El Pais: Lo que Darwin no sabía "What Darwin Didn't Know"

Something I have been thinking about for the last few months is that the NCSE needs a "NCSE SENIOR FELLOW" deal just like the DI pricks. Plus, NCSE needs to move international.

(I am availble).

For instance, here I am being asked to give the evidence for evolution in five minutes, which really just tells me how unaware people are of the subject. Would you ask a mathematician to come on and teach you how to do calculus in 5 minutes? Would you ask a plumber to come on and tell you how to completely plumb your house in 5 minutes? No. But evolution is a much more complicatedd subject than either of those topics. And then the other problem is what I experienced here. An hour and a half before the show I am old that the topic of the debate has completely changed. Now, that tells me that there is an utter lack of professionalism and integrity on the creationist side. [the host interjected briefly, the PZ continued] Well, you simply don't do that. It's not something you ever do in any kind of debate is change the ground rules while you're running. Basically what that tells me is the people are unwilling to discuss the actual issues, and they'd rather play games to avoid the risk of a well-prepared critic. And so far you gotta realize I'm really unimpressed. [brief interruption by hosts] So we've got this new question: Are Darwin's theories fact or faith issues? Now we can't blame this on the radio show hosts, this is Dr. Simmons' fault. This is a terrible question. There's a myth going around that there's no such thing as a stupid question. This is a stupid question. First of all, I'd like Dr. Simmons to explain why he is so infatuated with Darwin. Darwin published the outline of his ideas almost 150 years ago. We respect his work, we think he was brilliant, but we also know there are many things he got wrong. We don't adhere to Darwin's theories any more. He provided a rough framework, but in the last century and a half we have filled in many details. It isn't Darwin's any more. It's the work of generations of scientists, and while parts of it would be recognizable to Darwin were he alive today, most of it would astonish him. This isn't about Darwin, it is about bioloy. so let's change the subject of the debate a little bit.

So I am going to ask Dr simmons to be flexible and change the topic yet further. We have the evidence on our side. There are hundreds of papers published every week documenting the theory of evolution. I would like for him to eplain to the audience where his evidence is. Why should we regard intelligent design as anything other than faith-based reasoning, since he certainly has no mechanism by which his designer acts, nor does he have physical evidence of his designer's existence. Biologists don't have to defend evolution's status as an idea build on the bedrock of "naturalism". The onus is on Dr. Simmons to defend his claims honestly, with evidence and with facts that make sense. So does he have anything other than his belief in the Bible to support the thesis of a designer? Let's see something positive from the intelligent design/creationist side. Something besides dirty debating tactics, misbegotten and erroneous attacks on the theory of evolution, and vague mumblings about how an unnamed designer, could have poofed organisms into existence, by an unspecified mechanism at a mysterious time they don't name. Let's hear some specific science.

I'm available to set up an office in Perth with Gary.

I'd love to be involved with a Canadian office!

Ok, I will take the Dutch office. That's the Netherlands for you Americans not Denmark, not Germany....

Doc Bill: I'm available to set up an office in Perth with Gary.

I read the originals in El País. The translations provided here faithfully render the meaning of the newspaper articles. The piece by Rebeca Díaz is an op-ed piece rather than a news article, however. It is heartening that a highly respected newspaper such as El País publishes such an op-ed without qualms.

The article partially cited in the fifth box (the one that starts with "We are not creationists,...") is an actual news report that thoroughly exposes the provenance of the anti-Darwin lectures and the controversies it has created. Its headline is very descriptive: "El creacionismo llega a España" ("Creationism arrives in Spain") and has a great subheading: "Un movimiento contra la evolución nacido en EE UU se da a conocer en foros de debate y universidades españolas, que meditan cerrarle sus puertas." (A movement against evolution born in the USA introduces itself to the public in debate venues and Spanish universities, which consider closing their doors to the movement.")

Due to an entirely unnecessary impasse over trivial matters (e.g. relocation costs, expenses, renumeration), I must inform you that the South of France position remains vacant.

During the Spanish presentations there were repeated statements that this was not about ID and that the PSSI had nothing to do with religion.

First of all, I’d like Dr. Simmons to explain why he is so infatuated with Darwin. Darwin published the outline of his ideas almost 150 years ago. We respect his work, we think he was brilliant, but we also know there are many things he got wrong. We don’t adhere to Darwin’s theories any more. He provided a rough framework, but in the last century and a half we have filled in many details. It isn’t Darwin’s any more.

PvM: Ok, I will take the Dutch office. That's the Netherlands for you Americans not Denmark, not Germany....

Let's not exaggerate the threat to rationality posed by ID creationism, at least in Europe. While we have more than out share of pseudoscientific contrarians and prelapsarian headbangers, the Evolution Wars are generally seen as a US political issue and the product of specifically US conditions. Also, we have a long tradition of centrally controlled school curricula being set by technocratic education departments. The only EU country where creationism seems to have had any political success is the UK, where Blair's preference for spin over spine led to him acceding to religiously-distorted curricula. Given the ignimony in which he is now regarded throughout the EU, I wouldn't expect other politicians to go far down that path any time soon.

My observation is that Europeans have plenty of pseudoscience of their own. A friend of mine follows Radio France news quite closely, and because of that I'm aware of frequent illogical and over-enthusiastic pieces about extraterrestrial life in that source. Yes, incredibly, it seems to be even more than we see here. No, I can't back that up with numbers, it's a subjective observation, and someone may correct me, but I'll see. This is not intended as a serious comment on the subject of extraterrestrial life, but merely as an observation that one European society seems to generate a lot of low quality journalism on the matter.

But fundamentalist Protestant creationism and its mini-me clone ID tend to be most "successful" in Anglophone countries. There is also an even more minor association with Spanish-language countries, which I assume is due to the close ties between the US and Latin America.

What I do find non-comical and concerning here is that some physicians are associating medicine with ID. Note that "277 members in 17 countries" is a very small number, but one is too many. I am a physician (not practicing any more), and I think that the medical profession must - and I suspect, will - take greater measures to make the connection between modern medicine and mainstream science more clear.

It may be possible to be technically competent in a medical specialty while denying evolution, but medicine is full of things that make no sense except in the light of mainstream biology including very much the theory of evolution - infectious disease, genetic diseases, human anatomy and physiology, etc.

While we have more than out share of pseudoscientific contrarians and prelapsarian headbangers,...

— Amadan

...Blair’s preference for spin over spine ...

Doesn't matter how you slice it, or what language you use, ID es muy estupido, y El Doctor Dembski es muy poopypantalones, el Doctor "Luna" Wells is muy gordo y fea.

The DI’s wedge has failed and an ‘new’ alternative is needed and provided by the spin-off “Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity”. During the Spanish presentations there were repeated statements that this was not about ID and that the PSSI had nothing to do with religion.

Although some newspapers referred to us as Creationists, religion and Intelligent Design were only discussed from a historical perspective.

the PZ continued

Doctors do not have the best track record of being scientists, as one example physicians repeatedly held out against the germ theory of disease.

Nigel D:

While we have more than out share of pseudoscientific contrarians and prelapsarian headbangers,...

— Amadan

What's wrong with headbangers, that you group them with pseudoscientific contrarians?

Not referring here to those waving a greasy mop while performing fret-shredding fingerwork on a West Brom Albion scarf. (How could I betray the halcyon days of my youth?) Think instead of the Gumby “My Braaaaain Huuuurts” sort. There is a difference. I hope.

— Amadan

JGB: Doctors do not have the best track record of being scientists, as one example physicians repeatedly held out against the germ theory of disease.

Nigel D: And Edward Jenner's programme of "vaccination" was extensively mocked. I guess he (metaphorically) had the last laugh when smallpox was eradicated.

Yesterdays post Mike Dunford blog, raven: Incidentially, the current model for oncogenesis is an evolutionary one. Somatic cells are seen escaping growth control, evading host defenses such as macrophages, acquiring a blood supply, metastasizing, becoming resistant to radiation therapy, chemo, and biologicals, and rarely as with Canine Venereal tumor or Tasmanian Facial Tumor acquiring the ability to spread beyond the host as parasitic diseases. The number of mutations involved in this process is a matter of research right now but estimates are trending up from a few to greater than 10. Cancer will kill 100 million of the people now alive in the USA. And Egnor says evolution isn't important in medicine. Whatever, he has a 1 in 3 chance of finding out the hard way that it does.

The thing to realize is that defeating ideological nonsense will be a long process. 400 years after Copernicus when we have telescopes in orbit, robots on Mars, and a space probe around Saturn, 20% of the US population still thinks the sun goes around the earth. 400 years from now while we may be launching interstellar probes to earthlike planets, 20% of the US population will still believe in creationism. Just have to keep repeating the truth and hope the creos don’t derail everything with another Dark Age.

It would be nice if less than 20% of Americans were “scientifically illiterate,” but I have to believe that to most of these people, details about which goes around which are simply irrelevant to their day-to-day lives. As was pointed out on another thread not long ago, half the population will always have an IQ under 100.

Why is not speaking English "apallingly ignorant?" My Mayan is very rusty after 30+ years of disuse, but my Spanish is still rather good.

Raven -

Thank for making these points, here and I believe on another blog.

All of the following medical topics are closely connected to the theory of evolution -

1) Infectious disease (evolution of pathogens, evolution of inflammatory and immune defenses, antibiotics - sulfa drugs came from the cloth-dye industry but everything in the penicillin family and a number of other major families is based on "natural" antibiotics evolved by fungi and bacteria in "the wild" and exploited and studied by humans - antibiotic resistance of course...)

2) Autoimmune diseases, since there would be no immune system if we didn't have to evolve resistance to pathogens.

3) Genetic diseases

4) Neoplasia, as I believe you mentioned somewhere. The obvious roles of mutation and selection in neoplasia are striking. Neoplasia is a potential problem of all multi-cellular organisms and related to the very essence of multi-cellularity - regulating individual cell development and behavior so that specialized roles coordinate to serve the "interests" of the whole organism.

5) Plenty of other topics that relate to the "imperfect", evolved nature of the human body, including topics in trauma, OB-GYN, reproductive medicine, etc.

Medical doctors denying evolution is just really annoying.

I may be a bit more of a science nerd than the average person with an MD, but there are a lot more like me out there, than there are ID nutjobs with MD degrees.

Medical doctors tend to be busy, and the fine points of evolution are not necessarily their subject of expertise. Nevertheless, if this stupidity keeps up, there will almost certainly be a backlash in the medical community.

Surgery is kind of like art or music in one way, that it requires physical skills as well as cognitive talents, and that those who are especially brilliant at it may, for some reason, choose to indulge in eccentric and obnoxious behavior much of the time. That just seems to be part of the predictable spectrum of human behavior. Indeed, some surgeons are even referred to as "Prima Donnas". There will always be Egnors of some sort, although "ID" may not always be their issue.

Why is not speaking English “apallingly ignorant?” Oh come on. It is only if you live in the USA and want to be a part of our society. I know the situation in Spain or Mexico is different. In Mayan country, my lack of Mayan could be considered "appallingly ignorant" and has been. But that isn't where I am these days.

Medical doctors denying evolution is just really annoying.

raven wrote: They really should have chosen astronomy or geology or something. One can live their entire life without understanding the Big Bang without any consequences whatsoever. Plus, it is someone else's turn to get picked on and harassed. Their mythology is contradicted by all sciences, a point most of them either haven't figured out or just ignore.

Harold,

It's worse thatn that. When designing and evaluating public health policies, you also need to consider the effects of relaxed selection using principles of evolutionary biology. So for example, the effect on allele frequencies of C-section deliveries, appendectomies, tonsilectomies, etc. can be predicted and should be considered when determining when and where to use these procedures. Inappropriate use can lead to increased health problems and increased costs for health care in the future.

Of course you can just stick your head in the sand and ignore the predictable consequences of your actions. But then you would be no better than the average creationist.

They really should have chosen astronomy or geology or something.

You seem to greatly enjoy the Spanish newspaper comments regarding the PSSI events. Unfortunately you weren't able to show the picture with the article you quoted on the Barcelona events, which showed a section of empty seats with one person sitting in the middle. The picture was as factual as the verbiage, which stated the events attracted more journalists than the public with just over 25 attending. The attendance in Barcelona was in fact 261 and the picture was taken about an hour before the event began. I know because I was there. While that article was was the worst journalism I've seen, there were actually some very good articles on the events in Spain by Spanish periodicals, but I wouldn't expect you to publish them.

The attendance in Barcelona was in fact 261...

— Rich

Rich, some evidence of your claims, please.

Is the Rich who counted to 261 identical to Rich Akin, the CEO of PSSI?
Please link to the "some very good articles on the events in Spain by Spanish periodicals", as we can see what periodicals those are.

Gary Hurd: Why is not speaking English "apallingly ignorant?" My Mayan is very rusty after 30+ years of disuse, but my Spanish is still rather good.

While that article was was the worst journalism I’ve seen,

— Rich

there were actually some very good articles on the events in Spain by Spanish periodicals, but I wouldn’t expect you to publish them

Rich wrote: You seem to greatly enjoy the Spanish newspaper comments regarding the PSSI events. Unfortunately you weren't able to show the picture with the article you quoted on the Barcelona events, which showed a section of empty seats with one person sitting in the middle. The picture was as factual as the verbiage, which stated the events attracted more journalists than the public with just over 25 attending. The attendance in Barcelona was in fact 261 and the picture was taken about an hour before the event began. I know because I was there. While that article was was the worst journalism I've seen, there were actually some very good articles on the events in Spain by Spanish periodicals, but I wouldn't expect you to publish them.

Rich,
Would you care to name the publications? or link to online articles?

When you immigrate to a country where English is both the official and predominant language, then it is apalling ignorance to not acquire the ability to speak and read English, if only to a rudimentary standard. [emphasis mine]

When designing and evaluating public health policies, you also need to consider the effects of relaxed selection using principles of evolutionary biology. So for example, the effect on allele frequencies of C-section deliveries, appendectomies, tonsilectomies, etc. can be predicted and should be considered when determining when and where to use these procedures. Inappropriate use can lead to increased health problems and increased costs for health care in the future.

Doctors do not have the best track record of being scientists, as one example physicians repeatedly held out against the germ theory of disease.

Harold, You are of course correct. C-sections can indeed be life saving. However, if unnecessary C-sections are performed without regard for the genetic consequences, that would be irresponsible. So yes, in a sense I am arguing that sometimes it is better not to perform a certain procedure. Just like, for example, it is not advisable to indiscrimately use antibiotics when they will not be effective. There will be predictable negative consequences to that as well.

Remember, I did not say that such procedures should never be performed, only that they will have predictable genetic consequences. Not considering those consequences is reckless and irresponsible. Deciding what to do once you have considered the consequences is a matter of personal choice and public policy. My point was merely that the consequences are predicted using population genetics equations and evolutionary theory.

By the way, I have the utmost respect for your opinions and I highly value your input.

David Stanton -

Glad to hear that we don't disagree on this, as I suspected.

I'm not entirely sure what the genetic consequences of unecessary c-sections (of which there are many - c-sections, that is, not consequences) would be. But let's leave that aside, as it's quite off topic.

(NOTE - Some would argue that there are very few c-sections which are not indicated. I base my assumption that many are uneccessary due to the variation in c-section frequency by political boundaries, with the US having far more than some otherwise similar countries. However, it is a complex issue. Those who do the C-sections might argue that there were net benefits. I include this further allusion to an off-topic subject merely to be sure of fairness.)

Another clarification -

I said "thank you" to Raven because I appreciate his/her frequent and articulate defense of the absolute link between mainstream science and mainstream medicine.

I don't really agree that illiteracy or not speaking English are traits that deserve condemnation. Of course people in the US would be far better off speaking English and being literate. But these are examples of cultural effects of deprivation. What annoys me far more is the deliberate and inexcusable ignorance of "big word" type creationists. (I also tend to have more sympathy with "creationists" who are the misled victims of educational deprivation than with the likes of Dembski.)

The only good thing about my "Spanish" is that it makes my "French" look good in comparison. Although one nice thing about learning any Spanish is that it is very easy to read, being far more logical in spelling than English. I could have fixed those "translations" up a little, but the points were obvious.

GuyeFaux:

When you immigrate to a country where English is both the official and predominant language, then it is apalling ignorance to not acquire the ability to speak and read English, if only to a rudimentary standard. [emphasis mine]

OT, but sorry: English is not the official language of the States, as the U.S. hasn't got an official language. Though you have to pass a rudimentary English reading-writing test to naturalize.

Science told us that sending humans to the moon would be a very costly and economically unproductive endeavor. But we did it anyway.

— Harold

Getting back on topic, here is something else that Darwin didn't know. He didn't know anything about genetics. He didn't know that it would take many years for his ideas to be reconciled with modern genetics. He didn't know that his ideas would be spectacularly confirmed by independent genetic evidence. He didn't know that modern genetics would allow us to rigorously investigate questions that he could not even dream of asking. But most of all, he didn't realize that even after this virtually unprecedented confirmation of his ideas, that there would still be religious fanatics who refused to look at the evidence in order to cling to their outdated and disproven views of reality. I imagine that if he had known this, he would be very sad but not in the least surprised.

Nigel D -

That's very pedantic :-).

I disagree that you can divorce "science" from "engineering" so easily. Every step of every detail of the Apollo program required reference to basic science.

I'll even argue that economics could be considered an observational science. The unfortunate tradition of twisting their own field to serve political agendas should be considered a knock on economists, not economics.

Anyway, though, it doesn't really matter. That was just an example. The real point was that science doesn't tell us what we should or shouldn't do. It tells us, in many cases, what will happen if we behave in a certain way. But it's up to us to decide if that's good or bad.

Getting back on topic, here is something else that Darwin didn’t know. He didn’t know anything about genetics.

We are waiting for Rich to link to the very good articles on the events in Spain by Spanish periodicals, or at least mention the periodicals and the titles of those articles.

Heleen: We are waiting for Rich to link to the very good articles on the events in Spain by Spanish periodicals, or at least mention the periodicals and the titles of those articles.

Amadán: Let's not exaggerate the threat to rationality posed by ID creationism, at least in Europe. While we have more than out share of pseudoscientific contrarians and prelapsarian headbangers, the Evolution Wars are generally seen as a US political issue and the product of specifically US conditions. Also, we have a long tradition of centrally controlled school curricula being set by technocratic education departments. The only EU country where creationism seems to have had any political success is the UK, where Blair's preference for spin over spine led to him acceding to religiously-distorted curricula. Given the ignimony in which he is now regarded throughout the EU, I wouldn't expect other politicians to go far down that path any time soon.

Agnes D: We currently have to give courses to the teachers about creationism to give them answers to these. So even if the creationist ideas don't reach them through school, they still hear them somewhere...