That's Not How Engagement Works

Let's say I'm a website designer for a company. I'm hired to produce a new website, a better website. It's hard to say exactly what defines a good website and I don't want to have to put together a huge poll of users asking for feedback. I just want to work with what I have available. Namely the analytics my ISP or Google or some other company provides.

One of those can be loosely defined as "engagement". Are users staying on the site longer? Are they clicking things? Do they visit more than just the homepage?

In an ideal situation, you'd hope the answer would be "yes" to many of these things. However, just because the answers are "yes" doesn't mean that it's a good website design. Rather, it could imply a very bad design; a website that is too confusing causing people to have to hunt for the information, making them click on more things for more pages and staying longer.

So simply looking at a situation in terms of a metric like this doesn't give the whole picture.

And the same applies for education where student "engagement" is often used as a proxy for good education. There's good reason for this. If students are engaged, studies show they retain more of the material. However, if the material is poorly constructed, then "engagement" may be more of a desperate attempt to rectify this. Worse, if the material is downright wrong, the students will likely still retain it thus, being a net negative on their education.

It seems several teachers in Louisiana don't understand this concept. In a stunning letter unearthed by Zach Kopplin, teachers state that a law passed in 2006 which led to "...students invariably get more involved in the lesson which leads to better discussion and in turn to a higher level of achievement...".

Sounds good, right?

The only problem is that the law has opened the door for Creationism, climate change denial, and any other pseudo-scientific trash politicians want to sneak into the classroom which is what these teachers are championing.

But this isn't how engagement, at least as a meaningful metric for academics, works. I recall a discussion in which I and many of my classmates were very involved in in high school. The teacher (thankfully not a science or history teacher) was explaining why she thought the moon landing was a hoax. Oddly enough, this was one of my first big encounters with pseudo-science and it was what led me personally, to do more research. It's what introduced me to Phil Plait's "Bad Astronomy". So in this one case, it ended up being a positive. However, a few years later in my American History class we had to do presentations. I did mine on the space race and moon landing. Wouldn't you know it, there were questions about whether it had been faked.

Although my History teacher wasn't the one espousing moon hoax nonsense, I recall other spirited discussions in his class regarding the Kennedy assassination. This teacher was a big fan of conspiracy theories regarding this event. And students knew it. Thus, many times students would try to get him off topic, wasting valuable class time, by engaging him on this topic. This is another example of how student involvement can be a poor metric.

Thus, it is quite disappointing that so many teachers would defend bad science by perverting what can be a useful metric. But as the computer geeks say, "Garbage in - Garbage out."

The Discovery Institute Misses the Mark

Yesterday, Phil Plait pointed to a post at the Discovery Institute's dishonestly titled "Evolution News and Views" blog. It certainly has a lot of views, but no real news. Not unless you count Fox News whipped to a incoherent froth news at least.

Regardless, the article in question was titled :Why Censorship Works: The Case of Zack Kopplin". While it briefly mentions the recent and well researched article by Kopplin which demonstrated that private schools have been getting tens of millions of dollars in public funds to teach outright lies, it doesn't really say what this has to do with censorship. Nor does it dispute any of the facts.

Rather, the main thrust of the article is about trying to create a personality profile of.... people that respect the law?

No. Really. That's what it's all about. To try to insist that Kopplin is wrong, not because of the fact that the money spent doesn't violate the law, but that Creationists are somehow being noble in violating the law because it's "an act of civil disobedience". Their analogy they draw comes from Rush Limbaugh.

Sorry. I should have warned you that was coming so you could grab a bowl or something to vomit in. If you managed to keep it down, take a moment to reconsider grabbing one as I explain their analogy.

In a radio broadcast, Rush, "railed against a law in South Florida that prohibits turning on the lights after dark in your beach-side backyard for eight months of the year. The rationale, which he finds questionable, is that the illumination endangers sea turtles, luring them to shore instead of out to sea where they're supposed to be."

So, to the Creationist, this is the definition of "civil disobedience". Breaking the law because you find it a personal inconvenience. The reality is that we don't react with disdain because "You have insulted the law!". Instead, we react because you have done a shitty thing with unreasonable provocation.

Let's take an example of real civil disobedience. In fact, let's take the quintessential one: Rosa Parks. Contrary to the Discovery Institute's claims, those that fight Creationism would not oppose this act of honest civil disobedience because in this case, it highlighted a problem with the law; that a tired person be forced to give up their seat to another person due only to the color of their skin.

Returning to the case of turtles and beaches, we can ask the question: How is the law being unfair? Because you have to turn your lights off for a few hours? The Discovery Institute is really going to have to spin hard to make the case that this is such an imposition in a broad sense as to honestly compare to racial discrimination or other acts of legitimately harmful laws as to prompt warranted civil disobedience.

Coming back full circle to the point of the main article, that using public money to teach Creationism is really a good thing because it's "civil disobedience", we should be asking the same question: How is the law being unfair?

This fundamentally important and central question is answered nowhere in the article. And it's no surprise that they wouldn't want to get deep into this. Because this isn't some law about turtles on the coast. It's not even a regional law about busses. This law is the Constitution of the United States of America. Let that sink in.

If they're going to claim civil disobedience and claim it virtuous, it's to state that the law is unjust. Creationists are claiming that the US constitution is WRONG.

That's one hell of a claim and they'd better have one hell of an argument to back it. I presume the Creationists will then jump straight to the same silly talking point they have been lately; academic freedom or some other such buzzword.

I'm not going to waste my time thoroughly deconstructing this but a quick response would be that while academic freedom is a legitimate topic, there are times where one freedom bumps up against another. In this case, it's the academic "freedom" to lie to students vs the freedom of, which as the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled, requires that we be free from as imposed by the government, religion. When these two collide, it's no honest contest. One of these freedoms is enshrined in our constitution. Every single court case has ruled that teaching Creationism using government money violates that 1st amendment protection.

Additionally, I think the best summary came from the recent Ball State case in which the school's president stated, "The question is not one of academic freedom, but one of academic integrity". Indeed, when it comes to academic "freedom", Creationism doesn't even count.

Yet in the Discovery Institute's eyes, this is beside the point. The law is still unjust because it doesn't give them the answer they want.

In some senses I hope they keep thinking that way. It will keep delivering them lost lawsuit after lost lawsuit. Their gleefully breaking the law will continue to bring cases against them that will draw attention to just how poor their case is.

I only wish that they wouldn't use hundreds of millions of our tax money to do it.

But in the meantime, disobeying a law without legitimate reason doesn't make you a candidate for civil disobedience. It just makes you an asshole.

Brother Jed to Get His Own Reality Show

I'm weird. Everyone says that you're supposed to miss school. I don't. At least for the most part. But one of the things I do miss is getting to hear Brother Jed. It's been awhile since I've even given him much thought, but he used to pop up on this blog enough that he has his own post tag.

If you haven't been around long enough to have seen my posts on him, he's a campus preacher that pushes Creationism and has an autobiography that illustrates his lack of higher level thought.

So I suppose that it's indicative of the state of American media that Brother Jed is going to be the focus of a new reality show.

It will depend on how the show is done, but this could be absolutely horrible or absolutely hilarious. Given how painfully Jed shoves his foot down his throat and how exploitative reality shows tend to be, I suspect it's going to be the latter.

Indiana Lawmaker Tries to Give Students Rights They Already Have

Over in Indiana, Sen. Dennis Kruse (obviously a Republican), recently failed to push through a bill to Creationism. I guess it's too much to expect that a guy that writes laws would know something about them. Like that the Supreme Court stated that teaching Creationism in public schools was unconstitutional in 1987. Fortunately, other people knew and that didn't get passed.

Not deterred, Kruse is trying a new typical strategy. It's been the ID/Creationist strategy ever since they got their asses kicked at Dover. They realize they can't teach the non-existent controversy, so instead, they try to get people to question evolution so they can push non-existent criticisms assuming that the teacher is sympathetic to Creationism, or if they're not, enough students can harass the teacher and disrupt the class that the teacher will be forced to give the section up due to the prohibitive amount of time it would take to address every single false "question".

The new bill basically ensures that students are free to question the teachers. Which in truth, they already are. Students are encouraged to ask questions. Teachers can and should be ready and able to answer them.

This bill is new in that the teachers would have to cite the research to support their answer. This is where the trick lies and takes it from simple questioning to harassment. It doesn't say, simply the "evidence", but the "research". So teachers would be forced to have a library of specific research that was done for every given topic. Which often is contrary to how science works, especially on the big topics.

See, the deal is that it is very rare that a single bit of research establishes an entire field. So saying "what piece of research proves common descent" is a question that a teacher can't given an answer to. Because it's not a "piece" of research. It's a body and teachers would now be required to provide, on demand, massive amounts of research.

Thus, all a student would have to do to disrupt an entire week of class, would be to ramble off a Gish Gallop of dishonest Creationist "criticisms" of evolution, and the teacher would now be required to answer every one of them, in detail. That's not conducive to teaching. That's not conducive to learning.

Which is precisely what Creationists want.

Creationists Wrong? Unpossible!

Remember when I had a creationist claiming

stars are found where astronomers agree they could not evolve, near the center of our galaxy. These short-lived stars orbit a massive black hole, where gravity is so strong that gas and dust clouds could never evolve into a star.

Well, surprise surprise, recent studies have shown this is likely incorrect.

The new research shows that as large chunks of galactic molecular clouds fall into the galactic center, the gravitational forces conspire to compress infalling gas creating fresh young stars.

Happy New Year. Have an ID Bill Missouri!

It's been quite some time since I've seen any pro-Creationism bills introduced in my home state of Missouri. In general, it seems we learned from our neighbors in Kansas when they had their big kerfuffle and had their pro-ID standards struck down and were embarrassed nation wide (if you don't remember, Kansas' bill actually was put into law for some time and changed the definition of science to include the supernatural, whereas most bills die before ever becoming law).

But it seems Missouri has forgotten the lesson and a pro-Creationist bill introduced recently. And boy is it loaded with some stupid. Let's take a look.

One of the first things it does is define a bunch of terms:

"Biological evolution", a theory of the origin of life and its ascent by naturalistic means.

Uh, no. Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. That's how you can tell real scientists didn't have anything to do with this bill. Real scientists know what words mean.

A second quibble is that "ascent" is a poor word choice that makes the assumption that evolution has a goal towards "higher" species. This is nonsense.

Theory philosophically demands only naturalistic causes and denies the operation of any intelligence, supernatural event, God or theistic figure in the initial or subsequent development of life;

Again, it's pretty painfully obvious this was written by scientifically illiterate Creationists. Evolution doesn't deny the existence of God; it just makes Him superfluous.

"Biological intelligent design", a hypothesis that the complex form and function observed in biological structures are the result of intelligence and, by inference, that the origin of biological life and the diversity of all original species on earth are the result of intelligence.

Hey! That one is almost right! It didn't attempt to pass Intelligent Design off as a theory, whereas they admit that evolution is, although they don't make any indication that they know what the difference is.

Since the inception of each original species, genetic material has been lost, inherited, exchanged, mutated, and recombined to result in limited variation.

Wait, what? So this bill is passing straight lies into law? No, genetic material has not been "lost". Sometimes it is, but through gene duplication and other methods, the amount of information increases. Creationists often deny this. Furthermore, we've seen species diverge, thus giving lie to the idea that there is "limited variation" with "each original species".

Naturalistic mechanisms do not provide a means for making life from simple molecules or making sufficient new genetic material to cause ascent from microscopic organisms to large life forms.

A claim without any supporting evidence.

The hypothesis does not require the identity of intelligence responsible for earth’s biology but requires any proposed identity of that intelligence to be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation.

It claims not to, but every major ID proponent, from Behe, to Dembski, to Johnson, have claimed otherwise at some point.

Concepts inherent within the hypothesis include:
(a) The origin of life on earth is inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no plausible mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic origin of the first independent living organism;

Um, argument from ignorance.

(b) All original species on earth are inferred to be the result of intelligence directed design and construction. There are no significant mechanisms or present-day experiments to prove the naturalistic development of earth's species from microscopic organisms;

Another argument from ignorance, and one that's actually untrue. Genetics "proves" the common ancestry.

(c) Complex forms in proteins, enzymes, DNA, and other biological structures demonstrated by their constituent molecules in regard to size, shape, quantity, orientation, sequence, chirality, and integration imply intelligent design was necessary for the first life on earth. Intelligence is capable of designing complex form;

Intelligence is capable of designing complex form. However, it's not exclusive. Roll a rock down a mountainside and the chips and nicks it accumulates are exceptionally "complex". But that doesn't mean it was done in any intelligent manner. Thus, they're trying to confuse people with a possibility as the only possible answer.

(d) Complex functions demonstrated by growth, reproduction, repair, food metabolization, waste disposal, stimuli response, and autonomous mobility in microscopic organisms imply intelligent design was necessary for the first life on earth.

In other words, "we're going to assume the first life was as complex as life is today requiring all these things." Evolution has never made such a claim. Thus, this is a strawman.

(e) Within the history of human experience, all exhibits of recurring discrete symbols from a set of symbols arranged in a specific sequence which store information and can be read by human intelligence, is itself the result of intelligence.

Since when are nucleic acids "discrete symbols"? We assign symbols to represent them, but that doesn't mean that's what they are. We use symbols to make things comprehensible, but we can't project backwards and assume the reverse.

(f) Intelligence-directed design and construction of all original species at inception without an accompanying genetic burden is inferred rather than random mutational genetic change as a constructive mechanism. Random mutational genetic change results in an increasing genetic burden and species degradation rather than species ascent;

Again with the ridiculous humancentric notion that there are "higher" and "lower" species. Also, they're making the absolutely false claim that mutations are only harmful. This is an outright lie.

(g) Intelligence-directed action is necessary to exceed the limits of natural species change, which is a combination of autogenous species change and environmental effected species change. Multi-generation breeding experiments illustrate the limits of natural species change and its inadequacy for developing required genetic information found in dissimilar species;

No. We have directly seen species diverge.

(h) The irreducible complexity of certain biological systems implies a completed design and construction at inception rather than step-by-step development, as indicated by the structures observed for sight, hearing, smell, balance, blood coagulation, digestion, and hormone control;

Wait... did they really just invoke Irreducible Complexity? That notion that got destroyed in the Dover trial? Hell, they're even including some of the exact systems that were shown to be reducible in that trial! It's cute they found some new ones to list, but it's still an argument from ignorance. Logical fallacies don't fly in real science.

(i) The lack of significant transitional forms between diverse species existing today and in the fossil record implies all original species were completed at inception rather than by a step-by-step development from other species. A lack of transitional forms is illustrated by the appearance of large complex life forms in the Cambrian fossil record without any significant previous fossils;

Wow. Two lies in one point. 1) We have a ton of transitional fossils. And even if we didn't, genetics and homology establish evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. The fossil record is just bonus. 2) The Cambrian explosion has many fossils prior to it. Creationists just pretend they don't exist.

(j) Common designs and features evident in different species imply the intelligent reuse of proven designs analogous to the reuse of proven designs by human designers;

This is the gibberish that "common design implies common designer". No. If things weren't similar, then Creationists could claim it "implies a creative designer." Indeed, only a few hundred years ago, this is exactly the argument Creationists made. God was invoked to explain diversity.

The take away less is that a designer is assumed either way and since, no matter what, that's the case for common or different structures, there's no way to falsify the hypothesis. And if it can't be falsified, it's not science.

(k) The lack of significant present-day observable changes in species due to random variation, mutation, natural selection, adaptation, segregation, or other naturalistic mechanisms implies intelligence as the cause for all original species;

Again, an outright lie. We've seen numerous species diverge. When they diverge, that's very significant. But Creationists pretend that doesn't happen or use the term "species" so vaguely that it's meaningless.

From there, the bill goes on to proscribe "Equal treatment" which is defined as "the approximate equal teaching of each specified viewpoint for a single course of instruction in course textbooks" which should "contain approximately an equal number of pages of relevant material teaching each viewpoint."

That's right. The bill acknowledges that ID is merely a hypothesis, but claims it deserves as much time as a full fledged theory (which it spent considerable time lying about).

As expected, they go on to attempt to define "theory" but botch it:

"Scientific theory", an inferred explanation of incompletely understood phenomena about the physical universe based on limited knowledge, whose components are data, logic, and faith-based philosophy. The inferred explanation may be proven, mostly proven, partially proven, unproven or false and may be based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate. The inferred explanation may be described as a scientific theoretical model;

Nothing is ever "completely understood" in science. To do so would require infinite knowledge, something science doesn't claim to have (yet Creationists do!). Theories in science are not "proven" in an absolute sense. They are, however, proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If they are "partially proven, unproven or false ... based on data which is supportive, inconsistent, conflicting, incomplete, or inaccurate" then it's not a theory. The end.

Similarly, the sponsors of the bill can't manage to define a scientific law either:

(10) "Scientific law", a statement describing specific phenomena about the physical universe which has been verified by observation or experimentation and has no exceptions of verified empirical data. The statement may be described by formula;

"No exceptions of verified empirical data" you say? What about Newton's laws? There are numerous exceptions. Which is why the law had to be replaced... with a theory.

There's quite a few other ironies in the bill. For example:

If empirical data is taught, only such data which has been verified or is currently capable of being verified by observation or experimentation shall be taught.

Since every point listed in defining the thrust of ID is a logical fallacy, it is not "capable of being verified by observation or experimentation" in a broad sense. In narrow senses, some specific points may be, but every time those points have been raised, they have been found to be false.

Data with the appearance of empirical data which has never been verified and is currently incapable of being verified shall be identified as nonverifiable when taught orally or in writing;

You mean like Behe's claims of IC, or Dembski's entire concept of Specified Complexity which make up the core of many of the points previously raised?

If scientific law is taught, written textbooks statements identified as scientific law shall have no known exceptions of verified empirical data;

As previously pointed out, this actually has more of an effect on Physics than it does Biology.

But perhaps one of the most vile things the bill does, is after working so hard to (mis)define theory, they nearly admit that it's irrelevant anyway because they're going to mush everything up with false equivalence:

As used in this subsection, the term "theory" shall mean theory or hypothesis;

In other words, they don't care that ID hasn't been established. They're just going to promote it for no reason.

Here's another doozy:

If biological intelligent design is taught, any proposed identity of the intelligence responsible for earth’s biology shall be verifiable by present-day observation or experimentation

Either the sponsors of this bill are fiendishly smart, or incredibly stupid with this point.

As written, it would seem the intent of this passage is to prevent discussion that would link the designer to the Biblical God, thereby keeping it from running afoul of 1st amendment challenges under the guise that it doesn't promote any specific religion and is therefore secular. But Behe, Dembski, Johnson, et al claim to be able to infer the identity of the designer. Thus, if that was the intent of the sponsors, since those arguments are presumably scientific, there is a gaping loophole.

But then again, that may well be the intent, that those very arguments could sneak God into the discussion while excluding all other options. Again, either very clever or very stupid (as if the rest of the bill doesn't indicate the latter).

(6) If a scientific theory or hypothesis proven to be false is taught for historical, illustrative, or other reasons, the theory or hypothesis shall be identified as false when taught orally or in writing.

Wait... doesn't that mean the entire bill defeats itself?

As noted previously, the bill requires that all textbooks conform to this "equal time" nonsense. Obviously, this doesn't mean all textbooks are thrown out immediately, but all new ones purchased must be. In the meantime, the bill requires that a "supplemental textbook" be created. But the identity of the people to create it is asinine:

shall consist of nine individuals who are knowledgeable of science and intelligent design and reside in Missouri.

Wait... so they don't need to be Biologists? They can just be knowledgeable about any form of science to qualify?

It's no surprise why this is included: You probably wouldn't find 9 people that are Biologists in Missouri that would support such anti-science. Rather, as the Dissent From Darwin list shows, the vast majority of "scientists" that support ID aren't in any relevant fields. According to one survey, only about 0.01% of "dissenting" scientists are from a field which is applicable.

In other words, they want to include people that are illiterate in Biology to write material for a Biology class.

So here's a quick recap:

• The bill admits that evolution is a theory and ID is a hypothesis.
  
• It promptly tosses that distinction out the window to engage in some false equivocation.
  
• It incorrectly defines most of its terms.
  
• It throws out all of the typical Creationist/ID false claims against evolution and pretends that they're 1) honest criticisms and 2) a positive argument for ID.
  
• Leaves a wide open door to promote the Christian God as the identity of the Designer.
  
• Appoints non-experts to develop classroom material.

I sincerely doubt this bill will make it too far. However, I've looked at the wording of quite a few Creationist bills and I think this one rates pretty highly on the stupid density scale.

Poisoning the Well of Science in New Hampshire & The Back Handed "Help" From the NCSE

Word's been getting around that there are currently two anti-evolution bills in the legislature in New Hampshire. While such bills pop up all the time and are nearly as quickly struck down, these ones are interesting to me because they may be signaling a new(ish) approach from the anti-science crowd: Poisoning the well.

For those that don't remember how Creationists have tried worming their gibberish into the classroom previously, here's a quick recap:

• Straight out teaching Creationism - Ruled illegal in Edwards v. Aguillard
  
• Straight out teaching promoting Creationism "Intelligent Design" - Ruled illegal in Kitzmiller v. Dover
  
• "Critical Analysis" of Evolution using fake "facts" - Ongoing

So where does this new bill fall?

The new bills require that teachers tell students about "the theorists' political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism".

As if that has anything to do with anything when it comes to statistically sound science. Religion, or lack thereof doesn't change the observations or the math (unless someone's lying, which Creationists do all the time).

So what's this all about? One of the bill's sponsors, Jerry Bergevin (R-District 17), says that he wants things taught this way because of "the people who came up with the ideas.... It's a worldview and it's godless." He blames evolution for the Holocaust and the school shootings at Columbine.

Well guess what! So is gravity! After all, it's not Intelligent Falling! But as always, the anti-science crowd is singling out evolution for being "different". It's not. It's still well tested, robust science.

But despite Darwin being initially religious, Bergevin is trying to smear evolution by poisoning the well. This is really a subclass of the red herring fallacy, which attempts to distract from the real issues by invoking guilt by association.

It's one of the most pathetic, childish ways of arguing and Bergevin should be ashamed, but apparently doesn't have the good sense to be. To be fair, it's a tactic Creationists like Kent Hovind and Answers in Genesis have been taking for a long time, but when it comes to schools, they've largely been out of the picture for some time now.

So what does this mean?

It's hard to say. It could be just a coincidence, or it could be the start of a new strategy by the Creationist camp since their "critical analysis" has been stopped by and large since it's devoid of any honest information.

If it's the latter, then what's driving it? Is this a throwback to the harder line, totally bugnuts Creationists like Hovind and AiG? If so, I welcome it. It's only further evidence that the loons at the Discovery Institute have failed, and the old camp is one that's been so thoroughly defeated that the future battles will be a cakewalk.

But perhaps I'm reading too much into this.

Meanwhile, there's one more thing I think that's worth pointing out, and this is the response to this claim from the NCSE.

For some time, many science bloggers (especially PZ and Jerry Coyne) have accused the NCSE of going too far in defending evolution, to the point of actually promoting religion. I think the NCSE's response in this case is a pretty good example of this.

Instead of simply pointing out that Bergevin is committing a fallacy by trying to smear evolution without addressing any of its facts, they ignore this central issue, and instead, bend over backwards to point out

Evolutionary scientists are Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and Greens and everything. Similarly, their religious views are all over the map, too. ... If you replace atheism in the bill with Protestantism, or Catholicism, or Judaism or any other view, it's clear to see it's not going to pass legal muster.

While this is vaguely true (there are religious scientists, many of whom I've written about on this blog), what's more notable is that the scientific community is about as non-religious as it gets. But the NCSE hides that, thereby giving the appearance that the religious component is far larger than it really is.

In other words, the NCSE is actually helping Bergevin because they're acting like his accusation is something of which they should be ashamed. Yes, evolution doesn't mention God. Yes, there are more non-religious scientists than there are religious. NO, this is not something we need to shy away from.

The reason is that the first point, not including God in the equations, is exactly what makes science work! Science began making its huge strides forward in explaining how the world works, in repeatable, testable, and meaningful ways, precisely when it cast off the shackles of the supernatural.

The second point, as I've pointed out, is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

But the NCSE doesn't seem to want to own up to these facts. Instead, they want to cozy up to religion and protect it, coddling the fear of atheism and in addition, the naturalistic method that makes science work.

Book Review - Greatest Show on Earth

I finally finished Dawkins' Greatest Show on Earth. I bought the book shortly after it came out, and worked through most of it quickly before losing interest. I picked it up again this past winter and again, quit before finishing. Once again, I tried this summer and made it nearly as far as I did the first time, but having read it so many times, it stuck enough for me to quit for awhile, and come back without feeling the need to start over.

I still haven't figured out exactly what it is about this book that's prompted me to quit midway through three separate times. The book starts off introducing a little bit about how science works and what it means to be a "theory" in science. This is old hat for anyone that's been involved in the evolution "debate" so there's little new information here, but the thing that interested me the most was Dawkins' call for a new word to replace the frequently abused "theory". Likening a scientific theory to math, he calls for the term "theorum", a twist of mathematical theorems which are accepted as true even though they're often impossible to prove since there's an infinite number of cases in which they could apply.

The next several chapters work to build up an understanding of how evolution works, from scales that are uncontroversial, even to Creationists (who accept "microevolution"), gradually to larger and larger scales, through dogs, cows, and computer generated biomorphs, showing how each transition has been supported by observation.

From there, he discusses the "Primrose path to macroevolution", taking this even further. While the chapter doesn't truly demonstrate anything that could readily be called "macroevolution", its goal is to set the framework for diverging populations that will then be able to grow apart even further, if only there would be enough time, which is the topic of the next chapter. That chapter explores dating methods, like dendrochronology and radioisotope dating.

Of course, some changes don't take deep time to achieve and the fifth chapter explores rather astounding changes that take place within our own lives. I think the most interesting was a series of experiments with guppies, placed in isolated pools with different rocks on their beds, some with predators, some without. The variation from this was a fantastic demonstration.

Moving still, towards larger scales, the next chapter covers a bit of the fossil record, explaining the supposed "gaps" and just how little that really means. This is followed by a chapter which focuses even more on the recent fossil record that chronicles the development of humans and just how detailed the record is for supposedly being non-existent as Creationists claim.

The 8th chapter was the one that slowed me down the most every time. This one covered much more on the microbiological side, involving DNA and how it created forms through embyrology. It's not that the topic wasn't interesting, but rather, much of the material became very informationally dense at this point, and the chapter seemed to drag.

But once past this chapter, I think is where the book really began to shine. The last chapters really get to the meatiest portion of the book, providing the most clear cut evidence presented in the most direct fashions. Chapter nine discusses how the motion of continents isolated populations of one species, allowing them to diverge. Chapter ten covers family trees and the numerous ways they can be derived (from homology or genetics) and yet they always come out to agree. It also explores how non-coding genes can be used as biological clocks that also agree with other dating methods. Chapter eleven is about vestigial structures and provides some new examples beyond the usual ones which was refreshing. It also explores things that aren't vestigial, but that got caught up in evolution in other ways, like the vagus nerve.

The reason these chapters stood out to me is, in each one, they can be starkly contrasted with ID/Creationism. They all make sense in the light of evolution, but make the designer inept or deceptive (similar to the argument put forth in Miller's Finding Darwin's God, but not so plainly stated here). With ID/Creationism, each of these cases requires special pleading.

While the first several chapters made a good case for the idea of evolution, complete with steps along the way to bolster it, these last few chapters are the ones that really slam the nails in the coffin.

There's two more chapters. Chapter twelve explores the apparent stillness of evolution where arms races meet stalemates or have to keep changing just to stay in the same place, but nothing here is really a strong argument for evolution. The final chapter is a line by line discussion of the final paragraph of Origin of Species, putting each piece into the context of how Darwin's idea has been realized. It's a cute summary, but ultimately added very little to the book. If I were to reread this book, I'd skip it.

Included is also a appendix which includes studies of just how frequently evolution is rejected in various countries and seeks to put in context the scope of anti-evolutionism. I skimmed this, but didn't bother with it too in depth since the problem is already obvious.

My overall impression of this book is that it's good, but not exactly the slam dunk I think it was intended to be. Too much gets lost in the noise and isn't summarized clearly enough to really bring the full weight of the book out. This book could have been much better if each chapter contained some end notes that summarized the main points to clarify what the intent of the chapter was. Without them, it's easy to get lost, which is why I think I gave up so many times. The book lacks a direction that's immediately obvious. In retrospect I can see it, but that only works if you've completed the book, which isn't likely to happen unless you're as stupidly tenacious as me.

So who is this book worth recommending to? Obviously not Creationists. They've likely heard most of this anyway, and have the constant strategy of seizing on the details and finding bits they don't understand to hold up as "counter evidence" or simply moving the goalposts. In reading many segments of this book, a passage from the first book I reviewed on this blog, Science of Diskworld III, came to mind:

Yes, the proponents of intelligent design understand the eye . . . but as only one example, not as the basis of a general principle. ‘Oh yes, we know all about the eye,’ they say (we paraphrase). ‘We’re not going to ask you what use half an eye is. That’s simple-minded nonsense.’ So instead, they ask what use half a bacterial flagellum is, and thereby repeat the identical error in a different context.

I could just envision Creationists saying, "That's all well and good, but what about [Gish gallop]?" Trying to educate a Creationist is a waste of time.

But what about the middle ground? Those that aren't decided but wanting to learn more about the evolution and ID/Creationism? The first time I've been asked to recommend a book on evolution to such a person happened a few weeks ago with a girl at work. She rejects evolution for all the usual logical fallacies ("Isn't it all too complex?"), but didn't immediately accept ID/Creationism as something that had much science going for it either.

My choices of books to give her included this book, Shubin's Your Inner Fish, and Miller's Finding Darwin's God. (I would also have considered Coyne's Why Evolution is True, but I haven't read it and don't own a copy.) Ultimately, out of these three books, I recommended Miller's. Inner Fish is fantastic, but doesn't give enough direct back and forth between evolution and ID/Creationism that just shows why the latter is wrong. This one has that at the end, but it's simply too hard to get through for the reasons I explained before. Thus, it's not the greatest of books for the uncertain middle ground either.

The last potential audience is those that already support evolution and are looking for a more thorough grounding and a few new pieces of evidence that I haven't seen in other sources. This is about the only audience I think this book can really do much for.

Overall, this book is ok, but not nearly as good as Selfish Gene, which is my favorite Dawkins book of the ones I've read thus far, albeit for different reasons (giving a marvelous naturalistic origin to morals and altruism). I'm happy to have this on my bookshelf, but it won't be likely to get another read any time soon.

A Thought From Feynman

I'm doing a bit of research and I came across an interesting piece. It's an adaptation from Richard Feynman's commencement speech at Caltech in 1974 in which he discusses what he calls "Cargo Cult Science". In other words, things that sound scientific, but aren't.

In one portion, something stuck out at me:

Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.

This is an important lesson to remember. When something new is discovered in science, there's often a great deal of uncertainty to it. But after thorough investigation, it generally settles down on an answer, even if that answer is quite different than the initial estimate.

Yet the gasbag Ray Comfort seems to think that's a problem. He's repeatedly complained that the Big Bang can't be true because astronomers have been furiously revising the estimates and made some pretty significant changes as we've beaten down the errors and refined techniques. He proposes that things that are eternal and unchanging are inherently better because you can't trust that darned Big Bang since the estimates keep changing.

Similarly, I guess Ray can't acknowledge the charge of an electron. Even though it's a fundamental quantity that underlies so much of electronics and physics and if it were wrong, they would crumble, if the estimate changes, it can't be trusted to exist in the first place.

This kind of thinking isn't just wrong. It's abhorrently stupid. There's no good response for such abject lunacy. The best we can do is point out the flaw and mock it, dissuading others from thinking it's a tenable position.

Even internet trolls are smarter than Creationists

Louisiana Gearing Up for Another Evolution Battle?

It looks like Louisiana school boards are looking to insert the "teach the controversy" nonsense into their classrooms. They're scheduled to have a debate on whether or note they need to balance their textbooks with "information questioning the theory of evolution."

*snrk*

This comes after the school board asked a review council to look over the textbook before approving it and weigh in. Fortunately, it looks like the team is at least somewhat qualified as there was an 8-4 vote to approve it by that council. Obviously the school board was looking for a different answer because they're still stalling to try to open up "debate" on the issue. This sounds reminiscent of the Kansas Evolution Hearings in which the school board flew in "experts" in Intelligent Design on the taxpayer's dime to tell the board what they'd already decided on.

Of course, the advisory council obviously has some scientifically illiterate fools on it.

State board member Dale Bayard said he plans to vote against the texts—which the state textbook-adoption committee overwhelmingly approved—and will urge his colleagues to join him.

“The textbooks in the life sciences that were proposed ... did not include all science that is currently available on the subject [of evolution],” he said, asserting that some findings “refuting” the theory have been ignored.

Additionally, the author did have to do the job of poor journalism and get quotes from someone completely unrelated to the discussion, talking to a Reverend from the 'Louisiana Family Forum, an advocacy group whose stated mission is to promote “biblical principles in the centers of influence”'.

Right. Because a reverend is an expert on what should be taught in science classes. And not to be satisfied with just trashing evolution, he went on to state he had "other issues such as global warming and “embryonic issues.”"

Thanks for reminding us that this isn't just an attack on evolution. It's an attack on science.... being waged in our classrooms. It's disgusting.

Why I Laugh at Creationists - That's Not a Journal

I've been hanging out at JT Eberhard's blog (the guy running Skepticon) lately thanks to my friend Steve dropping a link there on facebook.

I first started reading it from this post of his responding to a rather vacuous creationist named Bakersdozen2. BD2 tossed out the usual list of Creationist fallacies, among them the bifurcated fallacy of "Big Bang is wrong, thus Goddidit."

Fallacy aside, the premise of the Big Bang being wrong is one that needs some serious evidence. I've addressed the Big Bang before and demonstrated that there's several independent lines of evidence that converge to support it. So how does BD2 support that the Big Bang is wrong?

Initially he linked to an article in an Indian Newspaper citing an article in the Journal of Cosmology. The main point of the article was that we haven't detected gravitational waves, thus the Big Bang is wrong.... as if the linchpin of the entire Big Bang Theory is gravitational waves....

I went ahead and looked for the original article and eventually found it... on viXra.org. If you're not familiar with viXra, it's an alternative to arXiv.org, which is a preprint server for several types of scientific publications. viXra decided it didn't like the "censorship" practiced by those ebil scientific journals and all those hoity toity types at arXiv (where you have to be vetted by someone in the field before you can upload, so a minimal peer review process), so they started their own club.

I bet readers are already groaning anticipating what viXra really is: A home for crackpots. And you'd be right.

But that's guilt by association. Perhaps, just perhaps, this article is legit. No idea why it wouldn't have been put on arXiv first, but it apparently made it in a real, peer reviewed journal.... right?

No.

The "Journal of Cosmology" is a sham.

First, check out it's "peer review" process:

Authors should submit the names, affiliations, and email addresses of 5 scientists qualified to review their paper

Yeah... that's right. You can pick your own reviewers. It says not to pick "friends", but that doesn't mean you can't pick someone that's not already sympathetic to your position and not going to give it a real shake. That's not peer review. That's cronyism.

While I've been informed that this is standard practice for some journals, a legitimate journal should at least review the reviewers picked and make sure they the proper qualifications and the job is done. How does this journal do?

Let's take a look at some of the articles. Here's one that the author of the paper BD2 likes to cite. It's about the "Myth of the Big Bang". Here's a quote that sums up the article:

Although most cosmologists will deny it, their Big Bang interpretations of data require it: a geo-centric universe with Earth as the center and measure of all things--exactly as demanded by the Judeo-Christian religion.

Wha? The Big Bang is Creationism is disguise?! Then why do so many Creationists have a problem with it?

Oddly enough, in this case, the Creationists actually understand the theory better than the author. The author claims

Therefore, data marshaled in support of the Big Bang place Earth at the center of the universe, with claims of age, distance, expansion, acceleration all relative to where the Earth is now

Uh... no. We use the Earth as a reference frame, but one of the centermost understandings of all of cosmology is that we do so because it's convenient. Not because it's the way things really are.

How did that slip by peer review? I guess the author recommended some elementary school students to review it. Behe would be proud.

So where does this guy come from and how does he know so much about Cosmology?

Well, he's from the Brain Research Lab. Oooh.... Research Lab. Sounds legit. Or not. They don't actually do research. They just produce stuff for the people that do.

But what about the original article BD2 referenced?

It's rubbish too. And it's not hard to see why. It's essentially the same game Creationists play - If you can poke enough holes in something, it will collapse, so make people think it's full of holes. The author cites numerous studies that attack various points of the Big Bang. Every single one falls flat. They're either things that the author simply doesn't understand (superstructure in the universe), or things that have never been justified (non-Doppler shift interpretations of redshift). His sources are crap too. Aside from the horrid nonsense I already pointed out he likes, he's also citing E.J. Lerner, a plasma cosmology lunatic. But even if they were supported, it provides no converging explanation for anything. Good theories tie many things together. This author thinks he's onto something when everything points in a different direction. Bad science. Bad journal.

Some of the other articles don't look too bad (although I've only glanced through a few of them). There's some written by some legitimate scientists actually working in their own fields including the person that started the "journal". In fact, he has quite a few, which is interesting. That's not a conflict of interest at all....

Overall, pretending this "Journal of Cosmology" is a credible source, is a bunch of nonsense. It's horribly and obviously flawed. But then again, so are Creationists.

UPDATE: Nancy, over at Universe Today, has also taken note of how another article fails to meet critical standards from experts in the field. This time on sponsoring missions to Mars. While one could argue that disagreements will always exist in cutting edge fields, the glaring inadequacies of these articles have shown that these aren't just disagreements over uncertain issues. These articles contain fundamental errors at the basic level. I mean, really? Selling property on Mars to fund missions in violation of international treaty? How did that one sneak by?

In general, it seems like most of the worst articles come from a guy named Rhawn Joseph, who this journal apparently loves and gives a free pass. He's a quack. PZ smacked him down last year. He, or one of his sycophants left a comment on my Big Bang post linking to some video about how the Big Bang never happened. I was going to do a full debunking of it and even downloaded it, but the sheer density of stupidity just hurt too much. I had 4 pages of notes and wasn't even 10 minutes in before scrapping it.

Still A Lie

If you're not familiar with the original song, it's from the end credits of the game Portal.

Dumbest thing I've heard from a Creationist in awhile

I hang out on quite a few message boards discussing evolution.

Today, I got a new comment from a Creationist that required me go find some medicine for the headache the stupid caused. And because I don't want to suffer alone, I'm sharing it with you:

Natural selection has to have been "inherited", so it must be genetic.

Right. Natural processes must be inherited.

No wonder we can't figure out Dark Matter. We didn't realize gravity had a genetic component.

Book Review - Only a Theory

I seem to deal with Ken Miller on an unusually frequent basis. I saw him when he visited KU in 2006 (1, 2, 3, 4), I read and reviewed his book Finding Darwin's God, and I'm teaching my Bio II course using his textbook.

It's a good thing I tend to like the guy.

So when he published Only a Theory, it was only a matter of time before I got around to reading it too.

As I see it, the book is divided into three sections: 1) The Introduction, 2) The Case Against Design, and 3) The Danger of Design. I'll break the book down this way.

Miller is a very good speaker and an even better writer. His prose is vivid and well constructed, often drawing on personal experience to make it more interesting. So although the introduction is light on real content, it's still an excellent read. This consists of the first two chapters. The first sets the stage for the whole "debate" and the second explains the argument for design (in many respects better than its own proponents, so I expect to see it quote mined in the near future).

Chapters 3 - 6 take the arguments just developed and deconstruct them in great detail. If you've followed the ID movement at all or visited talkorigins, then the vast majority of the material is old hat. However, Miller did show some new arguments including more instances of novel mutations adding new information and allowing bacteria to digest pentachlorophenol (PCP, a pesticide) and even explosive agents used by the US Air Force (p 84).

Another excellent feature Miller included in this section was something I'd seen before, but had since forgotten about that revealed that even Creationists can't agree which side of a gap transitional fossils are. Some Creationists call it an ape. Some call it a human. Yet as much as it spans they gap, they refuse to admit it's transitional (he referred to this chart to illustrate the point).

There's also a segment on humans inability to produce vitamin C on our own which is suspiciously shared with our closest relatives. Miller goes on about just how unsatisfying the design hypothesis is to explain this, and other such important facts.

Echoing much of the work in Shubin's Your Inner Fish, Miller also goes though how embryology reveals the workings of evolution as well making an exceptional point that many of our "macro"evolutionary features are controlled by the genes that control our development during our embryonic grown which are controlled on a decidedly "macro"evolutionary scale. I've never seen the micro/macro distinction treated this way before, but it's an amazingly well made point. Shame the only thing Creationists seem to ever know about embryology is "OMG! Haeckel faked his drawing!!1eleven!*drool*!1". I suppose the point would be lost on them anyway.

As good as this part is, it's mostly new cover on what's long been a closed book; ID/Creationism fails utterly. It's nice to have some new points to hammer this home with, but if the ones I was already familiar with weren't sufficient, nothing short of a thunderbolt from a Pikachu up their asses would convince them.

Where the book was best, in my opinion was the last chapter or two in which Miller makes the case of why ID/Creationism isn't just wrong, but dangerous. This isn't an argument that's new to me. I've been having to try to justify to friends and family alike why I spend so much time arguing the topic. They seem to think it's just some anti-religious crusade.

The actual answer that I've been pushing for a few years now is that ID/Creationism is dangerous because it's not just out to attack one topic. If it was, that would be pretty significant given that topic is the pillar on which an entire discipline has come to rest. But ID/Creationism goes beyond that. Most forms of Creationism attack not just biology, but astronomy, physics, geology, and every other field they can distort.

But it doesn't stop there.

As Miller points out, the neo-Creationists under the guise of ID aren't out to just pick out pieces of certain fields; They're out to undermine all of science. I've been attempting to show this by three main pieces of evidence:

1) The Wedge Document explicitly states its goal is to overthrow the methodological naturalism on which all of science operates.

2) When the Creationists got a hold of the Kansas School Board in 2005, they redefined science so that natural explanations were no longer required.

3) Behe admitted on the stand at Dover, that under a definition of science that would include ID, Astrology would have to be included too.

Miller tackles the first two points, yet is oddly silent on the third. Perhaps this is because a large number of Americans think that Astrology is legit and he didn't want to have to take the time to demolish that as well.

These points have worked well for me in making my point, but it's nice to be able to point to this book now and show that the position is held by a serious biologist who most certainly doesn't have any anti-religious agenda.

Meanwhile, Miller ties all of this to a deeper point that is what gives the book its subtitle: This goes beyond a battle about science; It's a battle for America's Soul.

Miller makes the case that the reason science has flourished in the US, despite our educational system being poorer than many other countries, is that science fits perfectly with the American spirit in which legitimacy isn't based on authority, but on taking a long hard look at things and really working through them. He refers to a book called The Closing of the American Mind in which the author (Bloom) claims that the academic system is so infested with cultural relativism that it has become worthless.

The only field Bloom still had hope for was the sciences which were preserved by their requirement for hard facts and evidence. Yet Creationists are trying to destroy that too by forcing relativism into science as well (think about the frequent claims that Creationism is the same facts, but different "interpretations". I'm amazed Miller didn't reference this). Should this happen, Miller argues, it would destroy the last safe haven of the American spirit in which we insist that value is decided by works. I really like this point and will likely add it to my own discussions.

So Miller ends the book. I've still got a few comments left that didn't fit anywhere else, but I'll make them now.

The first is a very odd quotation. See if you can guess where it's from:

"[w]e are literally made of stardust."

The quotations here are mine, quoting Miller who didn't have quotations, so I can only assume this wasn't meant to be a direct quotation, but rather a paraphrasing. Regardless, such a phrase brings to mind only one individual: Carl Sagan.

But that's not who Miller cites as the originator of the phrase.

Instead, he attributes it to the former Vatican astronomer George Coyne. I like Coyne. He's been pretty outspoken against Creationism, but citing him as opposed to one of the greatest popularizers of science of all time? Seriously? What were you thinking Kenny?

The last thing that bothered me about one of Miller's points is that I think it doesn't go far enough. If you read back through the history of this blog, you could possibly notice my stance of religion slowly shifting, from one of a mild annoyance with an overall respect for religion, to a more hard lined approach in which I have begun to call into question just how many positive effects religion really offers as opposed to just taking credit for.

The final point Miller makes is that ID/Creationism is dangerous because it calls for us to stop questioning and looking at honest evidence.

But isn't this precisely what religion does? Not in all cases certainly. But the entire foundation of religion is based on blind faith. Now tell me that doesn't spill. Obviously it does, which is why it's so frequently tied with blind zealotry in other aspects.

So yet again, I find myself liking Miller's overall point (ID/Creationism is dangerous), but have serious objections to serious points. Previously I criticized his claim that atheists were a significant cause of Creationism, and pointed out the logical inconsistency of chastising Creationists for using "God of the Gaps" argument and then turning around and creating his own gap through Quantum Mechanics.

Miller is a great proponent for evolution and is right on every point there. As others have pointed out, his theology has some pretty big holes in it. But that's fine. I wasn't looking to this book for any sort of theological arguments (although I certainly was with Finding Darwin's God). If you take this book as a review of the ID/Creationism movement, this is quite possibly one of the best books yet written on the topic.

I'm sorely tempted to get a few more copies and give them to my friends and family that scoffed at my persistence with this topic with a note attached telling them just to read chapters 7 and 8.

Young Stars in the Centers of Galaxies

A long time ago, I trashed a Creationist article on Stellar Evolution. It was a fun time. I got one of the most ignorant trolls I've yet had on this site and even Phil Plait came over to gawk and point at the giant logical gaps. One of the claims that the author had made was that, because we shouldn't see young stars in very close quarters to black holes in the centers of galaxies (the nearest 1 parsec), and we do, that all of stellar evolution must be wrong and thus, God did it.

Mollishka from A Geocentric View (which sadly hasn't been updated in a year) pointed out that the only galaxies for which we could have sufficient resolution to even discuss the stellar populations of the innermost parsec, would be our own and Andromeda. So trying to draw grand conclusions from a tiny number of cases, as the Creationist was trying to do was just idiotic. Compile that with the completely unrelated conclusion that it meant that God did it, and you get normal Creationist mentality.

Meanwhile, the problem of young stars in the inner portions of galaxies was still an unsolved problem. But instead of tossing their hands up and declaring it impossible a la Behe¹. But while Creationists buried their heads in the sand, real scientists continued to try to figure out what was going on.

A new paper looks to have some promising answers. The real trick in the whole problem is getting gas in close enough to the black hole to form young stars without chucking it in to be eaten.

The new paper ran simulations and found that due to gravitational instabilities that effected stars and gas differently, galaxies with supermassive black holes like M31's would form disks of each separately and tilted with respect to one another. The interplay between these disks allows the stellar disk to yank some of the gas out and send it towards the black hole. There, "[s]ome of the gas turns into stars, those stars are excited into the m = 1 mode, allowing the perturbation to efficiently propagate inwards to ~0.1pc."

Booya.

New stars. Real science.

---

¹ - "As scientists, we yearn to understand how this magnificent mechanism came to be, but the complexity of the system dooms all Darwinian explanations to frustration. Sisyphus himself would pity us."
~Michael Behe: Darwin's Black Box

Philip F. Hopkins, & Eliot Quataert (2010). The Nuclear Stellar Disk in Andromeda: A Fossil from the Era of Black Hole Growth MNRAS arXiv: 1002.1079v2

Not So Privlidged Planet

Oh, poor Creationists.

One of their favorite claims is that we live on a Privileged Planet that is just right for us. Thus magic man done it.

Unfortunately, science keeps coming along and showing that our egos are misplaced. We're special, but not magically so. We evolved big brains capable of deep thought, but it shares a common ancestor with all life.

Even our planet is a pale blue dot in a vast and inspiring universe. But Creationists constantly try to claim that this solitary orb is so amazingly perfect that it must have been made that way.

But even this claim is contradicted by the evidence. A new paper on arXiv takes a look at just how habitable planets similar to Earth can be.

The authors modeled Earth clones and varied numerous components of the system from the amount of ocean, to the eccentricity of the orbit, to the spin rate of the planet and looked to see just how far they could push them before the planet either froze into a snowball or became prohibitively hot.

Oh, the poor creationists. Their "privileged" prediction fails (not that this is surprising since previous work of Kasting et al. (1993) have shown the "habitable zone" is at least 0.95 to 1.37 AU).

The new paper suggests that eccentricity isn't an overly prohibitive constraint for planets. This is good since "40% [of exoplanets with measure eccentricities] are on more eccentric orbits than Pluto (e = 0:2488) and ~10% are on orbits with eccentricities >0.5." Surprisingly, for "planets with eccentricity 0.5... [the] greatest habitable semimajor axis can vary by more than 0.8 AU (78%!)"

This would be like Earth moving in as close as Venus and as far as Mars every orbit! According to Creationists this would be certain doom! Shame on reality for spoiling all the fun.

Ultimately, the most important factor of all the ones they simulated was the amount of ocean. Thanks to the high specific heat of water, it moderates the temperature even under large changes in eccentricity.

Regardless, the Creationist claim that Earth is so perfect for life just took another blow.

Perhaps one day the Creationists will actually notice.

More things that don't exist

A recent expedition to the Gobi desert has turned up a new transitional fossil along the dinosaur -> bird line.

Haplocheirus is a transitional fossil, because it shows an early evolutionary step in how the bizarre hands of later alvarezsaurs evolved from earlier predatory dinosaurs.... The fossil also confirms our predictions that Alvarezsauridae should have been evolving in the Late Jurassic time period. (Emphasis added)

An intermediate stage discovered as predicted by evolutionary science? Holy explanatory power, Batman!

And this from the Gobi desert too. Not exactly the place I'd like to go for a vacation, but it's what we have to do to get real science done. And what do Creationists do? Oh, that's right. They sit in their delusional museums, payed for by fleecing the flock, and misinterpret real science.

Spinning Harder than an Electron

Remember that article I wrote on about differences in the primordial abundances of radioactive isotopes being different that what was anticipated and changing the derived age of the solar system by about two tenths of a percent? The one in which I said "Creationists are still wrong".

Yeah.

They didn't get the message.

I'm not sure what message they are getting in fact. Because their summary of the article is, well.... wrong.

Their entire summary crows about how decay rates aren't constant. They get this from.... Well, not the original paper. That's for sure. The paper was about the primordial abundances being off. The Creationists conveniently leave that out of the summary.

They even go so far as to say

These discordant dates should not be evident if the assumption of rate constancy—which underlies radioisotope dating of igneous materials and is used to support the “billions of years” age for the solar system—is accurate.

Um.

What?

The article doesn't underscore the “billions of years” age. Even with the corrections applied, it still gave an age of 4.566 billion years.

Oh snap.

The Creationists conveniently left that bit out too!

Just goes back to the old joke:
Q: How can you tell a Creationist is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

Thanks to Ted for pointing this out to me.

Even When Scientists are Wrong, Creationists Still Aren't Right

New evidence has shown the most commonly given age of the solar system is wrong.

The equations used to derive the age of it from radiometric dating of numerous isotopes was fundamentally flawed because it assumed that the ratio of certain isotopes was the same. Detailed new measurements have shown it's not.

This "implies substantial uncertainties in the ages previously determined by Pb-Pb dating". So astronomers have had to recalculate the age of the solar system given this new information.

The old age: 4.6 billion years.
The new age: 4.6 billion years.

Oh wait.... let me zoom in a bit and add a few more significant digits.

Old: 4.567 billion years.
New: 4.566 billion years.

See! See! Scientists got it wrong!

But wait.... how it that "substantial"? It still doesn't mean that the Earth is 6,000 years old and Jesus rode around on a dinosaur.

In the full geological history of the Earth, that ~1 million years isn't that important. But on the timescales in which solar system formation takes place, it's a decent chunk of time and we need a good understanding of timescales to put into models to make them as accurate as possible.

This won't mean a rewrite of any high school textbooks since the significant digits are rounded off before this change is even noticed, but this is yet another example of how science is self correcting and is constantly challenging its own assumptions.

---

Brennecka, G., Weyer, S., Wadhwa, M., Janney, P., Zipfel, J., & Anbar, A. (2009). 238U/235U Variations in Meteorites: Extant 247Cm and Implications for Pb-Pb Dating Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1180871