Science, Evolution, and Creationism

The US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine has just published 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." In the book, the Academy makes it quite clear that evolution is central to modern biology, yet continues to be challenged in the classroom by proponents of creationism and intelligent design. The Academy states in the book that science and religion can coexist, and present different ways of understanding the world.

This book is an update from previous versions published in 1984 and 1999. The Academy is trying to appeal to religious moderates in the face of rising religious fundamentalism in the US and educate the masses of uneducated in the US (aka: the general public).

In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

Whether this education of America will actually work is up for debate. I'm not going to be an optimist on this one. Those that believe have no reason to want the education. They already have their belief that religion is correct, and science is the work of the devil. And on that score, they're already preparing for the battle.

The Peopling of the World

Humans have had a short and spectacular history on this planet. Short. Extremely short. To some of the species we're busily taking to extinction, we've just barely blinked into existence. We're quite the surprise for the planet. Follow this link for an animated view of how we took over the planet. In a brief period of time, we've forced frightening changes on our world -- but the planet has seen its share of disasters. It has bounced back from mass extinctions. It will survive the one we're bringing. Will we?

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Back in 2002, Scientific American published 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense -- an attempt to rebut "some of the most common "scientific" arguments raised against evolution." Having to refute creationists arguments against evolution isn't a new thing. As SciAm points out, Charles Darwin was similarly challenged in his day by scientists, until evidence from numerous scientific disciplines mounted a bulwark against "creationist nonsense." Today of course, science faces a the challenge of misunderstanding, misinformation and just plain lies. Even the informed is challenged to face the barrage of idiocy.

Here's some help then. 15 common arguments that creationists raise, and answers you could wield to knock them back to the dark ages (let's face it, some will never see the light).

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
2. Natural selection is based on circular reasoning: the fittest are those who survive, and those who survive are deemed fittest.
3. Evolution is unscientific, because it is not testable or falsifiable. It makes claims about events that were not observed and can never be re-created.
4. Increasingly, scientists doubt the truth of evolution.
5. The disagreements among even evolutionary biologists show how little solid science supports evolution.
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
7. Evolution cannot explain how life first appeared on earth.
8. Mathematically, it is inconceivable that anything as complex as a protein, let alone a living cell or a human, could spring up by chance.
9. The Second Law of Thermodynamics says that systems must become more disordered over time. Living cells therefore could not have evolved from inanimate chemicals, and multicellular life could not have evolved from protozoa.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance.
14. Living things have fantastically intricate features--at the anatomical, cellular and molecular levels--that could not function if they were any less complex or sophisticated. The only prudent conclusion is that they are the products of intelligent design, not evolution.
15. Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level, life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution.

48% of Americans Think Evolution is Rubbish

A Newsweek poll on the belief of god finds that Americans are deeply religious. 91% of Americans believe in god -- and 82% of them are Christians. Further, 48% of Americans think the scientific theory of evolution is a load of shit -- with 34% of college graduates believing the Bible's take on creation is fact.

Goes to show you -- we really do need population control.

Crabs and Human Evolution

You'd be amazed by what parasites can tells us about our evolution. A group of scientists that had previously published findings on human head lice, just published recent research that looked at the co-evolution of human pubic lice (crabs) with humans. The findings are interesting, raise more questions than they answer -- but provide a different lens through which human evolution can be studied. Pubic lice (Pthirus pubis) has at least a thirteen million year history with us -- going on the evolutionary journey with the distant ancestors of today's great apes and the ancestors of humans and chimpanzees. Somewhere on the journey however, Pthirus pubis became extinct on the human/chimp lineage. Then about three and half million years ago, Pthirus pubis from the gorilla lineage, reappeared on our hominid ancestors. What happened?

Pthirus pubis is only shared via close contact, which implies that our hominid ancestors shared more with the ancestors of gorillas than had previously thought. Today's gorillas are confined to forests, while early hominids were thought to have taken to the open savannah. Was that the case in the past however? Were there savannah based gorillas or forest dwelling hominids? Carl Zimmer has more on the story and speculation on his site.