes come true.]

DP: And what do you say to people who think, "Oh. Oh, how interesting. A database for scientists." I mean, is there a greater purpose to a Web site like this?

EOW: The public will have this unlimited encyclopedia, where it can browse [at eol.org]. Where individual students can do their own research projects. Where you can make your own field guide wherever you're going. It will tell you what the butterflies are of Oregon, or maybe you're hoping to make a trip to Costa Rica and the whole family would like to see turtles. In time, you'll be able to do this with a few keystrokes.

DP: So I understand that the Encyclopedia will operate Wikipedia-style, with contributions from the public, which are then approved by experts?

EOW: The world is full of amateurs: gifted amateurs, devoted amateurs. You can pick almost any group that has any kind of intrinsic interest in it, from dragonflies to pill bugs to orb-weaving spiders. Anybody can pick up information in interesting places, find new species or rediscover what was thought to be a vanished species, or some new biological fact about a species already known, and can provide that right into The Encyclopedia of Life.

DP: Haven't there been previous attempts to catalogue every species in the world?

EOW: Yes, there have been several. And if you have access to one of the great libraries and a LOT of time, you can, with great effort, pull out everything known about every species. But it would take an army actually to get all the information on all species, all 1.8 million species and on beyond, around the world.

For example, 30 feet from where we sit is the largest ant collection in the world. One million specimens, 6,000 species, and it's a wonderful resource. [DP notes: This collection represents Wilson's own life's work.]

But any scientist who wants to utilize this collection-and that's most of them who are doing research on ants-have to come here [to my department at Harvard]. But when The Encyclopedia of Life receives all the information that we have, like the superb photographs and basic data on the species, just a few keystrokes away, it'll be possible to do high-level, cutting-edge, real-time research, wherever you are.

Simultaneously, to speed things along even more, the Biodiversity Heritage Library Initiative has set out to scan and make available maybe 500 million pages published all through time, on all species. [They are literally scanning thousands of books and journals, converting the scans to text, and making it all available to the Enyclopedia of Life.] I just got a letter from one of the leaders of this who said, "We've just passed the eight million mark."

DP: It sounds like this is going to be a major world resource. How is it gonna pay for itself? Are you gonna sell ads?

EOW: This project has to pay for itself. We got our break through the MacArthur and Sloan Foundations to get started. But now we have to pick up funds to expand it to anything near completion.

And right now, I don't have an idea of what that will take in funding. But I'm pretty sure of one thing. It's not going to cost more than the Human Genome Project, because it's way ahead. And it's gonna cost a lot less than our space programs-a lot less. In fact, if we could have a small fraction of one of a space program budget alone, we would see this project go way fast into the future.

It's a scientific moon shot-big science. But I think it's gonna turn out to be one of the least expensive. It doesn't take a lot of high technology to discover species and work out their characteristics.

DP: Is there a larger purpose to The Encyclopedia of Life?

EOW: Oh, yeah. The Encyclopedia of Life is absolutely vital in saving the environment. Because we're losing the vast percentage of species; we are losing them. Whenever we focus on a particular group, whether it's birds, frogs, whatever, we can just see them disappearing. So what happens among all these other groups, from beetles to ants to bacteria to fungi and so on? You know full well that they're disappearing, too. But we don't even know what's disappearing. And we don't know how to save most of them. And we don't know how this is going to affect the environment.

We need to have this information, this great database, in order to plan strategies that are maximally efficient, cost the least, square kilometer by square kilometer around the world, and save the most. And we can't do that without a thorough knowledge of what we're trying to save.

Listen: What would thrill people the most about space exploration? Surely it would be the discovery of life on another planet.

Then, Congress, if it weren't busted, would be willing to put out billions to explore that planet-find out all of the life forms there. Why shouldn't we be doing the same for planet earth? It's a little-known planet. Ninety percent of the life forms unknown to us.

And this is gonna be fun. This is a return to exploring a little-known planet.

DP: What is your involvement with The Encyclopedia of Life these days?

EOW: Here at Harvard, I've started a part of The Encyclopedia of Life effort: the Global Ant Project. I've obtained the funds. We've just had a meeting of ant specialists from around the country.

DP: That's gotta be a party.

EOW: Yeah, it was. (LAUGHTER) The word for them is myrmecologists. And believe me, this was an exciting but, I have to admit, idiosyncratic clan meeting. (LAUGHTER)

And for a skeptical audience who says, "Well, how could studying ants be very important?" Well, let me tell you, ants are the dominant insects. They make up as much as a quarter of the biomass of all insects in the world. They are the principal predators. They're the cemetery workers. Ants are the leading removers of dead creatures on the land. And the rest of life is substantially dependent upon them.

In many environments, take away the ants and there would be partial collapses in many of the land ecosystems. Take away humans, and everything would come back and flourish. But I don't wanna go down that down that road for a broad audience. (LAUGHTER)

DP: I'm just curious: when you see an ant in the kitchenŠHas your life's work caused you to reach a point where you wouldn't just stomp on it?

EOW: Oh, no. (LAUGHTER) I've slaughtered more ants in my life than possibly any living person. Whole colonies.

DP: What is your sense of The Encyclopedia of Life's likelihood of success?

EOW: Likelihood of success? Certain. Challenges? Large. Some unknown. But right now, those that can be imagined don't seem to be insoluble. It won't take a huge amount of funding. It'll be relatively a small "big science" effort. No. I think this whole effort has a great future.

DP: So you don't see it being derailed by people leaving, or money running out, or-

EOW: What's to derail? I mean, we're not talking about the Hadron Collider, with people standing outside, wringing their hands thinking that the Earth will disappear into a black hole. We're not talking about religious believers trying to put the stop on the stem cells. We're talking about finding out about life on a little-known planet and making full use of that knowledge.

2008-03-16T22:41:00.001+02:00

In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Simon Dawson / Associated Press

Monty White wants creationism taught in British schools. “We do get the students to question what they’re being taught about evolution,” he says.

Groups that oppose Darwin are making headway in schools.

By Gregory Katz, Associated Press
March 15, 2008

LONDON -- After the Sunday service in Westminster Chapel, where worshipers were exhorted to wage "the culture war" in the World War II spirit of Sir Winston Churchill, cabbie James McLean delivered his verdict on Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

"Evolution is a lie, and it's being taught in schools as fact, and it's leading our kids in the wrong direction," said McLean, chatting outside the chapel. "But now people like Ken Ham are tearing evolution to pieces."

Ken Ham is the founder of Answers in Genesis, a Kentucky-based organization that is part of an ambitious effort to bring creationist theory to Britain and the rest of Europe. McLean is one of a growing number of evangelicals embracing that message -- that the true history of the Earth is told in the Bible, not Darwin's "The Origin of Species."

Europeans have long viewed the conflict between evolutionists and creationists as primarily an American phenomenon, but it has recently jumped the Atlantic with skirmishes in Italy, Germany, Poland and, notably, Britain, where Darwin was born and where he published his 1859 classic.

Darwin's defenders are fighting back. In October, the 47-nation Council of Europe, a human rights watchdog, condemned all attempts to bring creationism into Europe's schools. Bible-based theories and "religious dogma" threaten to undercut sound educational practices, it charged.

Schools are increasingly a focal point in this battle for hearts and minds.

A British branch of Answers in Genesis, which shares a website with its American counterpart, has managed to introduce its creationist point of view into science classes at a number of state-supported schools in Britain, said Monty White, the group's chief executive.

"We do go into the schools about 10 to 20 times a year and we do get the students to question what they're being taught about evolution," said White, who founded the British branch seven years ago. "And we leave them a box of books for the library."

Creationism is still a marginal issue here compared with its impact on cultural and political debate in the United States. But the budding fervor is part of a growing embrace of evangelical worship throughout much of Europe. Evangelicals say their ranks are swelling because of revulsion with the hedonism and materialism of modern society. At the same time, attendance at traditional churches is declining.

"People are looking for spirituality," White said in an interview at his office in Leicester, 90 miles north of London. "I think they are fed up with not finding true happiness. They find having a bigger car doesn't make them happy. They get drunk and the next morning they have a hangover. They take drugs but the drugs wear off. But what they find with Christianity is lasting."

Other British organizations have joined the crusade. A group called Truth in Science has sent thousands of unsolicited DVDs to every high school in Britain arguing that mankind is the result of "intelligent design," not Darwinian evolution.

In addition, the AH Trust, a charity, has announced plans to raise money for construction of a Christian theme park in northwest England with a 5,000-seat television studio that would be used for the production of Christian-oriented films. And several TV stations are devoted to Christian themes.

All this activity has lifted spirits at the Westminster Chapel, a 165-year-old evangelical church that is not affiliated with nearby Westminster Abbey, where Darwin is buried.

In the chapel, the Rev. Greg Haslam tells 150 believers that they are in a conflict with secularism that can only be won if they heed Churchill's exhortation and never give up.

"The first thing you have to do is realize we are in a war, and identify the enemy, and learn how to defeat the enemy," he said.

There is a sense inside the chapel that Christian evangelicals are successfully resisting a trend toward a completely secular Britain.

"People have walked away from God; it's not fashionable," said congregant Chris Mullins, a civil servant. "But the evangelical church does seem to be growing and I'm very encouraged by that. In what is a very secular society, there are people returning to God."

School curricula generally hold that Darwin's theory has been backed up by so many scientific discoveries that it can now be regarded as fact. But Mullins believes creationism also deserves a hearing in the classroom.

"Looking at the evidence, creationism at the least seems a theory worthy of examination," he said. "Personally, I think it is true and I think the truth will win out eventually. It's a question of how long it takes."

Terry Sanderson, president of Britain's National Secular Society, a group founded in 1866 to limit the influence of religious leaders, said that the groups advocating a literal interpretation of the Bible are making headway.

"Creationism is creeping into the schools," he said. "There is a constant pressure to get these ideas into the schools."

The trend goes beyond evangelical Christianity. Sanderson said the British government is taking over funding of about 100 Islamic schools even though they teach the Koranic version of creationism. He said the government fears imposing evolution theory on the curriculum lest it be branded as anti-Islamic.

The Council of Europe spoke up last fall after Harun Yahya, a prominent Muslim creationist in Turkey, tried to place his lavishly produced 600-page book, "The Atlas of Creation," in public schools in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain.

"These trends are very dangerous," Anne Brasseur, author of the Council of Europe report, said in an interview.

Brasseur said recent skirmishes in Italy and Germany illustrate the creationists' tactics. She said Italian schools were ordered to stop teaching evolution when Silvio Berlusconi was prime minister, although the edict seems to have had little effect in practice. In Germany, she said, a state education minister briefly allowed creationism to be taught in biology class.

The rupture between theology and evolution in Europe is relatively recent. For many years people who held evangelical views also endorsed mainstream scientific theory, said Simon Barrow, co-director of Ekklesia, a British-based, Christian-oriented research group. He said the split was imported from the United States in the last decade.

"There is a lot of American influence, and there are a lot of moral and political and financial resources flowing from the United States to here," he said. "Now you have more extreme religious groups trying to get a foothold."

In some cases, the schools have become the battlegrounds. Richard Dawkins, the Oxford university biologist and author of last year's international best-seller "The God Delusion," frequently lectures students about the marvels of evolution only to find that the students' views have already been shaped by the creationist lobby.

"I think it's so sad that children should be fobbed off with these second-rate myths," he said.

"The theory of evolution is one of the most powerful pieces of scientific thinking ever produced and the evidence for it is overwhelming. I think creationism is pernicious because if you don't know much it sounds kind of plausible and it's easy to come into schools and subvert children."

White, the director of the British Answers in Genesis, is well aware that the group's school program is contentious. The group has removed information about it from its website to avoid antagonizing people.

The group operates a warehouse with $150,000 worth of DVDs, books and comics promoting creationism, but he says he only sends speakers and materials into schools that invite Answers in Genesis to make a presentation.

White, 63, said he was reared as an atheist and, after earning a doctorate in chemistry, embraced evangelical Christianity in 1964.

He says that when he is asked to speak to science classes, he challenges the accuracy of radioactive dating which shows the world to be thousands of millions of years old and says that the Bible is a more accurate description of how mankind began. He personally believes the Earth is between 6,000 and 12,000 years old.

"Usually I find the discussion goes on science, science and science, and then when the lesson is finished one or two students say, 'Can we talk about other things?' and I sit down with them and usually they want to talk about Christianity," he said. "They want to know, why do you believe in God? Why do you believe in the Bible? How can you be sure it's the word of God?"

Dawkins feels the effect. He said he is discouraged when he visits schools and gets questions from students who have obviously been influenced by material from Answers in Genesis. "I continually get the same rather stupid points straight from their pamphlets," he said.

White is getting ready for a visit by Ken Ham, who will preach at Westminster Chapel this spring. Meanwhile, he is pleased that small groups of creation science advocates now meet regularly in Oxford, Edinburgh, Northampton and other British cities.

"The creation movement is certainly growing," he said. "There are more groups than there were five years ago. There are more people like me going out speaking about it, and there's more interest. You have these little groups forming all over the place."

2008-03-14T22:30:00.000+02:00

Babel's Dawn

Fossil Evidence of Speech?

One very obvious difference between the vocalizations of all our ape cousins and humans is the presence of air sacs in all
the apes. Air sacs are essentially large bags that attach to the throat and lie atop the upper chest. Apes use them to make
great big sounds, noises that make them sound larger than they are, rather like putting a truck horn on a Volkswagen to
command respect. Humans do not have air sacs. Dutch linguist Bart de Boer has looked into the question of whether the
absence of air sacs in humans has something to do with the rise of language. If it does, we can date language to at least 800
thousand years ago he told the Evolang conference in Barcelona this evening (Friday, March 14, 2008).
The fossil evidence comes from the hyoid bone, the only bone in the vocal system, and therefore the only source of fossil
evidence for what was going on in the vocal tract’s evolution. (An earlier presentation said we cannot describe the vocal
tract on the basis of the hyoid bone; however, de Boer presented evidence that all the apes have a hyoid bone with a cup
shape in the middle while human hyoids lack the cup. So perhaps we can at least tell from the hyoid whether or not there
was an air sac. See: Stop Your Yacking.) Humans and Neanderthals have almost identical hyoids and just published data
shows that Homo heidelbergensis of 800 thousand years ago had a human-like hyoid. No erectus hyoid fossil has ever
been found, so we cannot push the loss of air sacs back to them. An Australopithecus afarensis hyoid with the
characteristic cup has been found, but as I recall that was a fossil from an infant and so is not quite definitive. The young of
a species often show traits that disappear in the adult. (See: The Selam Fossil)
But what evidence is there that the loss of air sacs might be related to the rise of speech? De Boer has modeled the sounds
that follow the addition of an air sac to the vocal system. Air sac result in lower frequency sounds and a smaller acoustic
range than humans enjoy. Air sacs shorten the articulatory range and the mouth is less able to shape the sound that comes
out from an air sac vocalization. De Boer hypothesized that when what you say becomes more important than how you
sound, air sacs give way. So the disappearance of air sacs is likely a good bit of evidence that speech of some sort has
appeared.
During the question session following the presentation, one woman asked if it was true even today for humans that what
you say is more important than how you say it. De Boer said he liked to believe it would, but the young woman seemed
unconvinced. On the other hand, if what you say doesn’t matter so much, the conference as a whole is wrongly focused.
Another questioner pointed out that there is a sexual appeal in having a big air sac and that mating strength would be a
counterbalance to the pressures from language to reduce the sac. De Boer agreed but thought that the descent of the larynx
may well have been a counterbalance to the loss of air sacs. He said this explanation is not perfect, however, because the
lowered larynx would likely only offer an alternative way of deepening the voice after the sac had already disappeared.
March 14, 2008 in evolang 2008 | Permalink

2008-03-14T20:08:00.000+02:00

World Science

More “little people” fossils found

March 11, 2008
Courtesy Public Library of Science
and World Science staff

Researchers say they have discovered more fossils of miniature, island-dwelling people, adding a new twist to the saga of so-called “hobbit” fossils reported found in Indonesia in 2004.

A scientific debate has raged over whether those came from a species of miniature humans—as their discoverers argued—or just from diseased, ordinary people.

A map indicates the relative locations of Flores, Indonesia (lower-left red arrow) and Palau (upper-right red arrow.)

If the former were true, this would fit in with the fact that many species of animals also evolve into small forms on islands. But several studies have challenged the view that the Indonesian specimens represent a new species; for example, a paper in the March 5 issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B suggests the “hobbits” were in reality malnourished cretins.

The discovery of additional, somewhat similar fossils on other islands may both renew and complicate the debate.

In this week’s issue of the research journal PLoS One, Lee Berger and colleagues of the University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa, Rutgers University and Duke University in North Carolina describe newfound fossils of little humans from other islands.

They lived 1,400 to 3,000 years ago, according to the researchers, and share some features with the earlier specimens, dubbed Homo floresiensis by their discoverers. The name came from the location of discovery, Indonesia’s Flores Island.

The new findings comes instead from Palau, an island chain in the western central Pacific. Palau consists of a main island of Babeldaob, with hundreds of smaller rock islands to the southwest. These contain caves and rock shelters, many of which have yielded prehistoric human remains.

The new specimens from two such caves, Ucheliungs and Omedokel, which seem to have been used as burial sites, researchers said.

Both caves, they added, yielded skeletons of individuals who would have been small even relative to other such populations and are approximately the size of H. floresiensis or small members of the genus Australopithecus. These fossils were dated to between 1410 and 2890 years ago. The Omedokel cave entrance also contained remains of larger people dated to around a millennium ago, the researchers said.

These caves have provided and will continue to provide a wealth of specimens, which will need deeper study, the investigators added. But preliminary analysis of more than a dozen individuals including a male who would have weighed around 43 kg (95 lb) and a female of 29 kg (64 lb) show that these people “had many craniofacial features considered unique to H. sapiens,” our species, researchers said.

“These individuals are likely to be from a human population who acquired reduced stature, for some reason,” the researchers said in announcing the finding March 10.

“It is well established that populations living on isolated islands often consist of individuals of smaller stature than their mainland cousins—a phenomenon known as island dwarfism. This is true not just for humans but for many animals including extinct mammoths and elephants from islands off Siberia, California and even in the Mediterranean. Alternatively, the island may have been colonized by a few small individuals, between 3,000 and 4,000 years ago who, through extensive inbreeding, and other environmental drivers, produced a small-bodied population, which continued to inhabit Palau until at least 1,400 years ago.”

As well as having characteristics of H. sapiens, the Palau fossils also have features seen in H. floresiensis, the researchers said.

Berger and colleagues said they don’t infer from these features any direct relationship between the peoples of Palau and Flores. However, they added, the observations do suggest that at least some of the features which have been taken as evidence that the Flores individuals are members of a separate species, may be a common adaptation in humans of reduced stature.

Analysis of the Palau specimens probably won’t settle arguments over the status of H. floresiensis as there are features of Flores man, such as small brain size, not found in the people of Palau, Berger and colleagues added. Nevertheless, they said, the findings suggest that at least some of the unusual features seen in Flores are due to environment rather than ancestral heritage.

“Above all, the skeletons from Palau should greatly increase our understanding of the process of island dwarfism in human populations and of the ancient colonizations of Oceania,” the researchers said in their announcement. The study was funded by the National Geographic Society Mission Programs. A documentary on the findings, “Mystery Skulls of Palau,” premieres Monday, March 17 at 10 PM on the National Geographic Channel in the U.S.

2008-03-14T20:02:00.002+02:00

τό είδαμε στήν WORLD SCIENCE

Estimates for peopling of Americas getting earlier

March 13, 2008
Courtesy Science
and World Science staff

Archeologists are presenting what they call the latest evidence that a traditional account of the peopling of the Americas is wrong.

The mainstream view prevailing in the past several decades holds that humans entered the continent about 12,000 years ago using a temporary land bridge from northeastern Asia to Alaska. These migrants would have given rise to a culture of mammoth hunters known for their unique stone projectile-points and dubbed Clovis, after remains found near Clovis, N.M., in the 1930s.

Excavation of the Schaefer mammoth in Wisconsin, thought by archaeologists to date to about 14,500 years ago. (Image courtesy D. Joyce)

But in recent years evidence has turned up that the first Americans might have been considerably older, some archaeologists argue.

A new review published in the research journal Science contends that that the first Americans had their roots in southern Siberia, ventured across the Bering land bridge probably around 22,000 years ago, and migrated down into the Americas as early as 16,000 years ago.

In the paper, Ted Goebel of Texas A&M University and colleagues argue that the latter date is when an ice-free corridor in Canada opened and enabled the migration.

The new account is bolstered by genetic evidence and the discovery of new archaeological sites and more accurate dates for old sites, according to the researchers.

Genetic evidence, they wrote, points to a founding population of less than 5,000 people at the beginning of the second migration in Canada.

Moreover, they added, archaeological evidence suggests the Clovis culture may have been relative latecomers to the Americas or descendants of earlier Paleo-Indian populations represented at archaeological sites such as Monte Verde in Chile. That site is thought to have been occupied 14,600 years ago.

The research by Goebel and colleagues appears in the journal’s March 14 issue.

2008-03-13T14:38:00.002+02:00

EVE SAVORY

Science vs. creationism

Scientific community mobilizes defence of evolution
March 11, 2008

I never could understand, as a young television reporter in Saskatchewan, why scientists refused to defend evolution. It was 1980 and a controversy had erupted over creationism being taught in some science classes. I might have been asking scientists to debate the Flat Earth Society, so withering were their responses to my requests for an interview.
Paleontologist David Eberth explained to me last week that scientists used to believe debating the subject would imply creationism and evolution had equal merit.
"After they were done saying what a pile of poo this whole scientific creationism is, [they] basically wiped their hands of it and walked away," said Eberth, a senior research scientist at the Royal Tyrell Museum in Drumheller, Alta.
Big mistake. Being left with the ring to itself, creationism reinvented itself as
intelligent design, with the claim that life is too complex to have developed
randomly. Now, said Eberth, the science community is seeing "the negative
education, political and socio-economic fallout for not engaging."
In books, in editorials, in speeches and on the internet, scientists are now
defending evolution on any platform they can get. What's got them so
rattled? "It's the threat to science," said Daniel Fairbanks, author of the new book
Relics of Eden.
The Brigham Young University geneticist — and Christian — writes that
creationists and advocates of intelligent design "have successfully promoted
history's most sophisticated and generously funded attack on science,
claiming that evolution, human evolution in particular, is a 'theory in crisis.'"
Far from being a "theory in crisis," evolution is a fact.
In the 149 years since the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species by
Means of Natural Selection, scientists have uncovered a veritable Noah's flood
of fossil and DNA proof that species evolved.
The evidence is, oh… pick a superlative: overwhelming, irrefutable,
incontrovertible, up there with the earth is round and revolves around the sun.
Yet Christian creationism — the belief that the Bible is literally true — isn't just holding its ground in the face of all that evidence. It's seizing new territory, or so Eberth, Fairbanks and many others fear.
In Texas, Florida, Kentucky, Kansas, Arkansas and elsewhere, Fairbanks writes, a powerful Christian fundamentalist movement conducts an "ongoing assault on science … whose political objectives are to cast doubt on the reality of evolution and to restrict or dilute it in the science curricula of public schools."
Science consistently wins in the courts. The most recent triumph was the 2005 decision against the Dover, Pennsylvania school district, where the courts ruled intelligent design was religion, not science. And ruled it unconstitutional.
Yet despite winning those battles, science is losing the war, according to Eberth. "We have a whole generation of kids in the U.S. who are having this stuff pumped down their throats," he said. Evolution not in the curriculum
In Canada, the debate is less noisy. In fact, you might not be aware there is a debate.
Still, I was floored when Banff resident Scott Rowed, a member of the Centre for Inquiry, told me his daughter graduated from Grade 12 in Alberta without ever hearing the word "evolution."
"The underpinnings of our life sciences courses, our curriculum, are all based on the assumptions of evolution," said the Alberta Department of Education's Kathy Telfer. But evolution itself is not part of the core curriculum in most Canadian schools.

"It's not unheard of, in fact [it] may be quite common, for students to go through their entire public education without hearing about evolution," Jason Wiles of McGill University's Evolution Education Research Centre told me.
What else worries scientists?
Consider the ascent of Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor and for several startling months a serious challenger for the Republican presidential nomination. A creationist, he suggested the U.S. constitution should be amended "so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
And survey after survey has found roughly half of Americans believe God created humans in their present form, in a single act, within the last 10,000 years.
Only 22 % of Canadians hold that opinion, according to an Angus Reid poll published last June. Curiously, the same poll found 42 per cent of us agree with the creationist belief that we co-existed with dinosaurs.
In Europe, people used to scratch their heads over the furious evolution debate in the United States. Now they have their own alarums and excursions. The creationists have opened so many fronts that last fall a study by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe warned, "If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists."
It's not just a blossoming Christian fundamentalism that alarms the council. It's also Islamic scientific creationism. The report describes how a Turkish book titled The Atlas of Creation had been sent to schools in France, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain. The author, Islamist preacher Harun Yahya, calls Darwinism a "ruse of Satan," which, he writes, "is collapsing and causing panic in the Darwinian global empire."
Science takes the offensive
Panic? No. Major concern? Yes.
Enough so that scientists are sending out a stream of books, lectures, and editorials explaining,
demonstrating, defending evolution, including in January alone:
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences published the book Science, Evolution, and Creationism.
The co-discoverer of the transitional fossil Tiktaalik ("the fish that does pushups") published Your Inner Fish.
The journal Nature asked the science community to "take every opportunity to promote"
evolution.
A new Journal devoted to teaching evolution was launched.
17 U.S. organizations declared evolution education a "must."
And Daniel Fairbanks published Relics of Eden. "There really is a movement going on here," he told me from his Utah office.
Fossils and DNA hold the proof
If fossils hadn't so thoroughly locked up the proof, the evidence Fairbanks presents would finish the job. For our evolutionary history is written in our DNA.
As an undergraduate exploring for fossils in his geology class, Fairbanks had already had to rethink his deeply religious upbringing. Accepting the story the fossils told "was a change in my world view," he said.
As a geneticist, he now studies a different kind of fossil. But the story they tell is the same.
These "relics" of our evolutionary past are segments of DNA, mutations, apparently redundant, which have accumulated over time and now clutter up the genomes of humans and other species.
"Each relic, we presume, was inherited from a common ancestor," Fairbanks told me. "The closer they are, then the more recent the common ancestor of that organism must be, and the more distant they are — that is, the more diverged they are — then the more distant the common ancestor must be."
The sequencing of three primate genomes — human, chimpanzee, and the rhesus macaque — was "a scientific opportunity unlike any that we have ever had before," said Fairbanks.
The chapters that demonstrate how genomes prove the evolutionary relationship may demand
concentration from those of us without a degree in biology. Be prepared to learn about transposons, retroelements and pseudogenes. The payoff is in understanding why scientists find the evidence indisputable.
Fairbanks spent a lot of time on the primates because he has found that while many people are willing to believe other species have evolved, they draw the line at humans. "They just can't get beyond the point that we share common ancestry with other animals," he said.
Evolution, atheism and God
Fairbanks is troubled by the dichotomy laid out by two extremes: creationists and atheists. Both make the claim, he said, that you must believe in either evolution or God. You can't believe in both. He himself has no trouble marrying the two in his personal life, but adds: "If one accepts that dichotomy, then the study of science is frightening. It seems to be something that is the enemy of religion when in fact it is not."
Perhaps atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have done more to damage evolution than to champion it.
In fact, rather than seeing creationists and evolutionists engaging in battle, Fairbanks has embraced the call made by one enthusiastic reviewer of his book for an "intellectual peace corps." "Say I am a member of it," he told me.
Back in 1980, I finally did find a scientist who thought defending evolution in my news story would be worth his while. Taylor Steen, a biologist and a Christian, told me then that "creationism is bad religion. And it's bad science."
Science and scientists have paid a price for assuming that that simple answer — or none at all — would suffice.

Additional links
There are thousands of other websites where one can pursue these topics. Here are three that are worth exploring:
The Talk Origins Archive takes an evolutionary perspective but links to sites that support
creationism and Intelligent Design.
One of the most active promoters of the latter point of view is the Institute for Creation Research And the Creation Information Portal gives a Canadian viewpoint.

2008-02-29T15:43:00.000+02:00

Μετά τον Δαρβίνο, θα έρθει η σειρά και του Νεύτωνα;



πηγή http://www.e-paideia.net/news/article.asp?lngEntityID=59777&lngDtrID=102

Με την ιστορική ετυμηγορία του στην υπόθεση «Εντουαρντς εναντίον Αγκουιλαρ» το 1987, το αμερικανικό Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο αποφάνθηκε ότι η διδασκαλία των θρησκευτικών μύθων περί δημιουργίας πλάι στην επιστημονική θεωρία περί φυσικής επιλογής είναι αντισυνταγματική, καθότι προσκρούει στον διαχωρισμό εκκλησίας - κράτους. Η γραμμή άμυνας των φανατικών βρέθηκε, όπως αναφέρει η Καθημερινή (01.03.2008), με την επινόηση του «νοήμονος σχεδιασμού» (intelligent design), μιας εντελώς διαφανούς μεταμφίεσης του δόγματος περί δημιουργίας. Να όμως που, μετά τον Δαρβίνο, μπορεί να έρθει και η σειρά του Νεύτωνα και του Αϊνστάιν. Αυτό υποστήριζε τον Αύγουστο του 2005 η αμερικανική εφημερίδα Onion. Στο σχετικό ρεπορτάζ από το Κάνσας, «ειδικοί ερευνητές» από το Ευαγγελικό Κέντρο Λογικής Βασισμένης στην Πίστη (ECFR) έθεσαν υπό αμφισβήτηση την επιστημονική θεωρία της βαρύτητας, αντιπροτείνοντας τη θεωρία της «νοήμονος πτώσης» (intelligent falling). «Τα αντικείμενα δεν πέφτουν επειδή υπόκεινται στη δράση κάποιας δύναμης βαρύτητας, αλλά επειδή μια ανώτερη διάνοια, ο Θεός, αν θέλετε, τα ωθεί προς τα κάτω», δήλωσε, στη διάρκεια εκδήλωσης στο Κάνσας Σίτι, ο Γκάμπριελ Μπέρντετ, πτυχιούχος Εκπαίδευσης, Εφαρμοσμένης Αγίας Γραφής και Φυσικής από το Πανεπιστήμιο Οραλ Ρόμπερτς. Ο δρ Μπέρντετ δεν αμφισβητεί ότι τα πράγματα πέφτουν ακολουθώντας την εξίσωση του Νεύτωνα F= m.g. Μας εφιστά, ωστόσο, την προσοχή στο γεγονός ότι αυτό το F δεν είναι η «δύναμη βαρύτητας», όπως μέχρι τώρα αφελώς πιστεύαμε, αλλά η μαθηματική έκφραση της θείας βούλησης, κάτι το οποίο προδήλως ανοίγει νέα, ανεξάντλητα πεδία έρευνας. Το ECFR, που εκπροσωπεί ο κ. Μπέρντετ, είναι εντελώς αντισυμβατικό ερευνητικό κέντρο. Ιδρύθηκε το 1987 και αυτοπροσδιορίζεται ως «το πρωτοποριακό, σε παγκόσμια κλίμακα, ίδρυμα» μιας νεαρής επιστήμης, της Ευαγγελικής Φυσικής». Οπως εξηγούν οι ειδικοί του ECFR σε ερευνητική εργασία τους, η οποία δημοσιεύθηκε στο έγκριτο, επιστημονικό περιοδικό «Ο Κόσμος του Θεού για Εφήβους» (God’s World for Teens), «υπάρχουν πολλά φαινόμενα που δεν μπορούν να εξηγηθούν αποκλειστικά με βάση τις κλασικές θεωρίες της βαρύτητας». Για ποια φυσικά φαινόμενα γίνεται λόγος; Οι ερευνητές επικαλούνται για παράδειγμα «τις πτήσεις των αγγέλων, την ανάληψη του Χριστού στον ουρανό και των έκπτωση του Σατανά από τον Παράδεισο» - πασίγνωστα φυσικά φαινόμενα τα οποία όντως δεν μπόρεσε να εξηγήσει ούτε η κλασική θεωρία της βαρύτητας κατά Νεύτωνα, ούτε η γενική θεωρία της Σχετικότητας, του Αϊνστάιν. Οι συμβατικοί επιστήμονες αντιτάσσουν ότι με τη θεωρία του Νεύτωνα καταφέραμε να πάμε στο φεγγάρι, ενώ η Σχετικότητα του Αϊνστάιν βρέθηκε να έχει ακρίβεια δεκάδων δεκαδικών ψηφίων σε όλες τις αστρονομικές παρατηρήσεις, ακόμη και από τις πιο μακρινές εσχατιές του γνωστού Σύμπαντος. Οι εναλλακτικοί επιστήμονες του ΕCFR δεν θέλουν να είναι δογματικοί: «Δεν ζητάμε να εξοστρακισθεί η συμβατική θεωρία από τη σχολική ύλη, μόνο να προσφέρονται και οι δύο πλευρές στους μαθητές, ώστε να κάνουν οι ίδιοι την επιλογή τους γνωρίζοντας όλες τις όψεις», δηλώνει ο ερευνητής Μπέρντετ, για να προσθέσει: «Θέλουμε μόνο την καλύτερη δυνατή εκπαίδευση για τα παιδιά του Κάνσας». Ο,τι ακριβώς είχε πει και ο Μπους με αφορμή τη διαμάχη γύρω από τη δαρβινική θεωρία της εξέλιξης. Από την πλευρά της, μια άλλη ερευνήτρια της «νοήμονος πτώσης», η δρ Ελεν Κάρσον, δεν μπορεί να καταλάβει τη στενοκεφαλιά των δογματικά συμβατικών φυσικών: «Αυτό που οφείλουν να συνειδητοποιήσουν όλοι οι επιστήμονες που ασχολούνται με τη βαρύτητα, είναι ότι τα περίφημα “κύματα βαρύτητας” ή “βαρυτόνια” των θεωριών τους δεν είναι τίποτα άλλο από κοσμικοί όροι για να περιγράψουν τη θεμελιώδη αρχή: Ο Θεός μπορεί να κάνει ό,τι Αυτός θέλει»! Βεβαίως, το Onion είναι μια σατιρική εφημερίδα και το εν λόγω ρεπορτάζ ήταν εντελώς φανταστικό. Ωστόσο, πάρα πολύς κόσμος, εντός και εκτός Αμερικής, δυσκολεύθηκε να καταλάβει ότι επρόκειτο για φάρσα. Η φάρσα της εφημερίδας εξελίχθηκε σε διαδικτυακό φαινόμενο, καθώς άλλοι την πήραν στα σοβαρά και υπέγραψαν εκκλήσεις για την ισότιμη διδασκαλία της «νοήμονος πτώσης» και άλλοι την αναπαρήγαγαν, διασκεδάζοντας με την ψυχή τους. Δεν αποκλείεται, όμως, η ζωή να ξεπεράσει για άλλη μια φορά τη φαντασία. Στις εκλογές του 2004, ο υποψήφιος για το χρίσμα των Δημοκρατικών, Χάουαρντ Ντιν, είχε προβλέψει ότι το να κηρύξουν οι Ρεπουμπλικανοί πόλεμο και εναντίον της βαρύτητας είναι απλώς θέμα χρόνου. Ας αφήσουμε που το Πανεπιστήμιο Οραλ Ρόμπερτς, από όπου προερχόταν ο «δρ Μπέρντετ», είναι εντελώς πραγματικό, με επιδόσεις που μάλλον ξεπερνούν το εν λόγω φανταστικό «ρεπορτάζ».

2008-02-29T15:39:00.000+02:00

Ventura County Reporter

Do the evolution

The Rev. Michael Dowd began life as a born-again evangelical believing Darwinian biology to be the work of the devil. Now, he preaches the gospel of science.

By Joan Trossman Bien 02/28/2008

The Rev. Michael Dowd is making the rounds in Ventura County this week, delivering speeches and workshops at churches in Ojai and Ventura. The topic of his considerable passion: evolution.

For Dowd, a trip through the cosmos ends at your front door. Actually, Dowd and his scientist-author wife, Connie Barlow, don’t really have their own front door. They have lived on the road for six years, preaching the excitement of science as religious inspiration. They roam North America appearing at venues both secular and sectarian, attempting to convince their audience that each individual person is the result of 14 billion years of evolution.

Dowd did not come to this intersection of science and religion in a predictable way. He says he had an epiphany when he was in the Army.

“I was on a backpacking trip, and I had a very profound mountain experience where I was confronted with a vision of my death, basically,” Dowd says. “The thought that was there was, what if I live 100 years — what difference does a person make in their lifetime? …

"I was convinced that I wanted to make a difference in the world, but, at the time, I was really addicted to drugs and alcohol and a lot of stuff, just really struggling.”

“I came off the mountain, literally, and the next Sunday went to church. They showed a Billy Graham film and asked if somebody wanted to commit their life to Christ, and I ran down to the altar.”

After leaving the Army, Dowd attended Evangel University in Springfield, Miss., where he received a B.A. in biblical studies and philosophy. But the school had a few surprises for the born-again young man. “I was unprepared that they were going to be teaching evolution there,” Dowd says. “I was blown away. At first I was freaked out.
I walked out of class, made a big scene and stuff. In fact, I told my roommate that Satan obviously had a foothold in the school. It was
the only way I could make sense out of them teaching evolution at the school, because I had come to believe that evolution was of the Devil, and here they were teaching evolution at a Bible-reading college.”

What the 49-year-old preacher now believes in is a science-based sacred understanding of the universe. “It is very far from fundamentalism,” Dowd says.

The reformed and informed Dowd has indeed traveled a long way from evangelical Christian fundamentalism. His path toward politics began in 1988 with an interest in environmentalism. As his search for knowledge continued, Dowd looked to the sciences for answers.

“I was immersing myself in the studies of biology, cosmology, anthropology and all these disciplines related to the entire universe story,” Dowd says. “Cosmology is the study of the cosmos, the study of the large-scale structures of the universe. I studied chemistry, where the elements of the periodic tables came from. We’ve known since 1957 that chemical elements came from inside stars. Joni Mitchell had it right back in the ’60s: We are stardust.”

As Dowd pursued his studies of all things scientific, he felt he was learning far more about the nature of reality than he had learned from the Bible. “I began to see science as revelatory,” Dowd said. “I began calling it ‘public revelation.’ Private revelation is an insight which comes to one individual. Public revelation is what the whole scientific community is given.”

The collision of science and politics landed squarely in Dowd’s lap in the mid-’90s. “I was the organizer for the National Environmental Trust,” Dowd says. “So my job was to organize Jewish rabbis, Catholic priests, Protestant clergy and Evangelical clergy on key environmental issues which were coming up for a vote in Congress.”

Those were the glory days of former House of Representatives leader Newt Gingrich. “The Republicans were threatening to repeal all the major environmental legislation,” Dowd says, “so there was a lot of interest and a lot of funding for organizing the religious communities around protecting some of the environmental concerns. In the United States, that was the first time that religion and religious leaders were beginning to take a public stand on environmental issues.”

Dowd’s next stop was a governmental sustainable life campaign, first in Portland, Ore., then in New York. “My job was to help neighbors come together and support one another, four to eight households at a time,” Dowd says. These neighborhood groups became eco-teams helping each other with using less water, composting, driving less and recycling.

Everything changed when Dowd met his future wife.

“We fell in love as mission partners,” Dowd said. “We both basically felt that our purpose in this world in our lifetime was to share this universe story perspective with everyone, from atheists to evangelicals.”

And that is why they have no front door of their own, only the road and other people’s houses where they stay as they travel from one speaking engagement to the next.

They have published a book discussing their evolutionary views, Thank God for Evolution, and operate a Web site, thankgodforevolution.com.

Dowd relishes sharing his enthusiasm with all types of groups. Recently, he spoke to a group of 125 evangelical ministers about evolution. He says they accept the concept the way most people accept death and taxes. “But it doesn’t inspire them, it doesn’t fire them up. It’s like, ‘OK, evolution, whatever.’ ”

The comprehensive vision Dowd preaches is based in science. “It is the story of the universe, how the galaxies evolved, how our solar system evolved, how planet Earth evolved, and life, and how human cultures have evolved over the last 2 ½ million years of human existence,” he says. “Darwinian biological evolution only accounts for an understanding of the biological aspect. We are also talking about the evolution of galaxies and stars and planets and human evolution.”

Dowd says he believes chaos, breakdowns and bad news are the catalysts for creativity and transformation. “So I begin to trust the chaos, I trust the challenges, I trust the difficulties,” he says.

Hoping to give his audiences a sense of compassion and commitment with his presentations, Dowd nevertheless also believes the world is heading down a dangerous path.

“Frankly, if we don’t find ways of cooperating across ethnic and religious differences in the next 50 to 70 years, we are in deep doo-doo.”

Dowd is not afraid to take a political stance on issues of social importance. “Think about the millions of people who are united in peace thanks to George W. Bush,” Dowd says. “He is the great unifier — not in the way he would want. So it is that chaos-vibed creativity that allows me to be less judgmental toward George Bush, even though I am profoundly committed to getting somebody like Barack [Obama] or Hilary [Clinton] in the White House.

“So rather than looking at the challenges we are now dealing with and saying, ‘Oh shit!’ we look at the challenges and say, ‘OK, what is possible now?’ ” Dowd says. “That way you have a different emotional stance.”

Dowd is realistic about the serious problems facing the world, whether political in nature or simply unavoidable disasters. He says he sees them as challenges instead as roadblocks. “I think oil is going to be a challenge,” Dowd says. “Overpopulation is obviously going to be a challenge. Most population scientists say that within the next 80 years, we will see human population decline. I think we’re going to see the growing gap between rich and poor.”

But Dowd says he views these issues as forcing civilization to come up with creative solutions. He says he can envision some terrible circumstances before we are able to rebound.

“I’m not Pollyanna,” Dowd says. “We could see some kind of nuclear exchange. I think that from an evolutionary viewpoint these problems — even catastrophes — will serve as evolutionary drivers.”

The Rev. Dowd speaks this week at the following Ventura County locations: Feb. 28, 7 p.m., at Meditation Mount, 10340 Reeves Road, Ojai, 640-8815; March 2, 10 a.m., at the Ventura Vineyard Church, 1956 Palma Dr. Suite A, Ventura, 650-2510; and March 5, 7 p.m., at the Center for Spiritual Living, 101 S. Laurel St.643-1933.

2008-02-04T17:38:00.000+02:00

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

By Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience Staff Writer

posted: 31 January 2008 08:34 am ET

People with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor, according to new research.

A team of scientists has tracked down a genetic mutation that leads to blue eyes. The mutation occurred between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago. Before then, there were no blue eyes.

"Originally, we all had brown eyes," said Hans Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine at the University of Copenhagen.

The mutation affected the so-called OCA2 gene, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives color to our hair, eyes and skin.

"A genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a 'switch,' which literally 'turned off' the ability to produce brown eyes," Eiberg said.

The genetic switch is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 and rather than completely turning off the gene, the switch limits its action, which reduces the production of melanin in the iris. In effect, the turned-down switch diluted brown eyes to blue.

If the OCA2 gene had been completely shut down, our hair, eyes and skin would be melanin-less, a condition known as albinism.

"It's exactly what I sort of expected to see from what we know about selection around this area," said John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, referring to the study results regarding the OCA2 gene. Hawks was not involved in the current study.

Baby blues

Eiberg and his team examined DNA from mitochondria, the cells' energy-making structures, of blue-eyed individuals in countries including Jordan, Denmark and Turkey. This genetic material comes from females, so it can trace maternal lineages.

They specifically looked at sequences of DNA on the OCA2 gene and the genetic mutation associated with turning down melanin production.

Over the course of several generations, segments of ancestral DNA get shuffled so that individuals have varying sequences. Some of these segments, however, that haven't been reshuffled are called haplotypes. If a group of individuals shares long haplotypes, that means the sequence arose relatively recently in our human ancestors. The DNA sequence didn't have enough time to get mixed up.

"What they were able to show is that the people who have blue eyes in Denmark, as far as Jordan, these people all have this same haplotype, they all have exactly the same gene changes that are all linked to this one mutation that makes eyes blue," Hawks said in a telephone interview.

Melanin switch

The mutation is what regulates the OCA2 switch for melanin production. And depending on the amount of melanin in the iris, a person can end up with eye color ranging from brown to green. Brown-eyed individuals have considerable individual variation in the area of their DNA that controls melanin production. But they found that blue-eyed individuals only have a small degree of variation in the amount of melanin in their eyes.

"Out of 800 persons we have only found one person which didn't fit — but his eye color was blue with a single brown spot," Eiberg told LiveScience, referring to the finding that blue-eyed individuals all had the same sequence of DNA linked with melanin production.

"From this we can conclude that all blue-eyed individuals are linked to the same ancestor," Eiberg said. "They have all inherited the same switch at exactly the same spot in their DNA." Eiberg and his colleagues detailed their study in the Jan. 3 online edition of the journal Human Genetics.

That genetic switch somehow spread throughout Europe and now other parts of the world.

"The question really is, 'Why did we go from having nobody on Earth with blue eyes 10,000 years ago to having 20 or 40 percent of Europeans having blue eyes now?" Hawks said. "This gene does something good for people. It makes them have more kids."

2008-02-03T23:42:00.000+02:00

Sprinting down the evolutionary highway

Far from having stopped, the pace of 'advantageous mutation' is moving much faster than we thought, a new study discovers

Feb 03, 2008 04:30 AM

Lynda Hurst
Feature Writer

Think that we humans are a fait accompli, a done deal that hasn't changed over the eons?

Think again.

Evidence is accumulating that the species is still evolving, and doing so at an unprecedented rate.

A major new study says that in the past 5,000 years, natural selection – gene mutations that spread because they're beneficial – has occurred 100 times faster than at any other period in human history.

American researchers have found evidence of recent mutations on about 1,800 genes, or 7 per cent of the human genome; traits such as lighter skin and blue eyes in northern Europeans and partial resistance to certain diseases in areas of Africa.

"We are more different genetically from people living 5,000 years ago than they were different from Neanderthals," said one of the study's co-authors, anthropologist John Hawks, at a presentation recently.

Just because modern humans are able to manipulate their environment, says University of Toronto molecular anthropologist Esteban Parra, "doesn't mean biological evolution has stopped. It has increased."

The new evidence contradicts the long-held view that it takes 1,000 to 10,000 generations – or 20,000 to 200,000 years – for an advantageous mutation to crop up in an individual, then spread through a population. The study has compressed the time frame to only 100 to 200 generations, which in evolutionary terms is extremely short.

"That's how long it's been since some of these genes originated, and today they're in 30 or 40 per cent of people," said Hawks. "What we are catching is an exceptional time."

One they've been able to catch only because scientists can now tap into the human genome that was sequenced in 2003.

Researchers analyzed 3.9 million genetic markers in 270 people from four groups: Han Chinese, Japanese, Africa's Yoruba people, and northern Europeans. (The DNA was supplied by the International HapMap Project, which is analyzing genetic similarities and differences around the world. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.)

A little background: Mankind's earliest ancestors split from the forerunners of today's chimpanzees about 6 million years ago. Roughly 2 million years ago, the predecessors of modern humans began the long trek out of Africa and into the rest of the world.

About 150,000 years ago, we appeared, modern humans. Some 50,000 years later, our brains made a stunning leap forward, developing complex language and abstract symbols. We had begun the journey to civilization.

At that point, the evolutionary process, having sufficiently ensured humans' survival as a species, basically stopped, slowing to a glacial pace. Or so it was thought.

By the late evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, for instance. In an essay published in 2000, he wrote, "there's been no biological change in humans in 40,000 years or 50,000 years. Everything we call culture and civilization we've built with the same body and brain."

Noted British geneticist Steve Jones broadly agreed, but dated the evolutionary slowdown much later, with the rise of agriculture at the end of the Ice Age 10,000 to 12,000 years ago.

When humans made the transition from hunting-gathering to raising crops and domesticating animals, the move led to dietary changes and to settled habitats in specific regions. Combined, they ignited a surge in human numbers.

Far from slowing down, it appears that, when there were enough people to, in effect, work with, the process of evolution rapidly began to accelerate.

Even without modern-day knowledge of genes, Charles Darwin wrote in his revolutionary The Origin of Species that in animal breeding, herd size "is of the highest importance for success" because large populations have more genetic variation. The same turns out to be true for us.

Since the advent of agriculture, the human population has grown steadily from about 5 million 10,000 years ago to 200 million in 1 AD (it's 6.5 billion today). But as people migrated to different geographic regions, they had to adapt to a variety of conditions and pressures.

One example cited by the new study is lactase, the gene that helps humans digest milk but which, for most of the planet's population, switches off in adulthood. At some time in the past few thousand years, northern European dairy farmers – living with weaker sunlight therefore less vitamin D exposure – developed a mutation that lets them tolerate health-giving milk throughout their lives. (U of T's Parra says other variations have also shown up in dairy-farming regions in Africa, even though sun exposure isn't a problem.)

Where genetic fine-tuning has been busiest, however, is in disease resistance. When more of our ancestors started living together in set locales, outbreaks of epidemic diseases periodically culled their numbers, leaving behind genetically different and fitter survivors.

Michael Bisson, chair of anthropology at McGill University, cites native North Americans who were felled by various diseases when Europeans first arrived. "But they subsequently developed genetic immunities which they still possess," he says. "So yes, there's been significant evolution even in the last 1,000 years," he says.

Malaria is one of the clearest examples of ongoing evolution, the U.S. study found. It's now known that more than two dozen genetic adaptations have evolved to resist it, including an entirely new blood type, called the Duffy blood type.

Why then does malaria still persist in Africa? Because the mosquito that spreads it is also adapting, says Esteban Parra: Genetically, humans are "in a race with disease, a very dynamic race."

Another recently discovered gene, which originated about 4,000 years ago, now exists in about 10 per cent of Europe's population. It was discovered recently because it's giving some people resistance to HIV/AIDS, though its original function was likely to ward off smallpox.

But with more and better drugs and vaccines, clean water, sanitation and plentiful food (at least for most of the planet), why does the species still need to tinker biologically to survive? Stephen Jay Gould, who died in 2002, was among those who thought it no longer did; that "natural selection has almost become irrelevant."

They were wrong, say those who can now access the complex inner workings of Homo sapiens' 25,000 (or so) genes. They say adaptation appears to be built into our DNA to respond to changing environmental, even cultural, stresses.

That could mean extended fertility spans, says John Hawks: "Any kind of genetic variation that increases the success of later fertility will be selected for," he predicts.

Another area of adaptation is likely to be the brain, as it responds to the pressures of pervasive technology. Brain size grew slowly over a long period of time, but an analysis of skulls by Hawks in a earlier study showed that size started diminishing about 10,000 years ago. Today, the brain is about an eighth of the size it once was. Evolution, Hawks theorized, was making it more compact and efficient

In 2005, University of Chicago geneticist Bruce Lahn reported that two "new" gene variations involved in brain size and complexity are still a work in progress. One emerged about 37,000 years ago and is now present in 70 per cent of humans; the other, only 5,800 years old, has spread to 30 per cent.

"Our environment and the skills we need to survive in it are changing faster than we ever imagined," Lahn said then. "I would expect the human brain, which has done well by us so far, would continue to adapt to those changes."

Most researchers prefer not to speculate on where genetic adaptation will take us next. Esteban Parra will "predict" only that "evolution isn't going to stop."

With one caveat, that is: It won't stop unless and until we do first.

Lynda Hurst is hurtling along the evolutionary highway. She can be reached at: lhurst@thestar.ca.

2008-02-03T21:11:00.000+02:00

Tuscaloosa News
Published Saturday, February 2, 2008
CARY MCMULLEN: An idea for opponents of evolution

In less than three weeks, Florida’s State Board of Education is expected to vote on whether to revise the science standards for the state’s public school students. The proposed new standards contain a ticking bomb otherwise known as evolution.

For the first time, Florida’s students would be explicitly required to learn about the theory of evolution. Until now, the standards have had some vague language about “biological changes over time.” From the experience my children have had in science classes, I can testify that they did not learn much about the theory of evolution, and I’m sure that instruction about the theory varies from one school to the next.

So it’s no wonder that changes are being considered. The independent Thomas B. Fordham Institute gave the state a grade of F in science. Because the federal government is pushing for improved math and science education, the heat is on the state board. The new standards under consideration are comprehensive and generally get high marks — except when it comes to high school biology.

The battle is heating up between a vocal minority who oppose the teaching of evolution and those who think the teaching of scientific principles shouldn’t be, well, monkeyed with. As many as seven county school boards — most in Northern Florida — have passed resolutions opposing the evolution standards, according to the St. Petersburg Times, and more could follow.

There have been rumblings among parents that they would withdraw their children from school rather than have their children learn the theory of evolution.

I have expressed my opinion before in this space that I see no conflict between the theory of evolution and the teachings of the Bible. But today I am more interested in making a proposal that might allow for a way out of the dilemma.

Let’s cut to the chase — those who object at all costs to having their children learn about evolution are conservative Protestants who have a religious basis for their objection.

First, these folks must realize one thing: The theory of evolution eventually will be taught in public schools. It is as inevitable as the sunrise. There are far too many people who not only have no objection to the theory of evolution, they insist their children learn it as part of a complete education.

So here’s my proposal: Let those parents who have a religious scruple about this part of the curriculum sign a waiver exempting their children from learning it. My guess is that relatively few families would take this step.

This proposal would allow evolution to be taught as unqualified science to willing students, while those whose families object would not have to learn it in violation of their consciences. Both sides would get their way.

A final caveat to conservative Protestants: My proposal would not get your children entirely off the hook. It’s unlikely they would be exempted from being tested about evolution in the battery of standardized tests mandated by the state and federal governments. And colleges are not going to be interested in your children’s explanations about why they scored poorly on the science sections of the SAT and ACT. Even if you tell your children not to believe it, it would not hurt them to learn what the theory of evolution is.

It’s not a perfect solution, but it would allow society to move forward.

Cary McMullen is religion editor for The Ledger in Lakeland, Fla. Contact him at

cary.mcmullen@theledger.com.

2008-01-31T12:27:00.000+02:00

The evolution of a sensitive lesson

Educators find ways of handling The Theory. Some skip it. Others hunt for a balance point.

By RON MATUS and DONNA WINCHESTER, Times Staff Writers
Published February 3, 2008

Inverness Middle School science teacher Steve Crandall says he chooses to tell students that science doesn't have all the answers.
	[Ron Thompson \| Times]

U.S. News Video

Sometimes, Allyn Sue Baylor doesn't teach evolution in her science class, even though the state requires it. She knows of other teachers who duck the issue, too.

They fear a backlash.

"There are cases when parents have gotten really upset," said Baylor, who teaches at Palm Harbor Middle School in Pinellas County. "It's scary. You can lose your job."

Meanwhile, David Campbell, a science teacher at Ridgeview High in Clay County, near Jacksonville, heads off conflict by telling students what may seem obvious: There's a big difference between science and faith.

"The student needs to know, 'I'm not asking you to believe this. I'm just asking you to understand it,'" said Campbell, a 14-year veteran.

Which teacher is more representative of what happens in Florida classrooms?

Nobody knows.

As an emotional debate continues to unfold over Florida's proposed new science standards -- standards that students will be tested on next year -- it's surprisingly unclear how often kids raise concerns about evolution, how teachers respond, and how many avoid the topic altogether.

To answer those questions, the St. Petersburg Times attempted to contact more than 50 science teachers in the Tampa Bay area and beyond. Most did not respond.

A science supervisor in one district suggested teachers may be gun-shy given recent headlines. A spokeswoman in another district told principals to instruct their teachers not to talk to a Times reporter.

Of the 17 teachers who did respond, most said the controversy burns with far more fury outside their classrooms than it does within. Their collective take: Students and parents don't raise concerns often. And when they do, teachers try to answer respectfully and sensitively, stressing the science without stomping on faith.

"It may not satisfy them," said Charles Lassiter, a biology teacher at Fort White High School near Gainesville. "But it makes them comfortable enough to get through the unit."

* * *

Can it be that easy?

Officials at the Department of Education, the Florida Association of Science Teachers, the Florida Coalition for Science Literacy and the Florida Citizens for Science said as far as they know, no one has surveyed Florida science teachers on their concerns about teaching evolution.

But a suite of surveys outside Florida offer a nagging counterpoint, suggesting that many teachers avoid the subject.

"In short, there are too many biology teachers who won't, or don't, or can't teach evolution properly," according to an editorial in the January edition of the American Biology Teacher.

Some may be glossing over the subject because of their faith. A 1999 survey of biology teachers in Oklahoma, for example, found that 12 percent wanted to omit evolution and teach creationism instead. A similar survey in Louisiana found that 29 percent of biology teachers believed creationism should be taught, while in South Dakota, it was 39 percent.

Others may fear being dragged into a battle over belief. In a 2005 survey by the National Science Teachers Association, 31 percent of respondents said they had felt pressured by students, parents, or administrators to include creationism, intelligent design or other faith-based alternatives to evolution in their curriculum. Thirty percent said they felt pressure to de-emphasize or omit evolution.

Some teachers say the numbers ring true in Florida, too.

There is a "large subset of teachers out there who flat don't teach it because they're afraid," said Campbell, the Clay County teacher, who also is a member of the committee that helped write the draft science standards.

Once, when he and another teacher were coordinating lesson plans, they got to the part on evolution and she said, "I'm going to skip that one," Campbell said. Baylor, the teacher at Palm Harbor Middle, said she knows of two teachers who have avoided evolution because they're unsure how parents will react.

They get away with it because "virtually no one complains when a teacher does not teach evolution," said Randy Moore, a University of Minnesota professor who has edited several science education journals. "There is not an outcry for, 'Teach us evolution.'"

Would the proposed standards, which include the word "evolution," make teaching the subject any easier?

On the one hand, some say, teachers would be less likely to avoid the subject because their students would be tested on it on the high-stakes Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. The Department of Education also is expected to conduct training on the new standards once they're rolled out.

On the other hand, if more teachers teach more evolution, classroom conflicts might increase.

"Eventually, you'd see less (conflict)," said Jason Wiles, who manages the Evolution Education Research Center at McGill University in Montreal, "The more students understand about evolution, the less likely they are to reflexively reject the scientific evidence."

* * *

The freshman in Dan McFarland's Advanced Placement biology class at Durant High had a thoughtful question.

He had read about a rock formation where radiometric dating found the layers on top appeared to be older than the layers on the bottom. How could that be, he wanted to know? And didn't that put a dent in evolutionary theory?

McFarland, a 24-year veteran, knew the student was a young-earth creationist -- somebody who believes God created the Earth a few thousand years ago -- and hardly a lone wolf at Durant in Plant City.

So, McFarland did what he always does in these situations. He told the student he didn't know the answer. But he suggested there may be scientific explanations. Perhaps the type of dating mechanism used wasn't appropriate, or maybe the formation had been affected by a geologic event that resulted in layers being switched topsy-turvy.

The student wasn't buying it. But he appreciated how McFarland handled his questions.

"He explained everything to the very best of his ability, but he didn't convince me," said Dan Barousse, now a senior who plans to study mechanical engineering in college next year. "It's three years later and I'm still a young-earth creationist."

Convincing the student, though, wasn't McFarland's goal.

"I'm not trying to disavow anyone of their religious beliefs," he said. "I'm trying to offer scientific explanations for natural phenomena. That's my job."

Many of the science teachers interviewed by the Times echoed that sentiment.

In 20 years of teaching science, Rena White, a teacher at Challenger Middle School in Cape Coral, said she has never dealt with a parent upset about evolution. (But frog dissection? That's a different story.) She tells them that their beliefs and values are important, and that they should hold on to them.

But if she asks them how old the Earth is on a test, she says, "the answer is 4.65-billion years."

* * *

It's unclear how often science teachers veer into the realm of faith, even if it's simply to make clear faith's distinction from science.

Nothing in the state science standards, either in the current version or in the proposed draft, bars teachers from doing that. But nothing explicitly tells them they can, either.

If students raise the issue, some teachers shield themselves by saying the state requires them to teach evolution. Others just say they don't have the expertise to answer. "I tell them I'm not equipped to answer their questions about creationism because I'm not a theologian," said Clifford Wagner, a 29-year veteran at Springstead High School in Hernando County.

So, some teachers don't go there. But some do. And given the importance of faith to some of their students, they say it's necessary to do so.

Some students "say they don't believe in evolution, they don't believe people came from monkeys," said Steve Crandall, an eighth-grade science teacher at Inverness Middle School in Citrus County and president of the Florida Association of Science Teachers. "You see their eyes perk up and you sense that it's an important question (to them). They deserve to be heard."

So, Crandall said, he listens. And then he tells his students this: There are some questions science can't answer.

"To me, there's room for the question of who created the universe and why," Crandall said. "But that's separate from how."

Times staff writer Tom Marshall contributed to this report. Ron Matus can be reached at matus@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8873. Donna Winchester can be reached at winchester@sptimes.com or (727) 893-8413.

What educators are saying
"Teachers teach what they're expected to teach and they teach to the standards that they're given. They also use the state adopted textbook. Our teachers use the state adopted materials and the state standards to present the science they are expected to present." Nancy Marsh, Hillsborough County science supervisor
"I am one of the teachers who is willing to talk about evolution in the classroom. But I've been advised by other teachers, 'Don't touch that subject.' They say, 'I'm afraid the parents will be angry. I'm afraid of the feedback I'll get.'" Michael Simmons, a biology teacher at Osceola High School in Largo
"Some of the kids will say, 'I heard that God directed evolution.' We talk about it. We definitely don't shy away from the idea of God having something to do with it. I want kids to explore. I never teach them one way or the other, or that they are mutually exclusive." Allyn Sue Baylor, a seventh-grade science teacher at Palm Harbor Middle School
"I've only had one student question evolution. He was pretty adamant that God made the world and that was the true story. I said, 'Well, some people believe that, but in science we don't deal with that. We deal with evidence and experiments and observations. That's what we're going to talk about in this class." Mary L. Watkins, a science teacher in Pinellas County Schools' hospital homebound program
"I can honestly say that I have never had either a parent or a student who in any way objected to any sort of evolutionary ideas. There's nothing extreme being thrust upon them. It's a theory that is being taught. There are a lot of scientific principals behind the theory, and that's all that's being shared with them." Randy McGonegal, a biology teacher in the International Baccalaureate program at Palm Harbor University High School
Results from a teachers survey
A 2005 survey conducted by the National Science Teachers Association gauged how much pressure science teachers felt about evolution instruction in their classroom. Here are some results:
31 percent said they felt pressured to include creationism or Intelligent Design in their science classroom. Most of the pressure came from students (22 percent) and parents (20 percent).
30 percent said they felt pressured to de-emphasize or omit evolution or evolution-related topics from their curriculum.
85 percent said they felt well-prepared to explain the reasons why it's important for students to understand evolution; 11 percent said they did not.
19 percent said they de-emphasize or omit the term "evolution" in their lessons so as not to draw attention to it.
Definitions
Darwin's theory of evolution: Says species have changed over millions of years, driven by their ability to adapt and survive in changing environments.
Creationism: The belief that a god or gods created the Earth, the universe and life.
Intelligent design: The belief that some systems found in nature, such as the human eyeball, are too complex to have formed without the intervention of an unnamed designer.

[Last modified February 2, 2008, 23:28:13]

2008-01-30T12:58:00.000+02:00

Catholic News Agency

Austrian cardinal to present book on creation and evolution in San Francisco

Cardinal Christoph Schönborn

San Francisco, Jan 31, 2008 / 02:19 am (CNA).- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, Archbishop of Vienna, will give an official presentation of his new book on creation and evolution in Berkeley, California this February.

Cardinal Schönborn’s book, titled “Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith,” continues a long debate about God and the creation of the world. The cardinal’s book addresses the issues raised by recent atheist writers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.

The book also examines the interpretation of the Book of Genesis, the problem of evil and suffering in a world created by God and the place of humanity in relation to nature. The place of chance and divine purpose in human existence is another featured topic.

In 2006, the cardinal, who was the main editor of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church, published an opinion article on evolution in the New York Times. Some critics charged him with biblical literalism and Fundamentalist “creationism.” Both critics and proponents of the “Intelligent Design” movement tried to associate his name with that position.

Cardinal Schönborn distinguishes the biological theory of evolution from “evolutionism,” which he describes as the reduction of all reality to mindless, meaningless processes. Arguing that science and rationally grounded faith are not contradictory, the cardinal’s book examines philosophical and theological questions often overlooked or ignored by many contemporary thinkers.

The cardinal will speak at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology in Berkeley on February 15, from 2:15 - 3:45 pm Pacific Time. The book’s website is www.ChanceOrPurpose.com .

2008-01-30T12:31:00.000+02:00

January 29, 2008, 6:52 pm

The Repeater

Olivia Judson

Here’s an evolutionist’s dream: 10,000 planet Earths, starting from the same point at the same time, and left to their own devices for four and a half billion years. What would happen? Could you go on safari from one planet to the next seeing an endless procession of wildly different organisms? Or would many of the planets be home to life forms that are broadly similar?

The conventional answer to this question — the one championed by the late Stephen Jay Gould, for example — is that chance events, from mutations to asteroids, play such a large role in evolution that each of the planets would be totally different. And probably, after four and a half billion years, they would be. I wish we could do the experiment, though. It might hold some surprises.

Looking around the Earth, it’s striking how often similar traits evolve in similar environments. So: birds living on remote islands typically lose the power of flight. Males in species (be they chimpanzees or yellow dung flies) where females are promiscuous tend to evolve high sperm counts and large testes. Animals that live in caves lose their eyes and their color: whether they live in Rwanda or Romania, they’re a pallid, blind lot, the troglodytes. Mammals that specialize on eating leaves — be they cows or langurs (that’s a monkey) — have evolved foreguts where bacteria break down the leaves, as well as special enzymes to help with digestion. Amazingly, the same phenomena are also seen in the hoatzin, a leaf-eating bird from South America. In short, evolution has a remarkable tendency to repeat itself.

That this happens has been known for decades. But now we’re unpicking the genetic basis for the repetitions. And the startling thing is, evolution often repeats itself at the genetic level, too.

Alizarin Red stained sticklebacks. Credit: Pamela Colosimo and David Kingsley, Stanford University.

As an example, take three-spine sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). These little fish usually live in the ocean, but like salmon, they come into rivers to spawn. As the glaciers retreated at the end of the last ice age — a process that went on between ten and twenty thousand years ago — a series of lakes began to form in the northern hemisphere, and the sticklebacks moved into them. Initially, the lakes would have been linked to the oceans by streams and rivers, but as the glaciers retreated, the land rose up (ice is heavy), and the exits to the lakes closed, leaving the sticklebacks in each lake marooned and isolated. And so the animals stuck there began evolving to live exclusively in freshwater.

Which is a real-life version of the evolutionist’s dream: each lake is an evolutionary experiment, a natural laboratory. Because there are so many lakes, the experiment has been repeated many times; and because we know the ages of the lakes, we know roughly how long each experiment has been going on. And sure enough, fish in different lakes have evolved a variety of similar features, repeatedly and independently.

Drawing of marine sticklebacks. Credit: David Kingsley, Stanford University (based on Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829).

Marine sticklebacks, for example, boast body armor: from head to tail, they are covered in rows of bony plates. Many freshwater sticklebacks have lost these. In marine sticklebacks, the pelvis is a complicated affair that comes complete with a pair of long spines. In some freshwater populations, individuals have a much reduced, lopsided pelvic structure. In others, they have just a remnant, a small, lopsided bone: the ghost of pelvis past.

Drawing of freshwater sticklebacks. Credit: David Kingsley, Stanford University (based on Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1829).

Mutations to a gene called Ectodysplasin have been implicated as the major culprit in loss of armor; another gene, Pitx1, has been fingered as the main agent of pelvis reduction. Yet the means by which the two genes have effected their changes are different.

Take Ectodysplasin first. In this case, a rare version of the gene exists at a low frequency in marine sticklebacks. Two copies of the rare version (you inherit one from each of your parents), and you have no plates. Two copies of the regular version, and you have all the plates. But if you have one of each, the sort of armor you have can vary. Some individuals will have all their plates. Others will have a sort of half-armor.

What seems to have happened is that when sticklebacks invaded each lake, some of the invaders carried this rare version with them. In the ocean, being without body armor is deadly: it makes you vulnerable to predators. But lakes don’t have the same dangers as the ocean — and armor is heavy and makes you less agile. Thus, in these new environments, being without body armor conferred a significant advantage, and so in lake after lake, the rare variant of the gene swept through the population.

Let’s turn now to the ghostly pelvis. Pelvic loss is much less common than armor loss. But if you find sticklebacks that lack a pelvis, you can bet that they came from large, shallow lakes where the water is soft, there are no large fish that might act as predators, and the vegetation is dense. Soft water has little calcium, and you need calcium to make the pelvic spines. Shallow lakes that are thick with weeds are home to predators like dragonflies, which enjoy having a stickleback for breakfast. And whereas the spines are a defense against being eaten by other fish — trout, say, or pike — and can actually induce the predator to spit out the stickleback instead of trying to swallow it, insect predators catch sticklebacks by grabbing the spines.

The difference between having a spiky pelvis or not is influenced by the expression of several genes, but as I said earlier, the main agent seems to be a gene called Pitx1. In sticklebacks with a proper pelvis, this gene is turned on at several different places in the developing fish, including the head, the pituitary and the spots on the side of the body where the pelvis should form. In those without, Pitx1 is switched on everywhere except the pelvic region, and the pelvis doesn’t grow.

There are a couple of interesting things about this discovery. The first is that the molecular basis of the change from pelvis to no pelvis does not involve a mutation to the protein-coding region of the Pitx1 gene itself. In other words, the protein made from the gene hasn’t changed. What has changed is the way the gene is expressed. This is in contrast to the sorts of mutations one often reads about as being involved in evolution, which typically involve changes to the protein itself.

A second interesting feature of the stickleback pelvis is that — unlike the armor plates — the loss is probably due to mutations having occurred independently in the different populations. What’s more, changes to the use of Pitx1 are also implicated in pelvic loss in nine-spine sticklebacks (Pungitius pungitius) — yet nine-spine and three-spine sticklebacks have been going their own evolutionary ways for at least 10 million years. Mice that have been genetically engineered to lack Pitx1 have a suite of abnormalities, including crushed faces and abnormal pituitaries, that cause them to die young. Intriguingly, they also have a reduced pelvis and hind limbs, and as with the sticklebacks, the reduction is lopsided and shows a greater loss on the right than on the left.

Which makes you wonder. Manatees — those charming marine mammals that cavort in the Florida keys and the West Indies — have also lost their hind legs. All that’s left of their pelvis is a lopsided bone, smaller on the right than on the left. Could Pitx1 have been involved here, too? So far, no one knows for sure. But I’d put money on it.

The idea that the same gene could be involved in mediating evolution of the same trait in creatures as distantly related as mammals and fish is exciting. And — to give one last example — while the relation between Pitx1 and the manatee’s missing hind legs is speculative rather than proven, there is much stronger evidence that a gene called Kit ligand is involved in mediating the evolution of light skin color in both sticklebacks and people.

This gene is by no means the only one that affects human skin color; nonetheless, genetic differences in the regulatory regions of this gene have a significant effect on how light or dark your skin will be, or whether you have blond hair. In sticklebacks, meanwhile, pale skin often evolves in freshwater — perhaps as a disguise — and the change again maps to Kit ligand, and involves alterations in the way Kit ligand is expressed in particular tissues.

Here, I’ve focused on one particular version of the evolutionist’s dream. But there are many others. In northeastern Mexico, for instance, a small fish known as Astyanax has, on a number of occasions, taken up residence in caves: populations of the fish have been found in more than 25 caves, some of them hundreds of miles apart. This system, too, is giving us a glimpse of the genetics of repeated evolution.

And I haven’t even mentioned the hundreds of actual experiments — bacteria or yeasts evolving for generations in the laboratory. Yet all these systems show the same thing: at the genetic level, evolution is, to a remarkable extent, a repeater.

**********

NOTES:

Gould discussed the role of contingency in evolution in a number of books and articles, but see especially Gould, S. J. 2000. “Wonderful Life.” Vintage.

Examples of similar traits appearing in similar environments are numerous, and can be found in any textbook on evolution; but for details of the hoatzin, see Kornegay, J. R., Schilling, J. W., and Wilson, A. C.. 1994. “Molecular adaptation of a leaf-eating bird: stomach lysozyme of the hoatzin.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 11: 921-928.

For an excellent overview of evolution repeating itself at the genetic level, see Wood, T. E., Burke, J. M., and Rieseberg, L. H. 2005. “Parallel genotypic adaptation: when evolution repeats itself.” Genetica 123: 157-170.

For the genetics of armor inheritance, see Colosimo, P. F., Peichel, C. L., Nereng, K., Blackman, B. K., Shapiro, M. D., Schluter, D., and Kingsley, D. M. 2004. “The genetic architecture of parallel armor plate reduction in threespine sticklebacks.” PloS Biology 2: 635-641. For selective sweeps on Ectodysplasin, see Colosimo, P. F., Hosemann, K. E., Balabhadra, S., Villareal Jr, G., Dickson, M., Grimwood, J., Schmutz, J., Myers, R. M., Schluter, D., Kingsley, D. M. 2005. “Widespread parallel evolution in sticklebacks by repeated fixation of Ectodysplasin alleles.” Science 307: 1928-1933.

The forces that lead to loss of the pelvis in sticklebacks were described to me by Dr David Kingsley, of Stanford University, in a telephone conversation. For the role of Pitx1 in pelvic loss, see Shapiro, M. D., Marks, M. E., Peichel, C. L., Blackman, B. K., Nereng, K. S., Jonsson, B., Schulter, D., and Kingsley, D. M. 2004. “Genetic and developmental basis of evolutionary pelvic reduction in threespine sticklebacks.” Nature 428: 717-723. For the comparison between three-spine and nine-spine sticklebacks and the manatee, see Shapiro, J. D., Bell, M. A., and Kingsley, D. M. 2006. “Parallel genetic origins of pelvic reduction in vertebrates.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103: 13753-13758.

For the evolution of pigmentation in sticklebacks and humans, see Miller, C. T., Beleza, S., Pollen, A. A., Schluter, D., Kittles, R. A., Shriver, M. D., and Kingsley, D. M. 2007. “cis-Regulatory changes in Kit ligand expression and parallel evolution of pigmentation in sticklebacks and humans.” Cell 131: 1179-1189.

For more about the Mexican cave fish Astyanax, see Protas, M. E., Hersey, C., Kochanek, D., Zhou, Y., Wilkens, H., Jeffery, W. R., Zon, L. I., Borowsky, R., and Tabin, C. J. 2006. “Genetic analysis of cavefish reveals molecular convergence in the evolution of albinism.” Nature Genetics 38: 107-111.

2008-01-29T23:50:00.000+02:00

Researchers identify brain's 'eureka' circuitry

Researchers have found the brain region that controls the decision to halt your midnight exploration of the refrigerator and commence enjoyment of that leftover chicken leg. What's more, they said, such mechanisms governing exploration are among those that malfunction in addiction and mental illness.

Emmanuel Procyk and colleagues published their findings in the January 24, 2008, issue of the journal Neuron, published by Cell Press.

In their experiments, the researchers presented monkeys with a choice of touch targets on a computer screen, requiring the monkeys to spend time exploring which target would trigger a juice reward. Once the monkeys discovered the reward target, the researchers then gave the animals a period during which they could repeatedly touch the reward target to obtain more juice.

During the trials, the researchers recorded the electrical activity of hundreds of neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a brain region known to be active in adaptive behaviors such as the shift between exploring and exploiting.

In their analysis, the researchers measured the electrophysiological activity of cells during four different types of feedback—incorrect choices, first reward, repetition of the reward, and the ending of a trial by breaking fixation on the targets.

Analyzing the results, the researchers concluded that "Our data show that ACC discriminates between different types of feedback, allowing appropriate behavioral adaptations."

They wrote that "Thus, the function we attribute to ACC activations is clearly not only to evaluate feedbacks but is also to participate in monitoring the different steps of the task at hand to optimize action adaptation and valuation. A dysfunction of these mechanisms represents the core feature of cognitive alterations observed in addiction and mental illness."

Wrote Procyk and colleagues, "The ACC produces signals that discriminate between various behaviorally relevant positive and negative feedbacks, suggesting a role in triggering appropriate adaptations. Our data reinforce the proposal that ACC is important for establishing action valuations. But they also emphasize a combined role in monitoring events/actions for behavioral regulation when task control is high, underlining the intimate link between control and action valuation."

Source: Cell Press

http://www.physorg.com/news120314812.html

2008-01-29T23:22:00.000+02:00

Platypus Much Older Than Thought, Lived with Dinos

Scott Norris
for National Geographic News

January 22, 2008

Australia's duck-billed platypus has been around much longer than previously thought, according to a new fossil study that found the egg-laying mammal's origin traces back to the dinosaur days.

Platypuses and their closest evolutionary relatives, the four echidna species, were thought to have split from a common ancestor sometime in the past 17 million to 65 million years.

But remains of what was believed to be a distant forebear of both the platypus and the echidna—the fossil species Teinolophos—actually belong to an early platypus, according to scientists who performed an x-ray analysis of a Teinolophos jawbone.

The finding means the two animals must have separated sometime earlier than the age of the fossil—at least 112 million years ago.

Outlived the Dinos

The international team, led by Timothy Rowe, of the University of Texas in Austin, used a specially modified CT scanner to capture high-resolution images of the internal structure of a 112.5- to 122-million-year-old Teinolophos jawbone found in southeastern Australia.

The scientists found that the Teinolophos had already developed features thought to be unique to modern platypuses, including an electro-sensitive "bill" for finding aquatic prey.

"This pushes the platypus back across the K-T boundary," Rowe said, referring to the mass extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs about 65 million years ago.

"Now it looks like [platypuses] crossed the boundary without any problem."

The study appears in today's edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Unique Jawbones

Platypus bills are complex sensory organs loaded with electrical receptors. In murky waters the animals hunt by tracking the weak electrical fields generated by muscle activity in fish and other prey.

Teinolophos had an electro-sensitive bill, the scientists concluded after imaging revealed a broad canal running through the bone of the lower jaw.

All mammals have some type of canal that conducts nerve fibers to the teeth, Rowe noted.

But in the platypus, this canal is greatly enlarged to accommodate a massive network of fibers that carry sensory information from the bill. The claim that Teinolophos is a very ancient platypus rests largely on this feature.

"Nothing but the platypus has this huge canal," Rowe said.

But Matt Phillips, of the Australian National University in Canberra, said more evidence may be needed.

The research "does not confirm that the platypuses and echidnas diverged more than 112 million years ago," Phillips said.

Phillips offered an alternative explanation for the new findings—that an early platypus-echidna ancestor had wide jaw canals, and this feature was retained by platypuses but reduced during subsequent echidna evolution.

In such a scenario, the split of the two species could still have been relatively recent, Phillips said.

Lead author Rowe counters that evidence for a more recent divergence is weak. He says it makes more sense to assume the wide canals are a unique feature of the platypus lineage.

Resetting the Molecular Clock

Because platypus and echidna fossils are rare, Rowe noted, most previous estimates of the strange animals' antiquity were based on molecular rather than fossil evidence.

The gradual accumulation of changes in the DNA of closely related species provides a kind of "molecular clock" that biologists can use to estimate when the species branched apart from one another.

DNA changes, however, don't occur at the same rate in different kinds of animals. The clock must be calibrated using other evidence, such as fossils.

Studies suggesting a more recent platypus origin have used a molecular clock calibrated with fossil information from marsupials and other mammals, not platypuses and echidnas, Rowe said.

The newfound early days of the platypus suggest that molecular evolution in platypuses and echidnas has proceeded at a far slower pace than in other mammal groups, the researchers say.

"None [of the molecular studies] predicted we'd find a platypus this old," Rowe said.

"The picture now emerging is that the monotremes are 'slow' in many respects," he continued.

Platypuses and echidnas are the only extant "monotremes," or mammals that lay eggs.

"Their metabolic and respiration rates are slower, their body temperature is lower, and it's possible that the monotreme lineage evolved at really slow rates," he said.

CT scans of a fossil jawbone (pictured above) reveal a large jaw canal in a creature once thought to be a forebear of the platypus and related species.

Scientists say the large jaw suggests the fossil actually is from a type of platypus, a finding that sets the origin of the duck-billed, egg-laying mammal back tens of millions of years earlier than previously believed.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/01/080122-platypus.html

2008-01-29T22:33:00.000+02:00

Scientific American News - January 24, 2008

Longest Piece of Synthetic DNA Yet

Scientists have created an entire bacterial genome with off-the-shelf chemicals

By Coco Ballantyne

LIFE FROM SCRATCH? Scientists concoct longest strand of synthetic DNA to date
iStockPhoto

Scientists today announced that they have crafted a bacterial genome from scratch, moving one step closer to creating entirely synthetic life forms--living cells designed and built by humans to carry out a diverse set of tasks ranging from manufacturing biofuels to sequestering carbon dioxide.

Researchers at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) in Rockville, Md., report in the online edition of Science that they pieced together the genes of Mycoplasma genitalium, the smallest free-living bacterium that can be grown in the laboratory and a common culprit in urinary tract infections.

"The 582,970 base pair M. genitalium bacterial genome is the largest chemically defined structure synthesized in the lab," lead author Daniel Gibson told ScientificAmerican.com via e-mail. (Base pairs are complementary linked nucleotide bases, such as adenine–thymine.)

"It's the first time a genome the size of a bacterium has chemically been synthesized that's about 20 times longer than [any DNA molecule] synthesized before," adds Christopher Voigt, an assistant professor of bioengineering at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study.

The research team, led by Nobel laureate Hamilton Smith, ordered short strands of genetic code from commercial DNA synthesis companies in the U.S. and Germany and stitched them into longer and longer strands using standard molecular biology techniques. To assemble the largest pieces of DNA, they inserted them into yeast cells and exploited a natural process called "homologous recombination," which is used by yeast to repair damaged DNA. The experiment's final product is equivalent to the naturally occurring genetic code of M. genitalium, with two minor exceptions: The scientists disabled the gene that gave the bug power to infect human cells, and they added a few "watermarks," short strips of signature genetic code that identify the product as man-made.

"This completes the second step of a three-step process in creating a synthetic organism," Gibson says. The first step came last summer when JCVI scientists transformed one species of bacteria into another with a DNA transplant, switching the identity of one bug by impregnating it with another's genetic code. The second step, constructing a synthetic bacterial genome, has now been accomplished with this study. The final step will involve inserting the synthetic genome into a cell and bringing it to life; Gibson says experiments with this goal are currently underway.

"We want to emphasize that we have not yet booted up the synthetic chromosome," JCVI founder Craig Venter said in a conference call with journalists this morning. There are multiple steps that must be overcome, the biologist explained, but "we are confident that they can be overcome."

"The ultimate step is proving what they have synthesized is biologically active," says Eckard Wimmer, a molecular biologist at Stony Brook University in Long Island, N.Y., who led the effort to construct synthetic polio, the first synthetically built virus. "Unfortunately, this very critical point is missing here."

If the researchers succeed in creating their synthetic bacteria, they will be closer to conceiving artificial creatures that could be used to mitigate some of society's greatest problems, among them climate change and overdependence on fossil fuels. Venter's team belongs to a cadre of scientists practicing synthetic biology, a burgeoning discipline that aims to design and build living things from the raw materials of life (organic chemicals) and nature's blueprints (genetic codes). Synthetic biologists also draw up their own blueprints, designing genetic sequences that nature never fathomed; the idea is to create novel functions for living things. Man-made microbes that manufacture pharmaceuticals, crank out cheap biofuels, mop up pollutants and oil spills or invade and destroy cancer cells may be just a decade or two away.

Venter's group is trying to create a completely synthetic bare-bones version of M. genitalium with a genome stripped of all but the most vital genes. The goal is to use this organism as chassis into which new genes can be added--perhaps ones that would give the germ the ability to spin silk, detect toxins or manufacture drugs. The possibilities seem endless, albeit not all rosy.

Critics have pointed out that the same synthetic biology know-how and technologies could be used by terrorists or rogue states to engineer a bacterium that churns out a neurotoxin or, perhaps, a deadly flu virus with resistance to vaccines and antiviral medications. Leaders in the field recognize the potential for misuse, both accidental and intentional, and have begun to address the issue. In October, members of JCVI, the Center for Strategic & International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology released a report offering policy options for oversight, and several leading synthetic biologists have published papers on the matter in peer-reviewed journals.

Looking at potential applications, not everyone agrees on the best strategy for manufacturing these promising organisms. The sleekest bug is not necessarily the best, points out George Church, a geneticist at the Harvard Medical School in Cambridge, Mass., and director of the Lipper Center for Computational Genetics. "Simplicity is overrated. E. Coli, with all its so-called junk DNA, is way more efficient than Mycoplasma," he says, noting that E. Coli's genome is about eight times bigger but grows about 50 times faster.

A company called LS9, Inc., in San Carlos, Calif., has already taken advantage of E. coli’s productivity, engineering the bug to churn out DesignerBiofuels, "a family of fuels that has properties indistinguishable from those of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel," according to the company's Web site. Instead of rebuilding E. Coli from scratch, LS9 has taken the organism from nature and modified it by inserting fragments of synthetic DNA, an approach that, Church notes, is much less costly and easy to scale up for industrial purposes.

Regardless of what approach yields the most return, synthetic biology is, no doubt, racing forward. In the last few years DNA synthesis techniques have become faster, cheaper and accessible to more people. Ordering DNA from commercial outfits has become as easy as ordering pizza, according to Voigt, who projects that in upcoming decades scientists will be able to whip up much larger segments of DNA: synthetic genomes for yeast, animals--perhaps even humans.

2008-01-29T18:27:00.000+02:00

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 | Science : Teaching Science |

The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

by Tony Campolo, Bill Clinton's pastoral counsellor

Reposted from:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/13930496.html

Tony Campolo is professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University and served as pastoral counselor to former President Clinton

Many who support the separation of church and state say that the intelligent design theory of creation ought not to be taught in public schools because it contains a religious bias. They dislike its suggestion that the evolutionary development of life was not the result of natural selection, as Charles Darwin suggested, but was somehow given purposeful direction and, by implication, was guided by God.

Arguing for what they believe is a nonprejudicial science, they contend that children in public schools should be taught Darwin's explanation of how the human race evolved, which they claim is value-free and depends solely on scientific evidence.

In terms of science, Darwin's account may be solid indeed. But value free? Nothing could be further from the truth - and that's where the problem lies.

Some creationists fear Darwin because his theories contradict their literal biblical belief that creation occurred in six 24-hour days. But they do not get at the real dangers of Darwinism. They do not realize that an explanation of the development of biological organisms over eons of time really does not pose the great threat to the dignity of our humanity that they suppose. Instead, they, along with the rest of us, should really fear the ethical implications of Darwin's original writings.

In reality, those writings express the prevalent racism of the 19th century and endorse an extreme laissez-faire political ideology that legitimizes the neglect of the suffering poor by the ruling elite.

Those who argue at school board meetings that Darwin should be taught in public schools seldom have taken the time to read him. If they knew the full title of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, they might have gained some inkling of the racism propagated by this controversial theorist. Had they actually read Origin, they likely would be shocked to learn that among Darwin's scientifically based proposals was the elimination of "the negro and Australian peoples," which he considered savage races whose continued survival was hindering the progress of civilization.

In his next book, The Descent of Man (1871), Darwin ranked races in terms of what he believed was their nearness and likeness to gorillas. Then he went on to propose the extermination of races he "scientifically" defined as inferior. If this were not done, he claimed, those races, with much higher birthrates than "superior" races, would exhaust the resources needed for the survival of better people, eventually dragging down all civilization.

Darwin even argued that advanced societies should not waste time and money on caring for the mentally ill, or those with birth defects. To him, these unfit members of our species ought not to survive.

In case you think Darwin sounds like a Nazi, there is a connection. Darwin's ideas were complicit in the rise of Nazi ideas. Pulitzer Prize winner Marilynne Robinson, in her insightful essay on Darwin, points out that the German nationalist and anti-Semitic writer Heinrich von Treitschke and the biologist Ernst Haeckel also drew on Darwin's writings to justify racism, nationalism and harsh policies toward the poor and less privileged. Although these men's lives much predated Hitler's rise to power, their ideas were very influential as he developed the racist ideas that led to the Holocaust. Konrad Lorenz, a biologist who belonged to the Nazi Office for Race Policy and whose work supported Nazi theories of "racial hygiene," made Darwin's theories the basis for his reasoning.

I hope our schoolchildren will be taught that it is up to science to study the processes that gave birth to the human race. But, as postmodern as it may be, I also want them to learn that whatever science discovers about our biological origins, there is, nevertheless, a mystical quality in human beings that makes each of us sacred and of infinite worth.

Regardless of how we got here, we should recognize that there is an infinite qualitative difference between the most highly developed ape and each and every human being. Darwin never recognized this disjuncture. And that is why his theories are dangerous.

Tony Campolo is author of "Letters to a Young Evangelical."

2008-01-29T17:50:00.000+02:00

Todd »

Creationism Corrupts Our Youth, Says Democratic Presidential Candidate Gravel

By Sarah Lai Stirland January 27, 2008 | 11:50:49 PMCategories: Election '08

While the rest of the raft of presidential candidates are busily proclaiming their firm belief in a Christian God, former Alaska senator Mike Gravel has recorded a delightfully frank denouncement of religion in politics.

The quirky Democratic presidential candidate says what's obvious to any student of history: That aligning specific religious views with politics is a dangerous exercise.

"I am deeply insulted that in some areas that not only is evolution is shunned but efforts are made to substitute it with creationism and all other kinds of teachings, which corrupt our youth," he says in a YouTube video recorded on Saturday. "There’s no foundation for this. I think it’s unfortunate. We’re regressing in these areas, and so I think we have responsibility to our children to provide them with the greatest scientific information available to all of us, and that begins with respect to evolution."

Gravel goes on to talk about morality, and how trying to legislate morality reflects a failure of the religious community.

Clearly pointing to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a Republican who recently suggested that we ought to amend the constitution to be brought in line with "God's standards," Gravel said: "I ... really exhort as public policy that we concentrate on keeping religion out of politics, and keeping a very, very strong separation between church and state. Otherwise you will take the oppressive nature of the state and marry it with the oppressive nature of religion, and that is the ultimate oppression of human beings."

2008-01-29T17:47:00.001+02:00

Resolution:

Whereas science is defined as and limited to explanations based on natural, observable and testable phenomena and, therefore, is explicitly distinguished from other types of explanations that depend on concepts relating to the supernatural (for example,” intelligent design”, “creation science", and” informed debate” paradigms); and

Whereas, learning and inquiry are severely inhibited if teachers are placed in a position where they may feel pressured to alter their teaching of the fundamental concepts of science in response to demands external to scientific disciplines; and,

Whereas, evolution theory is fundamental to a thorough understanding of biological concepts as reflected in the Indiana teaching standards,

Therefore be it resolved that the Indiana Academy of Science, as a part of its commitment to educational excellence in science instruction, opposes any restriction or imposition on the teaching of biological and cosmic evolution in the curricula of Indiana's educational institutions.

Explanation:

Indiana scientists and educators recognize the critical importance of a strong grounding in the fundamental principles of science for all of Indiana's youths. The extensive reasoning and consideration that has gone into the official position of the Indiana Academy of Science on this issue (described in the resolution above) parallels that of all significant scientific and science education organizations across North America. If you are interested in more details on the justification for this important and unanimous stance across these institutions, we strongly recommend that you go to the WWW links provided below for the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association and the National Center for Science Education.

These organizations provide helpful background information on science, science education, and the distinction between scientific and supernatural explanations of life. The fact that this information is typically highlighted on the front pages of their web sites is an indication of the importance placed on this issue. The Indiana Academy of Science fully endorses the resolutions and policies of these prominent institutions in order to promote instruction in science unencumbered by non-scientific explanations of life and the cosmos.

http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/#statements

http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/evolution/

http://pubs.nsta.org/galapagos/resources/page1.html

http://www.natcenscied.org/

2008-01-28T20:15:00.000+02:00

Indiana Academy of Science adds its voice for evolution

The Indiana Academy of Science adopted a resolution (document) in 2007 supporting the teaching of evolution as critically important in "a strong grounding in the fundamental principles of science for all of Indiana's youths":

Whereas science is defined as and limited to explanations based on natural, observable and testable phenomena and, therefore, is explicitly distinguished from other types of explanations that depend on concepts relating to the supernatural (for example," intelligent design", "creation science", and" informed debate" paradigms); and
Whereas, learning and inquiry are severely inhibited if teachers are placed in a position where they may feel pressured to alter their teaching of the fundamental concepts of science in response to demands external to scientific disciplines; and,
Whereas, evolution theory is fundamental to a thorough understanding of biological concepts as reflected in the Indiana teaching standards,
Therefore be it resolved that the Indiana Academy of Science, as a part of its commitment to educational excellence in science instruction, opposes any restriction or imposition on the teaching of biological and cosmic evolution in the curricula of Indiana's educational institutions.

The Academy explains, "The extensive reasoning and consideration that has gone into the official position of the Indiana Academy of Science on this issue (described in the resolution above) parallels that of all significant scientific and science education organizations across North America."

Founded in 1885, the Indiana Academy of Science is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to promote scientific research and to encourage communication between Indiana scientists and others conducting research pertaining to Indiana. It boasts over 1200 members who "share an interest in the progress of science and science education and a desire that science and scientists play a major role in the growth of Indiana."

January 28, 2008

2008-01-15T16:14:00.000+02:00

Life's Ingredients Detected In Far Off Galaxy

Two ingredients that build life-forming amino acids have been detected in the ultra-luminous starburst galaxy, Arp 220. (Credit: Chandra Observatory, NASA)

ScienceDaily (Jan. 15, 2008) — Astronomers from Arecibo Observatory radio telescope in Arecibo, Puerto Rico, have detected for the first time the molecules methanimine and hydrogen cyanide -- two ingredients that build life-forming amino acids -- in a galaxy some 250 million light years away.

When combined with water, the molecules form glycene, the simplest amino acid and a building block of life on Earth.

The Arecibo astronomers focused on the distant galaxy Arp 220, an ultra-luminous starburst galaxy, because it forms new stars at a very high rate. They used the 305-meter, or 1,000-foot diameter, Arecibo radio telescope, the world's largest and most sensitive, to observe the galaxy at different frequencies. The observations, made in April 2007, were the first use of the 800 megahertz wide-band mode of the telescope's main spectrometer.

The molecules were found by searching for radio emission at specific frequencies. Each chemical substance has its own unique radio frequency, much like people have unique fingerprints.

"We weren't targeting any particular molecule, so we didn't know what we were going to find -- we just started searching, and what we found was incredibly exciting," said Tapasi Ghosh, an Arecibo astronomer.

"The fact that we can observe these substances at such a vast distance means that there are huge amounts of them in Arp 220," said Emmanuel Momjian, a former Arecibo astronomer, now at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, N.M. "It is indeed very intriguing to find that the ingredients of life appear in large quantities where new stars and planets are born."

The astronomy team, led by Arecibo astronomer Christopher Salter, announced the discovery Jan. 11 in a poster presented at the American Astronomical Society meeting in Austin, Texas. In addition to Salter, Momjian and Ghosh, the other researchers included Arecibo astronomers Robert Minchin and Mikael Lerner; Barbara Catinella, a former Arecibo astronomer now at the Max Plank Institute for Astrophysics in Germany; and Mayra Lebron, a former Arecibo astronomer now at the University of Puerto Rico.

The Arecibo Observatory is part of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, a national research center operated by Cornell for the National Science Foundation.

Adapted from materials provided by Cornell University.

Cornell University (2008, January 15). Life's Ingredients Detected In Far Off Galaxy. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 16, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114110715.htm

2008-01-13T13:10:00.000+02:00

Growing Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution

12 Jan 2008

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and Institute of Medicine (IOM) have released SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM, a book designed to give the public a comprehensive and up-to-date picture of the current scientific understanding of evolution and its importance in the science classroom. Recent advances in science and medicine, along with an abundance of observations and experiments over the past 150 years, have reinforced evolution's role as the central organizing principle of modern biology, said the committee that wrote the book.

"SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM provides the public with coherent explanations and concrete examples of the science of evolution," said NAS President Ralph Cicerone. "The study of evolution remains one of the most active, robust, and useful fields in science."

"Understanding evolution is essential to identifying and treating disease," said Harvey Fineberg, president of IOM. "For example, the SARS virus evolved from an ancestor virus that was discovered by DNA sequencing. Learning about SARS' genetic similarities and mutations has helped scientists understand how the virus evolved. This kind of knowledge can help us anticipate and contain infections that emerge in the future."

DNA sequencing and molecular biology have provided a wealth of information about evolutionary relationships among species. As existing infectious agents evolve into new and more dangerous forms, scientists track the changes so they can detect, treat, and vaccinate to prevent the spread of disease.

Biological evolution refers to changes in the traits of populations of organisms, usually over multiple generations. One recent example highlighted in the book is the 2004 fossil discovery in Canada of fish with "intermediate" features -- four finlike legs -- that allowed the creature to pull itself through shallow water onto land. Scientists around the world cite this evidence as an important discovery in identifying the transition from ocean-dwelling creatures to land animals. By understanding and employing the principles of evolution, the discoverers of this fossil focused their search on layers of the Earth that are approximately 375 million years old and in a region that would have been much warmer during that period. Evolution not only best explains the biodiversity on Earth, it also helps scientists predict what they are likely to discover in the future.

Over very long periods of time, the same processes that enable evolution to occur within species also can result in the appearance of new species. The formation of a new species generally takes place when one subgroup within a species mates for an extended period largely within that subgroup, often following geographical separation from other members of the species. If such reproductive isolation continues, members of the subgroup may no longer respond to courtship from members of the original population. Eventually, genetic changes become so substantial that members of different subgroups can no longer produce viable offspring. In this way, new species can continually "bud off" of existing species.

Despite the overwhelming evidence supporting evolution, opponents have repeatedly tried to introduce nonscientific views into public school science classes through the teaching of various forms of creationism or intelligent design. In 2005, a federal judge in Dover, Pennsylvania, concluded that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional because it is based on religious conviction, not science (Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District). NAS and IOM strongly maintain that only scientifically based explanations and evidence for the diversity of life should be included in public school science courses. "Teaching creationist ideas in science class confuses students about what constitutes science and what does not," the committee stated.

"As SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM makes clear, the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future," the book says.

----------------------------
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
----------------------------

SCIENCE, EVOLUTION, AND CREATIONISM is the third edition of a publication first issued in 1984 and updated in 1999. The current book was published jointly by the National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, and written by a committee chaired by Francisco Ayala, Donald Bren Professor of Biological Sciences, department of ecology and evolutionary biology, University of California, Irvine, and author of several books on science and religion. A committee roster follows.

The book was funded by the NAS, IOM, the Christian A. Johnson Endeavor Foundation, the Biotechnology Institute, and the Coalition of Scientific Societies.

The National Academy of Sciences is an independent society of scientists, elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to their field, with a mandate from Congress since 1863 to advise the federal government on issues of science and technology. The Institute of Medicine was created in 1970 by the NAS to provide science-based advice on matters of biomedical science, medicine, and health.

[This news release and book are available at http://national-academies.org/]

Article URL: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/93309.php

Main News Category: Biology / Biochemistry

Also Appears In: Genetics, Medical Students / Training,

2007-11-19T00:33:00.000+02:00

ttp://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/11/13/intelligent_design

The evolution of creationism

After their notorious legal defeat, intelligent design proponents are resurfacing with insidious new assaults on science.

By Gordy Slack

Nov. 13, 2007

Two years ago, Pennsylvania federal Judge John Jones III handed down a stunning decision that many said would take down the intelligent design movement. But American creationism doesn’t die. It just adapts.

Decades earlier, when the courts deemed creation science

-- proto intelligent design -- a religious view and not constitutionally teachable as science in public schools, it adapted by cutting God off its letterhead and calling itself “intelligent design.” The argument for I.D., and for “scientific creation theory” before it, is that evolution isn’t up to the task of accounting for life. Given biology’s complexity, and natural selection’s inability to explain it, I.D. thinking goes, life must be designed by a, well, designer. I.D.ers skirted any mention of God, hoping to avoid getting snagged on the First Amendment’s prohibition against promoting religion by arguing that I.D. was just a young and outlying science.

In the Pennsylvania case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge Jones ruled that if you want to teach intelligent design in science class, first you have to show that it is a distinct species from its earlier, creationist form, not just a modified type. You’ve got to show us the science part, he said. Besides, Jones declared, your intelligent designer is obviously God.

The six-week trial -- the focus of a Nova documentary, “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial,” airing Nov. 13 -- addressed a host of heady questions. What is science and how does it work? Can evolution account for the diversity of life we see on earth? What is religion? Can science say anything about the existence of a creator and still be science? It also examined the motivations of a local school board that tried to smuggle creationism into its high school biology curriculum. The judge’s decision -- that I.D. was not science and that the school board was trying to promote its members’ own religious views -- was followed by a short period of shock from the I.D. community.

But like bacteria adapting to antibiotics, creationism has slimmed down once again, this time shedding even a mention of an intelligent designer. A new textbook put out by the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that promotes I.D., doesn’t even have the words “intelligent design” in its index. Instead of pushing I.D. explicitly, “Explore Evolution: The Arguments for and Against Darwinism,” promoted as a high school- or college-level biology text, “teaches the controversy.” Teach the controversy is the new mantra of the I.D. movement.

“We want to teach more about evolution,” says Discovery Institute’s Casey Luskin, “not less.” The “more” they want to teach, of course, is what they see as evolution’s shortcomings, leaving an ecological niche that will then be filled by intelligent design.

But not all creationists have embraced the strategy. Many responded to the Dover trial by coming out of I.D.’s big tent, which once gave shelter to young earth creationists, old earthers, academics interested in I.D.’s hypotheses, and anyone who wanted to promote a Christian-compatible view of science. Judge Jones’ decision was like a lightning strike on the big top, sending many of the constituents running home through the rain. Creationist groups like Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and Reasons to Believe are now attacking I.D. for not having the guts to call its designer God or to be explicit about such key questions as the age of the world. (Answers in Genesis’ answer: about 6,000 years.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, the I.D.ers have adopted a persecution complex. “After Dover,” Luskin says, “there’s been an increase in the boldness of Darwinists who persecute I.D. proponents: researchers, teachers and students. The debate in the academy has intensified radically,” he says. “It’s just a lot more political.” He points to Guillermo Gonzalez, a physicist at Iowa State who failed to get tenure, allegedly because he is an advocate of I.D., and Richard Sternberg, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health who was “attacked” for publishing an article by Stephen Meyer, a proponent of intelligent design, in a peer-review journal Sternberg edited.

Evolutionary biologists respond that hiring a biologist who doesn’t accept evolution is like hiring a mathematician who doesn’t accept multiplication. That oversimplifies, but for better or worse, the battle has intensified and come out more into the open.

Recently, long retired chemist Homer Jacobson retracted a paper titled “Information, Reproduction and the Origin of Life,” which he’d published in the journal American Scientist 52 years ago. Upon Googling himself, the 84- year-old Jacobson found that his old paper was often cited by creationists as evidence of the implausibility of life emerging from the prebiotic soup found on early Earth. Jacobson noticed some errors in his paper (it was a half-century old!) and, in order to keep neo- creationists from engaging in “malignant denunciations of Darwin,” he wrote a letter of retraction to the journal. Retraction of a scientific paper is rare, and doing it for political reasons is rarer still. The act provoked accusations of “historical revisionism” from Discovery Institute senior fellow William Dembski.

Following the Dover decision, some I.D.ers became more timid, or at least more evasive. John Angus Campbell, a Discovery Institute fellow and coauthor of a book about teaching I.D. in the schools, ran for a school board seat in Mason County, Wash., last week. During his campaign, he intentionally left his middle name out of his election materials and failed to mention his affiliation with the Discovery Institute. The camouflage strategy worked and he was elected.

I.D. will also be striking back in “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed,” a pro-I.D. documentary, to be released in February. Featuring conservative writer and political commentator Ben Stein, it portrays I.D. proponents as a group of iconoclastic firebrand scientists with the guts to go after the dogmatic Darwinists who have, the I.D.ers say, grown lazy and corrupt sitting atop a monopolistic theory with zero tolerance for dissent, within or outside of their ranks.

Stein told the New York Times that Darwin may well have been onto something with his theory of evolution, but that it is isn’t up to explaining the origins and diversity of life on its own. Plus, he thinks Darwinism leads to racism and genocide. If Stein had his way, he said, the documentary would have been called “From Darwin to Hitler.”

No, the battle between creationism and evolution is hardly over. The true believers in intelligent design and other forms of creationism aren’t about to lay down their worldview for a federal judge or anyone else. And polls show that about half of America is on their side. “Evolution remains under attack,” says Eugenie Scott, an anthropologist and a director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit dedicated to teaching evolution in public schools. “If creationists have their way, teachers will eventually just stop teaching evolution. It’ll just be too much trouble. And generations of students will continue to grow up ignorant of basic scientific realities.”

2007-11-14T02:51:00.000+02:00

Roots of Fundamentalism traced to 16th-century Bible translations

The English Reformation—heyday of religious change—spurred a fundamentalist approach to Bible reading, according to new research by a Harvard professor.

"Evangelical reading habits after 1525 were disciplinary, punishing and even demeaning," says James Simpson, Donald P. and Katherine B. Loker Professor of English in Harvard University's Faculty of Arts and Sciences.

In 1525, Protestant reformer William Tyndale translated the Bible into early modern English. Scholars have widely hailed that moment as a liberating step for the literate public, who could suddenly read the Bible on their own terms—without the constraints of priestly interpretation.

Simpson disagrees.

"The 16th-century moment was not the foundation of liberalism, as many historians have maintained, but rather the foundation of fundamentalism," he says. "Anyone who wants to understand how fundamentalism is a product of the modern era must look to its birth in the 16th century."

Tracing the history of biblical translations between 1525 and 1547, or from Tyndale to the death of Henry VIII, Simpson argues that reading in this era became a program of punishment that left believers "persecuted and paranoid." His argument is the focus of a forthcoming book titled "Burning to Read: English Fundamentalism and its Reformation Opponents" (Harvard University Press).

"Evangelicals did not believe that you could be saved through good works, so they looked for signs that the decision had gone their way," Simpson says. "Reading became the locus for salvation or damnation—it was an intense experience in which your eternal fate would be decided."

Prologues to the Bible as well as polemical works helped Simpson to illuminate what the reading experience would have been like for commoners in the 16th century. Tyndale's prologue to the 1525 Bible, for example, highlights the kind of stern warnings offered to private readers.

"If you fail to read it properly, then you begin your just damnation. If you are unresponsive … God will scourge you, and everything will fail you until you are at utter defiance with your flesh," the prologue reads.

According to Simpson, such rhetoric reveals the fundamentalist nature of these early translations, and indicates the extent to which reformers repudiated individual interpretation.

"Reading became a tightrope of terror across an abyss of predestination," Simpson says. "It was destructive for evangelicals, because it did not invite freedom but rather fear of misinterpretation and damnation."

Simpson argues that the history of evangelical reading has important implications for politics in today's world.

"The birth of fundamentalism marked a new kind of modernity which still influences religion today," he says. "As we enter a new period of fundamentalist reading, we had better understand the ways in which the last period in the West produced 150 years of European violence."

Source: Harvard University
http://www.physorg.com/news113748912.html

2007-11-12T21:24:00.000+02:00

Περί ύπαρξης και ανυπαρξίας Θεού

Του Δημητρη Δημητρακου* Καθημερινή, 11.11.2007

Ρίτσαρντ Ντόκινς

Η περί Θεού αυταπάτη

εκδ. Κάτοπτρο

Η συζήτηση πάνω στην ύπαρξη του Θεού δεν είναι καινούργια, αλλά παλιά υπόθεση. Και αναζωπυρώνεται κάθε φορά που ένα νέο βιβλίο προσπαθεί να φωτίσει περισσότερο την υπόθεση. Αυτό συμβαίνει σήμερα με το βιβλίο The God Delusion, του φημισμένου Βρετανού βιολόγου Ρίτσαρντ Ντόκινς, που κυκλοφόρησε πριν από λίγο καιρό και στα ελληνικά («Η περί Θεού αυταπάτη», εκδ. ΚΑΤΟΠΤΡΟ).

Οπως έδειξε ο Καντ εδώ και δύο αιώνες, δεν ισχύει καμιά λογική απόδειξη όσον αφορά την ύπαρξη ή την ανυπαρξία του Θεού. Ο Ντόκινς τονίζει, ωστόσο, ότι η ισοσθένεια αυτή είναι φαινομενική, διότι το βάρος της απόδειξης το έχει ο θεϊστής. Ο Ντόκινς, όμως, δεν τονίζει αυτό το σημείο, αλλά ακολουθεί άλλη επιχειρηματολογική στρατηγική για να ακυρώσει την επιλογή του θρήσκου. Θεωρεί ότι, με βάση τα εμπειρικά δεδομένα, είναι «πιθανότερη» η ανυπαρξία από την ύπαρξη του Θεού. Παραβλέπει, όμως, ότι αποδίδουμε πιθανότητες σε γεγονότα που αφορούν τον εξωτερικό κόσμο, με βάση κάποιο γνωστικό υπόβαθρο που ήδη κατέχουμε, όχι όμως σε οντότητες μεταφυσικές για τις οποίες δεν έχουμε –εξ ορισμού– καμιά θετική γνώση. Μπορούμε, και μάλιστα οφείλουμε, σε μια επιστημονική αναζήτηση να θέσουμε εκτός συζήτησης εκ προοιμίου μια τέτοια υπόθεση. Αλλά δεν μπορούμε να την αναιρέσουμε ή να την αποδείξουμε με αφετηρία τις επιστημονικές γνώσεις που έχουμε.

Προϊόν της φυσικής εξέλιξης

Αυτό, όμως, που μπορεί να κάνει ο σύγχρονος στοχαστής είναι να δείξει ότι η θρησκεία είναι ένα ανθρώπινο φαινόμενο, ότι είναι μια κίνηση που ξεκινά «από κάτω προς τα πάνω» και όχι μια αποκάλυψη που δόθηκε «εκ των άνω». Αυτό ακριβώς πραγματοποιεί ο Ντόκινς στο βιβλίο αυτό. Η φυσική εξέλιξη εξηγεί αυτό που δεν μπορεί να εξηγήσει η θρησκεία. Και το θρησκευτικό φαινόμενο, κατά τον Ντόκινς, είναι προϊόν της φυσικής εξέλιξης του ανθρώπου.

Ο συγγραφέας εκθέτει διά μακρών τα επιστημονικά λάθη που περιέχονται στις Γραφές, καθώς και τις βλαπτικές συνέπειες της θρησκευτικής πρακτικής. Η επιχειρηματολογία του είναι πειστική σε πολλά σημεία. Εχει επίσης το πλεονέκτημα της αμεσότητας και της σαφήνειας στην έκφραση, που του δίνουν τη δυνατότητα να εκλαϊκεύει σύνθετες θεωρητικές έννοιες. Καταγγέλλει σε υψηλούς τόνους τον φανατισμό, την αφέλεια και την άγνοια που συνοδεύουν συχνά τη θρησκευτική πίστη. Από ένα σημείο κι έπειτα, όμως, ο αναγνώστης αναρωτιέται αν και ο ίδιος ο Ντόκινς δεν είναι παρόμοια δογματικός με αυτούς που καταγγέλλει και δεν περιπίπτει σε ανάλογες πλάνες.

«Αγιατολάχ του αθεϊσμού»

Η κριτική που του έχει ασκηθεί δεν προέρχεται μόνο από το στρατόπεδο των υπερασπιστών της θρησκείας, αλλά και από τους ανεξίθρησκους. Ορισμένοι, μάλιστα, από τους επικριτές του τον χαρακτηρίζουν ως «αγιατολάχ του αθεϊσμού». Η αλήθεια είναι ότι το επιθετικό του ύφος δεν αφήνει περιθώρια ανοχής για τους διαφωνούντες. Καταδικάζει ως δειλούς και ανειλικρινείς τους οπαδούς του αγνωστικισμού, παραβλέποντας έτσι το γεγονός ότι και ο Μπέρτραντ Ράσελ, τον οποίο τόσο επαινεί, δήλωνε αγνωστικιστής και όχι άθεος. Κατηγορεί για δειλία και υποκρισία ακόμα και σύγχρονες προσωπικότητες από τον κόσμο της επιστήμης, όπως είναι ο επιστημολόγος Michael Ruse και ο βιολόγος S. J. Gould, οι οποίοι συμμερίζονται τις αθεϊστικές του ιδέες, αλλά αντιμετωπίζουν το ζήτημα με μεγαλύτερη νηφαλιότητα.

Ως άριστος χειριστής των μέσων επικοινωνίας που είναι ο Ντόκινς, θεωρεί ότι ο σκοπός του μπορεί να επιτευχθεί όχι μόνο με την προβολή επιχειρημάτων, αλλά δημιουργώντας μεγάλη φασαρία γύρω από τον εαυτό του και το ζήτημα που πραγματεύεται. Με την έννοια αυτή, το βιβλίο του είναι ένα σύγχρονο μανιφέστο του αθεϊσμού, ένα όπλο στα χέρια εκείνου που είναι ήδη στρατευμένος σ’ αυτήν την πίστη. Δεν μπορεί, όμως, να μεταπείσει τον αμφιταλαντευόμενο, αν κρίνει κανείς αντικειμενικά την επιχειρηματολογία του.

Η βάση της τελευταίας είναι ότι στη σύγκριση ανάμεσα στις δύο υποθέσεις περί ύπαρξης και περί ανυπαρξίας του Θεού, η επιστημονική πλάστιγγα θα γείρει προς τη δεύτερη. Δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη, όμως, τη λογική ασυμμετρία ανάμεσα στην επιστημονική υπόθεση και μια «πιστοκρατική» επιλογή, όπως είναι η θρησκεία. Η επιστημονική υπόθεση υπόκειται στον έλεγχο, όχι όμως η πίστη. Η τελευταία ελέγχεται μόνο ως προς το εμπειρικό της περιεχόμενο, όχι ως προς το μεταφυσικό. Το γεγονός ότι στην κοσμική εποχή που ζούμε, δεν αποτελεί η θρησκεία αναγκαίο μέρος της ζωής μας και δεν δέχεται ο σύγχρονος άνθρωπος πολλούς από τους κανόνες και τα δόγματα που επιβάλλει, δεν την ακυρώνουν. Διότι εκφράζει συγχρόνως μια αναγκαία υπερβατολογική ανάγκη που έχει ο άνθρωπος και που δεν πληρούται μέσα στην επιστημονική αναζήτηση. Παραμένει το δέος που εκφράζει ο Καντ στη Δεύτερη Κριτική του (1788).

Το ισχυρό επιχείρημα

Ο Ντόκινς αναφέρεται σε κάτι αντίστοιχο: το δέος που αισθάνεται ο επιστήμονας μπρος στο μεγαλειώδες τοπίο που εξερευνά, όπου προβάλλει η περίπλοκη δομή του κοσμικού συνόλου. Μπρος στη θέαση αυτή, το θρησκευτικό δέος για τον (υποθετικό) δημιουργό του Σύμπαντος πρέπει να θεωρηθεί πεπερασμένο και ελλιπές: αυτό είναι το ισχυρό επιχείρημα του Ντόκινς στο τελευταίο κεφάλαιο. Και μάλλον εδώ βρίσκεται η κύρια προσφορά του σημαντικού αυτού βιβλίου, που ο Ελληνας αναγνώστης μπορεί να διαβάσει σε μια άριστη μετάφραση και γενικότερα προσεγμένη έκδοση. Είναι ένα βιβλίο που πρέπει να διαβαστεί απ’ όλους εκείνους για τους οποίους το πρόβλημα που πραγματεύεται είναι πάντα παρόν και δεν έχει λυθεί προς τη μια ή την άλλη κατεύθυνση.

* Ο κ. Δημήτρης Δημητράκος είναι καθηγητής του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών.

2007-11-12T21:22:00.000+02:00

Τέσσερις αντιρρήσεις για τη θρησκεία

Ο αιρετικός Κρίστοφερ Χίτσενς βάζει στο στόχαστρο Βίβλο και Κοράνι και μιλά για αντιγραφές διαδόσεων γύρω από μια αυταπάτη

Του Χαρη φαν Φερσεντααλ Καθημερινή, 11.11.2007

Christopher Hitchens

God is not Great:

The Case against Religion

εκδ. Atlantic Books

Πρόσφατα ένας δημοσιογράφος του New York magazine ρώτησε τον Κρίστοφερ Χίτσενς ποια είναι η αγαπημένη του ιστορία από τη Βίβλο. «Η ιστορία όπου ο Ιησούς μεταμορφώνει το νερό σε κρασί», απάντησε εκείνος. «Ποιος θα είχε αντίρρηση σε αυτό;».

Ο Χίτσενς απολαμβάνει το αλκοόλ και το κάπνισμα ενώ, καθώς φαίνεται, απολαμβάνει και τη σχετική φήμη. Ισως επειδή θεωρεί άλλες εξαρτήσεις περισσότερο ανόητες και επικίνδυνες.

Αφού τα έβαλε με τον Χένρι Κίσινγκερ, την πριγκίπισσα Νταϊάνα και τη Μητέρα Τερέζα, ο αιρετικός διανοούμενος και παρίας της Αριστεράς φαίνεται πως βρήκε, επιτέλους, κάποιον στα μέτρα του. «Ο Θεός δεν είναι μεγάλος», μας λέει, και θα περίμενε κανείς μια ολομέτωπη επίθεση εναντίον Του. Ομως ο Χίτσενς εξαντλεί τα φαρμακερά βέλη του στη θρησκεία. Και αυτό δεν είναι καθόλου το ίδιο πράγμα.

Πολύ θυμωμένος

Η βιομηχανία της αμφισβήτησης λειτουργεί με εντατικούς ρυθμούς. Το βιβλίο του Χίτσενς, αρθρογράφου μεταξύ άλλων του Vanity Fair και του προοδευτικού on-line περιοδικού Slate ακολουθεί αυτά των Ντάνιελ Ντένετ, Σαμ Χάρις και Ρίτσαρντ Ντόκινς. Οπως οι περισσότεροι νέοι αθεϊστές, ο Χίτσενς είναι θυμωμένος. Πολύ θυμωμένος. Η θρησκεία, γράφει, είναι «βίαιη, παράλογη, μισαλλόδοξη, συνδέεται με τον ρατσισμό, τον φυλετισμό και τον φανατισμό, βασίζεται στην άγνοια και είναι εχθρική στην απρόσκοπτη έρευνα». Και αυτά είναι μόνο η αρχή.

Εξετάζοντας τη Βίβλο αναφέρει πως δικαιολογεί ενέργειες όπως το δουλεμπόριο, η εθνοκάθαρση, η δουλεία και η μαζική σφαγή. Και όλα αυτά για ένα πουκάμισο άδειο καθώς οι θρησκείες δεν είναι παρά αντιγραφές διαδόσεων γύρω από μια αυταπάτη. Η Παλαιά Διαθήκη είναι γεμάτη αντιφάσεις, λογικά κενά και μεταγενέστερες προσθήκες, ενώ το Κοράνι είναι σε μεγάλο βαθμό σύνθεση δανεισμένων εβραϊκών και χριστιανικών μύθων.

Μπορεί η ακρίβεια και η συνοχή να μην είναι το δυνατό σημείο των θρησκειών. Με το μάρκετινγκ όμως τα πάνε καλύτερα. Ολες οι θρησκείες, γράφει ο Χίτσενς, χρησιμοποιούν έναν ταπεινό προφήτη ή πρίγκιπα που απευθύνεται πρώτα απ’ όλα στους φτωχούς, τους απαίδευτους και τους κατατρεγμένους – δηλαδή την πλειοψηφία. «Τι είναι αυτό, αν όχι λαϊκισμός;», αναρωτιέται.

Καυστικά παραληρήματα

Ολα τα στοιχεία που έχουν κάνει τον Χίτσενς δημοφιλή (κάτι που ο ίδιος ποτέ δεν προσπάθησε πάντως) ή απωθητικό είναι εδώ: χιούμορ και προκλητικότητα, πνεύμα και αυταρέσκεια, ευρυμάθεια και επιπολαιότητα. Τα καυστικά παραληρήματά του κατά της θρησκείας σίγουρα θα προσβάλουν όσους πιστεύουν. Ο Χίτσενς από την πλευρά του αισθάνεται πως απλά επιστρέφει την προσβολή. Προσβολή είναι ότι κάποιοι θέλουν να διδάξουν στα παιδιά τον ευφυή σχεδιασμό. Προσβολή είναι ότι κάποιος Δανός γελοιογράφος τρέμει για τη ζωή του επειδή ζωγράφισε ένα σκίτσο του Μωάμεθ. Προσβολή είναι ότι κάποιος Ολλανδός σκηνοθέτης έχασε τη ζωή του επειδή έκανε ταινία με θέμα τη βία κατά των γυναικών στο όνομα του Ισλάμ. Προσβολή είναι ότι ο Πάπας επιτίθεται στη χρήση του προφυλακτικού όταν το έιτζ θερίζει.

Το επιθετικό, ειρωνικό ύφος του ενδεχομένως να ενοχλήσει και αρκετούς φιλελεύθερους άθεους που θεωρούν τη θρησκευτική πίστη ιδιωτικό ζήτημα. Ο Χίτσενς σωστά θεωρεί πως η θρησκεία έχει εδώ και καιρό εισβάλει στη δημόσια σφαίρα. Και μόνο η ύπαρξη της σαρίας δείχνει ότι η διάκριση δημοσίου/ιδιωτικού είναι τελείως ξένη στο Ισλάμ.

Ο Χίτσενς διατυπώνει τέσσερις αντιρρήσεις για τη θρησκευτική πίστη: παρερμηνεύει την προέλευση του ανθρώπου και του κόσμου, είναι δουλική και σολιψιστική, είναι αποτέλεσμα και αίτιο της σεξουαλικής καταπίεσης (δυστυχώς για τους πιστούς λέει, «ο χριστιανισμός είναι υπερβολικά καταπιεσμένος για να προσφέρει σεξ στον παράδεισο») και στηρίζεται σε ευσεβείς πόθους.

Η θρησκεία, λέει ο Χίτσενς χωρίς ιδιαίτερη πρωτοτυπία, ανήκει στην παιδική ηλικία του είδους μας, όταν ο άνθρωπος ακόμα φοβόταν τον καιρό, το σκοτάδι ή την έκλειψη. Είχε λόγο ύπαρξης όταν προσέφερε εξήγηση γι’ αυτά που δεν μπορούσαμε διαφορετικά να εξηγήσουμε. Ομως το τηλεσκόπιο και το μικροσκόπιο κατέστησαν τη θρησκεία περιττή ή, χειρότερα, την εξέθεσαν. «Σήμερα, το λιγότερο μορφωμένο από τα παιδιά μου γνωρίζει περισσότερα για τη φυσική τάξη απ’ οποιονδήποτε ιδρυτή οποιασδήποτε θρησκείας» γράφει.

Αντιμέτωπη με την πρόοδο της ανθρώπινης γνώσης, συνεχίζει, η θρησκεία θα μπορούσε είτε να κάνει στην άκρη –να αποδεχτεί δηλαδή την αχρηστία και αχρησία της– είτε να αποτελέσει εμπόδιο. Δυστυχώς είναι προγραμματισμένη να κάνει το δεύτερο.

Και το κάνει εμπνέοντας φόβο, ευγνωμοσύνη και υποταγή. «Μόνο ένας σκλάβος ευχαριστεί τον αφέντη του για αυτό που ο αφέντης έχει αποφασίσει να κάνει χωρίς να μπει στον κόπο να τον συμβουλευτεί». Ούτως ή άλλως, όμως, όλα αυτά λίγη σημασία έχουν αφού η επίγεια ζωή δεν αποτελεί παρά προθάλαμο για τον νέο κόσμο μετά την έλευση του Μεσσία.

Σε αυτούς που υποστηρίζουν ότι η θρησκεία προσφέρει ένα κώδικα ηθικής συμπεριφοράς, ο Χίτσενς απαντά πως η θρησκεία –στην καλύτερη περίπτωση– ωθεί τους ανθρώπους να κάνουν τα σωστά πράγματα για τους λάθος λόγους. Οσο για τη χειρότερη... «η θρησκεία έχει κάνει αμέτρητους ανθρώπους... να φέρονται με τρόπο που θα ξάφνιαζε ακόμα και ένα προαγωγό ή στρατιώτη σε εθνοκάθαρση». Αλλωστε, σαρκάζει, το να θεωρείς τη θρησκεία ως νόμο για το δίκαιο και το άδικο, σημαίνει να θεωρείς πως πριν ο Μωυσής λάβει τις δέκα εντολές, οι άνθρωποι ζούσαν με την εντύπωση πως δεν υπάρχει κανένα πρόβλημα με το να σκοτώνεις, να κλέβεις ή να κοιμάσαι με τη γυναίκα του γείτονα.

Πόλεμος για τον αθεϊσμό

Κάποιοι θα πουν ότι ο Χίτσενς παίρνει τη θρησκεία στην πιο ακραία, φανατική εκδοχή της. Για τον συγγραφέα, όμως, αυτή είναι η και η πιστή ανάγνωση της θρησκείας. Οσο γι’ αυτούς που υποστηρίζουν ότι οι άθρησκοι κομμουνιστές και φασίστες βρήκαν πολλούς μη θρησκευτικούς λόγους για να διαπράξουν τα πιο φρικιαστικά εγκλήματα του εικοστού αιώνα, ο συγγραφέας απαντά πως οι ιδεολογίες τους ήταν στην πραγματικότητα θραύσματα εκκοσμικευμένης θρησκείας. Κανείς ποτέ δεν πολέμησε για τον αθεϊσμό λέει ο Χίτσενς. Αλλά συχνά δίνει την εντύπωση πως αν ο ίδιος μπορούσε, θα το έκανε.

Θα ήταν όμως ένας κόσμος χωρίς θρησκεία ένας καλύτερος κόσμος; Ο Χίτσενς λέει κάθετα «ναι», αλλά μάλλον δεν θα το μάθουμε ποτέ. Η θρησκεία είναι «ανεξίτηλη», γράφει. «Δεν θα εξαφανιστεί ποτέ, ή τέλος πάντων όχι μέχρι να ξεπεράσουμε τον φόβο του θανάτου, του σκότους, του αγνώστου και του άλλου».

Οπως γίνεται συνήθως, το βιβλίο του Χίτσενς θα καταλήξει στα χέρια των άθεων με τον ίδιο τρόπο που τα αντίτυπα της Βίβλου ακουμπούν δίπλα στο προσκέφαλο των πιστών. Οι άνθρωποι προτιμούν αναγνώσματα που απλά ενισχύουν τις απόψεις τους.

Ο Χίτσενς σημειώνει ότι αν χρειάζεται πίστη για να πιστέψεις κάτι ή σε κάτι τότε η πιθανότητα να είναι αλήθεια είναι μειωμένη. Σωστό αλλά όχι αρκετό. Τα δεινά που καταλογίζει στη θρησκεία μπορεί να αληθεύουν, αλλά δεν αρκούν για να αποδείξουν τη μη ύπαρξη του θεού – παρά μόνο ίσως την ύπαρξη ενός κακού θεού. Κάπου εδώ ξεκινάει το βιβλίο του Ντόκινς.

2007-11-12T21:12:00.000+02:00

Γενετικό πεπρωμένο, απενοχοποιημένος και επικίνδυνος μύθος

Ο «άνθρωπος του Βιτρούβιου», το διάσημο σκίτσο του Λεονάρντο ντα Βίντσι, αποτυπώνει την ιδεολογική επανάσταση της Αναγέννησης: Ο νοήμων άνθρωπος με τους ανοιχτούς ορίζοντες είναι το κέντρο του κόσμου, μέτρο όλων των πραγμάτων και των αξιών, κύριος ενός πεπρωμένου που το χτίζει ο ίδιος στη Γη, αντί να το αναζητά στον ουρανό, είτε μέσω της αστρολογίας είτε μέσω της θρησκείας. Με τον Διαφωτισμό, τη δημοκρατική επανάσταση στη Γαλλία και τη βιομηχανική στην Αγγλία, το μεταφυσικό «πεπρωμένο» των Σκοτεινών Χρόνων δίνει τη θέση του σε μια νέα, κοσμική θρησκεία: Την πίστη στη διαρκή πρόοδο, βασισμένη στους δίδυμους πύργους του ανθρωπισμού και του επιστημονισμού. Από τους φιλελεύθερους μέχρι τους σοσιαλιστές, όλα τα μεγάλα ρεύματα της Νεωτερικότητας μοιράζονταν, με τον ένα ή τον άλλο τρόπο, την πεποίθηση ότι η βελτίωση του κοινωνικού περιβάλλοντος στο έδαφος των σύγχρονων επιστημονικών επιτευγμάτων είναι το κλειδί για μια καλύτερη, ανθρώπινη «μοίρα».

Νέα δεδομένα

Τη δεκαετία του ’70, μια νέα τεχνολογική επανάσταση διαμορφώνει εντελώς νέα δεδομένα. Πρόκειται για την τεχνική του ανασυνδυασμού του DNA, που δίνει τη δυνατότητα στους ειδικούς να κατατεμαχίζουν το γενετικό υλικό του τάδε ή δείνα οργανισμού και να εισάγουν θραύσματά του σε άλλους οργανισμούς, φτιάχνοντας σε συνθήκες εργαστηρίου χίμαιρες, υβριδικούς οργανισμούς, περίπου όπως ο μοντέρ κόβει και ράβει σκηνές από κομμάτια του σελιλόιντ, για να φτιάξει μια κινηματογραφική ταινία. Σόγια με γονίδιο εντόμου για να αντέχει στις αρρώστιες, υπερποντίκια με γονίδια ανθρώπου και πάει λέγοντας.

Η τομή της Βιοτεχνολογίας δημιούργησε ευνοϊκό περιβάλλον για την επώαση ενός νέου ιδεολογικού ρεύματος, της λεγόμενης Κοινωνιοβιολογίας. Η πατρότητα του όρου ανήκει στον Εντουαρντ Γουίλσον, που τον καθιέρωσε το 1975 με το βιβλίο αναφοράς «Κοινωνιοβιολογία, μια νέα σύνθεση». Ακολούθησε, το 1976, το επίσης πολυσυζητημένο «Εγωιστικό Γονίδιο» του Ρίτσαρντ Ντόκινς. Από την κυρίαρχη ιδεολογία της Νεωτερικότητας, το νέο ρεύμα κράτησε τον επιστημονισμό, αλλά απέρριψε τον δεύτερο πυλώνα της, την πεποίθηση ότι ο άνθρωπος διαμορφώνεται κατά κύριο λόγο από το κοινωνικό περιβάλλον του. Το πεπρωμένο επέστρεφε, αν και όχι με τη μεταφυσική μορφή του Μεσαίωνα, αλλά με την τεχνοκρατική όψη της Γενετικής. Ο Νέος Ανθρωπος, η επαγγελία όλων των ριζοσπαστικά νεωτεριστικών ρευμάτων, θα ήταν προϊόν όχι κοινωνικών ανατροπών, αλλά επιστημονικών εργαστηρίων.

Ασφαλώς, το νέο ρεύμα δεν έπεσε από τον ουρανό. Η ίδια η Νεωτερικότητα εξέθρεψε την ευγονική, ένα είδος κοινωνικής μηχανικής για τη βελτίωση των φυσικών και πνευματικών χαρακτηριστικών του ανθρώπινου είδους μέσω της Βιολογίας. Η θεμελίωση της ευγονικής ανήκει στον εξάδελφο του Δαρβίνου, Σερ Φράνσις Γκάλτον, και στους αρχικούς υποστηρικτές του ανήκουν προσωπικότητες όπως ο Μπέρναρ Σο, ο Γκράχαμ Μπελ και ο Αμερικανός πρόεδρος Τίοντορ Γουίλσον, ο οποίος, το 1923, δήλωνε: «Αντιλαμβανόμαστε ότι αποτελεί θεμελιώδες και αναπόδραστο καθήκον του καλού πολίτη, που είναι από καλή γενιά, να μεταβιβάσει το αίμα του στους απογόνους του. Τίποτα δεν μας υποχρεώνει να επιτρέπουμε την αναπαραγωγή ανθρώπων από κακή γενιά. Πρέπει να υποβάλουμε σε στείρωση τους εγκληματίες, να εμποδίσουμε τους διανοητικά αδύνατους να αφήσουν πίσω τους απογόνους».

Η ευγονική

Πειράματα ευγονικής και πρακτικές όπως η υποχρεωτική στείρωση «προβληματικών» κατηγοριών του πληθυσμού διαδόθηκαν ευρύτατα όχι μόνο στις ΗΠΑ, αλλά και σε Σουηδία και Αυστραλία. Σε αρκετές περιπτώσεις, η ευγονική βρήκε απήχηση και σε ριζοσπαστικά ή και σοσιαλιστικά ρεύματα. Εγινε όμως εντελώς κακόφημη και εξοστρακίστηκε στο περιθώριο με την άνοδο των ναζί και τη χρήση «επιστημονικών» μεθόδων από τον διαβόητο Μέγκελε και τους ομοίους του για τη δημιουργία «καθαρής», Αρειας φυλής.

Σήμερα, φαίνεται ότι η πνευματική ατμόσφαιρα της εποχής επιτρέπει την αποενοχοποίηση των θεωριών του «γενετικού πεπρωμένου», που επανέρχονται με τη νέα μορφή της Κοινωνιοβιολογίας. Καθημερινά βομβαρδιζόμαστε από ειδήσεις για την αναζήτηση του γονιδίου της ευφυΐας ή της εγκληματικότητας, της ομοφυλοφιλίας ή της επιθετικότητας. Ο επιστημονικός αντίλογος είναι ισχυρότατος: Το βασικό ρεύμα των επιστημών της ζωής δέχεται ότι η συντριπτική πλειονότητα των ανθρώπινων χαρακτηριστικών καθορίζεται από τη διαρκή αλληλεπίδραση ενός μεταλλασσόμενου γενετικού υλικού και του φυσικού - κοινωνικού περιβάλλοντος. Εχει αρχίσει να αποκωδικοποιείται, από τους ειδικούς, ο ρόλος των λεγόμενων «επιγενετικών παραγόντων» του εξωτερικού περιβάλλοντος, που «κολλάνε» πάνω στο γενετικό υλικό και μπλοκάρουν ή τροποποιούν αυτό ή το άλλο γονίδιο. Γεγονός παραμένει ότι ο γενετικός προκαθορισμός αποτελεί μια πολύ βολική ιδεολογία για όσους αναζητούν «επιστημονικό» άλλοθι σε πολιτικές κοινωνικού Δαρβινισμού. Αν ο καθένας μας είναι απλώς «το σύνολο των γονιδίων του», τότε οι ισχυροί είναι ισχυροί επειδή είναι προικισμένοι και οι αδύνατοι είναι αδύνατοι γιατί είναι «φύσει» μειονεκτικοί. Οποιαδήποτε έκκληση για μια νέα κοινωνική τάξη πραγμάτων στον κόσμο, όσο ηθικά δικαιολογημένη κι αν ακούγεται, φαντάζει μάταιη. Ακόμη κι ένας ανθρωπιστής, Βρετανός βιολόγος, όπως ο πρώτος διευθυντής της UNESCO Τζούλιαν Χάξλεϊ, κατέληξε να υποστηρίζει:

«Για να έχουμε αποφασιστική πρόοδο ως προς την αποτελεσματικότητα των εθνών και του κόσμου, δεν θα ’πρεπε να στηριζόμαστε σε τυχαία μέτρα εναντίον των πολιτικών και κοινωνικών συμπτωμάτων, ούτε σε αυτοσχεδιασμούς παγκόσμιας πολιτικής, ούτε καν στη βελτίωση του εκπαιδευτικού συστήματος. Ολο και περισσότερο πρέπει να ασχολούμαστε με τη βελτίωση της γενετικής ποιότητας των διανοητικών και φυσικών προσόντων του ανθρώπου». Αλλη μια φορά, η τεχνοκρατική ουτοπία εμφανίζεται ως υποκατάστατο της αναζήτησης πολιτικών λύσεων σε κοινωνικά προβλήματα.

Info

*Τζέρεμι Ρίφκιν, «Ο αιώνας της βιοτεχνολογίας», Α. Α. Λιβάνη, 1998.

*Εντουαρντ Γουίλσον, «Κοινωνιοβιολογία, η νέα σύνθεση», Σύναλμα, 2000.

*Σταμάτη Αλαχιώτη, «Βιοηθική, αναφορά στους γενετικούς και τεχνολογικούς νεωτερισμούς», Ελληνικά Γράμματα, 2004.

*Pierre- Andre Taquieff, «La biblioethique ou le juste milieu», Fayard, 2007.

*Ullica Segerstrale, «Defenders of Truth. The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology», Oxford University Press, 2000.

Καθημερινή, 10.11.2007

2007-11-12T21:08:00.000+02:00

Στοιχειώδες, κ. Γουότσον!

Οι επιστήμες της ζωής γοήτευσαν τον Τζέιμς Γουότσον από τα παιδικά του χρόνια, όταν πέρναγε ατέλειωτες ώρες με τον πατέρα του παρατηρώντας πουλιά στα λιβάδια του Ιλινόι ή όταν μαγνητιζόταν από το εκλαϊκευτικό βιβλίο του Ερβιν Σρέντιγκερ, εκ των θεμελιωτών της Κβαντικής Φυσικής, «Τι είναι ζωή»; Στο πανεπιστήμιο του Σικάγο είχε την τύχη να εργασθεί υπό την καθοδήγηση ενός σπουδαίου ερευνητή, του Σαλβαντόρ Λούρια, που θα κέρδιζε αργότερα το βραβείο Νομπέλ για τη δουλειά του πάνω στη φύση των γενετικών μεταλλάξεων.

Από το 1951, άρχισε να εργάζεται στο Κέμπριτζ της Βρετανίας μαζί με τον Φράνσις Κρικ πάνω στη μοριακή δομή του DNA, που θα του χάριζε τρία χρόνια αργότερα μια θέση στην αιωνιότητα. Μια θέση, που οι δύο επιστήμονες και ο συνεργάτης τους Μόρις Γουίλκινς θα έπρεπε κανονικά να μοιραστούν με τη σπουδαία χημικό Ρόζαλιντ Φράνκλιν, ο πρόωρος θάνατος της οποίας της στέρησε το βραβείο Νομπέλ. Ο Γουότσον και οι συνεργάτες του είχαν στηριχθεί σε πολλές ανακαλύψεις της Φράνκλιν, τις οποίες χρησιμοποίησαν χωρίς την έγκρισή της, κάτι που έγινε αντικείμενο σφοδρών κριτικών από την διεθνή επιστημονική κοινότητα.

Το 1988, το αμερικανικό κράτος διορίζει τον Γουότσον επικεφαλής του εξαιρετικά φιλόδοξου και σύνθετου προγράμματος για την αποκωδικοποίηση του ανθρώπινου γονιδιώματος. Ο διακεκριμένος επιστήμονας παραιτείται από τη θέση του αυτή το 1992, επιδεικνύοντας ηθική αδιαλλαξία απέναντι στις προσπάθειες τόσο του δημόσιου Εθνικού Ινστιτούτου Υγείας, όσο και ιδιωτικών εταιρειών, όπως εκείνη του Βέντερ, να πατεντάρουν γονίδια. «Οι άνθρωποι δεν μπορούν να διεκδικούν καμία ιδιοκτησία πάνω στους νόμους της Φύσης», διακηρύσσει χειροκροτούμενος από τους συναδέλφους του.

Οι πρόσφατες δηλώσεις του περί κατωτερότητας των μαύρων ήταν, για πολλούς, κεραυνός εν αιθρία. Ωστόσο, ο γενετιστής Αλεξ Καν υποστηρίζει ότι ο Γουότσον ήταν από πριν τοποθετημένος «στο ρεύμα της ντετερμινιστικής, αγγλοσαξονικής Δεξιάς, ένα παλιό ρεύμα σκέψης που αντιστρατεύεται την ισότητα, αποθεώνει τον επιστημονισμό και φλερτάρει, πού και πού, με το ρατσισμό». Η αλήθεια είναι ότι ο Γουότσον έχει υποστηρίξει και κατά το παρελθόν άκρως προβληματικές θέσεις, όπως ότι οι γυναίκες θα δικαιούνται, στο μέλλον, να προχωρούν στην έκτρωση αν διαπιστώσουν ότι το μελλοντικό παιδί τους έχει το γονίδιο της ομοφυλοφιλίας. Σε διάλεξη που έδωσε στην Καλιφόρνια το 2000, υποστήριξε ότι η σεξουαλική δραστηριότητα είναι και αυτή ζήτημα γονιδίων, για να συμπληρώσει με αμφιλεγόμενο χιούμορ: «Γι’ αυτό έχετε τους Λατίνους εραστές. Δεν έχετε ακούσει, βέβαια, ποτέ για Αγγλο εραστή, μόνο για τον Αγγλο… Ασθενή»! Σε μιαν άλλη διάλεξη, υποστήριξε ότι η βλακεία είναι γενετική ασθένεια που πρέπει να θεραπεύεται - μάλλον για να επιβεβαιώσει ότι η «νόσος» είναι επίκτητη και μάλιστα τόσο μεταδοτική, που δεν είναι ποτέ αργά για να προσβάλει ακόμη και μια αναγνωρισμένη διάνοια.

Καθημερινή, 10.11.2007

2007-11-12T20:06:00.000+02:00

Η σκοτεινή πλευρά μιας επιστημονικής εποποιίας

Για τον κίνδυνο ενός «γενετικού απαρτχάιντ» προειδοποιούν κορυφαίοι ερευνητές, αξιώνοντας κοινωνικό έλεγχο της βιοτεχνολογίας

Του Πετρου Παπακωνσταντινου Καθημερινή, 28.8.2007

Τα ημερολόγια έγραφαν 26 Ιουνίου 2000, όταν διαδραματίσθηκε το πιο εντυπωσιακό, επικοινωνιακό γεγονός στη σύγχρονη ιστορία των επιστημών. Πλαισιωμένος από τους Φράνσις Κόλινς, διευθυντή του Εθνικού Ινστιτούτου Υγείας των ΗΠΑ και τον ομοεθνή του Κρεγκ Βέντερ, ιδρυτή της ιδιωτικής εταιρείας Celera Genomics, ο Μπιλ Κλίντον ανακοίνωσε ότι, στην αυγή της τρίτης χιλιετίας, ο άνθρωπος είχε πλέον στα χέρια του το «Ιερό Δισκοπότηρο» της βιολογικής έρευνας: την αποκωδικοποίηση του ανθρώπινου γονιδιώματος.

Το πρώτο σοκ

Στην πανηγυρική τελετή, που μεταδιδόταν από τους δορυφόρους σ’ όλες τις χώρες του κόσμου, παρενέβη μέσω τηλεδιάσκεψης και ο Τόνι Μπλερ. «Επιτέλους, διαβάσαμε το χειρόγραφο του Θεού», ήταν μια από τις μεσσιανικές διακηρύξεις που έκαναν τον γύρο του κόσμου, συνοδευόμενες από πιο πρακτικές υποσχέσεις για νέα φάρμακα και προσωποποιημένες, γονιδιακές θεραπείες που θα αντιμετωπίσουν και τις πιο δύσκολες ασθένειες.

Επτά χρόνια αργότερα, η αμφιλεγόμενη συμπεριφορά δύο εκ των πρωταγωνιστών αυτής της επιστημονικής εποποιίας φέρνουν σε πρώτο πλάνο την άλλη, σκοτεινή όψη της. Το πρώτο σοκ ήρθε από τον 79χρονο Τζέιμς Γουότσον, ο οποίος μοιράστηκε το 1962 το βραβείο Νομπέλ Ιατρικής με τους Φράνσις Κρικ και Μόρις Γουίλκινς για την ανακάλυψη της διπλής έλικας του DNA. Σε συνέντευξή του στους Sunday Times, ο Γουότσον δήλωσε ότι είναι «βαθιά απαισιόδοξος για το μέλλον της Αφρικής». Γιατί; Διότι «όλες οι αναπτυξιακές πολιτικές μας βασίζονται στην παραδοχή ότι το διανοητικό τους επίπεδο (των μαύρων Αφρικανών) είναι το ίδιο με το δικό μας (των λευκών Δυτικών), παρότι όλα τα τεστ δείχνουν ότι αυτό δεν ισχύει». Και συμπλήρωσε: «Ολοι όσοι απασχολούν μαύρους εργαζόμενους ξέρουν περί τίνος πρόκειται».

Οι δηλώσεις Γουότσον προκάλεσαν παγκόσμιο σάλο. Πού τελειώνει η θετική, επιστημονική γνώση και πού αρχίζουν οι κοινωνικές προκαταλήψεις και οι φυλετικοί μύθοι; Μήπως είχε δίκιο ο Τ.Σ. Ελιοτ όταν έλεγε ότι η Νεωτερικότητα θυσίασε τη σοφία για τη γνώση; Αλλά προτού κοπάσει ο θόρυβος, ήρθε ένα δεύτερο, διαφορετικής ποιότητας, σοκ, αυτήν τη φορά από τον Κρεγκ Βέντερ. Εχοντας ιδρύσει μία ακόμη ιδιωτική εταιρεία, την Synthetic Genomics, ο Βέντερ και οι συνεργάτες του δήλωσαν ότι βρίσκονται πολύ κοντά στο να δημιουργήσουν την πρώτη μορφή συνθετικής ζωής - ένα κύτταρο βακτηρίου δημιουργημένο με χημικές διαδικασίας στο εργαστήριο, ξεκινώντας από τους δομικούς λίθους του DNA. Ο Βέντερ εκμυστηρεύεται ότι θέλει να φέρει την ανθρωπότητα «σε ένα νέο στάδιο της εξέλιξης των ειδών» και ότι οραματίζεται τη μέρα όπου «πλάσματα κατασκευασμένα από μονάδες DNA θα κάθονται μπροστά στον υπολογιστή τους και θα σχεδιάζουν άλλα πλάσματα».

Δεν μοιράζονται όλοι την αισιοδοξία του Βέντερ για την εξαγγελθείσα «Δεύτερη Γένεση». Ο νομπελίστας σερ Πολ Νούρσε, επικεφαλής του βρετανικού Ινστιτούτου Καρκίνου, προειδοποιεί για τον κίνδυνο ενός «γενετικού απαρτχάιντ» αν αφεθούν στο έλεος των τυφλών νόμων της αγοράς τα επιτεύγματα της Γενετικής. Στα επόμενα είκοσι χρόνια, εξηγεί ο Βρετανός επιστήμονας, τα παιδιά μπορεί να στιγματίζονται με γενετικές ταυτότητες από τη γέννησή τους. Ασφαλιστικές εταιρείες και εργοδότες μπορεί να «ξεγράφουν» όσους έχουν την άλφα ή βήτα κληρονομική προδιάθεση, δημιουργώντας ένα ολόκληρο «γενετικό υποπρολεταριάτο» από τη μια πλευρά και μια αριστοκρατία των «γενετικώς ορθών» από την άλλη. Ηδη ο Βέντερ προσφέρει στους πλούσιους τη δυνατότητα να αποκτήσουν την αποκρυπτογράφηση του γονιδιώματός τους αντί 710.000 δολαρίων, με ό,τι αυτό μπορεί να συνεπάγεται για τη μακροημέρευση και την ποιότητα ζωής τους.

Ενα άλλο, κρίσιμο ερώτημα είναι μέχρι πού μπορεί να φτάσει ο σφετερισμός της ίδιας της ζωής και της γενετικής κληρονομιάς των λαών από τις κερδοσκοπικές επιχειρήσεις. Η αρχή έγινε το 1971, όταν ένας Ινδός μικροβιολόγος, ονόματι Ανάντα Σακραμπάρτι, υπάλληλος της General Electric, αξίωσε να του κατοχυρωθεί πατέντα για γενετικώς τροποποιημένο οργανισμό που είχε την ικανότητα να απορροφά πετρέλαιο από τη θάλασσα. Το γραφείο Ευρεσιτεχνιών των ΗΠΑ απέρριψε την τερατώδη, για την πνευματική ατμόσφαιρα εκείνης της εποχής, αξίωση να πατενταρισθεί μια μορφή ζωής.

Ωστόσο, το 1980, όταν οι κυρίαρχες ιδέες περί επιχειρηματικότητας και δημόσιου αγαθού είχαν υποστεί βαθύτατη μετάλλαξη, το Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο των ΗΠΑ, με οριακή πλειοψηφία 5-4, κατοχύρωσε, τελικά, την πρώτη πατέντα για ζωντανό οργανισμό. Και το 1991, όταν ο Κρεγκ Βέντερ ζητούσε να πατεντάρει, για λογαριασμό της ιδιωτικής εταιρείας του, 2.000 γονίδια που εμπλέκονται στον σχηματισμό νευρώνων του εγκεφάλου -εκμεταλλευόμενος το συλλογικό έργο των επιστημόνων στο δημόσιο σύστημα υγείας, όπου εργαζόταν μέχρι πρότινος- οι αντιδράσεις της επιστημονικής κοινότητας έμοιαζαν πια με μάχες οπισθοφυλακών.

Οι ενστάσεις αυτές δεν μπορούν, βεβαίως, να μηδενίσουν τα τεράστια, ευεργετικά επιτεύγματα της Γενετικής και της Βιοτεχνολογίας. Ούτε νομιμοποιούν ουτοπικές, ούτως ή άλλως, εκκλήσεις για περιορισμό της επιστημονικής έρευνας στο όνομα των κινδύνων που αυτή εγκυμονεί για το περιβάλλον και την υγεία του ανθρώπου. Υπενθυμίζουν μόνο την προειδοποίηση του Αϊνστάιν ότι, ελλείψει δημοκρατικού, κοινωνικού ελέγχου, «η τεχνολογική πρόοδος θα μοιάζει πάντα με τσεκούρι στα χέρια παθολογικού εγκληματία».

2007-11-05T15:41:00.000+02:00

Intelligent design 'not science', says Vatican astronomer

While Cardinal warns of evolution-as-dogma

By Lucy Sherriff
Published Monday 21st November 2005 10:46 GMT

Intelligent Design is not science, and has no place in science lessons, according to the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne. According to the Italian news agency, ANSA, Father Coyne was speaking informally at a conference in Florence when he said that intelligent design "isn't science, even though it pretends to be."

He argued that if it is to be taught in schools, then it should be taught in religion or cultural history classes, but that it should not be on the science curriculum.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth is just too complex to have arisen without the aid of some kind of designer. ID's critics point out that its main tenets are highly unscientific and untestable, and say that it is merely creationism in disguise.

Father Coyne has consistently argued against regarding intelligent design as scientific. In June he wrote in Catholic magazine The Tablet:

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."

God, he wrote, is not "continually intervening, but rather allows, participates, loves".

Meanwhile, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn has re-entered the debate, also arguing that the biblical story of creation is not a scientific theory.

However, he called for reason in a debate he says has become too ideological, and seemed to criticism those who would "believe" in evolution as a dogma. He argues that it should not be seen as "an offense to Darwin's dignity" for people to offer criticisms of evolutionary theory.

"The theory of evolution is a scientific theory," he said. "What I call evolutionism is an ideological view that says evolution can explain everything in the whole development of the cosmos, from the Big Bang to Beethoven's Ninth Symphony." ®

2007-11-03T01:42:00.001+02:00

Παρατηρήσεις στα ίχνη της Συνείδησης

Ελληνας φυσικός, ο Ευστράτιος Μανουσάκης, παρουσιάζει την πρώτη πειραματικά ίσως επαληθεύσιμη θεωρία της αντίληψής μας

Του Ματθαιου Τσιμιτακη

Η Συνείδηση: Είναι μια από τις λέξεις που χρησιμοποιούμε κατά κόρον για να περιγράψουμε βασικά ανθρώπινα χαρακτηριστικά αλλά δεν έχουμε καμία απολύτως ιδέα για το τι σημαίνουν ακριβώς. Τώρα, για πρώτη φορά, ένας Ελληνας φυσικός, ο Ευστράτιος Μανουσάκης, καθηγητής του Πανεπιστημίου Αθηνών και του Κρατικού Πανεπιστημίου της Φλώριδας των ΗΠΑ στο Tallahassee, ίσως αποδειχθεί ο πρώτος επιστήμονας που κατάφερε να θεμελιώσει επαρκώς μια πρώτη πειραματικά επαληθεύσιμη Θεωρία της Συνείδησης. Κάτι που αν ισχύει, θα φέρει επανάσταση σε πολλά επιστημονικά πεδία.

Ο πιο πετυχημένος ορισμός που έχει καταφέρει μέχρι σήμερα να δώσει η ψυχολογία - η κατεξοχήν αρμόδια επιστήμη στο ερώτημα «τι είναι συνείδηση;» απαντάει ασαφώς, όπως, π.χ., ότι η συνείδηση είναι κάτι που έχεις λιγότερο όταν είσαι βρέφος, περισσότερο ως ενήλικας και λιγότερο πάλι όταν αρχίζει η φθορά. Ανάλογες είναι και οι απαντήσεις που έχει καταφέρει να δώσει ώς σήμερα η Θρησκεία και η Φιλοσοφία. Η επιστήμη όμως, από τη φύση της, αδυνατεί να δεχθεί μια τέτοια ασάφεια. Τι είναι αυτό που παράγει τη συνείδηση στον εγκέφαλό μας; Είναι μια πνευματική-ηθική κατασκευή ή μια λειτουργία που εδράζεται κάπου στο μυαλό μας;

Η εργασία του Μανουσάκη με τίτλο «Κβαντική Θεωρία, Συνείδηση και αντίληψη του Χρόνου: Διοπτρικός Ανταγωνισμός» επιχειρεί να δώσει μια εξήγηση του φαινομένου της συνείδησης μέσω της όρασης στον εγκέφαλό μας, του κατεξοχήν αισθητηριακού οργάνου εκείνου που οδηγεί στη συνειδητοποίηση μιας κατάστασης. Ο Μανουσάκης ανέλυσε την αντίδραση του ανθρώπινου εγκεφάλου μπροστά στη θέα προβολής διαφορετικών εικόνων στους δύο οφθαλμούς από το ίδιο σημείο, μια μέθοδος που θυμίζει κατ’ αναλογίαν τις εντυπώσεις που προκαλούν οι διφορούμενες εικόνες όπως αυτή που βλέπετε δίπλα, η οποία θα μπορούσε να αναγνωρισθεί ως βάζο ή ως δύο πρόσωπα - κάτι που όμως ο εγκέφαλός μας κάνει διαδοχικά και όχι ταυτόχρονα.

Ο Μανουσάκης υπέθεσε πως στην επιλογή που κάνει ο εγκέφαλος ανάμεσα στις δύο εικόνες ίσως βρίσκεται το μυστικό της συνείδησης, ένα μυστικό που καθορίζεται από τους νόμους της κβαντομηχανικής θεωρίας.

Η κβαντομηχανική (η οποία βρίσκει εφαρμογή στον υποατομικό κόσμο των στοιχειωδών σωματιδίων, όπως τα άτομα, τα ηλεκτρόνια, κ.ο.κ) θεωρεί ότι ο παρατηρητής κάθεται πάντοτε στη θέση του οδηγού της παρατηρούμενης πραγματικότητας (επεμβαίνει στην κατασκευή της) διαμορφώνοντας το παρατηρούμενο αντικείμενο.

Αυτό σημαίνει ότι οι φυσικοί μπορούν να δουν είτε τη θέση ενός σωματιδίου, είτε να μετρήσουν την ορμή του - αλλά ποτέ δεν μπορούν να προσδιορίσουν με ακρίβεια και τα δύο.

Πώς σχετίζονται όλα αυτά με την ανθρώπινη συνείδηση;

Οι επιστήμονες συμφωνούν πως υπάρχουν διαφορετικά επίπεδα συνείδησης. Τα χαμηλά επίπεδα που καθορίζονται από τις αισθήσεις (όπως η όραση) και μοιράζεται ο άνθρωπος με αρκετά θηλαστικά (ελέφαντες, δελφίνια, κ.λπ.) και τα υψηλά επίπεδα συνείδησης του νου.

«Πολλές φορές είστε στο τρόλεϊ και ενώ τα μάτια σας βλέπουν τους ανθρώπους που περνούν μπροστά σας εσείς δεν συνειδητοποιείτε τίποτα, γιατί η προσοχή σας είναι στραμμένη αλλού» λέει ο Μανουσάκης σε τηλεφωνική συνέντευξη από τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες όπου βρίσκεται αυτές τις μέρες. Πώς γίνεται συνειδητό ένα γεγονός; Μέσω μιας επέμβασης από υψηλότερα επίπεδα συνείδησης. Οταν με απλά λόγια εστιάζεις την προσοχή σου σε κάτι.

Ο Μανουσάκης βλέπει μια αναλογία της κατάστασης του ανθρώπινου νου πριν αποφασίσει ποια εικόνα βλέπει, με την κβαντική κατάσταση. Kαι στην απόφαση του νου ότι βλέπει τη μια εικόνα και όχι την άλλη εντοπίζει μια αναλογία προς την κβαντική πτώση σε μια συγκεκριμένη θέση, μετά τη μέτρηση.

«Σε ένα άρθρο που δημοσίευσα πέρυσι προσδιόρισα μερικές φιλοσοφικές έννοιες της φυσικής για να μπορέσω να προσεγγίσω το θέμα» εξηγεί. «Συγκεκριμένα, περιέγραψα το Εν δυνάμει Συνειδητό, μια σημαντική έννοια για να περιγράψεις τα φαινόμενα». Το Εν δυνάμει Συνειδητό είναι σύμφωνα με τον Μανουσάκη ο εγκέφαλός μας σε κβαντική κατάσταση. «Η εξίσωση του Σρέντιγκερ περιγράφει την κίνηση στον χρόνο του εν δυνάμει και περιέχει όλες τις πιθανότητες να συμβεί ένα γεγονός. Αν καταρρεύσει η δυνητικότητα στην πραγμάτωση του γεγονότος θα τροποποιήσει το κβαντικό σύστημα, έτσι ώστε το επόμενο γεγονός να μπορεί να προβλεφθεί βάσει των δυνητικών ιδιοτήτων του συστήματος όπως έχει εξελιχθεί στο μεταξύ. Κατά τη γνώμη μου η εξίσωση αυτή μιλάει για την εξέλιξη της δυνητικής συνείδησης».

Ο Μανουσάκης ανέλυσε πειραματικά δεδομένα ψυχολογικών πειραμάτων σε ανθρώπους στους οποίους προβλήθηκαν διαφορετικές εικόνες σε κάθε μάτι - μερικοί από τους συμμετέχοντες είχαν κάνει χρήση του ψυχοτρόπου LSD. Μπόρεσε να υπολογίσει (και προβλέψει) διαφορετικές τιμές στις δύο ομάδες της χαρακτηριστικής εκείνης συχνότητας η οποία ελέγχει την κβαντική διαδικασία και η οποία βρίσκεται κάτω από τη λειτουργία της συνείδησης στον εγκέφαλο. Αυτό το πέτυχε μετρώντας τον ρυθμό ενεργοποίησης των σχετικών νευρώνων στον εγκέφαλο και συγκρίνοντάς τον με τον χρόνο αντίληψης και απάντησης των συμμετεχόντων.

«Υπήρχαν πειραματικά δεδομένα πολλών ειδών. Μεταξύ άλλων υπήρχαν πειράματα στα οποία είχε χρησιμοποιηθεί LSD και είχε αλλάξει η οπτική αντίληψη λόγω μιας αλλαγής στην ευαισθησία και λειτουργία των νευρώνων. Η θεωρία μου φαίνεται να δουλεύει και στις δύο καταστάσεις. Μέχρι εδώ απλώς ανέλυσα πειράματα άλλων. Τώρα προχωράω σε δικά μου πειράματα» λέει ο Μανουσάκης. Η ερώτηση που εύλογα δημιουργείται είναι σε ποιο ακριβώς σημείο του εγκεφάλου και σε ποιο επίπεδο συμβαίνουν όλα αυτά. «Αυτό είναι το μεγάλο ερώτημα για το οποίο θα χρειαστούν πολλές έρευνες εφεξής» λέει. Ομως η θεωρία είναι πειραματικά επαληθεύσιμη και ίσως αποδειχθεί βάση πάνω στην οποία θα πατήσουν οι επόμενες μελέτες.

Τα σχόλια που καταφθάνουν από διεθνή Πανεπιστήμια είναι ως επί το πλείστον διθυραμβικά: «Αν είναι σωστή, τότε πρόκειται για έρευνα-σταθμό» δήλωσε ο Henry Stapp, φυσικός του Εθνικού Αμερικανικού Εργαστηρίου στο Λόρενς του Μπέρκλεϊ.

Hμερομηνία : 3/11/07
Copyright: http://www.kathimerini.gr

2007-11-03T01:42:00.000+02:00

2007-11-02T10:50:00.000+02:00

Μία ενδιαφέρουσα δημοσίευση στούς Los Angeles Times από τήν γνωστή Mary Lefkowitz, η οποία απήντησε παλιότερα, τόσο μέ τό βιβλίο της, όσο καί μέ μία σειρά ομιλιών στά αστήρικτα τής "Μαύρης Αθηνάς".

Bring back the Greek gods

Mere mortals had a better life when more than one ruler presided from on high.

By Mary Lefkowitz
October 23, 2007

Prominent secular and atheist commentators have argued lately that religion "poisons" human life and causes endless violence and suffering. But the poison isn't religion; it's monotheism. The polytheistic Greeks didn't advocate killing those who worshiped different gods, and they did not pretend that their religion provided the right answers. Their religion made the ancient Greeks aware of their ignorance and weakness, letting them recognize multiple points of view.

There is much we still can learn from these ancient notions of divinity, even if we can agree that the practices of animal sacrifice, deification of leaders and divining the future through animal entrails and bird flights are well lost.

My Hindu students could always see something many scholars miss: The Greek gods weren't mere representations of forces in nature but independent beings with transcendent powers who controlled the world and everything in it. Some of the gods were strictly local, such as the deities of rivers and forests. Others were universal, such as Zeus, his siblings and his children.

Zeus did not communicate directly with humankind. But his children -- Athena, Apollo and Dionysus -- played active roles in human life. Athena was the closest to Zeus of all the gods; without her aid, none of the great heroes could accomplish anything extraordinary. Apollo could tell mortals what the future had in store for them. Dionysus could alter human perception to make people see what's not really there. He was worshiped in antiquity as the god of the theater and of wine. Today, he would be the god of psychology.

Zeus, the ruler of the gods, retained his power by using his intelligence along with superior force. Unlike his father (whom he deposed), he did not keep all the power for himself but granted rights and privileges to other gods. He was not an autocratic ruler but listened to, and was often persuaded by, the other gods.

Openness to discussion and inquiry is a distinguishing feature of Greek theology. It suggests that collective decisions often lead to a better outcome. Respect for a diversity of viewpoints informs the cooperative system of government the Athenians called democracy.

Unlike the monotheistic traditions, Greco-Roman polytheism was multicultural. The Greeks and Romans did not share the narrow view of the ancient Hebrews that a divinity could only be masculine. Like many other ancient peoples in the eastern Mediterranean, the Greeks recognized female divinities, and they attributed to goddesses almost all of the powers held by the male gods.

The world, as the Greek philosopher Thales wrote, is full of gods, and all deserve respect and honor. Such a generous understanding of the nature of divinity allowed the ancient Greeks and Romans to accept and respect other people's gods and to admire (rather than despise) other nations for their own notions of piety. If the Greeks were in close contact with a particular nation, they gave the foreign gods names of their own gods: the Egyptian goddess Isis was Demeter, Horus was Apollo, and so on. Thus they incorporated other people's gods into their pantheon.

What they did not approve of was atheism, by which they meant refusal to believe in the existence of any gods at all. One reason many Athenians resented Socrates was that he claimed a divinity spoke with him privately, but he could not name it. Similarly, when Christians denied the existence of any gods other than their own, the Romans suspected political or seditious motives and persecuted them as enemies of the state.

The existence of many different gods also offers a more plausible account than monotheism of the presence of evil and confusion in the world. A mortal may have had the support of one god but incur the enmity of another, who could attack when the patron god was away. The goddess Hera hated the hero Heracles and sent the goddess Madness to make him kill his wife and children. Heracles' father, Zeus, did nothing to stop her, although he did in the end make Heracles immortal.

But in the monotheistic traditions, in which God is omnipresent and always good, mortals must take the blame for whatever goes wrong, even though God permits evil to exist in the world he created. In the Old Testament, God takes away Job's family and his wealth but restores him to prosperity after Job acknowledges God's power.

The god of the Hebrews created the Earth for the benefit of humankind. But as the Greeks saw it, the gods made life hard for humans, didn't seek to improve the human condition and allowed people to suffer and die. As a palliative, the gods could offer only to see that great achievement was memorialized. There was no hope of redemption, no promise of a happy life or rewards after death. If things did go wrong, as they inevitably did, humans had to seek comfort not from the gods but from other humans.

The separation between humankind and the gods made it possible for humans to complain to the gods without the guilt or fear of reprisal the deity of the Old Testament inspired. Mortals were free to speculate about the character and intentions of the gods. By allowing mortals to ask hard questions, Greek theology encouraged them to learn, to seek all the possible causes of events. Philosophy -- that characteristically Greek invention -- had its roots in such theological inquiry. As did science.

Paradoxically, the main advantage of ancient Greek religion lies in this ability to recognize and accept human fallibility. Mortals cannot suppose that they have all the answers. The people most likely to know what to do are prophets directly inspired by a god. Yet prophets inevitably meet resistance, because people hear only what they wish to hear, whether or not it is true. Mortals are particularly prone to error at the moments when they think they know what they are doing. The gods are fully aware of this human weakness. If they choose to communicate with mortals, they tend to do so only indirectly, by signs and portents, which mortals often misinterpret.

Ancient Greek religion gives an account of the world that in many respects is more plausible than that offered by the monotheistic traditions. Greek theology openly discourages blind confidence based on unrealistic hopes that everything will work out in the end. Such healthy skepticism about human intelligence and achievements has never been needed more than it is today.

Mary Lefkowitz is professor emerita at Wellesley College and the author of "Greek Gods, Human Lives" and the forthcoming "History Lesson."

2007-11-01T03:11:00.000+02:00

Watson συνέχεια

By Patrick J. Buchanan

For Dr. James Watson, 79-year-old co-winner of the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine for his discovery of the double-helix structure of DNA, October marked the nadir of a brilliant career.

The month began with Watson headed to London to promote his new book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, and to lecture to a sold-out audience at the prestigious Science Museum. An author's dream tour.

Last week, his lecture was canceled, his tour terminated, his 40-year tenure as chancellor of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island came to an end. Across Britain, he was being denounced as a racist.

What had the wicked Dr. Watson done?

Did he defend the chattel slavery in which five of our first seven presidents engaged? No. Did he agree with Abraham Lincoln that blacks did not deserve equal social and political rights and should be sent back to the continent whence their ancestors came? No. Did he argue for the segregation that was the law in the nation's capital in which this writer grew up? No. Did he utter the "N-word" used by Harry Truman, who integrated the armed forces, and Lyndon Johnson, who enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965? No.

Watson neither endorsed segregation nor expressed any animus toward people of color. He had simply told The Sunday Times he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really."

While there is a natural desire to believe all people are equal, Watson said, "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true."

In his new book, Watson adds, "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

What Watson was saying was: From a long life and his own reading of IQ test scores, he believes that intelligence is not distributed equally among the races. That conclusion was also reached by social scientists Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray in the 1990s best-seller The Bell Curve. The SAT scores seem to bear them out.

When Watson's remarks hit print, however, a new London blitz began.

The Labor Party chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee charged Watson with "baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments" and urged his colleagues to "reject what appear to be Dr. Watson's personal prejudices."

"Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr. Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws," said The Independent. Said Steven Rose, a founder of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, "This is Watson at his most scandalous."

The Telegraph quoted Koku Adomdza, [Email]director of the black pressure group The 1990 Trust, as calling Watson a "complete dinosaur" and demanding he apologize to "Africa and all people of African origin."

Added Adomdza: "Dr. Watson is really a relic of the oldest stock and deserves to be made to account for his extremely offensive and ignorant remarks. ... His very poisonously racist opinions put students and the unsuspecting public at serious risk."

Of these thought police, almost all, it may be fairly said, are academic mediocrities or political hacks who could not carry Watson's microscope. Yet as the scrub stock piled on, the Nobel Prize winner appeared to buckle.

I am "mortified," Watson said, burbling this recantation.

"To all those who have drawn the inference from my words that Africa, as a continent, is somehow genetically inferior, I can only apologize unreservedly. That is not what I meant. More importantly, from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." [To question genetic intelligence is not racism, Independent, October 19, 2007 ]

Sad. Why, with all his honors, prestige and security, did Dr. Watson feel the necessity to apologize for what he wrote, said and believes? Why did he not play the man by flipping off the censors? If they were going to take away his chancellorship, why not go down fighting?

In the England of Henry VIII, heretics were beheaded and their heads put on spikes. Many men, like Thomas More, did not recant.

From the time of Tiberius to the 17th century, men gave up their lives rather than renounce a belief in God. Others gave up their lives rather than renounce a disbelief in the Church. Why could Watson not stand up for his disbelief in the ideological myth of the inherent equality of all men, cultures, creeds and civilizations?

In 1990, the respected journal Science wrote, "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man. ... Colleagues tend to hold their collective breath when he speaks out."

Too bad the wild man was denatured and domesticated.

Patrick J. Buchanan needs no introduction to VDARE.COM readers; his book State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America, can be ordered from Amazon.com.

The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation. We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions are tax deductible and appreciated. Contribute...

James D. Watson: Broken By The PC Inquisition, Betrayed By The Righteous Right

By Steve Sailer

James D. Watson, perhaps the most distinguished living American scientist, has now been kicked to the curb by the Cold Spring Harbor genetics laboratory he rescued and rebuilt over the last 40 years for making politically (but not scientifically) incorrect statements about African IQs.

Watson's crimethink was to say he was

"'inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa' because 'all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—whereas all the testing says not really.' " [The elementary DNA of Dr Watson, By Charlotte Hunt-Grubbe, TimesOnLine. October 14, 2007]

A few lessons from this shameful affair:

We live in an age that worships conformity and fears and loathes independent thinkers.

As we can see by the enormous number of journalists and bloggers who couldn't wait to put the boot in when the great man was down, and by the negligible number who came forward to defend the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, the chattering classes of the 21st Century are composed, by and large, of bullies and/or cowards.

Why did so many so enthusiastically sign up as auxiliaries of the Thought Police?

Because it's fun.

The psychology of those who rushed to attack Watson was memorably outlined in Orwell's 1984, when the interrogator O'Brien explains to his prisoner Winston Smith the exciting future envisaged by the Party:

"Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever. …The heretic, the enemy of soc iety, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. … The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. Goldstein and his heresies will live for ever. … Always we shall have the heretic here at our mercy, screaming with pain, broken up, contemptible—and in the end utterly penitent, saved from himself, crawling to our feet of his own accord."

Watson's putative defenders betrayed him.

Out of the vast pile of ephemera published on, say, National Review Online during the week and a half that this disgraceful brouhaha has been going on, Google shows Watson's plight being mentioned once, by John Derbyshire—and not at all by anybody else.

The level of intellectual integrity on the Right—let alone courage—is catastrophically lower today than just 13 years ago, when the John O'Sullivan-edited National Review responded to the publication of The Bell Curve by devoting most of its December 5, 1994 issue to an impressive symposium on race and IQ.

In it, Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray's bestseller was attacked by some, but also stoutly defended by Michael Barone, Michael Novak, James Q. Wilson, Dan Seligman, Arthur Jensen, and Ernest Van den Haag.

Where have you gone, Michael Barone? (Or John O’Sullivan, for that matter.)

Another example: As of October 27, a search revealed that not one of the myriad columnists and bloggers at TownHall.com had even mentioned the Watson scandal.

As I noted at the time of the Trent Lott Lynching , a “Righteous Right” has emerged, especially in Washington, which has in effect internalized the left’s hysterical race denial. The betrayal of Watson is further evidence of the profound cost of this development to American public discourse.

Never apologize for a "gaffe" (i.e., the telling of an unpopular truth).

When you beg forgiveness, the hate-filled jackals just smell your fear and weakness. It excites them, so they pile on. Further, the watching crowd can't tell who's right, so they respect whoever seems the master of the situation at the moment.

In his October 19 response in the U.K. Independent, "To question genetic intelligence is not racism," Watson seemingly tried to be subtle, arguing that there was a difference between inferiority and diversity, then pointing out the Darwinian implausibility that everyone could have evolved to be identical.

Well, swell. But the politically correct don't engage in rational argument. They just hound and bludgeon. So you have to stand your ground.

There is so much agitprop in the media about IQ and race that only aggressive, confident responses can cut through the lies. For example, Watson could have hit back like this:

Q. Is there really such a thing as "intelligence" and can IQ tests measure it?

A. Don't be ignorant. The U.S. military has spent a fortune from WWII onward giving an IQ test to everyone who tries to enlist. The Armed Services have turned away millions of would-be volunteers and draftees because their IQs were too low. How come? Because the Pentagon has done numerous studies showing that on average higher IQ people outperform lower IQ people.

Thus the PC Inquisition has several times tried to destroy the careers of Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter. But Pat and Ann simply won't let them.

In contrast, as soon as Larry Summers, president of Harvard, started apologizing for telling the truth and offering $50 million in other people's money as payoffs to the Sensitivity Stasi, he was doomed.

As I noted last week, in the epilogue of his new memoir, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science, Watson makes clear his contempt for Summers’ cowardice. Not the least of this tragedy is that, when it came to the point, his own nerve broke too.

Go on the offensive against your critics.

They’re vulnerable. Thus perhaps the most widely quoted smear-artist attacking James Watson has been Steven Rose. Rose is a professor emeritus of neurobiology at the Open University, a sort of British 1960s lefty version of the University of Phoenix. Rose is a Marxist and the co-founder of the boycott Israel movement among British academics.

He was also the co-author, with Leo n Kamin and Richard Lewontin, of the 1984 manifesto with the amusingly unprophetic title Not In Our Genes. (Here's Richard Dawkins' scathing review—which led to Rose threatening to sue Dawkins for libel!)

During the attack on Watson, Rose wrote in The Guardian:

"As for freedom of speech, these freedoms are and must be constrained. We don't have the right to casually cry fire in a crowded theatre, or to use hate speech—at least in Europe, as opposed to the US. Watson's now retracted [sic] remarks came into these unacceptable categories. So the repercussions are to be welcomed." [Watson's bad science, October 21, 2007]

Not surprisingly, Steven Rose has been accused of practicing what he preaches: having the government silence scientists whose ideas he dislikes.

According to social scientist Volkmar Weiss, a dissident under the East German Communist dictatorship, Rose ratted him out to the East Berlin regime, setting in motion the crushing in East Germany of IQ research and human behavioral genetics.

Weiss explains this in a 1983 essay entitled The Suppression of Human Behavioral Genetics by the Radical Left—unpublished, for obvious reasons, until 1991. He wrote:

"In 1980, the manuscript of the monograph Psychogenetik (Weiss 1982a) was complete. Now some fierce dogmatists were discovering that a cuckoo’s egg had been laid in the nest of socialism. One example: S. Rose asked his East German colleague, the professor of neurochemistry D. Biesold at the Karl-Marx-University of Leipzig (personal communication by Biesold), whether there was no means of stopping further publications by Weiss, because such publications printed in a socialist country were particularly disadvantageous to the propaganda of the Radical Left in the Western world. …”

Rose’s wish appears to have been the East German Communists’ command:

"[A]t the end of the year 1982 [Walter] Friedrich [director of the Central Institute of Youth Research in Leipzig] sought and obtained the backing of high-ranking officials of the Communist Party and all further research in psychogenetics in East Germany came to an end."

Weiss goes on to describe the aftermath he endured, which would be familiar to anyone who saw the tremendous 2006 film about life in East Germany under the thumb of the secret police, The Lives of Others:

“… the cited author was under the threat of arrest and had already lost all possibility of doing further empirical work of defending his field of research. After 1984, Weiss was forced to work in a quite different field … What follows is the usual story of life and resistance under totalitarian conditions. In order to be published abroad, any new theoretical contributions had to be smuggled out of the GDR."

I asked Weiss about the incident. He replied:

"What I have written and published is completely true.

"However, in 1993 a journalist of a leading English daily (which I do not remember) visited me in Leipzig and tried to confirm my publication by independent sources. At this time [Dietmar] Biesold had already died, his widow did not know anything. Biesold, who had done research together with Rose, had told me about Rose under four eyes [in secret], and there was no witness. Evaluating this, the English daily, afraid to be sued for libeling by Rose, did not publish anything.

"After my publication, Rose had published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung a note in which he declared that he never was involved in activities against East German scientists. My name and my publication was not explicitly mentioned, and I had never personal contact with Rose. He tried never to be active in any direct way against me and never mentioned or cited me.”

Rose is notoriously litigious (recently threatening to sue for libel the author of a comic book). But the US, no doubt to Rose's displeasure, still has a First Amendment. If Rose wants to dispute the Weiss's account, he is free to write us a letter.

But the bottom line is the same: Watson has been suppressed by brute political force. The Righteous Right ran away.

As after the very similar case of Italy after Galileo, the consequences for science in the Anglosphere could be a new Dark Age.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

The articles on VDARE.com are brought to you by the VDARE Foundation. We are supported by generous donations from our readers. Contributions are tax deductible and appreciated. Contribute...

2007-10-30T17:18:00.000+02:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/28/weekinreview/28johnson.html

October 28, 2007

Ideas & Trends

Bright Scientists, Dim Notions

By GEORGE JOHNSON

AT a conference in Cambridge, Mass., in 1988 called "How the Brain Works," Francis Crick suggested that neuroscientific understanding would move further along if only he and his colleagues were allowed to experiment on prisoners. You couldn't tell if he was kidding, and Crick being Crick, he probably didn't care. Emboldened by a Nobel Prize in 1962 for helping uncoil the secret of life, Dr. Crick, who died in 2004, wasn't shy about offering bold opinions - including speculations that life might have been seeded on Earth as part of an experiment by aliens.

The notion, called directed panspermia, had something of an intellectual pedigree. But when James Watson, the other strand of the double helix, went off the deep end two Sundays ago in The Times of London, implying that black Africans are less intelligent than whites, he hadn't a scientific leg to stand on.

Since the publication in 1968 of his opinionated memoir, "The Double Helix," Dr. Watson, 79, has been known for his provocative statements (please see "Stupidity Should be Cured, Says DNA Discoverer," New Scientist, Feb. 28, 2003), but this time he apologized. Last week, uncharacteristically subdued, he announced his retirement as chancellor and member of the board of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, where he had presided during much of the genetic revolution.

Though the pronouncements are rarely so jarring, there is a long tradition of great scientists letting down their guard. Actors, politicians and rock stars routinely make ill-considered comments. But when someone like Dr. Watson goes over the top, colleagues fear that the public may misconstrue the pronouncements as carrying science's stamp of approval.

Kary Mullis, after grabbing a piece of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, dove head first off the platform, expounding on the virtues of LSD and astrology and expressing his doubts about global warming, the ozone hole, and H.I.V. as the cause of AIDS. On the latter point he was following the lead of Peter Duesberg, a molecular and cell biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, and member of the National Academy of Sciences, who still insists that AIDS is caused by recreational drug use and even by one of the pharmaceuticals used for treatment.

Iconoclasts at heart, the best scientists are faced with an occupational hazard: having left their mark on one small patch of ground, they are tempted to stir up trouble elsewhere.

"With my own advancing years, I'm mindful of the three different ways scientists can grow old," Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal of the United Kingdom and president of the Royal Society, wrote in an e-mail message. The first two choices are either to become an administrator or to content yourself with doing science that will probably be mediocre. ("In contrast to composers," Dr. Rees observed, "there are few scientists whose last works are their greatest.") The third choice is to strike off half-cocked into unfamiliar territory - and quickly get in over your head. "All too many examples of this!" he lamented.

Creationists still gleefully pounce on a quote from the Cambridge University astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who late in his career compared the likelihood of a living cell arising through evolution to "a tornado sweeping through a junkyard" and assembling a Boeing 747. This caricature of the evolutionary process led to the coinage of the term Hoyle's Fallacy. Dr. Hoyle also promoted the notion that epidemics are caused by viruses hitchhiking on the tails of comets.

Sometimes the wandering from one's home turf extends all the way to the paranormal. In 2001, when officials of the Royal Mail, the British postal service, issued a package of stamps commemorating the centenary of the Nobel Prize, they sought the counsel of Brian Josephson, who shared the prize for physics in 1973 for his superconductivity research. Physicists across Britain recoiled when an official pamphlet accompanying the stamps predicted that quantum mechanics might lead to an understanding of mental telepathy.

"Perhaps we should have checked that," a spokeswoman for the Royal Mail told Nature at the time. "But if he has won a Nobel Prize for his work, that should give him some credibility."

With science treading right to the bleeding edge of the knowable, maybe the Royal Mail can be forgiven for mistaking pseudoscience for the real thing. In an article in The Observer of London, David Deutsch, a quantum theorist at Oxford University, dismissed Dr. Josephson's speculations as "utter rubbish." Dr. Deutsch is known for proposing the existence of a multiplicity of parallel universes.

There is a difference of course between bold speculations and Dr. Watson's reckless remarks. In announcing his retirement, in an oddly oblique e-mailed dispatch, he expressed hope that the latest biological research, at Cold Spring Harbor and elsewhere, would lead to treatments for mental illness and cancer. Invoking his "Scots-Irish Appalachian heritage" and a faith in reason and social justice passed on by his parents, he sounded sad and confused, as though this time he had succeeded in dumbfounding even himself.

2007-10-30T15:12:00.000+02:00

Συνέχεια στήν υπόθεση Watson

James D. Watson: Broken By The PC Inquisition, Betrayed By The Righteous Right

By Steve Sailer

James D. Watson, perhaps the most distinguished living American scientist, has now been kicked to the curb by the Cold Spring Harbor genetics laboratory he rescued and rebuilt over the last 40 years for making politically (but not scientifically) incorrect statements about African IQs.

Watson's crimethink was to say he was

A few lessons from this shameful affair:

We live in an age that worships conformity and fears and loathes independent thinkers.

As we can see by the enormous number of journalists and bloggers who couldn't wait to put the boot in when the great man was down, and by the negligible number who came forward to defend the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, the chattering classes of the 21st Century are composed, by and large, of bullies and/or cowards.

Why did so many so enthusiastically sign up as auxiliaries of the Thought Police?

Because it's fun.

"Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever. …The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. … The more the Party is powerful, the less it will be tolerant: the weaker the opposition, the tighter the despotism. Goldstein and his heresies will live for ever. … Always we shall have the heretic here at our mercy, screaming with pain, broken up, contemptible—and in the end utterly penitent, saved from himself, crawling to our feet of his own accord."

Watson's putative defenders betrayed him.

The level of intellectual integrity on the Right—let alone courage—is catastrophically lower today than just 13 years ago, when the John O'Sullivan-edited National Review responded to the publication of The Bell Curve by devoting most of its December 5, 1994 issue to an impressive symposium on race and IQ.

Where have you gone, Michael Barone? (Or John O’Sullivan, for that matter.)

Another example: As of October 27, a search revealed that not one of the myriad columnists and bloggers at TownHall.com had even mentioned the Watson scandal.

As I noted at the time of the Trent Lott Lynching, a “Righteous Right” has emerged, especially in Washington, which has in effect internalized the left’s hysterical race denial. The betrayal of Watson is further evidence of the profound cost of this development to American public discourse.

Never apologize for a "gaffe" (i..e., the telling of an unpopular truth).

When you beg forgiveness, the hate-filled jackals just smell your fear and weakness. It excites them, so they pile on. Further, the watching crowd can't tell who's right, so they respect whoever seems the master of the situation at the moment.

In his October 19 response in the U.K. Independent, "To question genetic intelligence is not racism," Watson seemingly tried to be subtle, arguing that there was a difference between inferiority and diversity, then pointing out the Darwinian implausibility that everyone could have evolved to be identical.

Well, swell. But the politically correct don't engage in rational argument. They just hound and bludgeon. So you have to stand your ground.

There is so much agitprop in the media about IQ and race that only aggressive, confident responses can cut through the lies. For example, Watson could have hit back like this:

Q. Is there really such a thing as "intelligence" and can IQ tests measure it?

Thus the PC Inquisition has several times tried to destroy the careers of Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter. But Pat and Ann simply won't let them.

In contrast, as soon as Larry Summers, president of Harvard, started apologizing for telling the truth and offering $50 million in other people's money as payoffs to the Sensitivity Stasi, he was doomed.

Go on the offensive against your critics.

He was also the co-author, with Leon Kamin and Richard Lewontin, of the 1984 manifesto with the amusingly unprophetic title Not In Our Genes. (Here's Richard Dawkins' scathing review—which led to Rose threatening to sue Dawkins for libel!)

During the attack on Watson, Rose wrote in The Guardian:

"As for freedom of speech, these freedoms are and must be constrained. We don't have the right to casually cry fire in a crowded theatre, or to use hate speech—at least in Europe, as opposed to the US. Watson's now retracted [sic] remarks came into these unacceptable categories. So the repercussions are to be welcomed." [Watson's bad science, October 21, 2007]

Not surprisingly, Steven Rose has been accused of practicing what he preaches: having the government silence scientists whose ideas he dislikes.

Weiss explains this in a 1983 essay entitled The Suppression of Human Behavioral Genetics by the Radical Left—unpublished, for obvious reasons, until 1991. He wrote:

Rose’s wish appears to have been the East German Communists’ command:

"[A]t the end of the year 1982 [Walter] Friedrich [director of the Central Institute of Youth Research in Leipzig] sought and obtained the backing of high-ranking officials of the Communist Party and all further research in psychogenetics in East Germany came to an end."

I asked Weiss about the incident. He replied:

"What I have written and published is completely true.

"However, in 1993 a journalist of a leading English daily (which I do not remember) visited me in Leipzig and tried to confirm my publication by independent sources. At this time [Dietmar] Biesold had already died, his widow did not know anything. Biesold, who had done research together with Rose, had told me about Rose under four eyes [in secret], and there was no witness. Evaluating this, the English daily, afraid to be sued for libeling by Rose, did not publish anything.

But the bottom line is the same: Watson has been suppressed by brute political force. The Righteous Right ran away.

As after the very similar case of Italy after Galileo, the consequences for science in the Anglosphere could be a new Dark Age.

[Steve Sailer (email him) is founder of the Human Biodiversity Institute and movie critic for The American Conservative. His website www.iSteve.blogspot.com features his daily blog.]

2007-10-30T14:58:00.000+02:00

IAP STATEMENT ON THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION

We, the undersigned Academies of Sciences, have learned that in various parts of the world,
within science courses taught in certain public systems of education, scientific evidence, data,
and testable theories about the origins and evolution of life on Earth are being concealed,
denied, or confused with theories not testable by science. We urge decision makers, teachers, and
parents to educate all children about the methods and discoveries of science and to foster an
understanding of the science of nature. Knowledge of the natural world in which they live
empowers people to meet human needs and protect the planet.
We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and
of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived
experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open
questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never
contradicted these results:
1. In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion
years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
2. Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the
effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
3. Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of
photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation
of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the
release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of
fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve,
in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are
describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the
structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate
their common primordial origin.
We also subscribe to the following statement regarding the nature of science in relation to the
teaching of evolution and, more generally, of any field of scientific knowledge :
Scientific knowledge derives from a mode of inquiry into the nature of the universe that has been
successful and of great consequence. Science focuses on (i) observing the natural world and
(ii)􀀀formulating testable and refutable hypotheses to derive deeper explanations for observable
phenomena. When evidence is sufficiently compelling, scientific theories are developed that
account for and explain that evidence, and predict the likely structure or process of still
unobserved phenomena.
Human understanding of value and purpose are outside of natural science’s scope. However, a
number of components – scientific, social, philosophical, religious, cultural and political –
contribute to it. These different fields owe each other mutual consideration, while being fully
aware of their own areas of action and their limitations.
While acknowledging current limitations, science is open ended, and subject to correction and
expansion as new theoretical and empirical understanding emerges.

1. Albanian Academy of Sciences
2. National Academy of Exact, Physical and
Natural Sciences, Argentina
3. Australian Academy of Science
4. Austrian Academy of Sciences
5. Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
6. The Royal Academies for Science and the Arts
of Belgium
7. Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and
Herzegovina
8. Brazilian Academy of Sciences
9. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
10. RSC: The Academies of Arts, Humanities and
Sciences of Canada
11. Academia Chilena de Ciencias
12. Chinese Academy of Sciences
13. Academia Sinica, China, Taiwan
14. Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and
Natural Sciences
15. Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
16. Cuban Academy of Sciences
17. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
18. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
19. Academy of Scientific Research and Technology,
Egypt
20. Académie des Sciences, France
21. Union of German Academies of Sciences and
Humanities
22. The Academy of Athens, Greece
23. Hungarian Academy of Sciences
24. Indian National Science Academy
25. Indonesian Academy of Sciences
26. Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of
Iran
27. Royal Irish Academy
28. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
29. Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
30. Science Council of Japan
31. Kenya National Academy of Sciences
32. National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz
Republic
33. Latvian Academy of Sciences
34. Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
35. Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
36. Academia Mexicana de Ciencias
37. Mongolian Academy of Sciences
38. Academy of the Kingdom of Morocco
39. The Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and
Sciences
40. Academy Council of the Royal Society of New
Zealand
41. Nigerian Academy of Sciences
42. Pakistan Academy of Sciences
43. Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
44. Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
45. National Academy of Science and Technology,
The Philippines
46. Polish Academy of Sciences
47. Académie des Sciences et Techniques du
Sénégal
48. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
49. Singapore National Academy of Sciences
50. Slovak Academy of Sciences
51. Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
52. Academy of Science of South Africa
53. Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural
Sciences of Spain
54. National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
55. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
56. Council of the Swiss Scientific Academies
57. Academy of Sciences, Republic of Tajikistan
58. The Caribbean Academy of Sciences
59. Turkish Academy of Sciences
60. The Uganda National Academy of Sciences
61. The Royal Society, UK
62. US National Academy of Sciences
63. Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences
64. Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y
Naturales de Venezuela
65. Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
66. African Academy of Sciences
67. The Academy of Sciences for the Developing
World (TWAS)
68. The Executive Board of the International
Council for Science (ICSU)

2007-10-30T14:55:00.000+02:00

Science Education, Intelligent Design and Creationism

A statement from the Association for Science Education

This statement has been issued against a backdrop of concern about the teaching of controversial issues in science, in particular Intelligent Design and Creationism. The statement has been agreed by ASE Council. However the statement does not necessarily represent the views of all ASE members. ASE recognises that the science teaching profession includes individuals with a range of religious and non religious perspectives and that there will be some members, albeit a small number, whose personal perspectives might not resonate fully with these messages. It is, however, our intention that all members and others who are concerned about this controversial issue will find guidance and direction herein.
An important professional challenge for science teachers is the need to develop a sensitivity to the many belief systems which will permeate a group of learners and to ensure that, should questions of belief arise, they are well prepared to offer an appropriate level of engagement which retains a focus on science and what constitutes a viable scientific theory, whilst respecting the personal belief systems of individual learners.
What is meant by Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design is a claim that many living organisms are so complex that their existence cannot be explained by natural evolutionary processes. Intelligent Design also claims that the complexity of such organisms can be accounted for only by invoking the intervention of an agent of design – a designer.
Should Intelligent Design find a place in school science education?
The rationale for science education involves the stimulation and motivation of young people towards appreciating and understanding some of the key ideas in science. It aims to engage them in exploring first hand the processes of science through experimentation, investigation, argument, and modelling thereby teaching them how science works in both an historical context and within the social community which is science. In doing so, science education explores the relationships between evidence and theory whilst appreciating the provisional nature of scientific ‘knowledge’. Such an education should prepare learners to be confident in engaging with scientific issues and be able to take a critical approach when evaluating claims which are ‘scientific’, thereby making an assessment of what might be seen as ‘good science’ and ‘poor science’.
When set against this rationale it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific ‘theory’. It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.
Should Intelligent Design be presented as an example of a controversy in science?
There are many examples which teachers might use to illustrate controversial issues in science. Some are competing ideas such as the nature of light – waves or particles or heliocentric v geocentric notions of the solar system, others might be examples of poorly planned and inadequately tested science such as the claim for ‘cold fusion’ or even examples of ‘dishonest or biased science’, such as the case of the midwife toad. All these examples deserve a place in science education as they are founded to a greater or lesser degree on aspects of scientific methodology. Their study will better enable learners to take a more critical and informed view of claims which purport to be ‘scientific’. Intelligent Design, with no foundation in scientific methodology, cannot be classed as science, not even bad or controversial science.
Should Intelligent Design be included in other areas of the curriculum?
The ASE does not claim to have any authoritative voice regarding religious and moral education or other areas of the curriculum. However we recognise that an idea which suggests the existence of an ‘intelligent designer’ is more likely to find a place in a course which deals explicitly with belief systems. Should Intelligent Design find such a place, we strongly argue that it should not be presented as an alternative scientific theory.
Doesn’t Creationism sit alongside theories of creation such as the ‘big bang’?
The concept of Intelligent Design is only one of many religious views concerning the nature of the universe. A related idea is Creationism (or ‘Young Earth Creationism’) which takes the view that the universe was created very recently. Not all religious believers hold these or similar views and many find it perfectly possible to combine their faith with a scientific description of the universe. When ideas about the origin of the universe are covered in science lessons it is appropriate that teachers share with learners the tentative nature of a theory such as the ‘big bang’. There is mounting evidence to support the idea that the universe at one time underwent a singularity which we call a ‘big bang’. However the context of such teaching would also explore alternative theories, many in existence in the mid 20th. century and which were supported by evidence at the time, which offered competition to the big bang notion. This is an example of how evidence and theories coexist and interact in the culture of science and how they drive the direction of scientific endeavour. Creationism, like Intelligent Design, is not based on scientific evidence and, as such, is not a scientific theory.
Additional statements
Statements which are aligned with this ASE position have been made by the Interacademy Panel; a global network of the world’s science academies, and by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). These can be obtained from:

Interacademy Panel statement www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?tip=1&id=4926

DCSF guidance on the place of creationism and intelligent design in science lessons www.teachernet.gov.uk/docbank/index.cfm?id=11890

September 2007

2007-10-30T14:17:00.000+02:00

Τί συμβαίνει αλλού

The Association for Science Education adds its voice for evolution

The Association for Science Education -- a professional association for teachers of science in Britain and around the world, with over 15,000 members -- recently issued a statement (PDF) on science education, "intelligent design," and creationism, reading in part:

it is clear to us that Intelligent Design has no grounds for sharing a platform as a scientific ‘theory’. It has no underpinning scientific principles or explanations to support it. Furthermore it is not accepted as a competing scientific theory by the international science community nor is it part of the science curriculum. It is not science at all. Intelligent Design belongs to a different domain and should not be presented to learners as a competing or alternative scientific idea. As such, Intelligent Design has no place in the science education of young people in school.

The statement also cautions against presenting "intelligent design" as a case study of a controversy in science, commenting, "Intelligent Design ... cannot be classed as science, not even bad or controversial science," and recommends that "it should not be presented as an alternative scientific theory" if it is presented in religious education classes.

The statement cites the Interacademy Panel's statement on the teaching of evolution, to which the Royal Society of London and the National Academies of Science are signatories, as well as the recently issued guidance to British teachers on the place of creationism in the science classroom.

2007-10-28T20:25:00.000+02:00

Τί δημοσιεύεται στά άλλα Blogs γιά τήν υπόθεση Watson

On the James Watson Black IQ controversy

posted by Dienekes on Saturday, October 20, 2007

58 comments | No trackbacks

There are two issues regarding the recent controversy started by James Watson's comments about the intelligence of Africans.

The scientist, who won the Nobel prize for his part in discovering the structure of DNA, was quoted in an interview in The Sunday Times saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really.”

The first issue is that Watson's statements, whether one agrees with them or not should not be punished, and represent a valid stance to the problem of population differences in intelligence. Of course institutions (such as the Cold Spring Harbor lab) have the right to choose who works for them, but they also have the responsibility to foster free speech.

One would be sympathetic to CSH's condemnation of Watson if it was done on scientific grounds. For example, a scientist denying the fact of evolution could not reasonably expect to have no reprecussions in his career. Institutions are expected to make sure they don't promote bad science, which is not necessarily unorthodox science (which should be encouraged), but rather unargued or anti-empirical science.

However, CSH's stance has been motivated by political or social considerations. How could it be otherwise, since the identification of intelligence-fostering genes differentiating populations has not come about yet. The prudent stance is to be agnostic about this issue, until such genes are discovered, or their continued non-discovery makes one doubtful of their existence.

The second issue is that Watson's factual comments are entirely accurate! Sub-Saharan Africans do indeed have lower intelligence than people in western societies. That is an observable fact (fact F). What is not certain is whether or not this fact is due to inherent genetic deficiencies (position A) or due to environmental or socio-cultural problems (position B). Social policies should take into account F while the scientists figure out whether A or B explains F.

As an analogy, a cook has to take into account that his knife is blunt before he figures out whether it is blunt because it was made poorly or from repeated use.

According to Watson:

A priori, there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual abilities of people geographically separated during their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of mankind will not be enough to make it so.

Once again, Watson's comments are reasonable. Notably they do not identify which populations may have inherent (evolutionary) differences in intelligence, nor do they attempt to quantify the importance of such differences. They simply state the -a priori sensible- stance of a scientist that a phenomenon (e.g., the evolution of cognitive ability) would not have proceeded in the same way under different circumstances.

UPDATE: A post-controversy article by James Watson in the Independent. Excerpt:

We do not yet adequately understand the way in which the different environments in the world have selected over time the genes which determine our capacity to do different things. The overwhelming desire of society today is to assume that equal powers of reason are a universal heritage of humanity. It may well be. But simply wanting this to be the case is not enough. This is not science.

Labels: Intelligence, IQ, Negroid, Society

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2007/10/on-james-watson-black-iq-controversy.html

2007-10-28T19:58:00.000+02:00

Η Ανθρωπολογία ώς πολεμικό όπλο!!!

The most interesting information in this New York Times opinion piece is that these issues are likely to be discussed at the anthro meeting in November.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/opinion/27shweder.html?ref=opinion

October 27, 2007

Op-Ed Contributor

A True Culture War

By RICHARD A. SHWEDER

Chicago

IS the Pentagon truly going to deploy an army of cultural relativists to Muslim nations in an effort to make the world a safer place?

A few weeks ago this newspaper reported on an experimental Pentagon "human terrain" program to embed anthropologists in combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan. It featured two military anthropologists: Tracy (last name withheld), a cultural translator viewed by American paratroopers as "a crucial new weapon" in counterinsurgency; and Montgomery McFate, who has taken her Yale doctorate into active duty in a media blitz to convince skeptical colleagues that the occupying forces should know more about the local cultural scene.

How have members of the anthropological profession reacted to the Pentagon's new inclusion agenda? A group calling itself the Network of Concerned Anthropologists has called for a boycott and asked faculty members and students around the country to pledge not to contribute to counterinsurgency efforts. Their logic is clear: America is engaged in a brutal war of occupation; if you don't support the mission then you shouldn't support the troops. Understandably these concerned scholars don't want to make it easier for the American military to conquer or pacify people who once trusted anthropologists. Nevertheless, I believe the pledge campaign is a way of shooting oneself in the foot.

Part of my thinking stems from an interview with Ms. McFate on NPR's "Diane Rehm Show" to which I tried to listen with an open mind. My first reaction was to feel let down. It turns out that the anthropologists are not really doing anthropology at all, but are basically hired as military tour guides to help counterinsurgency forces accomplish various nonlethal missions.

These anthropological "angels on the shoulder," as Ms. McFate put it, offer global positioning advice as soldiers move through poorly understood human terrain — telling them when not to cross their legs at meetings, how to show respect to leaders, how to arrange a party. They use their degrees in cultural anthropology to play the part of Emily Post.

More worrisome, it was revealed that Tracy, the mystery anthropologist, wears a military uniform and carries a gun during her cultural sensitivity missions. This brought to my increasingly skeptical mind the unfortunate image of an angelic anthropologist perched on the shoulder of a member of an American counterinsurgency unit who is kicking in the door of someone's home in Iraq, while exclaiming, "Hi, we're here from the government; we're here to understand you."

Nevertheless the military voices on the show had their winning moments, sounding like old-fashioned relativists, whose basic mission in life was to counter ethnocentrism and disarm those possessed by a strident sense of group superiority. Ms. McFate stressed her success at getting American soldiers to stop making moral judgments about a local Afghan cultural practice in which older men go off with younger boys on "love Thursdays" and do some "hanky-panky." "Stop imposing your values on others," was the message for the American soldiers. She was way beyond "don't ask, don't tell," and I found it heartwarming.

I began to imagine an occupying army of moral relativists, enforcing the peace by drawing a lesson from the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans lasted a much longer time than the British Empire in part because they had a brilliant counterinsurgency strategy. They did not try to impose their values on others. Instead, they made room — their famous "millet system" — for cultural pluralism, leaving each ethnic and religious group to control its own territory and at liberty to carry forward its distinctive way of life.

When the American Anthropological Association holds its annual convention in November in Washington, I expect it to become a forum for heated expression of political and moral opposition to the war, to the Bush administration, to capitalism, to neo-colonialism, and to the corrupting influence of the Pentagon and the C.I.A. on professional ethics.

Nevertheless I think it is a mistake to support a profession-wide military boycott or a public counter-counterinsurgency loyalty oath. And I think it would be unwise for the American Anthropological Association to do so at this time.

The real issue for academic anthropologists is not whether the military should know more rather than less about other ways of life — of course it should know more. The real issue is how our profession is going to begin to play a far more significant educational role in the formulation of foreign policy, in the hope that anthropologists won't have to answer some patriotic call late in a sad day to become an armed angel riding the shoulder of a misguided American warrior.

Richard A. Shweder, an anthropologist and professor of comparative human development at the University of Chicago, is the author of "Thinking Through Cultures."

--
www.michaelbalter.com

******************************************
Michael Balter
Contributing Correspondent, Science
michael.balter@gmail.com
******************************************

2007-10-28T16:21:00.001+02:00

Νέες ιδέες γιά τήν ανθρώπινη εξέλιξη

2007-10-28T16:21:00.000+02:00

Νέες ιδέες γιά τήν ανθρώπινη εξέλιξη

2007-10-24T20:02:00.000+03:00

Συνεχίζεται η συζήτηση γιά τήν υπόθεση Watson

2007-10-22T13:55:00.000+03:00

Ειδήσεις καί Δημοσιεύσεις

2007-10-21T17:45:00.001+03:00

Πρόσφατες Δημοσιεύσεις

The elementary DNA of Dr Watson

Τήν εβδομάδα αυτή δημιουργήθηκε ένα μεγάλο θέμα, τό οποίο κατά τήν γνώμη μου μεγαλοποιήθηκε σέ πολιτική επίπεδο. Ο Δρ Watson, Βραβείο Νόμπελ γιά τήν συν-ανακάλυψη τής δομής τού DNA, σέ μία συνέντευξή του σέ αγγλική εφημερίδα υποστήριξε ότι η πολιτική πού εφαρμόζεται από τά Δυτικά κράτη αναφορικά μέ τούς Αφρικανούς είναι λανθασμένη, γιατί βασίζεται στήν παραδοχή ότι αυτοί κατέχουν τόν ίδιο δείκτη ευφυίας μέ τούς Ευρωπαίους. Η φράση αυτή προκάλεσε θύελλα διαμαρτυριών, μέ αποτέλεσμα νά αναβληθεί η προγραμματισμένη ομιλία του στό Μουσείο τών Επιστημών τής Αγγλίας.
Η διατύπωση τού Δρ Watson δέν συνάδει προφανώς μέ τά πλαίσια, τά οποία θέτει η "Πολιτική Ορθότητα" στό θέμα αυτό. Είναι κοινά αποδεκτό ότι όλοι οί άνθρωποι ετούτου τού πλανήτη γεννιούνται μέ τίς ίδιες ικανότητες καί δεξιότητες καί η περαιτέρω πορεία τους στήν ζωή καθορίζεται από τίς περιβαλλοντικές συνθήκες, στίς οποίες αναπτύσσονται.
Η άποψη αυτή είναι καί ορθή καί λανθασμένη ταυτόχρονα. Αποτελεί καί τήν βάση τής επιστημονικής καί μή διαμάχης γιά τόν ρόλο, τόν οποίο διαδραματίζει η Φύση (nature) καί η εκπαίδευση (nurture) στήν πνευματική ανάπτυξη τού ανθρώπου.
Τά μέχρι τούδε επιστημονικά ευρήματα είναι ασαφή καί αλληλοσυγκρουόμενα. Κατ' αρχήν δέν υπάρχει ένας γενικός δείκτης ευφυίας, αλλά μία σειρά δεικτών ευφυίας, δηλαδή δεικτών ταχείας κατανόησης καί επιτυχούς αντίδρασης στό εκάστοτε τιθέμενο ερώτημα ή στήν δημιουργούμενη κατάσταση. Είναι προφανές ότι ορισμένα άτομα θά ανταποκριθούν σωστά, ενά άλλα όχι. Τά άτομα όμως, τά οποία δέν αντέδρασαν σωστά στήν Α' κατάσταση, ενδεχομένως θά αντιδράσουν σωστά στήν Β' καί ούτω καθεξής.
Επιπλέον θά πρέπει νά ληφθεί υπ' όψιν τό πολιτισμικό πλαίσιο από τό οποίο πρόερχεται ο εξεταζόμενος, πλαίσιο τό οποίο καθορίζει νομοτελειακά καί τήν ορθότητα τής απάντησης καί άρα τόν υπολογισμό τού "Δείκτη Ευφυίας". Ενα σχετικό αλλά καί χαρακτηριστικό παράδειγμα αναφέρει ο Gould στό βιβλίο του " The Mismeasurement of Man ", καί αφορά τά τέστ ευφυίας, στά οποία υποβάλλονταν οί υποψήφιοι μετανάστες στόν σταθμό υποδοχής Ellis Island στήν Νέα Υόρκη. Οί ατυχείς μετανάστες, φτωχότατοι αγρότες στήν συντριπτική τους πλειοψηφία, ερωτώντο, μεταξύ άλλων "τί τοποθετεί κανείς επάνω από τό τζάκι". Ουδείς φυσικά απάντησε σωστά, γιατί η ορθή απάντηση ήταν ¨2 κηροπήγια", αντικείμενα άγνωστα στούς πένητες μεσογειακούς, πολωνοεβραίους κλπ μετανάστες, αλλά αυτονόητα γιά τούς Αμερικανούς.
Από τήν άλλη μεριά όμως πρέπει νά αποδεχθούμε ότι γεννιόμαστε μέ διαφορετικές δεξιότητες καί ικανότητες ο καθένας μας. Κάποιος έχει τήν ικανότητα νά κατανοεί καλύτερα καί ταχύτερα μιά μαθηματική εξίσωση, κάποιος άλλος κατανοεί καλύτερα τούς ήχους καί τούς μετατρέπει σέ μουσική μέ κάποιο όργανο, άλλος μαθαίνει εύκολα ξένες γλώσσες καί ούτω καθεξής. Οί διακριτές αυτές ικανότητες τού καθενός μας, χωρίς νά επηρεάζουν καθόλου τήν νομική καί ηθική πανανθρώπινη υπόστασή μας καί τήν σέ παγκόσμιο επίπεδο ισότητά μας, μάς διαφοροποιούν εποικοδομητικά από τούς συνανθρώπους μας.
Η διαφορετικότητα τών ικανοτήτων μας καί τής ταχύτητας αντιδράσεως καί αναδράσεως στά περιβαλλοντικά ερεθίσματα δέν αποτελεί αξιολογικό κριτήριο στό επίπεδο τής νομικής καί ηθικής ισότητας μας, δέν επηρεάζει τήν αυτονόητη ισότητα όλων τών ανθρώπων ανεξαρτήτως καταγωγής, θρησκείας, χρώματος κλπ.
Αλλά δυστυχώς η αυτονόητη αυτή πραγματικότητα είναι πολύ δύσκολο νά γίνει κατανοητή καί πολύ δυσκολότερα νά γίνει ευρύτερα αποδεκτή.
Περίπου στίς αρχές τού προπερασμένου αιώνα ο Binnet επενόησε ένα τέστ ικανοτήτων γιά νά βοηθήσει τούς "κακούς" μαθητές στήν καλυτέρευση τών επιδόσεων τους. Ηταν η απαρχή μιάς ατέλειωτης σειράς τέστ δεικτών ευφυίας, ατελών στήν αρχή, τά οποία όμως βελτιώθηκαν μέ τήν πρόοδο τών γνώσεών μας στό πεδίο αυτό, μέ τελική (προσωρινή βέβαια) κατάληξη τήν δημιουργία διαφοροποιημένων καί εξειδικευμένων γιά κάθε νοητικό πεδίο προσεγγίσεων.
Η κυριώτερη διαμάχη γιά τόν δείκτη ευφυίας επικεντρώνεται στήν διαφορά τού μέσου όρου τιμής μεταξύ "λευκών" καί "μαύρων" Αμερικανών, μία διαμάχη η οποία, ώς μή όφειλε, έγινε αντικείμενο ακραίας πολιτικής εκμετάλευσης στήν χώρα αυτή. Ισως εδώ θά πρέπει νά αναφερθεί καί νά τονισθεί ιδιαίτερα, ότι η επικέντρωση στίς διαφορές μεταξύ "λευκών" καί "μαύρων" είναι πλασματική καί υποβολιμαία! Ουδείς αναφέρει ότι τίς υψηλότερες τιμές τού δείκτη ευφυίας τίς παρατηρούμε στούς κατοίκους τής Απω Ανατολής!! Ιδίως σέ ότι αφορά τήν αφηρημένη σκέψη, τήν κατανόηση τού χώρου κλπ. Ευρωποκεντρισμός άραγε??
Η πρόσφατη συμβολή τών Fagan καί Holland μέ τήν εργασία τους "Equal Opportunity Eliminates Racial Differences in IQ" ίσως βοηθήσει στήν καλύτερη κατανόηση τού προβλήματος.

2007-10-21T17:45:00.000+03:00

Εξέλιξη τού Ανθρώπου

*

Language, Cognition, and Evolution: Modularity versus Unity

Vatican says it does not owe Darwin an apology

No apology

God's evolution

The Galileo treatment

Creationists declare war over the brain

Related Articles

Weblinks

In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Ventura County Reporter

Do the evolution

The Rev. Michael Dowd began life as a born-again evangelical believing Darwinian biology to be the work of the devil. Now, he preaches the gospel of science.

One Common Ancestor Behind Blue Eyes

The evolution of a sensitive lesson

Educators find ways of handling The Theory. Some skip it. Others hunt for a balance point.

The Repeater

Platypus Much Older Than Thought, Lived with Dinos

Longest Piece of Synthetic DNA Yet

Scientists have created an entire bacterial genome with off-the-shelf chemicals

The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

by Tony Campolo, Bill Clinton's pastoral counsellor

Creationism Corrupts Our Youth, Says Democratic Presidential Candidate Gravel

Life's Ingredients Detected In Far Off Galaxy

Growing Scientific Evidence Supporting Evolution

Bring back the Greek gods

A True Culture War