The Western Geologist

MIT Scientists Confirm That Earth's Core is "Really, Really Hot"

2007-04-02T13:04:00.000-07:00

According to this article, from China's Xinhua news agency, the Earth's core is officially "really, really hot." Apparently, it was previously only "really hot." Yes, those are in fact technical terms.

Revisiting USGS interval review

2007-02-17T05:22:00.000-08:00

One of the people I referred to in my earlier post about the internal review policy of the USGS has left a comment on that thread. It's reprodced below:

Hi All:
In my earlier post to the obscure ACG listserve, which was reproduced in this more public forum, I wrote, "...However, there have been instances of BRD people not having appropriate peer review when publishing things. There was one BRD pub that clearly had a biased slant toward caribou-pipeline interactions."
I was recently made aware that the said report (A) DID have full internal review, and (B) was NOT biased. I based my comments on the media representation of the report, and I was not fully informed. I apologize for misleading readers in this way and for mischaracterizing the report.

Regards, Peter

I'd like to thank Peter for his comment, although I doubt that the ACG listserv is any more obscure than this blog. We get about 35 visitors per day, and most don't stick around all that long. I'd like to thank the ones that do.

Here's what I wrote about the 2002 study:

In 2002 a group headed by a USGS scientist published a report that dealt in part with the potential impact of the development of ANWR. This group had studied the caribou herds in that part of Alaska for 12 years and one of their findings was that female caribou who were either close to giving birth or had young calves tended to avoid roads and pipelines (they apparently preferred to be at least 4 km away from those features). That study reported that full development of 1002 area of ANWR (the area where the proposed drilling would occur) was likely to cause mortality rates of calves in the local caribou herd to decrease by 8.2%, and that a reduction of 4.6% was sufficient to cause growth of the herd to cease (Figure 3.28 in their report shows their data). The reason this caused a problem is that the scenario they used to arrive at their 8.2% calculation wasn't necessarily realistic since it was based on all of the 1002 area being developed and that wasn't necessarily realistic. Some development scenarios had plans with a much smaller footprint (you can see a map of all the plans in the follow up memo). The authors of the original study were taken to task for not including these plans in their report. The follow up memo included the predicted mortalities based on 2 more realistic drilling plans (the mortalities were estimated using exactly the same procedures as in the original report). The predicted mortalities for those two models were 0.7 and 1.2 %. The authors of the original report had in fact included models that didn't required full development (again you can see a map of their scenarios in the follow up memo), but they just focused on the 8.2 % figure (the worst case scenario). The USGS is not supposed to set or advocate policy although USGS authors can evaluate proposed scenarios, but they can't pick a favorite. The 2002 report crossed that line.

In addition both the original 2002 report and the follow up memo are available on line so I think it's difficult to claim that the authors were censored.

I wonder if Peter would consider that a fair characterization of the events surrounding the 2002 report and the follow up memo. Since their report was properly internally reviewed, I do agree that there wasn't any impropriety on the part of the report's authors (I apologize for stating that there was). However, it still seems to me to be difficult to support the claim that the 2002 report was censored since that report is still available. Moreover, the mortality rates in the follow up memo were calculated using the same models as in the original report, and the conclusion of 2002 report does seem to be based on an unrealistic drilling scenario.

A few reflections on recent goings on

2007-02-14T17:08:00.000-08:00

This post is going to be a somewhat random dump of the thoughts that are currently spinning around in my head. I apologize in advance. I haven't posted in a while so I feel obligated to post something.

I'm currently in my first year in a teaching position. Prior to this I was in a pure research position. I'm currently striving to find some balance between the two. This semester I'm directly teaching three classes and overseeing 5 labs (my teaching load was similar last semester). I'm also trying to get a decent amount of research done too, which is proving difficult. I did recently get ahold of a seriously cool portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) machine, which I've wanted for some time now and have very ambitious plans for. I've got 1300 samples waiting to be scanned in my lab (plus another 1200 from a friend). I'm also just drooling at the chance to take this thing out into the field and start using it on outcrops. I've got a couple in mind, but they'll probably have to wait until summer 2008. Our department is also fortunate enough to have several motivated, bright, curious, undergrads who are interested in working on independent research projects with me. I'm grateful for them. I hope that I don't squash their interest in geology.

My most recent publication was highlighted by the editor of the journal I submitted it to, and I also just found out that it appeared in the 'Research Highlights' section of Nature. That's not nearly as good as having a publication in Nature, but I'll take it.

Our puppy was recently spayed and she REALLY wants to wrestle with our other dog instead of taking it easy in her crate. She's not the convalescent type. She's supposed to be on the equivalent of bed rest, but she'd much rather chase her brother around the house and go outside and chase birds. I'm especially looking forward to the time when we can give her a bath (she's not supposed to get wet for a couple of weeks). Luckily she's really fond of standing in the shower, so we don't have to struggle with her when it's bath time. Our other dog howls like he's being killed when we try to give him a bath (although he's much better behaved if we take him to a groomer). I'm very anxiously looking forward to the time when our pup loses interest in our shoes. Fortunately she likes my wife's shoes more than she does mine.

I think I may have found the Texas equivalent of Chris Buttars. See this link. I wait with bated breath to see what comes of this. (ht Pharyngula).

I recently started reading Francis Collins' book 'The Language of God'. My mom sent it to me. I'm thinking of posting my thoughts after each chapter. I've finished a chapter and a half now, and I'm generally feeling frustrated/annoyed. Collins is a fairly engaging writer, but his arguments in favor of theism haven't been stellar as of yet (maybe they get better).

I'm thinking of trying to brew mead. I've been homebrewing off and on for a few years, and I'd really like to branch out. When I was in grad school one of the profs gave me a bottle of a great, dry pear-flavored mead that he'd made. I don't know how to describe the taste, but it was wonderful. I'd like to see if I could make something like that. I'm also considering making a Grand Cru or something similar. Just before I left California I went to a microbrewery in Sacramento that made one of the best Belgian-style ales I've ever had. It was, by itself, almost enough to make me want to live in Sacramento. This part of Texas doesn't have a lot of microbreweries (St. Arnold's in Houston is the closest).

OK, that's all I have for now. I ought to get back to work.

Some older posts revisited

2007-01-09T06:35:00.000-08:00

I'm going to start the new year by revisiting some posts I uploaded last year.

The first is on the occurrence of anomalous fossils in the geologic record.

The fossil record

The second is on ice cores:

The GISP2 ice core and the age of the earth

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: The Board Game

2006-12-29T15:32:00.000-08:00

The Living Waters Store has this gem of a game for sale: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution Board Game.

Evangelistic, educational, entertaining.

At last, a board game that reveals the insanity of perhaps the greatest hoax of our times -- the unscientific "theory of evolution."

"Intelligent Design vs Evolution" is unique in that the playing pieces are small rubber brains and each team plays for "brain" cards. Each player uses his or her brains to get more brains, and the team with the most brains wins. It has been designed to make people think . . . and that's exactly what it does.

"Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron are doing much more than revealing the bankruptcy of molecules-to-man evolution. They have a greater purpose: proclaiming biblical authority and reaching the lost with the precious gospel message. Enjoy this wonderful family game as you also become better equipped to defend our precious Christian faith." -- Ken Ham, President, Answers in Genesis.

I've said it before, your "precious Christian faith" does not necessarily preclude a belief in evolution. What precludes a belief in evolution is the unnecessarily literal word-for-word interpretation of the creation account in Genesis.

Hat tip to Fark for this one. I love the headline submitted:

"Intelligent Design: The Board Game." Because "Evolution: The Board Game" takes far to long to play and you can't make up the rules as you go along.

USGS internal review and censorship

2006-12-23T07:49:00.000-08:00

Appointees of the Bush Administration have been accused of censoring and distorting data that was incompatible with their ideological views. George Deutsch a press officer at NASA who wanted the word 'theory' inserted after The Big Bang (insisting it was a religious view) and tried to keep reporters away from NASA scientist Jim Hansen is an example.

I'm a little late with this but earlier this week I read a post at Red State Rabble about the internal review policy of the U.S. Geological Survey (see here and here). The articles I linked to suggest that the USGS is instituting a policy to censor data that aren't compatible with Bush Administration policies. While I don't think the present administration has behaved very responsibly when it comes to handling data I don't think the USGS internal review policy is being installed to stifle scientists.

There has been a very interesting discussion of this policy on the listserv of the Affiliation of Christian Geologists (you'll need to set up an account in order to access the archive). Several current USGS employees have contributed to that discussion. I've reproduced one of the responses, by Peter Haeussler, who works for the USGS in Anchorage, Alaska below:

First, a history lesson on the different divisions of the USGS. There's the NMD - national mapping division (makes maps), the WRD - Water Resources Division (does water stuff), the GD - Geologic division (geologic mapping, energy, minerals, earthquakes, volcanos, climate change, etc), and now the BRD - Biological Resources Division (the biology folks pulled out of Fish and Wildlife Service, NPS, and perhaps BLM in the early days of the Clinton administration under Bruce Babbit as Secretary of the Interior. Babbit wanted to start an organization equivalent to the USGS for biology folks, but Newt Gingrich and the contract on America didn't give the new organization the organic act, so it never started. In the meantime, these scientists had no home, so, once it was clear the USGS was not to be eliminated under Newt's scheme, the director of the USGS offered to make a new division of the USGS for the biology folks. and thus was born the BRD part of the USGS.)

Here's how GD scientists publish in non USGS publications. Perhaps unbeknownst to most non-USGS folks, the GD geologists have always had to get two "internal" reviews of their publications before publishing in any outside journal. (these days, this includes abstracts. Also, neither reviewer has to be from the USGS) After you respond to those reviews, you make your corrections, and give the whole package to your immediate supervisor. (If you use geologic names in the paper, then there is an additional review that makes sure that geologic names are used properly) The supervisor should look it over, see that appropriate responses are made, then 'sign off' on the manuscript. Then it gets sent to a publications group chief, who then says it gets 'directors approval'. Then, you are officially given permission to submit the manuscript wherever. It does slow down the publication process, but invariably these interval reviews improve the manuscript and the content. The goal is to make sure the USGS is not publishing crap. You might be surprised to learn that there are a manuscripts that die after these reviews. It's a big no no to publish without internal review. You'd get spanked. The internal reviewers are chosen by the author of the paper and not by a supervisor or some political appointee. In a smaller office like the one I'm in, you can end up using your same friend to review manuscripts too many times. And avoiding certain people who have terminal indigestion. And you can end up having rubber stamp reviews. But it's OK.

I think the 'new' policy (I've not read it, but have been told) basically implements the GD internal review policy across all divisions of the USGS. I've heard the BRD scientists in my office (actually they are all located across town and we don't interact with them much) complain about this new policy. They see this as interfering. GD folks don't think this is an unnecessary burden. However, there have been instances of BRD people not having appropriate peer review when publishing things. There was one BRD pub that clearly had a biased slant toward caribou-pipeline interactions. The USGS really gets spanked in Washington when stuff like this happens. It's bad for everyone.

It's funny Charles mentioned this. I saw Al Gore speak at lunch today at AGU. Gore actually mentioned this press report and the quote from James Estes, and Gore said he was horrified of the censorship. He mentioned the climate guy at NASA (Ames??) who had felt he had been censored as well. Gore's main point of the talk was that scientists need to tell the truth on what they know, even if it may be "an inconvenient truth." He pointed out that Galielo's conclusions about our solar system were also an inconvenient truth and that he published on it. It was important to get the truth out.

I think partly in response to the NASA guy (I saw him on 60 minutes), we at the USGS were recently given more guidance about how to express personal opinions in the course of conveying our scientific results to the public. I think this is excellent, and I think it makes it much easier to give a personal opinion (often with policy implications). I do a fair amount of earthquake hazards work, and I get these questions all the time. I appreciate more freedom to speak on policy. I just need to be clear to the audience what is my USGS science versus what is my opinion as a citizen.

I tried to find which division of the USGS that Estes is in from USGS internal web sites, but I can't find it easily. His research is all about charismatic megafauna, so I think it's likely he's in BRD and not GD. Nonetheless, Estes has published in Science and received meritorious service awards, so I doubt he would be slowed down much by the new rules.

Regarding the last couple of things mentioned: is this high visibility science? or is this policy sensitive? I've seen those checkboxes on our manuscript routing sheets. The high visibility question is merely for the press people in the USGS to play up the science. NASA does so well in part because they have such a good press machine. The USGS tries to emulate that. I do find the question about 'policy sensitive' more troubling. But I'm not aware of that impacting anything.

Regards, Peter

I spent a couple years working with the Earthquake Hazards Team at the USGS (the team I was part of was in the GD). I actually thought that the internal review process was USGS-wide and not just for GD (although commenter mark on the RSR thread says the same procedure is used in WRD). I've been through the internal review process both as an author and as a reviewer, and I've found it very helpful. Its main purpose is to make sure that publications by USGS authors are of a high quality, not to hinder or censor data. The process is pretty straightforward. The author picks two reviewers (Haeussler says that they don't have to be USGS employees, which is news to me – all of the internal reviewers in the team I worked on were either USGS employees or volunteers, although we did hit up visiting scientists too). The interval review is just like standard peer review for a journal. The reviewer goes over the document and makes sure the data support the conclusions, that the format of the paper is decent, etc. The author then revises the manuscript and submits it to the Team Chief Scientist, who signs off on it. The TCS looks at the reviewers comments and the revised manuscript and if the reviewers' comments have been addressed the manuscript is approved (although the review by the TCS can be cursory).

This process applies not only to papers but also to abstracts and newspaper articles. The review is pretty quick for abstracts, it usually doesn't take more than a day. As you can probably imagine, the days leading up to the AGU Fall Meeting abstract submission deadline are usually pretty busy. The review process for a paper is longer. It usually took a week or two, but it did take me a couple of months to get a paper back from a reviewer in one case (I expected that going in since he was really busy).

The USGS internal review policy is available online here and here (I should note that the date on these links is May 2006, so they might not be the final version). I've reproduced the section that deals with sensitive information below. From the second link:

4. Policy. All information products (see SM 1100.1) must be reviewed and approved for official release and dissemination, whether they are published by the USGS or an outside entity, if the work has been funded, whole or in part, by the USGS or if USGS affiliation is identified with the authorship. Processes for review and approval may differ for different kinds of information products (print, digital, or audiovisual) but must be consistently applied throughout the USGS.

If during preparation, review, or approval, an information product is determined to be of a particularly sensitive nature, the appropriate Bureau and Departmental officials should be consulted. Issues or concerns of a sensitive nature include those that have current or future policy implications (such as land and resource management decisions) or that involve matters of national interest, security, or potential commercial gain. Additionally, coordination and review should include the appropriate Office of Communications representative in instances of policy-sensitive products or those that may be of such a level of visibility that a communication strategy is warranted to handle their release.

Information products should not recommend or appear to advocate or prescribe a particular public policy or course of action. Information products carry no disclaimer that could suggest that the product does not meet USGS standards of scientific excellence, integrity, and objectivity.

I don't see anything particularly ominous in this policy. I can understand why people would be concerned since scientists have been censored in the past, but I don't feel threatened by this policy. I hope I'm right.

I'm going to end this post by looking in a case that was mentioned by both Peter Haeussler by CANOE. Here's the relevant quote from the CANOE article:

President George W. Bush's administration has been criticized for scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.

I think it's hard to characterize that paragraph as anything other than misleading. Here's a really nice article from the Washington Post from 2002.

Here is a link to the original report (section 3 is the relevant section) and here is a link to the follow up memo.

In 2002 a group headed by a USGS scientist published a report that dealt in part with the potential impact of the development of ANWR. This group had studied the caribou herds in that part of Alaska for 12 years and one of their findings was that female caribou who were either close to giving birth or had young calves tended to avoid roads and pipelines (they apparently preferred to be at least 4 km away from those features). That study reported that full development of 1002 area of ANWR (the area where the proposed drilling would occur) was likely to cause mortality rates of calves in the local caribou herd to decrease by 8.2%, and that a reduction of 4.6% was sufficient to cause growth of the herd to cease (Figure 3.28 in their report shows their data). The reason this caused a problem is that the scenario they used to arrive at their 8.2% calculation wasn't necessarily realistic since it was based on all of the 1002 area being developed and that wasn't necessarily realistic. Some development scenarios had plans with a much smaller footprint (you can see a map of all the plans in the follow up memo). The authors of the original study were taken to task for not including these plans in their report. The follow up memo included the predicted mortalities based on 2 more realistic drilling plans (the mortalities were estimated using exactly the same procedures as in the original report). The predicted mortalities for those two models were 0.7 and 1.2 %. The authors of the original report had in fact included models that didn't required full development (again you can see a map of their scenarios in the follow up memo), but they just focused on the 8.2 % figure (the worst case scenario). The USGS is not supposed to set or advocate policy although USGS authors can evaluate proposed scenarios, but they can't pick a favorite. The 2002 report crossed that line.

In addition both the original 2002 report and the follow up memo are available on line so I think it's difficult to claim that the authors were censored.

Photos and lecture preparation

2006-11-09T15:58:00.000-08:00

One of the things about teaching that I'm coming to appreciate is the amount of time it takes to put a lecture together. I've put a fair number of talks together during my short career, but that's different than putting together three 50 minute lectures per week. I've been posting my lectures online so my students can download them and hopefully treasure and reread them for years to come (who knows, it could happen). I'm also trying to be respectful of copyrights. I've come across a few photo collections that have been very helpful:

USGS Photo LIbrary

BLM Abandoned Mine Lands (ALM)

Earth Science World Image Bank

USGS Fact Sheets

Photos by Bruce Railsback

The Geo-Images Project

NOAA Photo Library

If any readers know of other good collections I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Blogs and the Department of the Interior

2006-11-09T15:45:00.000-08:00

I got the chance to catch up with a friend who works for the USGS today. Since he's far more knowledgeable about stresses in the crust than I am I asked if he'd comment on my posts about the earthquake in Hawaii. He was willing, but apparently the DOI wasn't. When he tried to visit this blog he was redirected to a page that notified him that visiting blogs wasn't allowed (I suspect any URL with blogspot in it is flagged). He was kind enough to submit a request that The Western Geologist be added to an approved list of websites. We'll see what happens.

Hooray for Hubble

2006-10-31T09:58:00.000-08:00

NASA announced today that they will send a shuttle mission to the Hubble Telescope in 2008 to give it some much-needed repairs. Without the repairs, failing components on the telescope would render it useless. The scheduled repairs will keep it operational through 2013. This is great news for scientists and astronomy buffs everywhere. To celebrate, I give you The Sombrero Galaxy in Infrared Light:

And for good measure, I'll include the Cat's Eye Nebula:

A couple more thoughts on the Hawaii Earthquake

2006-10-23T11:17:00.000-07:00

I blogged about the 10/15/2006 earthquake in Hawaii last week here and here.

The image below shows the focal solutions for all of the earthquakes in the NEIC catalog. The focal solution for the Oct. 15 2006 event is shown in red.

The south end of the island seems pretty straight forward. All of the faults strike NE-SW. Thrust faults occur at depth (there's a rough transition at ~10 km, but the shallowest thrust event was 4 km), and normal faults occur above that. I'm picturing something like synorogenic collapse; Hawaii is a very thick pile of material and it's about as tall as it can be, so it makes sense to me that the upper part of that pile is extending. Extension would thin the pile making it more stable (something like the detachment in the upper part of the Himalayas).

The northern part of the island where the Oct. 15 event occurred is more complex. There are two significant thrust events in that area, but they occurred on faults that strike NW-SE (EDIT: I forgot to mention that one of these thrust events was a Mw 5.8 aftershock of the Oct. 15 quake) , or in other words, at a very high angle to the thrusts at the southern part of the island. So, it seems pretty clear that the stress field that's causing the thrust faults on the northern part of the island is different from the stress field that's causing the thrusts on the southern part of the island.

The orientation of the strike slip events in the northern part of the island isn't quite as easy to infer. There are two possibilities. The first is that the faults strike NE-SW (parallel to the faults on the southern part of the island and to the fracture zone that Chris mentioned - the blue line in the figure below). The second is that the faults strike NW-SE (as the lab lemming suggested, parallel to the thrust faults on the northern part of the island (the red lines in the figure below). I think that's more likely. If the strike slip faults strike NE-SW then there'd have to be an along-strike sense of motion (right lateral along part, left lateral along part), which seems physically unlikely. The lines in the figure below represent possible fault orientations inferred from the focal mechanisms:

I also favor a NW-SE orientation for both the strike slip and the thrust faults at the northern part of the island because something similar is observed in other parts of the world. For example, there are active thrust faults that are parallel to the San Andreas fault (a strike slip fault). In that case the two styles of faulting are caused by the oblique convergence of the Pacific and North American plates, so the SAF system isn't directly analogous to Hawaii. However it is an example of two different styles of faulting resulting from the same regional stress field.

I want to speculate now about the cause of the stresses in the northern part of the island. The image below shows the orientation of the P axes from the focal mechanisms (which should be equivalent to the maximum principal stress):

The black symbols are for the southern portion of the island, and they cluster pretty tightly. There's certainly a lot more scatter in the northern portion of the island. So, the stress field in the northern part of the island is a lot more heterogeneous than in the southern part of the island.

There does appear to be some overlap between the northern and the southern part of the island. The trend of the maximum principal stress for the Oct. 15 2006 quake is pretty similar to the trend of the maximum principal stress for the thrust events in the southern part of the island (shown below).

Here's a summary of my thoughts:

1) The thrust faults on the southern part of the island are resulted to the growth of the island, while the shallower normal faults are caused by extension resulting from something analagous to synorogenic collapse.

2) The stress field at the northern part of the island is much more heterogeneous than at the southern end of the island. As I discussed in an earlier message, I'd bet that the magnitude of the minimum and intermediate principal stresses at the northern end of the island are pretty similar. This means that both thrust and strike slip events would occur.

3) Both the thrust and the strike slip faults at the northern part of the island are oriented NW-SE at a high angle to the faults at the southern part of the island.

4) The northern part of the island is subjected to both local stresses related to the Hawaiian islands as well as more far field stresses associated with the movement of the Pacific plate. These far field stresses are swamped by the local stresses at the southern part of the island.

Here's my preferred interpretation of the faults on Hawaii:

The NE-SW faults are associated with local stresses while the NW-SE faults are driven by both local and far field stresses. At least that's my best guess.

Open access journals

2006-10-19T12:32:00.000-07:00

From Cognitive Daily comes the Directory of Open Access Journals.

They have 42 journals in their geology section. Worth a look.

Which president are you most similar to?

2006-10-18T07:34:00.000-07:00

Here's my result. I think it was answering 'clam chowder' to the question about my favorite food that did it:

You Are Most Like John F. Kennedy

You live a fairy tale life that most people envy.
And while you may have a few dark secrets, few people know them.

What Modern US President Are You Most Like?

HT to Living the Scientific Life

More on the Hawaii earthquake

2006-10-16T20:46:00.000-07:00

Chris at Highly Allochthonous has a very interesting post about the cause of the Hawaiian Earthquake. I made a quick comment there, and I want to expand a bit on it here.

The USGS fast moment tensor solution for the Hawaii quake looks like a dominantly strike slip event.

That seems weird to Chris, and it does to me too. I'd expect normal faulting to be the dominant mechanism resulting from extension (for the reasons that Chris describes). Before I go on I should point out that the Harvard solution looks more like a normal fault with a bit of strike slip motion. What that mean is that the following attempts to explain a strike slip earthquake in that part of Hawaii may be pointless. But oh well. I'm going to write the rest of this post assuming that the USGS focal mechanism is the better of the two.

Here's a quick map I put together of the Hawaii region (I wish I could plot the individual solutions but that's currently beyond my plotting skills). Earthquakes are from the Harvard CMT catalog (blue is thrust, red is normal, and green is strike slip). I think that these would be the best events to compare to the event on Sunday because the focal mechanisms for all of these event were inferred from teleseismic data (probably from a lot of the same stations).

From that map it looks like thrust events are the most common at Hawaii. That seems a bit counterintuitive to me. That means that the least principle stress is horizontal and the greatest principle stress is horizontal (I'd expect just the opposite since, as Chris pointed out, the Hawaiian Islands are a big pile of rock on the crust – I'd expect them to be collapsing). Despite my misgivings, in terms of stress state switching from a stress state that favors thrust motion to a stress state that favors strike slip motion is pretty straightforward – the least principal stress needs to switch from vertical to horizontal with the greatest principal stress remaining horizontal. Basically the least and intermediate principal stresses need to switch. If they're close in magnitude to begin with then it won't take much for them to switch. I can only speculate about what the perturbation to the stress state was. Maybe motion of magma, stresses imparted from plastic flow in the mantle, or maybe through loading caused by failure along other faults in the time preceding the earthquake (slip on one fault can affect the stress state on neighboring faults).

The map below is of seismicity from Jan. 1 to Oct. 14 2006:

There were quite a few earthquakes, and there were some deep, moderate sized earthquakes (M 3.3-4.7) in the general vicinity of the Oct. 15 earthquake. Perhaps the least and the intermediate principal stresses were very similar in magnitude and those events perturbed the stress field enough to switch them changing the style of faulting (for that event) from thrust to strike slip (of course that's just speculation on my part).

I want to finish with a comment on the greatest principal stress. The orientation of the greatest principal stress inferred from both the NEIC and the Harvard focal mechanisms is the same (~NW-SE). That orientation looks similar to the one I'd infer from the historic NEIC focal mechanisms. It's also similar to the stress orientation from the World Stress Map (which was inferred using focal mechanisms in Hawaii). Since all these events have a common orientation for the greatest principal stress that indicates to me that they're the result of a similar stress field, with the difference being with the intermediate and least principal stresses. As I said above, if the intermediate and least principal stresses are similar in magnitude, then it wouldn't take much for them to switch. That's a long-winded way of saying that I don't think the stresses that caused the Oct. 15 event had to be radically different than the stresses that caused the more common thrust events.

UPDATE: The lab lemming has a new post about the possible cause of this quake.

UPDATE: Editing to correct spelling errors, 10/22/2006.

Heavy rains in Texas

2006-10-16T16:19:00.000-07:00

The part of Texas I live in has been getting hit with a lot of rain. Up to 10 inches in 24 hours. Fortunately our house in on high ground, but one of the two roads to it is not. There was a respectable lake across the road I normally take. Rain storms like this are going to take some getting used to.

Earthquake in Hawaii

2006-10-15T13:45:00.000-07:00

A M 6.6 earthquake occurred in Hawaii today at 7:07 AM local time. The summary page from the NEIC is here and a page listing the main earthquake and many aftershocks (including an M 5.8 event) is here.

On the image below the M 6.6 earthquake is the star (you can see from the historic seismicity that Hawaii is a pretty active place):

Here's a map showing the activity today (all of the events are from Oct. 15 except for one from the 11th and one from the 10th):

The earthquake was 39 km deep, and from the moment tensor solution it was a strike slip event, which generally don't generate tsunami (there's not a lot of vertical displacement during a strike slip event so there's not a lot of water displaced):

Here's the shakemap for the event:

The most intense shaking was 6 on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale which means light potential damage for earthquake resistant structures (things like wood frame houses, modern buildings designed with earthquakes in mind and seismically retrofitted older structures) and moderate potential damage for vulnerable structures (unreinforced masonry, buildings with soft first stories, older buildings) . Here's CNN's coverage. According to them communications have been disrupted, but there are no reports of injuries or building damage. There were concerns about the structural integrity of a hospital there, and new patients were being kept outside. The most significant event CNN reports is an earthquake-related landslide near a major highway.

For comparison the largest historic event in Hawaii was an M 7.9 event in 1868 that resulted in 77 deaths from an earthquake-induced landslide and a tsunami.

Radioactive material detected from North Korea

2006-10-14T04:36:00.000-07:00

Some new preliminary data about whether the North Korean blast was conventional or nuclear from the New York Times:

"An analysis of air samples taken in the region on Wednesday found radioactive material that is “consistent with a North Korean nuclear test,” according to a document sent to lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Friday by the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence.

But a senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that the results were still preliminary and that final analysis of the data would not be completed for several days."

Hat tip to Dynamics of Cats

UPDATE: Posts at WG about the North Korea test:

Radioactive material detected from North Korea

Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test

More recordings of nuclear blasts

North Korea nuclear test

Guest blog: Teachable Moment: North Korea Nuclear Test

2006-10-13T09:45:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine in Japan had a great post abot the North Korean nuclear test at his blog. It's reproduced, with his permission, below:

North Korea announced that they performed an underground nuclear test this week. This is obviously bad news no matter what, but how can we verify that they are telling the truth? That's where seismology can help!

Scientists here at the Earthquake Research Institute just sent out information about the North Korea nuclear test, as recorded by seismometers here in Japan. Take a peak at the seismograms here.

Read more for a quick seismology lesson that explains what they mean.

Here is a brief seismology lesson. Let's begin by looking at a regular, natural earthquake: Click here to view some example seismograms. Earthquakes are sudden releases of energy, a lot like explosions. The seismic waves they release travel through the earth and can be recorded by seismometers literally on the other side of the world. However, it takes time for the waves to travel this distance and some waves travel faster than others. The example link above shows recordings of ground shaking from a number of different recording stations around the globe. Time starts at the bottom in these images and goes up. The line starts out straight at the bottom and then there there is a sudden increase in energy (p-wave) represented by wiggles on the seismogram. Almost all the lines then show a second, larger, burst of energy a few minutes later (further up on the plot). This comes from slower traveling s-waves. It's a lot like a running race where everyone starts at the sound of the gun, but they arrive at the finish line over a certain period of time because some of them travel faster than others.

What are these waves and why are some slow and others fast? Different directions of motion generate different types of waves. Imagine that I am standing behind you with my hands out in front of me and resting on your shoulders while we do a conga line. I can move my arms such that you rock side-to-side, or I can push-and-pull you forward and back in the direction that we are walking. Earthquakes mostly involve "shear motion" caused by sliding along faults (side-to-side motion). Some of you may have seen me use my hands to demonstrate earthquake motion by having one hand slide past the other. Explosions, however, have very little shear energy and produce mostly forward and back blast-like motion. It's easy to imagine getting thrown backwards by the energy of a blast (and fun to demonstrate an explosion with your hands -- they fly apart rather than slide past one another). In an earthquake, you'd more-likely get thrown to the side (relative to the direction of where the earthquake is coming) because earthquakes involve more side-to-side motion. It turns out that the different directions of motion travel through rock at different speeds. I won't go into the reasons why. But this is why there are two main bursts of energy in earthquakes -- the faster forward-and-back motion called P-waves and the slower side-to-side motion called S-waves.

It's important to remember that even though earthquakes have more energy in side-to-side motion, they release energy in BOTH both p and s waves. Why? Even though earthquakes are caused by side-to-side motion along faults, ruptures have ends and there is pushing or pulling near these endpoints that generates some back-and-forth wave motion.

Let's take another look at the nuclear test seismograms. In these, time starts on the left and marches to the right. Each horizontal line is the recording at one location in Japan. Here, there is a lot of background noise before the blast energy arrives, so the line is not perfectly straight on the left side. Most of this background noise is caused by storms and ocean waves and is not actually related to earthquakes or explosions. All of the recordings show a single big increase when the first, fastest waves arrive. Which horizontal line is closest to the blast? The top one because the waves arrive at it sooner. While shaking continues for some time in these seismograms, there is NO second burst. That's because this was an explosion that had very little side-to-side energy, and therefore no s-waves.

Other aspects of the waveform can tell us where the nuclear test site was (the precise location in North Korea) and using some fancy math we can use the amplitude of the waves to calculate the yield of the explosive device. Now you are a trained seismologist and can recognize the difference between a natural earthquake and a nuclear blast. Let's hope you don't have to use this information any more...

UPDATE: Posts at WG about the North Korea test

Radioactive material detected from North Korea

Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test

More recordings of nuclear blasts

North Korea nuclear test

Lee Bollinger

2006-10-12T18:02:00.000-07:00

I'm definitley arriving late to the party, but I wanted to comment on the story of a group of students at Columbia University who stormed the stage during a speech by Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist.

Here's a round-up of the coverage:

From Dispatches from the Culture Wars:

here and here

From The Volokh Conspiracy:

here and here.

And finally, from No Se Nada:

here (with a wonderful personal anecdote about Bollinger).

I left a comment at No Se Nada, and I wanted to expand on it here.

I spent a fair number of years at the University of Michigan and Lee Bollinger was president for a good chunk of that time. I remember a few incidents during Bollinger's tenure.

In 2000 a group called the Students of Color Coalition (SCC) occupied the offices of a student society called Michigamua. Michigamua was founded in 1902 and was given a perputal lease to some offices in the student union in gratitude for their fund raising efforts. Some of the ceremonies in Michigamua involved Native American artifacts and references (mockeries?) of Native American culture. Michigamua agreed to stop using Native American artifacts in 1989, but according to SCC they didn't follow through on their promise (SCC also claimed that their name was offensive). SCC occupied Michigamua's offices and hung a banner out the window of the 3rd floor of the union (I don't remember what it said even though I saw it every day on my way to and from the bus). Here's a statement Bollinger made in Feb. 2000:

“For the past ten days, we have been engaged in discussions with students including the students occupying the tower of the Union. We do not believe that occupation is the way to resolve issues within the University. In this instance we felt that it was in the best interests of our educational process for the University to pursue that discussion to a reasonable resolution.

“Any conversation must have starting points. For a University, a fundamental principle is that, with rare exceptions, students, faculty and staff must not be treated differently because of their beliefs or the expressions of those beliefs. That principle has direct application to this controversy. Some have argued that one of the societies using the Union tower space, Michigamua, should be stripped of its University affiliation and lose its exclusive use of that space because it has a history of practices that demean and degrade Native American culture and spirituality. Under our principles it is clear that student organizations must not be recognized or de-recognized, or suffer any other penalty, because the ideas they espouse or beliefs they adhere to are offensive, or even dangerous, to our community. I have spoken to leaders of the groups occupying the tower, other students and faculty, and they, too, value this principle.

“Neither viewpoints nor legacy necessarily entitle any group within the campus to privileged space. We will address, in a neutral way, the process of space allocation among student organizations within the University.

“It must be said, again and again, that responsible membership in our University community implies caring about the perceived impact of one’s actions on others. Of particular importance are perceptions, however unintended, of cultural offense, and those behaviors that cause others in the community to be excluded and unappreciated. Whether conscious or not, practices that negatively stereotype groups in our society cause unjust pain and humiliation. I believe such practices are not acceptable behaviors in a University that values and fosters diversity. We must never take lightly the effects of such perceptions and behaviors.

“Current students of Michigamua acknowledge that its history has included practices demeaning of Native American culture. None of us, however, can count ourselves free of embarrassment and even shame for what we have once believed or practiced, not even the University of Michigan.

“Our students are continually reminding us of the challenge embedded in Pascal’s enduring words, inscribed on the walls of our University, ‘Justice and power must be brought together so that whatever is just may be powerful and whatever is powerful must be just.’ ”

He agreed that demeaning Native American culture is inappropriate, admonished SCC for occupying the office, and didn't take the easy out of condemning the present members of Michigamua for the behavior of past members.

Here's his statement from March of 2000:

"As I stressed in my Statement of February 17, 2000, "practices that negatively stereotype groups in our society cause unjust pain and humiliation. I believe such practices are not acceptable behaviors in a University that values and fosters diversity. We must never take lightly the effects of such perceptions and behaviors." While this University honors the principle that individuals and groups within the University community must be free to express a wide variety of beliefs and ideas, it is also committed to ensuring that its own institutional voice on the subject of racial and ethnic respect be unequivocal. The University simply does not condone practices that denigrate the values or traditions of particular racial or ethnic groups. Finally, it must also be said that the University does not condone the illegal occupation of University premises by any student group.

The recent protests about the Michigamua student organization have raised an important question as to the proper nature and scope of University involvement with student organizations. Accordingly, the panel described in my Statement of February 25, 2000 that is considering the question of privileged space also will consider under what circumstances and in what ways the University, its administrators and faculty members should be associated with such organizations and it will recommend guiding principles in this regard. The University's Executive Officers and I will then decide whether and how to implement such principles.

In considering this issue, the panel will consider the concerns that have been expressed about whether and to what extent associations between the University, its administrators or faculty can or have given rise to the impression that the University endorses racial or ethnic ridicule, and whether and to what extent those associations can or have contributed to marginalizing or disenfranchising other groups or students. The panel will also consider applicable civil rights and anti-discrimination principles as well as applicable First Amendment principles such as freedom of speech and freedom of association.

As with the question of privileged space, the panel will gather public input in a variety of ways including holding public hearings to solicit student, staff, faculty and community member input. The panel will work expeditiously and make its recommendations regarding space before April 13, 2000. The panel will make its recommendation on all other issues before it by October 2, 2000. The decisions the University makes about the assignment and use of the Michigan Union tower and any other exclusively assigned space will be made prior to the beginning of the Fall 2000 academic term. The panel will issue its findings and recommendations on all questions before it in written form, and those findings and recommendations will be published to all interested parties and the public."

In the end Michigamua got to keep their name, but agreed to move out of the Union. Their website is here.

I remember a few other incidents. When the U of M affirmitive action case was just starting there was a flurry of activity on campus. Two of the speakers stick in my mind. Jesse Jackson came to give a talk in favor of affirmitive action (I save one of his placards - I rediscovered it while I was moving out of my office at the end of grad school). Fred Phelps and his group came to protest. I vividly remember an ~five year old boy holding a sign proclaiming "Matthew Shepard is burning in Hell." Despite the disgusting nature of Phelps' group they were allowed to protest unmolested. I also remember a preacher who'd hold up a sign on the Diag and comdemn passing students to an eternity of fire (I know that this was at least a weekly event but I don't remember if he did this more often). He was occasionally heckled, but he was never stopped from speaking. During the 2000 elections the campus Republicans had a table set up on the Diag, and they were even able to hand out collections of G. W. Bush's speeches (I got a copy and had a lot of fun sneaking it on to my friend's bookshelves and seeing how long it took them to notice). I also remember an instance when a group of abortion protestors rented a truck and drove it around campus with pictures of aborted fetuses.

The average person at Michigan was certainly liberal, but it was a place where free speech was encouraged (at least in my experience). Returning to the modern day I was very pleased with Bollinger's statment about the protestors at Columbia University (excerpted below):

"Of course, the University is thoroughly investigating the incident, and it is critically important not to prejudge the outcome of that inquiry with respect to individuals. But, as we made clear in our University statements on both Wednesday night and Thursday, we must speak out to deplore a disruption that threatens the central principle to which we are institutionally dedicated, namely to respect the rights of others to express their views.

This is not complicated: Students and faculty have rights to invite speakers to the campus. Others have rights to hear them. Those who wish to protest have rights to do so. No one, however, shall have the right or the power to use the cover of protest to silence speakers. This is a sacrosanct and inviolable principle.

It is unacceptable to seek to deprive another person of his or her right of expression through actions such as taking a stage and interrupting the speech. We rightly have a visceral rejection of this behavior, because we all sense how easy it is to slide from our collective commitment to the hard work of intellectual confrontation to the easy path of physical brutishness. When the latter happens, we know instinctively we are all threatened."

The students who stormed the stage were thugs, plain and simple, and they deserve to be prosecuted.

Ending on a lighter note The Daily Show covered the event here (hat tip to The Volokh Conspiracy). The best line of the clip is (paraphrasing): "Congratulations protestors, you've managed to make Sean Hannity seem like the reasonable one."

A good day for me

2006-10-11T19:45:00.000-07:00

I'm currently a visiting assistant professor. I found out today that I'll be promoted to a tenure track position at the beginning of the next academic year. I also found out that I'll be able to purchase a piece of equipment that I've been wanting for some time (a hand held XRF machine). I've got three projects that have been on hold that I can finish now.

More recordings of nuclear blasts

2006-10-11T19:22:00.000-07:00

From the Oklahoma Geological Survey:

A 700-1800 kiloton blast from 1992. The largest underground blast since 1976 according to that site. The station was 11420 km from the blast.

For comparison the 1995 M6.9 Kobe earthquake (10600 km from the station and 22 km deep). (note that this seismogram is ~1 hr long while the seismogram from the nuclear blast is only ~20 minutes long).

As I learned in the comments from thread at No Se Nada a sesimogram from a blast is dominated by P-waves. I can certainly see the lack of S waves in the recording from the nuclear blast (assuming they were cut from the plot).

Here's an explanation from LLNL:

"Livermore seismologist Bill Walter explains that the differences in seismic P- and S-wave energy provide one method of discriminating explosions from earthquakes. Seismic P waves are compressional waves, similar to sound waves in the air. Shear (S) waves are transverse waves, like those that propagate along a rope when one end is shaken. Because underground explosions are spherically symmetric disturbances, they radiate seismic P waves efficiently. In contrast, earthquakes result from sliding or rupture along a buried fault surface and strongly excite the transverse motions of S waves. Thus, we expect that explosions will show strong P waves and weak S waves and that earthquakes will show weak P waves and strong S waves, as seen in Figure 2."

Here's the figure referred to in that quote:

The LLNL page also has a good discussion of the difficulties in inferring blast yields from seismograms.

UPDATE: I forgot to give a link to the LLNL page.

UPDATE: Lab Lemming has a couplenice posts on this topic.

UPDATE: Posts about the North Korea nuclear test at WG:

Radioactive material detected from North Korea

Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test

More recordings of nuclear blasts

North Korea nuclear test

North Korea nuclear test

2006-10-09T18:58:00.000-07:00

The North Koreans conducted an underground detonation of a nuclear bomb today.

These are the seismograms of the nuclear test in North Korea (data from the IRIS website.

The first shows the raw data:

This image shows the same data with a regional filter applied (1-10 Hz). I don't know the rationale for applying this filter, but it looks like that's the way IRIS displays their data (can you tell I'm not a seismologist?).

For comparison here are the records from the same stations for a M5.9 event at a depth of 359.5 km in the Sea of Japan (both stations were further from this earthquake than they were from the North Korean test).

This is a plot without a filter.

This is a plot with a filter.

Here's another earthquake for comparison. This one is a M 5.5 event at a depth of 71.6 km that occured near Kyushu.

No filter.

Filter.

I'm not sure how to distinguish between a nuclear blast and an earthquake. To my untrained eye it looks like the North Korean event is more impulsive (for lack of a better word) than the Sea of Japan event. However the North Korea event looks similar to the Kyushu event to me (of course the Kyushu event is much closer in depth to the North Korea event too). I see some differences in the later arrivals, but I don't know if I'm just seeing things.

UPDATES

I forgot to link to the post at No Se Nada that prompted me to look for the seismograms for the North Korean test.

Highly Allochthonous (great name) also has a post.

UPDATE: Posts at WG about the North Korea nuclear test:

Radioactive material detected from North Korea

Guestblog: Teachable Moment: North Korea nuclear test

More recordings of nuclear blasts

North Korea nuclear test

Gubernatorial candiate in Michigan endorses intelligent design

2006-09-20T19:25:00.000-07:00

From the Detroit Free Press

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos says he thinks Michigan’s science curriculum should include a discussion about intelligent design.

He says teaching intelligent design along with evolution would help students discern the facts among different theories. He’d like to see local school districts be able to teach intelligent design if they choose to, although he wouldn’t require that it be taught in science classes.

“I would like to see the ideas of intelligent design that many scientists are now suggesting is a very viable alternative theory,” DeVos told the Associated Press this week during an interview on education. “That theory and others that would be considered credible would expose our students to more ideas, not less.”

Since DeVos didn't say anything new I'm not going to bother pointing out the problems with his statement. I will say that he's not my favorite Republican gubernatorial candidate. My favorite was Dick Posthumus, who lost to Jennifer Granholm. The reason I like him so much is that when he was running for governor I got to drive past a huge sign that proclaimed "Support Posthumus' Tax Cuts" on my way to work I thought it was nice to see a candidate reaching out to an under-represented voting group (I know his last name is Posthumus and not posthumous, but the sign still made me laugh).

"Ornery scientist gets rehired by federal gov't"

2006-09-20T19:19:00.000-07:00

From CTV in Canada.

A B.C. scientist fired for lampooning an order to call Stephen Harper's Tory government "Canada's new government'' is back on the job.

Geologist Andrew Okulitch said Tuesday he was reinstated as a scientist emeritus with the Geological Survey of Canada after a call from the deputy minister of natural resources.

The 64-year-old Saltspring Island resident, who has worked for the federal government for 35 years, said he was fired Sept. 5 after he e-mailed an undiplomatic response to a government directive.

The government memo ordered him to use the phrase "new government of Canada'' on official correspondence from the Geological Survey of Canada.

Okulitch immediately fired off an e-mail saying civil servants are not paid to mouth political slogans.

He said the policy was "ridiculous and embarrassing'' and said he will use Geological Survey of Canada in any official correspondence "as opposed to idiotic buzzwords coined by political hacks.''

All turned out well in the end. Both Okulitch and the deputy minister both apologized and Okulitch got back to work.

FCC FU

2006-09-15T05:58:00.000-07:00

At the very least you'll get a catchy song stuck in your head (or at least I did)

http://fccfu.com/

2006-09-11T07:28:00.000-07:00

Here is New York

2006-09-09T15:13:00.000-07:00

Here is New York

Well worth a visit.

The next big Christmas gift

2006-09-07T16:26:00.000-07:00

"Founders Lawrence Toms, 38, from Rhondda and Lez Paylor, 38, from Caerphilly, said they had been keen to develop an idea which would create a manufacturing company which would be uniquely Welsh and could produce a product that foreign imports could not compete with."

The product?........."Sheep poo paper"

Wow

Hurricanes caused by provoking God

2006-09-04T10:41:00.000-07:00

Since moving to a part of the country that's subject to occasional hurricanes I've been thinking about them more than I used to. I forget who, but I remember someone blaming Hurricane Katrina on Mardi Gras (God was annoyed at the behavior of New Orleans and decided to smite the city).

My post earlier today about D. James Kennedy earlier in the day reminded me that Coral Ridge Ministries suffered damage from Hurricane Wilma in late 2005. I'll leave it to those who believe God uses natural disasters to punish those who displease Him to draw what conclusions they will.

Personally, I favor the view that blaming natural disasters on the victims is not a very good thing to do.

Still western, but not quite as much

2006-09-04T08:25:00.000-07:00

Western Geologist recently moved from the Bay Area of California to Texas (not too far from Houston). Because of all the excitng times ending one job, buying a house, and starting a new job I haven't been doing a very good job posting.

I am now a home owner, and I find that immensely satisfying. Doing odd jobs around the house like putting up curtains, putting up towel bars, laying sod, and so on are fun. Of course laying sod in Texas is just plain hard work, but the end result is very appealing. As an added bonus, I didn't encounter any fire ants. I'm well-prepared though if they make their presence known. My sister used to live in this part of the world, and I've become paranoid about fire ants because of her stories.

Darwin's Deadly Legacy

2006-09-04T08:13:00.000-07:00

Shameful behavior

D James Kennedy, pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, recently produced a program called "Darwin’s Deadly Legacy" that attempts to blame the Holocaust on acceptance of evolution.

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," said Dr. Kennedy, the host of Darwin’s Deadly Legacy. “Hitler tried to speed up evolution, to help it along, and millions suffered and died in unspeakable ways because of it."

Kennedy’s behavior in creating and promoting this show has been, plain and simple, deceitful. It is literally a stain on Christianity in the US. The first reason is that Kennedy deceitfully included Francis Collins (director of the Human Genome Project) in his show, and in the initial press release Kennedy actually listed Collins as one of the featured experts in the show (see here). Kennedy had originally interviewed Collins about a book he was writing, and Kennedy spliced some of that footage into "Darwin’s Deadly Legacy."

When Collins found out about this he was outraged. From this press release from the Anti-Defamation League:

"After being contacted by the ADL about his name being used to promote Kennedy's project, Dr. Collins said he is "absolutely appalled by what Coral Ridge Ministries is doing. I had NO knowledge that Coral Ridge Ministries was planning a TV special on Darwin and Hitler, and I find the thesis of Dr. Kennedy's program utterly misguided and inflammatory," he told ADL."

Coral Ridge Ministries responded:

"The ADL and Dr. Collins are both wrong. A producer told Dr. Collins in person before the interview began that he was being interviewed for a program that would address the adverse social consequences of Darwin. In addition, he was asked specifically, during the interview, about the Darwin-Hitler connection and responded on tape that he did not agree with that view. Dr. Collins also signed a Talent Release, which gives Coral Ridge Ministries the right to use his interview "without limitation in all perpetuity.""

Because of Collins' outrage Coral Ridge Ministries removed him from the list of featured speakers in "Darwin's Deadly Legacy." That was certainly the right thing to do, but it's ridiculous that it was there in the first place. Based on their response I think Coral Ridge Ministries is probably legally right but I think they're certainly morally wrong (which I regard as a bad thing in a nominally Christian organization). Let's say that while interviewing Collins about his new book they briefly ask him about the "Darwin-Hitler connection." Collins responds that he does not "agree with that view." Kennedy then takes that part of the interview and makes it a featured part of a program that's completely unrelated to the original interview. Collins' Talent Release gives Kennedy the legal right to do that, but it's morally disgusting. He had to sneak Collins into "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" in an attempt to give that show a veneer of respectability.

It also appears that Michael Behe's contribution to "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" was spliced in, in an attempt to give that show star power. When asked about his relation to "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" Behe responsed:

I'm "associated" with it only in the sense that a clip of my appearance on a TV show of Dr. Kennedy's from years ago apparently is used in the film. I didn't know this program was in the works, have had no conversations with anyone from Coral Ridge about it, and had no input into it.

This does not bode well for the quality of Kennedy's scholarship. It makes it look like he had to effectively trick people into being part of his show (again while he may be in the green legally this behavior isn't acceptable coming from a Christian ministry).

To be fair some of Kennedy's featured speakers were willing, fully-informed participants. Ann Coulter ( a renowned expert on evolution) is one:

"Ann Coulter is stunned. How is it, she asks, that she could go through 12 years of public school, then college and law school, and still not know that it was Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution that fueled Hitler’s ovens."

And now, moving on to the "meat" (putrid, rotting, maggot-infested) of Kennedy's thesis. Ed Brayton at Dispatches From the Culture Wars has done a very thorough job documenting the times Hitler used religion (Christianity in particular to justify his actions). Brayton also quotes from a speech where Hitler denies human evolution:

And to top it off, he says that humans did not evolve from apes:

"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today."

I highly recommend Brayton's posts:

Hitler the Creationist
Nazi Analogies and Historical Revisionism
Kennedy, Hitler, Weikart and the ADL
D. James Kennedy, Darwin and Hitler

It is absolutely, unequivocally true that Hitler used Christianity as one of his motivations. For example:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited."

Guess who wrote the following:

"What then shall we Christians do with this damned, rejected race of Jews? Since they live among us and we know about their lying and blasphemy and cursing, we can not tolerate them if we do not wish to share in their lies, curses, and blasphemy. In this way we cannot quench the inextinguishable fire of divine rage nor convert the Jews. We must prayerfully and reverentially practice a merciful severity. Perhaps we may save a few from the fire and flames [of hell]. We must not seek vengeance. They are surely being punished a thousand times more than we might wish them. Let me give you my honest advice.
First, their synagogues should be set on fire, and whatever does not burn up should be covered or spread over with dirt so that no one may ever be able to see a cinder or stone of it. And this ought to be done for the honor of God and of Christianity in order that God may see that we are Christians, and that we have not wittingly tolerated or approved of such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of His Son and His Christians.

Secondly, their homes should likewise be broken down and destroyed. For they perpetrate the same things there that they do in their synagogues. For this reason they ought to be put under one roof or in a stable, like gypsies, in order that they may realize that they are not masters in our land, as they boast, but miserable captives, as they complain of incessantly before God with bitter wailing.

Thirdly, they should be deprived of their prayer-books and Talmuds in which such idolatry, lies, cursing, and blasphemy are taught.

Fourthly, their rabbis must be forbidden under threat of death to teach any more...

Fifthly, passport and traveling privileges should be absolutely forbidden to the Jews. For they have no business in the rural districts since they are not nobles, nor officials, nor merchants, nor the like. Let them stay at home...If you princes and nobles do not close the road legally to such exploiters, then some troop ought to ride against them, for they will learn from this pamphlet what the Jews are and how to handle them and that they ought not to be protected. You ought not, you cannot protect them, unless in the eyes of God you want to share all their abomination...

To sum up, dear princes and nobles who have Jews in your domains, if this advice of mine does not suit you, then find a better one so that you and we may all be free of this insufferable devilish burden - the Jews..."

The author was Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism.

Hatred and vilification of Jews has a very long history. To pretend that it developed (or even became more pronounced) following Darwin's work is just not a supportable position. Much of the historic (and even recent) condemnation of Jews is based on religion (Christianity in particular). In other words people have used Christianity for millennia as an excuse to persecute Jews. Using Kennedy's reasoning, and the earlier quotation from Martin Luther, Christianity should be referred to as "Luther's Deadly Legacy." Of course I don't think that's a supportable position. I think the point to be learned is that people will find something to use to justify their prejudices. The fact that people have used Christianity to justify their evil behavior does not make Christianity evil. Assuming that the Nazis used some sort of belief in evolution (which at best was but one of many reasons including some form of Christianity) cannot be used to argue that evolution is evil.

I want to close with a personal story.

In the winter of 1995 I had the chance to visit Auschwitz when I spent a few weeks in Poland. I walked under the infamous "Arbeit macht frei" gate at Auschwitz A, saw the rooms full of things like hair and shoes stolen from soon to be murdered men, women and children. I walked through the test oven and gas chamber (not far from the commandant's house) and saw the sites of the large chambers at Auschwitz B (Birkenau), which were destroyed toward the end of WWII in an attempt to hide their existence. I walked through the wooden barracks at Birkenau and felt how they did nothing to stop the brutal Polish winter.

I also spent a fair bit of time in the UK. I remember going to York for a trip and visiting an old castle called Clifford's Tower that was the site of a massacre of Jews in the 12th century. Red stains on the exterior of the castle (caused by the oxidation of iron-bearing minerals in the rocks used to build the castle) were called "Jew's Blood." As I said before demonization and murder of Jews is a time-honored tradition.

The fact that Kennedy attempts (clumsily, incompetently and deceitfully) to demean the tragedy of the Holocaust and the historic persecution and murder of Jews is disgusting and enraging. By portraying evolution as the reason for their murder, and by ignoring the incredibly well-document millennia-old (mis)use of religion, Kennedy shows himself to be a charlatan in the tradition of the 19th century snake oil salesman.

Steve Irwin killed

2006-09-04T05:53:00.000-07:00

From 'Crocodile Hunter' Steve Irwin dead.

Irwin, 44 was killed by a stingray barb that went through his chest, according to Cairns police sources. Irwin was filming an underwater documentary at the time.

I really liked Steve Irwin. His shows were certainly on the cheesy side, but I liked his enthusiasm and goofiness. I'll really miss him. My thoughts go out to his wife and children.

Americans don't accept evolution

2006-08-11T12:43:00.001-07:00

In what can be appropriately called a "penetrating glimpse into the obvious," a new study published in the journal Science indicates that Americans' acceptance of evolution is next to last among 34 countries surveyed. The only country in the survey that was less accepting of evolution is Turkey. The other countries consisted of the European countries and Japan.

This result is certainly not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless. Respondents were given the statement "Human beings, as we know them, developed from earlier species of animals," and asked to respond with one of 3 choices, "true", "false", or "not sure". The bad news is that 40 percent of US respondents answered "true", down from 45% in 1985. The good news is that 39% answered "false", down from 48% in 1985. Simple math will tell you that the unsure percentage went from 7% in 1985 to 21% in this study. For comparison, in Turkey 25% accept evolution, 20% are not sure, and 45% reject it; while in France, 80% accept evolution with "not sure" and "rejection" at around 10% each.

Here is the best copy of the results that I could find (from livescience.com):

Researchers attributed the poor acceptance of evolution among Americans to "poor understanding of biology, especially genetics, the politicization of science and the literal interpretation of the Bible by a small but vocal group of American Christians." I think they forgot to add that our current president falls within that "small but vocal group." he has openly supported teaching Intelligent Design in schools. Now I'm not one to criticize someone's religious beliefs (being quite religious myself), but I wish more people would understand that accepting evolution does not necessitate rejecting the Bible or God.
The full article at livescience.com can be seen here.

Kansas Election Results

2006-08-02T06:45:00.000-07:00

From the Kansas Secretary of State:

Janet Waugh beat Jesse Hall 63% to 37%. Hall was pro-ID (see here and here.

John Bacon beat Harry McDonald 49% to 40%. Bacon is one of the pro-ID members of the school board who adopted the ID standards.

Sally Cauble beat Connie Morris 54% to 46%. Morris was also one of the pro-ID members of the school board.

Ken Willard beat Donna Viola 54 to 37%. Willard was one of the pro-ID members of the board.

Jana Shaver beat Brad Patzer 58% to 43%. Patzer is the son-in-law of Iris Van Meter. Van Meter was one of the pro-ID members of the board. She was not running for reelection.

So, of the five seats three were won by pro-science candidates. The ID standards were adopted by a vote of 6-4. The six were John Bacon, Connie Morris, Kathy Martin, Kenneth Willard, Iris Van Meter, and Steve Abrams. The four who voted against the pro-ID standards were Janet Waugh, Sue Gamble, Bill Wagnon, and Carol Rupe. Since Morris and Patzer won't be on the board that presumably would make the vote 4-6 in favor of the pro-ID standards.

As Nick Matzke points out this is the latest in a long string of defeats for the ID movement.

My nerd score

2006-08-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

A school teacher in Kansas

2006-07-31T21:13:00.000-07:00

From The Panda's Thumb:

Connie Morris is one of the ID proponents on the Kansas Board of Education. Cheryl Sheperd-Adams is a high school teacher in Kansas. The post at PT deals with an editorial that Morris wrote and Shepherd-Adams' reply.

Speaking about the hearings that were held by the ID proponents on the board Shepherd-Adams writes:

It is true that mainstream scientists boycotted the event, knowing that science proceeds by careful evaluation of published results and not by rhetoric. Considering Mrs. Morris’ opinion of evolution as “an age-old fairy tale,” Mrs. Martin’s statement before the hearings that her decision was already made, and Mr. Abrams’ complicity in the 1999 creationism debacle, it’s not surprising that scientists refused to submit to their whims.

The real boycott continues to be perpetrated by the ID proponents, who have refused to submit their work to the scientific scrutiny of peer-review. Instead, they demand special treatment - to have their ideas taught in classrooms without going through the standard vetting process endured by the rest of the concepts in the science curriculum. Contrary to claims of evolution as “unquestioned dogma,” Nobel Prizes are routinely won by those who uncover data challenging the scientific status quo. ID has no such data.

Mrs. Morris also neglected to point out that she and Mrs. Martin admitted they hadn’t read through the previous standards they were criticizing; neither had most of the pro-ID witnesses.

Scientists and “teach the controversy” proponents sparred last year in a Pennsylvania courtroom, where those testifying swore to tell the truth and strict rules of evidence were applied. A church-going, Bush-appointed Republican judge ruled in Kitzmiller vs. Dover that “ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny, which we have now determined that it cannot withstand, by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM (ID movement) is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.”

It’s obvious that scientists have shown up where it counts, in the laboratories, the scientific literature and in court. The Topeka hearings were an exercise in public relations, an attempt to portray ID and “teach the controversy” as legitimate science rather than a political/religious movement.

I am grateful that people like Shepherd-Adams take the time to respond to people like Morris. Especially since the Kansas primaries will be occurring on August 3rd. CORRECTION. The elections are today.

Flag burning amendment defeated

2006-06-27T17:02:00.000-07:00

Via Ed Brayton, Flag amendment apparently stalls in Senate. The amendment failed to pass by one vote. I'm happy it did.

I love seeing the flag flying. I'm very particular about how I fly it too - I don't fly it at night unless it's illuminated, I don't fly it in the rain, and so on. I love facing the flag and singing the National Anthem - one of my most powerful memories is going to my parents' church on Sept. 12, 2001 and singing "The Star Spangled Banner." The flag symbolizes a lot of very precious ideals for me. But ultimately the flag is just a piece of cloth - the flag is not the same thing as the ideals the flag represents. Those ideals and freedoms are more precious than the flag. Burning the flag disgusts me, but my feelings are irrelvent. I don't have the right not to be offended, and neither does anyone else.

I think this amendment and the utterly despicable Gay Marriage amendment were attempts by Congress to distract Americans. In the case of the Gay Marriage amendment I view it as an attempt by the Republicans who control Congress to distract us from corruption scandals like Tom Delay's. In the case of the Flag Burning amendment I think it was a multilateral attempt to appeal to people's emotions so that when election day runs around the politicans can distract us with claims to be "Patriotic Americans" (or more importantly to avoid handing a potential weapon to their opponents who'd say "Don't vote for so-and-so because they hate America). Good PR was more important than taking a potentially unpopular (but very just) stand even if that meant degrading our liberty. I don't know how Congress prioritizes the things they decide to work on, but I don't think they're doing a good job.

A rambling post for a Sunday afternoon

2006-06-25T20:01:00.000-07:00

A very brief post by PZ Myers at The Pandas Thumb (PT) earlier today has generated more than 300 comments today. It turns out that most of them are trash (literally the sort of bickering that I recall from the playground at grade school), but the original post itself, and some of the comments, are worthwhile. Here's Myers' post (links removed):

In case anyone is interested, there is an interview and article with and about Ron Numbers, historian of science and author of The Creationists, available at the U of Wisconsin. He offers a fairly standard perspective on the creationism wars, one that is commonly expressed here…but I have to confess, I disliked it intensely, and think it represents much that is wrong in the usual conciliatory approach too many people favor.
(Yes! That is an invitation to argue!)

Those of you familiar with Myers will know that's he's generally disparaging of religion (for those of you who aren't familiar with him, visit his blog Pharyngula). Myers writes some of the best articles about biology in the blogosphere, but his hostility toward religion is off-putting for me. My understanding of Myers' position is that he's willing to work with theists, but he wants to be able to criticize their theism, which he regards as irrational (I hope I'm mischaracterizing his position). Here is a comment from the PT thread:

Comment #107858
Posted by PZ Myers on June 24, 2006 02:28 PM (e)
Lenny is part of the problem.
I think you should read more carefully what I wrote. In particular, that bit where I mention that accusing scientists of arrogance is absurd, when we’ve got plenty of theists spreading arrogance far and wide. I should have mentioned condescension, too — do you think I know nothing about religion? I was brought up in one, I live in a highly religious culture, I get religion chucked at me every single day. I’ve read religious books with far more critical thought than I see from most of the people who demand automatic respect for religion. I see religion day after day, I see people practicing their religion regularly, I get to share my mornings at the coffee shop with the men’s bible study group that meets there…and everyone tells me that none of that is religion.
It gets annoying. Religion, apparently, is some ineffable ideal that floats in a space of perfect perfection, unsmeared by grubby human hands, and no, no one gets to criticize it. It’s too pure. And if you do criticize it, you don’t know anything about it, because if you did, you wouldn’t complain.

Here are a couple of other interesting comments:

Comment #107914
Posted by vhutchison on June 24, 2006 05:27 PM (e)
I understand both sides of this argument, but I must agree with Lenny on one point. I respect the views on both sides. The battle with ID IS POLITICAL and attacks by scientists on persons of faith who do support evolution are a major impediment in the political process. In Oklahoma we have just escaped creationist legislation for the sixth year in a row. Without the hard work and support of mainline religious people and organizations such as the Interfith Alliances of Oklahoma City and Tulsa and Oklahoma Manistream Baptists, we likely would not have prevented state laws requiring some form of ID/creationism. Members of these groups were far more energetic and active in lobbying the legislature, writing letters, holding press conferences, etc., than were scientists. The attempt to place religious material in the Tulsa Zoo made the national news. The defeat of the proposal was due largely to the Tulsa Interfaith Alliance and an organization, Friends of Religion and Science, the Alliance organized.
The mainstream faith community made a valuable impact and we need these folks, even if we do not agree with their faiths. We may not like the political process, but that is where we will win or lose. The bottom line: as scientists we need all the assistance we can get. I guess that this is like the adage ‘Any enemy of my enemies is my friend’?
Those who have been actively engaged in the political process in other states generally agree, as do many of the national leaders of organizations supporting evolution. I have discussed the need for support from religious groups with these leaders (readers would recognize the names if I listed them). Several are atheists and readily say so, but recognize the value of support from faith-based individuals and organizations.

Comment #107918
Posted by Nick (Matzke) on June 24, 2006 05:41 PM (e)
Whoo hoo! A pointless thread on unresolvable metaphysical questions! Somehow, we usually manage to avoid these.
All I can say is, while (1) I have the utmost scientific respect for PZ Myers, and (2) he and other in-your-face atheists have every right as private citizens to freely promote their views on religion (just like everyone else), the fight with the creationists is primarily about whether or not to teach science in public school science classrooms. Creationists pretend their views on religion are scientific in order to get them into science classrooms. We don’t need the anti-creationists going and mixing their views on religion into their science. In fact, this is probably the surest path to disaster politically and in the courts. Anyone who wants to do this has the right to do it, but it ain’t helpful or particularly smart.
Having a natural explanation for the origin of species is logically no more threatening to, or helpful to, Christianity than having a natural explanation for the weather. IMHO.

I think both vhutchinson and Matzke are right. Politically it is a very bad idea to intertwine anticreationism with antitheism. The evolution/antievolution debate shouldn't be turned into a Christianity vs. atheism debate. I also think that it's not necessarily a good thing to do scientifically, with a few caveats. A religion that tries to base itself on science is unavoidably in conflict with science. For example, if a religion claims that it can detect the fingerprints of God in the Creation (and this is what the ID movement does), then those claims are subject to scientific testing and refutation. When those claims are refuted, that religion is refuted. For this reason I think it is just plain dangerous for people to try to frame Christianity in scientific terms. For example, if a person is taught that the geologic record is evidence of Noah's Flood then when that person is confronted with evidence that the geologic record is incompatible with Noah's Flood that evidence will also be evidence that their faith is wrong. Of course, the question then becomes "what should faith be based on?" I'll tell you right now that I don't have a 100% satisfactory answer for that. One of the aspects of Christianity that appeals to me is that a personal relationship with God is a major component of that religion. So I think that forming a personal relationship with God should be one of the main objectives of Christianity. The way to do that is trickier, and I don't have a good answer. I can see things like prayer, meditation, awe through the observation of nature, can play an important role, but the problem is that these concepts are really subjective. I can't think of a way to effectively describe the results of prayer, communion, etc., with others, and therefore I can't really fault them for not accepting my point of view. That's where I stand at the present. If anyone wants to leave any comments I'd appreciate them.

The Hayward Fault Exposed

2006-06-09T07:42:00.000-07:00

The Hayward Fault (a Google Earth add on about the Hayward Fault can be found here) is a major member of the San Andreas Fault System that passes through the East Bay. It extends from near Milpitas (where it intersects the Calaveras Fault) in the south to near Petaluma in the north (where it encounters the Rodgers Creek Fault).

The Hayward fault has one of the greatest seismic hazards of the faults in the Bay Area. This is because it cuts through a lot of heavily populated areas, and also has not had a significant earthquake for quite some time. The Hayward Fault isn't long enough to generate an M 7.8 1906-like event, but it does generate events that are roughly the size of the 1989 Loma Prieta quake (The probability of an M 6.7+ event along the Hayward Fault in the next 30 years is 27%).

The 1906 Centennial Alliance has sponsored an educational exhibit on the Hayward Fault. The focal point of the exhibit is a trench across the fault that was excavated to expose the active Hayward Fault. The exhibit is called The Hayward Fault Exposed! An Interpretive Viewing and Educational Exhibit, and is open until the end of June. My wife and I, along with some friends, visited the exhibit a few weeks ago.

The modern trench was dug at the same location as a scientific trench that was dug in 1987. Once the 1987 trench was mapped it was filled in, but the outline is still visible in the modern pit. One of the more interesting things I learned is that most trenches are around 30" wide, which is the width of a backhoe scoop (I'm sure that's not the correct name, but hopefully you know what I mean). The modern trench, fortunately, is much more accessible.

The platform at the bottom of the pit is on the NE side of the fault, and the wall facing the platform is mostly on the SW side of the fault.

The picture above is a close up of the active trace of the Hayward fault (the dashed red line).

The last major earthquake on the Hayward Fault was a M 6.8 in 1868. It is possible to roughly determine the recurrence interval of earthquakes like this by integrating data from many trenches along the fault. This is done through dating of lithologic horizons that were offset by fault motion. Studies like this indicate that an earthquake that is approximately like the 1868 event occur roughly every 150 years. You can read about the trenching along the Hayward Fault here.

The preceding picture shows a curb in the parking lot near the exhibit that has been deformed by creep along the fault (I blogged about creep along the San Andreas fault here). The following pictures show more dramatic examples of deformation caused by creep.

The kink in the curb by the feet of the guy in the photo was caused by creep along the fault. The photo below shows what the road surface and the curb on the opposite side of that street look like.

The cracks in the above photo are another manifiestation of the creep along the Hayward Fault.

The final photo shows another curb that's been offset by motion along the fault. By tracing offset curbs like this you can see that the Hayward Fault cuts through a lot of houses and apartment buildings.

If you're curious about faults in urban areas you should definitely visit the exhibit before it closes. It's a great chance to learn about faults and how they're studied, not to mention ways that you can be prepared for an earthquake.

Judge Jones on judicial independence

2006-06-07T08:14:00.000-07:00

John Jones, the U.S. District judge who presided over the Kitzmiller case, was recently interviewed by the Philadephia Inquirer about his thoughts on judicial independence, and some of the criticisms he encountered based on his ruling in the Dover case.

One particularly strident commentary piece by conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly, published a week after the ruling, really set Jones off.

Schlafly wrote that Jones, a career Republican appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2002, wouldn't be a judge if not for the "millions of evangelical Christians" who supported Bush in 2000. His ruling, she wrote, "stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

"The implication was that I should throw one for the home team," Jones said. "There were people who said during trial they could not accept, and did not anticipate, that a Republican judge appointed by a Republican president could do anything other than rule in the favor of the defendants."

I blogged about Schlafly's article in January. Schalfly's comments were despicable, plain and simple. Jones' loyalty should rightly be to U.S. law and not to any of his (former?) supporters.

Greetings from Japan

2006-05-26T17:54:00.000-07:00

I've been in Japan this past week attending a geologic workshop. I'm sorry for the delay in posting. Once I get over my jet lag I'll resume posting.

The picture is a view of Mt Fuji from the plane I took here. Unfortunately that's as close as I got to it.

Tsunami in the Pacific Northwest

2006-05-19T08:08:00.000-07:00

Someone in the Pacific Northwest must be planning a Gay Pride parade:

Pat Robertson: Tsunami may strike Pacific Northwest

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

The Other 50%

2006-05-18T15:47:00.000-07:00

I just returned from beautiful Gunnison, Colorado, where the Rocky Mountain section of GSA is holding its annual meeting. I attended a talk in the Springs and Groundwater session by Laura Crossey from the U. of New Mexico. She spoke about Carbon Dioxide degassing from springs in the Colorado Plateau area. While not the major thrust of her talk, Dr. Crossey pointed out that commonly accepted models of natural CO₂ emissions estimate that on the order of 10¹² moles of CO₂ are released each year along the mid-ocean ridges (the so-called Black Smokers) and an additional 10¹² moles of CO₂ are released from volcanoes. Thus, each of these sources is thought to provide about 50% of natural CO₂ emissions. Dr. Crossey and her colleagues think that they may have discovered "the other 50%." Based on their studies of springs in the Colorado Plateau, Crossey et al. estimate that worldwide CO₂ emissions from degassing of springs probably reach the same order of magnitude as emissions from either volcanoes or mid-ocean ridges (i.e., degassing of springs contributes about 10¹² moles of CO₂ each year). I should also note that "emissions" in this context refers to new CO₂ that is being added to the carbon cycle.

For comparison, in 2002 (the latest data I could find) worldwide anthropogenic CO₂ emissionss is on the order of 10¹⁴ moles per year. That is a whopping 100 times more CO₂ entering the atmosphere from human activity than from natural degassing. I'm not one to rant about global warming, but according to these data the old argument that more (new) CO₂ is entering the atmosphere through natural processes than through human activity has apparently been put to rest. Not only that, but according to US Dept. of Energy data you would have to go back to before the industrial revolution (1850's) to find a time when natural CO₂ emissions exceeded anthropogenic emissions. Just a little food for thought.

Simulations of earthquake ground motions

2006-05-04T08:19:00.000-07:00

I recently went to a very interesting talk about simulating ground motion caused by earthquakes. The talk, which was archived and is available here, with JPG copies of the presentation slides here. The speaker was Brad Aagaard, a geophysicist who works with the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park, California.

Aagaard, along with some other people at the USGS, created simulations of the ground motion caused by the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, and then a few different 1906-like earthquakes. These 1906-like earthquakes were the same magnitude as the 1906 earthquake (M 7.8), but nucleated at different points along the San Andreas. The 1906 quake nucleated approximately under the Golden Gate bridge, and the rupture propagated both north and south, extending from Cape Mendocino to San Juan Bautista. Aagaard showed a 1906-like event that nucleated along the northern part of the San Andreas (Bodega Bay), and then one that nucleated along the southern part (San Juan Bautista). If you take a look at slide 82 of his talk (linked above) you can see the ground shaking intensity (using Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI) ) in the greater Bay Area caused by the these events. A future 1906-like earthquake that nucleated near Bodega Bay would be more destructive in the Bay Area than the original 1906 quake.

The ground motion simulations require three data sets – a rupture model (how the fault moved during an earthquake), a geologic model, and then finally either recorded ground motions or MMI maps that can be used to constrain the model. For the 1906 quake, two groups of geophysicists have created rupture models (I'm not sure how these are created, so unfortunately I can't provide more detail). The geologic models are based on mapping and subsurface observations (seismic lines, boreholes, etc.). For the 1906 quake the ground motion constraints come from records of damage, reported using MMI. These data have been complied by another group of USGS geophysicists (available here). Add all those pieces of information together, and the result is REALLY impressive.

Here is a link to a video of a recreation of the 1906 event. The view is from Palo Alto looking north toward San Francisco. A screenshot is shown below:

The purple/blue in that picture show the arrival of the P-waves, and the yellow is the arrival of the S-waves. The surface waves follow shortly thereafter. It is amazing for me to watch the rupture begin underneath the Golden Gate, and then to see the seismic waves racing down the Peninsula. I should note that the ground motions in the videos have been exaggerated by a factor of 1000. The creation of these videos represents an amazing amount of work. Looking at all of them would be time well spent.

One of the goals of projects like this is to ultimately provide input to engineers so they can determine how structures will behave during an earthquake. These simulations aren't quite at that point yet because they don't include site effects (local variations in the ground motion). For example, the ground motion model of the Loma Prieta event doesn't include the liquefaction in the Marina District. Still, the models at this point do provide a lot of useful information for engineers. Below is a screenshot from a video showing how the Golden Gate Bridge would behave during a 1906-like event (the motion has been exaggerated by a factor of 100).

These recreations do a great job of making the 1906 quake (and future quakes) a lot more real. The pictures from the 1906 quake are amazing, but watching the seismic waves race along the San Andreas fault really hits me at a gut level. I'm grateful to all the people who contributed to this work, they've done an amazing job.

Reading List

2006-05-03T07:58:00.000-07:00

In the last couple of weeks there was an interesting exchange on the mailing list of the ASA. Merv, the author of the first post, teaches at a Christian school (somewhere in the Midwest IIRC). Ted Davis teaches at Messiah College.

Here's Merv's post:

Our librarian (at a Christian K-12) school has asked teachers to submit titles we would like to see in our library. YEC is already well-represented there.

Do any of you have suggestions for books that would give the "other side" while being respectful to Christianity or religion in general? Or even if it was hostile towards religious thought... But the most of the books we have, hostile or not, still promote the warfare model (thought YECs wouldn't see it that way.) What suggestions would well represent the less antagonistic
strands of thought?

Here's Ted's answer:

YEC's don't mind the "warfare" view b/c they accept it in one of its obvious forms (namely, accepting modern science *does* necessitate abandoning Christian theology). Here is a very short list of books I strongly
recommend, in descending order of my recommndation for your school library.

My list is very, very short on purpose, so I'm leaving out zillions of excellent books and thus slighting none of them; and it's done with secondary school students in mind, and with their Christian convictions in mind.

Ted

****

Michael Poole, Beliefs and Values in Science Education. By far my highest recommendation, and ditto for home schoolers. Goes far beyond origins issues, and makes extensive use of HPS as well as basic science. Very
readable too.

Ronald Numbers, The Creationists. Extraordinarily accurate and well written history. The personal stories are revealing and often not told—but they should be.

Davis Young, Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Required reading for YEC teachers and students alike.

Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet. The DVD version gives viewers no clue that the earth and universe are old (this was a deliberate strategy when the DVD was produced), and the DVD is
popular with YECs. Having the book available to consult--and it might attract viewers if it's available--will dispell any misimpressions. Since the authors are linked with ID and the "creation-friendly" DVD, readers might be
more open to accepting the possibility of an old earth if espoused by these particular authors. And no one who reads the book will conclude that the authors believe in a young earth/universe. Thus I recommend it for your
library.

David Hagopian, ed., The G3N3S1S Debate. A collection of three long essays, each defending a different hermeneutical approach to Genesis 1-3.
Negatives: All authors are very conservative Calvinists (and remember, I am sympathetic to much of Calvinism myself, so this is a friendly criticism),so the book does not provide much theological scope; all authors reject
evolution, so students have the impression that TE is beyond the pale; and authors of the YEC section (who actually have the gall to deny that they are YECs, saying only that a literal 24-hour view is required by Scripture) do not even try to engage science at all. Positives: the second of the 3 negatives I just listed is a positive, for this particular school's teachers
and students, allowing them perhaps more readily to consider alternatives to the "literal" view. That's really a huge positive, in this context. And the fact that the reasons given for the 24-hour view are just so weak, in the opinion of this historian (they are mainly arguments from history and tradiition, and the same arguments would readily lead one to reject heliocentrism along with evolution and an old earth), that they leave
the door wide open for the more reasonable (IMO) literary arguments of the "Framework" advocates in the third section. Hugh Ross co-authored the second section on the "day age" view, and there's a lot of good astronomy in
that part though the biology/anthropology isn't very good. Stick to the physical sciences, leave biology out of this, and many YECs can be convinced that OECs are also good Christian believers.

I'll limit myself to these five, or I'll be typing all week.

Ted

I've read Numbers' "The Creationists", and I've read a couple of other books by Davis, but the rest are new to me. I know a little about "The Privileged Planet", and I'm not favorably inclined towards it right now (honestly, I'm very skeptical of anything endorsed by The Discovery Institute). Davis thinks ID has some merit, and I'm not convinced (although to be fair, he is very unimpressed with DI-style ID). Still, I've come to respect Davis through reading his contributions to the ASA list (and some of his other material), so I'm going to track down the books on his list that I haven't read. I wanted to post the list here in case anyone who drops by this blog has read any of these books. If so, I'd love to hear your opinion.

Creepy faults

2006-04-25T07:47:00.000-07:00

Actually the title ought to be "creeping faults", but that's not nearly as catchy. This past weekend I went on a field trip to the creeping section of the San Andreas fault. The creeping section of the San Andreas extends from Parkfield to the south to San Juan Bautista to the north. That section of the fault is odd because instead of moving through a series of stops and jerks (i.e., earthquakes), it creeps. In other words instead of leaping ahead by many meters during a large earthquake it just inches along. The sections of the San Andreas to the north and south of the creeping section generate very large earthquakes. The section to the north generated the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The section to the south generated an even larger quake in 1857 called the Fort Tejon quake.

The photo above shows the mission at San Juan Bautista. It's taken from a scarp along the San Andreas. This town marks the southern extent of the portion of the fault that ruptured during the 1906 earthquake, and as I said earlier it marks the northern part of the creeping section of the San Andreas fault.

The cracks in this freshly-paved road (Highway 25 south of Hollister, California) are caused by creep along the Calaveras fault (a fault related to the San Andreas).

The curb in this photo, located in the town of Hollister, has been offset by creep along the Calaveras fault. The offset is by the woman toward the top of the photo.

Photos of fences that were offset during earthquakes (like this one) are fairly common. However, that's not how this fence was offset (the offset occurs near the telephone pole in the middle of the picture). This fence, located just off of Highway 25 south of the Pinnacles, was offset by the creeping San Andreas.

The image above shows a stream channel that's been offset as it crosses the San Andreas fault. As the channel hits the fault it bends away from the man in the red jacket toward the man in the blue jacket. This channel is ~ 15 miles south of the town of Parkfield just off of Highway 46. This location is near the northernmost portion of the San Andreas the ruptured during the 1857 event (and that also marks the souther boundary of the creeping San Andreas).

The bridge in this photo leads to Parkfield, which despite its small population (the sign currently reads 18) is one of the better-known places along the San Andreas. It's been intensely studied for decades because the fault there generates earthquakes fairly regularly (you can read more about that here). The kink in the railing has been caused by creep along the fault as the Pacific plate moves north relative to the North American plate.

A much-anticipated earthquake occurred in the Parkfield area in 2004. The photo above shows a pylon supporting the Parkfield bridge that moved during that event (the offset is shown by the silver mechanical pencil). That motion didn't occur immediately during the earthquake; it occured after it as the fault crept much faster than normal. This sort of motion is unsuprisingly called "postseismic motion." It doesn't occur after every earthquake, but it is fairly common. In fact some fault have preseismic motion. Unfortunately that's not universal either, so it can't be used to predict earthquakes (although a warning system in Japan is based on that idea).

There's still a lot about the ways in which faults move that we don't understand. Of course, all that means is that it's a great time to study faults!

Personal DNA

2006-04-24T08:55:00.000-07:00

Considerate Inventor

I came across this personality quiz from one of the blogs at ScienceBlogs. I have to admit that I get a kick out of interactive quizes like this, and this one is one of my favorites.

Bees

2006-04-19T07:06:00.000-07:00

I was lucky enough to see a swarm of bees (am I the only one who thinks of U2 when they hear that?) at work the other day.

Apparently this is a fairly common occurrence around here this time of year. For some reason (the hive is too large, the current queen is getting old) a new queen is hatched, and when she flies off some of the drones follow her. The bees aren't usually aggressive when they're swarming, and these certainly weren't since I was able to get quite close to them without any trouble.

I could see the old hive in a tree above the swarm. At some point in the past a large branch had broken off the tree, and the bees built their hive in the resulting hole.

100th Anniversary of the 1906 Earthquake

2006-04-18T07:22:00.000-07:00

Today is the anniversary of the great earthquake that destroyed San Francisco in 1906.

Here are links to a few really useful sites with information about that earthquake, as well as earthquakes in general.

USGS Earthquake Hazards Program:The Great 1906 Earthquake, 100 years later

This link in particular is really cool: A Virtual Tour of the 1906 Earthquake in Google Earth. The picture below shows the location of the quake and the distribution of slip along the fault during the quake.

I think the most important message to learn from this Centennial is that the 1906 earthquake was not a unique event. It wasn't even an unusual event. Earthquakes like this have occurred many times in the past, and they'll continue to occur as long as the Pacific plate continues to move against the North American plate.

I do think that the Bay Area of 2006 is much better prepared than the Bay Area of 1906, although there is still work to do. I've linked to Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country before, but it's worth repeating. There is a lot that you can do to make your home safer. Pay a visit to your local hardware store, they'll probably have a display of material that you can use to secure your water heater, pictures, and furniture, not to mention smaller items (I've been using a sort of putty to secure vases, candles, etc. to the shelves they're resting on).

I think it's appropriate to end this message with a remembrance for the people who died to the earthquake, as well as the people who helped to rebuild the city.

Xena, Kuiper Belt Princess?

2006-04-11T16:07:00.000-07:00

While looking up information on moonquakes, I came across this story about the 10th planet in our solar system.

NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has resolved the "tenth planet," nicknamed "Xena," for the first time and has found that it is only just a little larger than Pluto.

Previously, Xena was thought to be about 30% larger, based on its brightness.

Because Xena is smaller than earlier thought, but comparatively bright, it must be one of the most reflective objects in the solar system. The only object more reflective is Enceladus, a geologically active moon of Saturn whose surface is continuously recoated with highly reflective ice by active geysers.

Xena's bright reflectivity is possibly due to fresh methane frost overlying the surface. It is possible that Xena had an atmosphere when it was closer to the Sun, but "froze out" at its current large distance, and material settled on its surface as frost.

Another possibility is that Xena is also continuously leaking methane gas from its warmer interior. When this methane makes it to the cold surface it immediately freezes solid, covering craters and other features to make this Kuiper Belt object (KBO) uniformly bright to Hubble's telescopic eye.

Of course, the debate over whether Xena (or even Pluto) should be considered a planet is far from settled, since there is no good consensus on what exactly constitues a planet. It seems that if Pluto is considered a planet, then based on its size, Xena should be too.

Moonquakes

2006-04-11T15:00:00.000-07:00

With preliminary plans for a permanent base on the moon under way at NASA, one of the less obvious engineering challenges is moonquakes. The Apollo astronauts installed a total of 4 seismometers on the moon. The seismometers radioed their data back to earth until they were turned off in 1977. The moonquakes recorded fell into 4 broad categories, three of which are quite mild and generally harmless. However the fourth type, called shallow moonquakes, could pose a significant challenge to moonbase designers. According to Clive R. Neal, associate professor of civil engineering and geological sciences at the University of Notre Dame, of the 28 shallow moonquakes recorded between 1972 and 1977, there were some that "registered up to 5.5 on the Richter scale." That is powerful enough to rearrange your furniture and crack plaster. In addition, they all lasted longer than 10 minutes! (A typical earthquake will last about 1 minute or so.) As you can imagine, any moonbase would have to be built from flexible materials that can withstand prolonged and repeated shaking in order to prevent any cracks or leaks from developing in a moonquake. Turns out this space exploration thing isn't so simple. NASA press release about the story.

Rotation of Earth Plunges Entire North American Continent Into Darkness

2006-04-02T11:01:00.000-07:00

"At approximately 4:20 p.m. EST, the sun began to lower from its position in the sky in a westward trajectory, eventually disappearing below the horizon. Reports of this global emergency continued to file in from across the continent until 5:46 p.m. PST, when the entire North American mainland was officially declared dark."

I love The Onion.

The next big one

2006-03-29T17:18:00.000-08:00

I haven't been blogging lately because I've been out of town. I'm currently in Sacramento, and although I'm briefly returning home tomorrow, but then I'll be away from home for the next couple of weeks. I'm envious of bloggers who can keep posting when they're travelling; I wish I could. Nevertheless, I'll try to post things here and there. Like this:

A friend of mine recently pointed me to an article in this month's National Geographic on earthquakes titled The Next Big One. You can read an excerpt of at the link. It looks to be a pretty nice article, and they certainly talk to some of the people at the cuttings edge of earthquake research (Mark Zoback, a geolophysicist at Stanford, Bill Ellsworth, a seismologist with the USGS, Bob Nadeau, a seismologist with Berkeley's Seismological Lab, and the venerable Kerry Sieh, an icon of earthquake-related geology from Cal Tech). My friend was kind enough to loan me her copy, and once I've read through it in detail I'll post my thoughts.

BYU Professor will lecture on science & religion

2006-03-23T10:37:00.000-08:00

I just saw this article in today's Deseret News. Professor J. Ward Moody from BYU's physics and astronomy department will be speaking on March 31.

His 7 p.m. address, which will be in the Joseph Smith Building auditorium, is titled "Time in Scriptures and Science: A Conciliatory Key?" Moody's lecture will focus on the debate between science and religion on such topics as the Earth's creation. He will also discuss the possibility of reconciling the different time lines.
Admission is free and the public is welcome.

Sounds like it will be an interesting lecture.

On Shaky Ground

2006-03-21T18:48:00.000-08:00

With the 100th anniversary of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake approaching (Apr. 18), the latest issue of National Geographic magazine is largely devoted to that earthquake and earthquakes in general. The articles in the magazine detail how our understanding of earthquakes has increased since 1906 and the current strides being made by seismologists in predicting when and where earthquakes will occur. The issue includes a fold-out earthquake risk map of the world. The map also includes locations and information on the ten deadliest earthquakes and the 10 costliest earthquakes in the past 100 years. Amazingly, the 1906 San Francisco earthquake does not make either list, although the Loma Prieta earthquake (a.k.a. "World Series earthquake") is on the costliest list. If you are interested in historical earthquakes, then I would recommend this issue.

OK, enough free advertising for National Geographic. In addition to the earthquake resources listed in Western Geologist's previous post, the US Geological Survey has a real-time list of recent earthquakes with maps for both the US and the entire globe. They also have top ten lists, earthquake stats, earthquake trivia, and today in earthquake history. Jump on over and have a look around.

The GISP2 ice core and the age of the earth

2006-03-16T14:56:00.000-08:00

Jared at LDS Science Review has a great post about ice cores, and the reasons why those cores indicate the earth is more than a few thousand years old. In the comments on that post Rob Osborn claimed that the The Lost Squadron indicated that the GISP2 ice core, drilled in Greenland and recording ~110,000 years of snow accumulation according to conventional scientists, could only be a few thousand years old (a claim made by several young earth creationists including Michael Oard, Larry Vardiman, and Kent Hovind). In his original post Jared linked to a paper by Paul Seelyfrom the ASA that discussed the GISP2 ice cores, as well as reasons why YEC authors are wrong about the implications of the Lost Squadron. It's a great paper, and well worth reading. I want to spend a bit of time going over Seely's paper.

The GISP2 core

The GISP2 core was drilled through the Greenland Ice Sheet near its summit, and is more than 3000 m long. Similar to varves, there are seasonal variations recorded in the ice, and by counting these seasonal variations it's possible to date the core. The seasonal variations are determined using a variety of independent techniques.

Variations in ice morphology

In Greenland the sun only shines during the summer. This results in the formation of hoar, which is a coarse grained low-density type of snow. The snow in the winter is fine grained and high density. So one year is equivalent to one layer of hoar plus one layer of regular snow (there's probably a more technical term than "regular snow", but not being a glaciologist I don't know it). The upper portion GISP2 core has around 12000 of these pairs. These pairs aren't visible in the deeper portion of the core, because as older snow is buried by younger snow it is compacted, and eventually this compaction destroys the summer and winter types of ice crystals. Other techniques are required to date the older, deeper portions of the core.

Seasonal variations in dust
The wind in Greenland blows most strongly in the late winter and early spring, and at those times more dust is deposited over the snow. So one year of snow deposition is equal to one high dust and one low dust pair.

Dating of volcanic ash
Similar to more mundane dust, ash from volcanic eruptions can be spread over Greenland by wind. The ages of the eruptions can be determined using one or more of the techniques discussed here, and then those ages can be compared to ages from known eruptions.

Seasonal variations in electrical conductivity
Nitric acid is produced in the atmosphere during the summer, but not in the winter. The presence of this nitric acid makes the summer layers more electrically conductive than the winter layers. One year equals one high conductivity layer plus one low conductivity layer.

Seasonal variations in oxygen isotopes
Evaporation affects oxygen isotopic composition. Winter snow is isotopically lighter than summer snow. So one year of deposition is also equal to one isotopically light layer plus one isotopically heavy layer.

Other techniques

This link lists all of the techniques that were used to date the GISP2 core. They list several that Seely didn't discuss, and since I'm not familiar with them I'm not going to write about them at this point. I'll try to look up the references listed on that site at some point.

All of these independent techniques indicate that the GISP2 core is far older than 6-10,000 years, which is a serious problem for YECs.

The Lost Squadron

During World War II a squadron of P-38 fighters and B-17 bombers crash landed near the coast of Greenland. 50 years after that a group of people returned to the crash site and salvaged one of the planes, which was buried beneath 268 ft of ice. According to one of the salvagers there were also hundreds of layers in the ice. This caused some YECs to argue 1) that the 3000+ m of ice from the GISP2 site could have been deposited much more quickly than originally thought, and 2) the layers observed in the GISP2 core weren't necessarily due to seasonal variations – they might be due to shorter term warming and cooling cycles. There are a few reasons why those claims don't hold up.

The depth of ice – the amount of annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site (near the coast) is much greater than the GISP2 site (far inland near the summit of the ice sheet). The annual snowfall at the Lost Squadron site is around 7 ft per year. So 268 ft of snow in 50 years isn't unusual for that site. The amount of annual snowfall at the GISP2 site is much lower (around 1 ft per year). Using the amount of snowfall accumulation at the Lost Squadron site to infer the rate of snow accumulation at the GISP2 site is wildly inappropriate. That would be like using the amount of rainfall on the west side of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon to make predications about the amount of annual rainfall in Arizona.

The layering from the Lost Squadron site -- The Lost Squadron site should contain at least 100 layers (50 years with 2 layers per year), so some number of layers should be expected at that site. More importantly, the glaciologists who study ice cores do not simply assume that all layers are due only to seasonal variations. Layers can be caused by nonseasonal events like melting, but those layers look quite different from the winter and summer layers. The summer layers are coarse grained, low density snow with many large air bubbles; the winter layers are finer grained and lower density, while the melt layers are glassy and almost bubble free. Here is a partial record of melt features in the GISP2 core. Clearly it is possible to distinguish summer, winter, and melt layers. If YECs want to refute the age of the GISP2 core they need to do more than to point out that the ice at the Lost Squadron site had a lot of layers. They need to 1) demonstrate that those layers have the same characteristics (ice morphologies) as the layers from the GISP2 site – in other words they need to show that the layers at the Lost Squadron site aren't melt layers, and 2) show that the Lost Squadron layers have the same variations in dust concentration, conductivity, etc., that is seen at the GISP2 site.

ID and the DI

2006-03-08T21:33:00.000-08:00

I'm a lurker on the mailing list of the American Scientific Affiliation. I usually quite enjoy about half of the material I receive from that list (which I think is a pretty decent percentage). Ted Davis, a member of the faculty at Messiah College, recently posted a link to an article he wrote called "Intelligent Design on Trial." The article can be found here (the file is in PDF format).

It's one of the better articles on intelligent design I've read. I think that Davis is wrong on a few things. He argues that ID isn't the same thing as creationism (he's made this point on the ASA mailing list too), and I don't see how ID can be separated from classic creationism given how tightly the two are currently entwined. I think that with a lot of effort (and frankly with a lot more integrity than the Discovery Institute has currently displayed), ID could take on a life of its own.

I've read through Davis' essay a couple of times now, and I think it warrants a couple more. Here are a couple of passages that really caught my attention:

"Currently, the ID movement is, to use its own language, a "big tent" under whose sprawling canvas there is plenty of room for differences about theological and biblical issues related to the age of the earth. A full public discussion of these issues would not disturb most of the intellectual leaders of the movement. But it would alienate the many grassroots creationists who support ID—and who provide it with much of its political support. So while ID is not creationism, creationism remains the elephant in the room. Judge Jones evidently smelled the elephant quite distinctly.

At this point, there simply is no ID "theory" to teach—or even to practice in the laboratory, let alone to place at the center of a new scientific paradigm. ID currently consists only of an interesting philosophical critique of the explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution, combined with an appeal for scientists to add "design" to the set of explanatory principles they employ in biology and other sciences."

I really agree with this. If ID proponents really want to be taken seriously they need to present a coherent theory of ID. Currently the fellows of the Discovery Institute hold conflicting views – some are young earth creationists (e.g., Paul Nelson), while some accept almost all of conventional biological evolution (e.g., Michael Behe). I interpret this as an indication that ID is just a political movement – ID proponents can't agree on the science of ID, all they share is a nebulous conviction that there has to be something more than evolution. Moreover, rather than try to find evidence to support their convictions, they try to avoid expert scrutiny and spend their time trying to persuade politicians.

Davis also writes:

"Ironically, some of the biggest insults have been directed by Christians against those Christian scientists and other thinkers who do not find ID sufficiently persuasive. Years ago, for example, Johnson referred to them as "mushy accommodationists."

I doubt that the rhetoric will cool anytime soon, despite the fact that the Dover case is now over. Certainly, in the wake of the judge's decision, ID advocates promised to continue the fight across the land.

But the decision itself is hard, for me at least, to dispute. Given the evidence, the judge really had no choice but to rule that the school board tried to inject a reference to ID for religious reasons, and that it had no clear secular purpose for doing so. "The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism," the Judge wrote, and in this particular instance I can't blame him. As a result "it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom."

The appalling behavior of some Utah state senators and ID advocates in Dover reinforces Davis' point.

Davis ends his essay with a quote from Judge Jones' Kitzmiller opinion:

""Those who disagree with our holding" Jones wrote near the end of his opinion, "will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge." I make no such accusation, but the Discovery Institute did not hesitate. Hardly had the decision been issued than John West, a politics professor at Seattle Pacific University who is also a long-time fellow of the institute, offered the following response on the institute's webpage www.discovery.org:

"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end of the case. Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."

Someone may be deluded here, but I doubt it is the judge."

I am so heartened by his comments about the Discovery Institute. Davis seems to be a fan of some form of ID, which is a position that I don't share. However, in my mind ID and the Discovery Institute are one and the same. If a new ID movement arises, I'll reevaluate my position.

Accelerated Christian Education

2006-03-05T08:24:00.000-08:00

Accelerated Christian Education (ACE) is an organization that makes materials for home schoolers and private schools to use. They must be doing quite well at it because they have a facility in Texas worth $20 million (and they have more facilities in Florida, where their headquarters is). I found out about them in an article from the Dallas Morning News (hat tip to this blog).

A mom who sent her son to a private school contacted the author of the Dallas Morning News article:

A concerned mom called my attention to the politically loaded lessons. She was troubled by some of the Texas history worksheets her son was bringing home.

That's where he had learned the definitions of liberal ("referring to philosophy not supported by Scripture") and conservative ("dedicated to the preserving of Scriptural principles").

The mom said she sent him to a small Christian school for more personal attention. But she didn't know that would mean such lopsided political ideology.

After reading that, I'm sure you can guess what their position on evolution is:

The textbook goes on to set up a false choice between evolution and God. "Both cannot be right. Is it logical to trust Darwin or God? It is odd that whenever given the choice of accepting the Bible or some man-written book, the liberals always reject the Bible and accept the other book."

I've heard some members of the Christian community complain that faith is under attack in colleges and universities. People who use ACE materials shouldn't be surprised if their kids' faith is hurt when they go to college. It won't be due to any sort of attack from their professors, it will be because the ACE materials provided them with such a weak foundation for their faith. I think that some parents like that are motivated by a desire to protect their kids from what they view as a corrupting influence in the non-Christian world – they want to shield their kids' faith (any readers should feel free to chime in with their views). I can appreciate that motivation without sharing it. However, I don't see how you can protect your kids by providing them with inaccurate information about the world. You'll just leave them unprepared to deal with the larger world.

Earthquakes in the Bay Area

2006-03-04T20:58:00.000-08:00

The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has a lot of really nice resources dealing with earthquake, and other natural hazard, risks in the Bay Area of California. My favorite is their interactive shake maps. Shake maps predict the intensity of ground shaking during an earthquake. ABAG has shake maps for a variety of different earthquakes, including another quake like the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, a quake on the Hayward fault, or a quake on the Calaveras fault. The really nice thing about the shake maps is that they're searchable by address, so if you're a Bay Area resident you can get some idea about how the hazards predicted for your town during an earthquake. It's an easy way to spend a couple of hours (for me at least, but then my wife calls me a nerd).

Here's a map of predicted shaking intensity in San Francisco for an event like the 1906 earthquake:

They've also got maps of liquefaction potential, and very importantly, how to make your home safer. The USGS has a publication called Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country. It's written for people in the Bay Area, but it's got a lot of useful information for anyone living in a seismically active area. Actually, I think people in general would benefit from reading through the section on getting prepared for a disaster. A lot of the information is relevant for hazards like tornados or hurricanes.

Buttars' Origins of Life Bill Defeated

2006-02-27T12:27:00.000-08:00

The Utah House of Representatives voted down the Origins of Life Bill today, 46-28 (1 abstaining). The Salt Lake Tribune just ran an update detailing the bill's defeat. Chris Buttars' response was:

"There are a number of influential legislators who believe you evolved from an ape. I didn't."

According to the article, the bill was first gutted to remove any reference to "origins of species" and then voted down, preventing the Senate from reviving the bill. House Speaker Stephen Urquhart (R-St. George) has been vocal in his opposition to the bill:

Urquhart opposed Buttars' bill because he doesn't feel that science conflicts with religion and said it was misleading to single out one theory as unproven.

Once in a while, our elected officials actually get something right.

The fossil record

2006-02-26T22:37:00.000-08:00

In 2001 a friend of mine gave me a book titled "Studies in Flood Geology" authored by John Woodmorappe, and published by the Institute for Creation Research in 1999. The book is a compilation of some of the papers that Woodmorappe wrote from the late 70s through the early 90s.

The book covers a wide range of topics trying to 1) reconcile the geologic record with Noah's Flood and 2) show problems with conventional geology. For example, one chapter is titled "The Cephalopods in the Creation and the Universal Deluge", while another is titled "The Antediluvian Biosphere and its Capability of Supplying the Entire Fossil Record." My favorite is "The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment."

I'm going to address "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2. Section IV. Some Examples of "Reworking" Rationalizations for Anomalous Fossils." In that entry Woodmorappe compiles a list of 232 anomalous fossils (fossils that are found in rocks that are either too old or too young – a trilobite in Tertiary strata, for example.) Woodmorappe has a table that lists a) the type of fossil, b) its expected age, c) its actual age, d) the geographic location, and e), the reference. Woodmorappe has a well-deserved reputation for having a lot of references. That doesn't imply anything about the quality of his work, but at least he is thorough. I'm going to take a look at the data in a few different ways.

The first thing I'm going to do is to separate the fossils into macrofossils (anything that can be seen with the naked eye) and microfossils (fossils that can be seen with a microscope). The types of macrofossils Woodmorappe found are: brachiopods, trilobites, mammal bones, crinoids, palm wood, ammonoids, fish scales, plant tissue, graptolites, and archaeocyathids. The microfossils are spores, pollen, conodonts, foraminifera, acritarchs, nannoplankton, dinoflagellates, fusilinids (a type of foraminifera), algal cysts, chitinozoans, algae, coccoliths, nannoflora (which I assume to mean fossils of plankton belonging to the plant kingdom), ostracodes, nannofossils, and diacrodians (I must admit I don't know what these are).

As you can see 93% of the anomalous fossils reported by Woodmorappe are microfossils. More on this later.

Next I want to take a look at the types of anomalous fossils.

Most of the anomalous fossils are spores, pollen, conodonts, forminifera, and and acritarchs. Most of the rest of the fossils have, at most, a few reported anomalous occurrences.

Here's the final way of looking at the data. The following graph shows how far from their expected range the anomalous fossils are found.

Positive numbers mean a fossil is found in younger than expected rocks. Negative numbers mean that a fossil is found in older than expected rocks. The numbers denote the number of periods the fossil is "out of order." For example a Cretaceous fossil found in Tertiary rocks would have a value of +1 while a Silurian fossil found in Cambrian rocks would have a value of -2.

Putting it all together:

1) Most of the anomalous fossils are microfossils.

2) Most of those microfossils are spores, pollen, conodonts, foraminifera, and acritarchs.

3) Most of the anomalous fossils are younger than expected, and most of those are younger by one Period.

Woodmorappe discusses a few of these observations. For example concerning the prevalence of microfossils he says:

"Reworked" and "downwashed" forms are microfossils, it is claimed, because such small forms are resistant to erosion, transport, etc. However, many entries in Tale 1 (References omitted) involve macrofossils."

and

Another explanation is provided by the Creationist-Diluvialist paradigm. Microfossils, being minute, would be less capable of differential escape and be less subject to Flood-water sorting than macrofossils. The common situation of anomalously-occurring pollen and spores may be evidence that all fossil plants were mutually contemporaneous (as indeed demanded by the Creationist-Diluvialist paradigm) but that pollen and spores, being modile, were transported bu wind and water far beyond the restricted ecological zones of these antediluvian plants.

Concerning the observation that most of the anomalous fossils are younger than expected Woodmorappe says:

In an anomalous coexistence of fossils of different "ages", it is usually assumed that the younger fossils yield the true age of the rock rather than the older ones. This accounts for the relative paucity of "downwash" situations.

"Reworking" refers to the process by which fossils are eroded out of existing rocks. For example, if you were to go up to a Jurassic formation that current exposed at the surface, and were to look at the material that's been eroded from that rock (sand, for example), that material would contain pieces of fossils that had been weathered from the Jurassic rock. To get a little more specific, if you were to go to places where the Morrison formation is exposed (the formation that contains the dinosaurs featured at Dinosaur National Monument), and to look at the sediments that are being weathered from that formation, you may see fragments of dinosaur bones. You'd be making a mistake if you assumed the fragments of dinosaur bone you saw were from a dinosaur that had died recently. To be fair, Woodmorappe does acknowledge this possibility:

This table does not include fossils of clearly secondary position (such as fossils within constituents of conglomerates and the very many instances of Phanerozoic fossils in Pleistocene glacial till).

But he doesn't say whether or not it includes finding fragmentary fossils, and he really should. Finding a fragmentary fossil certainly doesn't automatically mean that it's been reworked – I've seen plenty of fossiliferous rocks that are composed of broken-up shells, for example. That seems like a really important piece of information to me. I'd like to know, for example, if the anomalous trilobites were composed of intact animals, or if they were just fragments. I'm a little leery of some of Woodmorappe's examples. The most common crinoid (sea lily) fossils, for example, are the small discs that made up their stem. I've seen Mississippian rocks that are composed almost entirely of crinoid stems. Unsurprisingly the detritus that's being eroded from those rocks was composed in large part of crinoid stems. If those same crinoid-bearing rocks were to have been eroded during the Cretaceous (as was the case in parts of Utah, for example), then the Cretaceous rocks would contain crinoid stems. Some reworking should be expected. One or two examples of an anomalous fossil (which are all Woodmorappe has shown for most fossils) aren't evidence of a lack of order in the fossil record.

Some of Woodmorappe's examples are in a part of the world I'm familiar with. Here are a few specific examples from Woodmorappe's table that I think are legitimate reworked fossils:

Cretaceous forams found in Tertiary sediments in Utah.
Cretaceous forams found in Pleistocene (Quaternary) sediments in Utah.
Carboniferous fusilinds found in Pleistocene sediments in Utah.
Late Paleozoic trilobite found in Tertiary sediments in Utah.

The reason why I think these are reworked is that there aren't any Tertiary marine sediments in Utah, particularly not in the Pleistocene, which was the epoch immediately before the Holocene, which is the epoch we're in now. The geology of Utah in the Pleistocene was basically the same as today, but covered with glaciers from time to time, and a large lake (Lake Bonneville – but that lake wasn't exactly teeming with trilobites – I don't know of any trilobite fossils that were found in Lake Bonneville sediments).

Here are a few other entries that I'm suspicious of:

Cretaceous pollen in Tertiary sediments in Utah and Wyoming.
Jurassic pollen in Tertiary sediments in Utah.
Triassic pollen in Tertiary sediments in Utah.
Carboniferous pollen in Cretaceous sediments in Montana and Alberta.

The reason I'm suspicious of these examples is that the Cretaceous and Tertiary in western North America were times of mountain building, and associated with that uplift and erosion of older rocks, including Carboniferous, Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous rocks. The evidence includes 1) thrust faults that formed during this time, and 2) thick conglomerates composed of clasts derived from those Carboniferous, etc., rocks that were deposited during this time. Woodmorappe does say that he didn't include fossils from conglomerates, but here's the problem with that. Conglomerates are deposited near areas that are being uplifted, grain size decreases as you move away from that area. For example, a conglomerate can be deposited at the foot of mountain, while a sandstone is deposited further away (it's easier to move smaller particles than large ones). That sandstone can certainly contain fragments of older rocks (including fossils). I expect Tertiary rocks in western North America to contain material derived from older rocks.

"Down working" refers to younger fossils becoming incorporated into older rocks. I'd expect some of this too. Keeping with the example of western North America, in the Cretaceous when the uplift and erosion I mentioned earlier was occurring, the older rocks that were being eroded (let's say Carboniferous rocks), were exposed at the surface. If some Cretaceous pollen were to be deposited on top of those rocks, and then buried once erosion stopped and deposition began again, and some geologist came along at some point in the distant future and took a sample that sample would contain Cretaceous pollen. I'd expect this scenario to be a lot less common than reworking, and I'd expect it to involve microfossils (I have a hard time imaging how an entire dinosaur could be incorporated in Carboniferous rocks for example), and that's what's seen.

In other words anomalously young fossils ought to be a lot more common than anomalously old fossils, and that's overwhelmingly the case with Woodmorappe's dataset. He tires to explain this by stating that the age of a rock is determined by the youngest fossil within it. An implication of that claim is that rocks are composed of fossils with a variety of different ages, and that implication doesn't hold true. From the third figure I showed, most fossils are displaced by only one period. If the fossils had a wide range of different ages then there ought to be a lot more scatter. At this point it's worth reemphasizing the point that most of Woodmorappe's anomalous fossils are composed of spores and pollen. So, the bulk of Woodmorappe's dataset is composed of spore and pollen that are one period younger than expected. At worst (or at best from a YEC point of view) all Woodmorappe's dataset does is muddy the conventional fossil record of spores and pollen (this is a good point for a reminder that I think most/all of Woodmorappe's references are legitimate cases of reworking).

I should point out that I haven't read Woodmorappe's references. I suppose it's possible that the answers to some of my questions are contained within them. In the part of the world that I'm most familiar with though, Woodmorappe's dataset isn't very solid.

Critical analysis in Ohio and Kansas

2006-02-26T12:40:00.000-08:00

Yesterday I wrote a bit about why I think the "teach the controversy" or "teach evidence for and against evolution" or "teach critical analysis of evolution" approach that's being advocated is disingenuous. It's an attempt to put ID in schools, plain and simple.

This is the case in both Kansas and Ohio, the two states that have tried to use one of these approaches. The Discovery Institute says that people who claim that the standards teach ID are contributing to a false fear syndrome. I think they're wrong. It is true that neither of the standards come right out and says "students should be taught ID", in fact both have a disclaimer that states ID should not be taught.

From the Kansas standards:

We also emphasize that the Science Curriculum Standards do not include Intelligent Design, the scientific disagreement with the claim of many evolutionary biologists that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. While the testimony presented at the science hearings included many advocates of Intelligent Design, these standards neither mandate nor prohibit teaching about this scientific disagreement.

From the Ohio standards (note: link goes to a PDF file)

Describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory. (The intent of this benchmark does not mandate the teaching or testing of intelligent design.)

Superficially neither Kansas nor Ohio mandates teaching ID. Those statements though are only a distraction, and that's really obvious if you read through the part of the standards that deal with critical analysis of evolution.

From the Kansas standards:

f. The view that living things in all the major kingdoms are modified descendants of a common ancestor (described in the pattern of a branching tree) has been challenged in recent years by:

i. Discrepancies in the molecular evidence (e.g., differences in relatedness inferred from sequence studies of different proteins) previously thought to support that view.
ii. A fossil record that shows sudden bursts of increased complexity (the Cambrian Explosion), long periods of stasis and the absence of abundant transitional forms rather than steady gradual increases in complexity, and
iii. Studies that show animals follow different rather than identical early stages of embryological development.

and:

7. Some of the scientific criticisms include:
a A lack of empirical evidence for a “primordial soup” or a chemically hospitable pre-biotic atmosphere;

b. The lack of adequate natural explanations for the genetic code, the sequences of genetic information necessary to specify life, the biochemical machinery needed to translate genetic information into functional biosystems, and the formation of proto-cells; and

c. The sudden rather than gradual emergence of organisms near the time that the Earth first became habitable.

From the Ohio standards:

6. Allow the groups to pick (or assign) one of the five aspects
of evolutionary theory. Assign two groups to research each
aspect. The aspects are:
Aspect 1: Homology (anatomical and molecular)
Aspect 2: Fossil Record
Aspect 3: Anti-Biotic Resistance
Aspect 4: Peppered Moths
Aspect 5: Endosymbiosis

In addition Attachment A of the standards gives example supporting and challenging answers.

All of those arguments are from the ID literature, and most of them are from Jonathan Wells Icons of Evolution. In fact, an earlier version of the Ohio standards referenced. In other words, those arguments ARE ID. I'm not going to argue about whether those arguments are correct or not (obviously I think they're flawed) because that's not important to the point I want to make. I think it's just silly to claim that the standards don't teach ID because they don't mention ID by name. If the standards use the arguments that comprise ID, then they're teaching ID.

Obviously then, I think the Ohio Board of Education did the right thing when they removed the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" lesson plan, and I hope Kansas does the same.

Other links
Do the Kansas standards say "Teach ID?" I say "yes"
A Guide to the "Critical Analysis of Evolution" Lesson Plan Controversy

Henry Morris has died

2006-02-26T09:33:00.000-08:00

Henry Morris, who I think can be credited with launching the modern creationist movement, has died.

More information here

I'd like to express my condolences to his family.

Teach the controversy

2006-02-25T20:51:00.000-08:00

While making my morning rounds on the web I came across a couple of articles that deal with the "teach the controversy" approach that's being used by the intelligent design crowd. My view is that biblical creationist begat scientific creationism which begat intelligent design which begat "teach the controversy." Same old material put in a new package in an attempt to disguise its religious origins and motivation (i.e., intelligent design is Creationism's Trojan Horse, or my personal favorite, Creationism's Trojan Panda. Frankly I think the behavior of the Discovery Institute and its Fellows has been deplorable.

The first article I read was: Turn out the lights, the "Teach the controversy" party's over by Robert Camp.

Camp contacted the heads of biology departments at universities who received more than $20 million in federal funding, and who spent more than 5% of that on life sciences (he wound up contacting 158 people). He asked them:

Survey of Biological Sciences department heads regarding “Teach the controversy.”

Q: Regarding the issue of “Intelligent Design theory” vs. current biological consensus on the mechanisms of evolution - is there a difference of professional opinion within your department that you feel could be accurately described as a scientific controversy?

1. No
2. Yes

Comments:

He heard back from 73 people, and only 2 of those said there was any sort of controversy. One of those 2 respondents said:

There is one faculty member in my college who publicly ascribes to Intelligent Design. No others have done so publicly, and most who have shared an opinion are opposed to ID as a scientific principle. The vast majority, then, do not see a scientific controversy, but there is a visible minority of (at least) one who does.

As Camp says in his essay, the overwhelming number of responses stating that there isn't a scientific controversy isn't surprising. There isn't a controversy about evolution within the community of professional biologists.

Camp concludes his essay with this:

Professors from Washington to Florida and from southern California to New England responded to the question, all but two with an unqualified “No” (some even added an exclamation point). And those two divergent responses serve to point up the open and thoughtful nature of the answers. One, a “No, but…” observed that there was virtually no professional controversy within their department but acknowledged that one colleague had spoken favorably of the concept publicly (see comments). And the only assent to controversy came from an institution dedicated to an ideological view of the world, including the world of biology. This may serve as evidence of a “controversy” in that particular university. But in the larger context, its effect is only to put the overwhelming consensus into sharper focus.

There is no party line, there are no knee-jerk responses in the comments received. These results are born of the understanding, among those with authoritative opinions, of where the proper lines between scientific and religious epistemologies must be drawn. Some (see comments) even teach classes that include discussion of “Intelligent Design” but they understand that it is not science, and that there is no relevant controversy.

I harbor no illusions that this information will come as a surprise to any scientist, and I suspect most clear-thinking non-scientists will have already surmised the truth of the situation. In discussion of this project I have referred to it as a study or survey, but to be candid it is really nothing more a simple canvassing of those who know. It is a blunt and unequivocal response to what has up to this point been treated, by much of the media as well as the ID movement, as an acceptable assumption.

As an attempt to put empirical weight behind that which has been well understood all along, the numbers here are unambiguous. There is no “scientific” controversy regarding “Intelligent Design theory.” It exists as a conceit of personal ideology, and persists as a political strategy. And in the case that the slogan is still employed once the user has been informed of this survey it can be considered a deliberate falsehood.

If “Intelligent Design” proponents and theorists wish to carve out space for their “controversy” they will have to earn it in the traditional fashion. They will have to do the research, submit to peer-reviewed journals, and accumulate enough evidence to be spoken of with respect, not dismissal, in biology departments across the country.

Until then “teach the scientific controversy” will remain a mendacious bit of hucksterism.

There are several worthwhile points in that passage.

1) Professional biologists overwhelmingly accept biological evolution. So does the rest of the scientific community (on a related note I know of only a handful of professional geologists who are Young Earth Creationists).

2) The controversy is between a group of people who don't accept biological evolution because it conflicts with their religious views. Through trickery and disingenuousness they are trying to have their views taught in science classes.

3) The fact that this isn't a scientific controversy is nicely illustrated by the behavior of the members of the Discovery Institute. They're not attempting to convince biologists that they're right (they go after school boards and politicians). They have a publication list that contains 37 entries. This post points out a few problems with that list (repeated entries, inclusion of non peer-reviewed material). According to the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture they have 41 fellows. The Discovery Institute was founded in 1990.

To provide some perspective I finished grad school around a year ago. My first publication was in 2003. I now have:

3 peer-reviewed articles
1 article that was submitted to a journal, but was rejected (and will be rewritten and resubmitted at some point. Bah.)
1 article that is currently in review
1 article that is part of the gray literature
2 articles that are being reviewed by my coauthors before I submit them.

In addition I am a coauthor on 3 other publications that are in various stages of preparation, and should be submitted within a couple of months. That makes 11 publications for one person in 3 years. In 16 years the 41 people at the Discovery Institute have put out 37 publications. According to this link the Discovery Institute has an annual budget of $1.2 million. All the money they spend sure isn't going toward science. I think that's a very strong piece of evidence that their claim to be motivated by science is a sham.

The second article I read was Teaching the Controversy by Stanley Fish.

Concerning the "teach the controversy" strategy he says:

It is an effective one, for it takes the focus away from the scientific credibility of intelligent design - away from the question, "Why should it be taught in a biology class?" - and puts it instead on the more abstract issues of freedom and open inquiry. Rather than saying we're right, the other guys are wrong, and here are the scientific reasons why, intelligent design polemicists say every idea should at least get a hearing

To back up their claim that there is a legitimate scientific controversy the Discovery Institute has created a list of 514 scientists who agree with the following:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

PZ Myers reacts with this:

That's it? They can't even mention their pet guess of Intelligent Design, but instead ask people to sign off on a statement professing the values of skepticism and careful examination? Weak, man, weak. Pathetic.

Josh Rosenau also thinks the DI's statement is lacking in substance, and he links to a New York Times story about the list that points out that the signers include "… 76 chemists, 75 engineers, 63 physicists and 24 professors of medicine…"

So the DI is flaunting a list of a bunch of generally unqualified people who signed a very vague statement (I'm not insulting anyone by saying they're unqualified – I'm not qualified to professionally comment on biological evolution). I'd really like to know why they don't ask biologists to sign something like this:

"We accept intelligent design as a valid scientific alternative to evolution."

Of course the DI is now claiming that they don't want to mandate teaching intelligent design, they just want to teach the evidence for and against evolution. Fine. Ask biologists to endorse some of these statements:

"We think the Cambrian Explosion is evidence against evolution."

"We think that irreducible complexity is evidence against evolution."

"We think that specified complexity is evidence against evolution."

And so on.

The reason they don't ask people to do this is because their "evidence against evolution" IS intelligent design, and they know that the religious underpinnings of intelligent design (and its scientific vacuity) are obvious.

Hooray for Huntsman!

2006-02-24T11:36:00.000-08:00

The best news I've heard all day came from this morning's Deseret Morning News:

Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. said for the first time Thursday that he'd veto a pair of controversial bills aimed at banning so-called gay-straight alliances in public high schools and at controlling what students are taught about evolution. "If they look and feel like they did in earlier incarnations, I will veto them. We'll have to see what they look like when they reach my desk," Huntsman told the Deseret Morning News following his monthly press conference televised on KUED Channel 7.

I have had the sense that Governor Huntsman would veto the Origins of Life bill when he talked about "message" legislation and frivolous bills back in January. But this is the first time he has actually come forward and stated that he is likely to veto this specific bill. Good for you, Governor Huntsman!

New Jurassic Mammal Found

2006-02-24T08:01:00.000-08:00

A new fossil find has radically changed our view of early mammal development. The find is detailed in today's issue of the journal "Science". The new species resembles a river otter, but has a beaver-like tail. From the journal's summary:

Mesozoic mammals have been thought to have been small, nocturnal, and confined to a few niches on land until the demise of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Most are recorded by isolated jaw fragments or teeth. Ji et al. now describe a Jurassic mammal from China that breaks this mold. The fossil is well preserved, and impressions of fur can be seen on its body and scales on a broad tail (similar to a beaver overall). The animal was fairly large, approaching not quite half a meter in length, and the shape of its limbs suggest that it was adapted for swimming and burrowing. The combination of both primitive and derived features in this early mammal, and the demonstration that mammals had occupied aquatic habitats by this time, expands the evolutionary innovations of early mammals.

The fossil is 164 million years old and pushes back the mammalian expansion into water by 100 million years. From an AP article on the find:

It's the first evidence that some ancient mammals were semi-aquatic, indicating a greater diversification than previously thought, the researchers said. Modern semi-aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters and aquatic mammals like whales did not appear until between 55 million years ago and 25 million years ago, according to the researchers. The new animal is not related to modern beavers or otters but has features similar to them.

The find means that mammals took to the water much earlier than previously expected. Rather than merely living in dinosaurs' shadows, as previously thought, it appears that mammals were actually thriving alongside them (and probably getting eaten by them) for millions of years.

I expect many more finds like this to come out of China in the next few years. There are some pristine fossil sites in China that will produce some amazing stuff.

I have a photo of the actual fossil find and I am working on getting an electronic copy (being friends with the State Paleontologist for Utah is helpful). The closest I could find online was a drawing of the fossil within an article. What's really striking about the skeleton is the size of the vertebrae in the tail; they are as big as the dorsal vertebrae (backbone). Typical mammals have much smaller vertebrae in their tails. You can also see the imprint of the body fur and the scales on the tail (much like a beaver's tail) in the fossil. If I can get an electronic copy of the photo, I'll post it here.

California Board of Education position statement

2006-02-19T14:44:00.000-08:00

California State Board of Education Policy on the Teaching of Natural Sciences (NOTE: File is in PDF format)

The domain of the natural sciences is the natural world. Science is limited by its tools—observable facts and testable hypotheses.

Discussions of any scientific fact, hypothesis, or theory related to the origins of the universe, the earth, and life (the how) are appropriate to the science curriculum. Discussions of divine creation, ultimate purposes, or ultimate causes (the why) are appropriate to the history–social science and English–language arts curricula.

Nothing in science or in any other field of knowledge shall be taught dogmatically. Dogma is a system of beliefs that is not subject to scientific test and refutation. Compelling belief is inconsistent with the goal of education; the goal is to encourage understanding.

To be fully informed citizens, students do not have to accept everything that is taught in the natural science curriculum, but they do have to understand the major strands of scientific thought, including its methods, facts, hypotheses, theories, and laws.

A scientific fact is an understanding based on confirmable observations and is subject to test and rejection. A scientific hypothesis is an attempt to frame a question as a testable proposition. A scientific theory is a logical construct based on facts and hypotheses that organizes and explains a range of natural phenomena. Scientific theories are constantly subject to testing, modification, and refutation as new evidence and new ideas emerge. Because scientific theories have predictive capabilities, they essentially guide further investigations.

From time to time natural science teachers are asked to teach content that does not meet the criteria of scientific fact, hypothesis, and theory as these terms are used in natural science and as defined in this policy. As a matter of principle, science teachers are professionally bound to limit their teaching to science and should resist pressure to do otherwise. Administrators should support teachers in this regard.

Philosophical and religious beliefs are based, at least in part, on faith and are not subject to scientific test and refutation. Such beliefs should be discussed in the social science and language arts curricula. The Board’s position has been stated in the History–Social Science Framework (adopted by the Board). If a student should raise a question in a natural science class that the teacher determines is outside the domain of science, the teacher should treat the question with respect. The teacher should explain why the question is outside the domain of natural science and encourage the student to discuss the question further with his or her family and clergy.

Neither the California nor the United States Constitution requires that time be given in the curriculum to religious views in order to accommodate those who object to certain material presented or activities conducted in science classes. It may be unconstitutional to grant time for that reason.

Nothing in the California Education Code allows students (or their parents or guardians) to excuse their class attendance on the basis of disagreements with the curriculum, except as specified for (1) any class in which human reproductive organs and their functions and process are described, illustrated, or discussed; and (2) an education project involving the harmful or destructive use of animals. (See California Education Code Section 51550 and Chapter 2.3 of Part 19 commencing with Section 32255.) However, the United States Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and local governing boards and school districts are encouraged to develop statements, such as this one on policy, that recognize and respect that freedom in the teaching of science. Ultimately, students should be made aware of the difference between understanding, which is the goal of education, and subscribing to ideas.

I can't really add anything to this. This is one of the most well-written position statements that I've read. It defines science, it accurately defines facts, hypotheses, and theories, and it states that while educators should be respectful of religious beliefs, those beliefs aren't a valid part of a science class.

Statements on teaching science

2006-02-18T16:56:00.000-08:00

I've recently begun looking into the educational standards of Utah and California. I've actually been really impressed with what I've found so far. Utah first:

Utah State Board of Education Position Statement on Teaching Evolution

Science is a distinctive way of understanding the natural world. Science seeks to increase our understanding through empirical evidence. As a way of knowing, science assumes that anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. By the very nature of scientific inquiry, there are infinite possibilities for further refinement of current knowledge and understanding.

Understanding may be derived from sources and perspectives other than science such as historical and logical analyses, art, religion and philosophy. These sources rely upon other ways of knowing, such as emotion and faith. While these ways of understanding and creating meaning are important to individuals and society, they are not amenable to scientific investigation and thus not appropriate for inclusion in the science curriculum. Science relies nearly exclusively on observation and empirical evidence. Since progress in the modern world is tied so closely to this way of knowing, scientific literacy is essential for a society to be competitively engaged in a global economy.

Well done Utah! I've noticed that some people regard calling something "unscientific" as an insult. "Unscientific" doesn't mean worthless, it just means that something is not science. "Scientific" is just an adjective. Science is limited to using natural means to explore the natural world, and in fact it is a remarkably successful way to explore the natural world. It's an approach that I find so worthwhile that I decided to make a career out of it. The supernatural is outside the realm of science because the supernatural is outside the natural world. Miracles for example are outside the realm of science. Religion is largely outside the realm of science too, or at least it should be. Having a personal relationship with God, which I think is one of the basic Christian beliefs, is also unscientific, but that doesn't mean it's not true. It's just not subject to scientific investigation. This is one of the reasons I think creationism is generally bad for the Christian community (or any religious community, actually). One of the tenets of organizations like Answers in Genesis of the Institute for Creation Research is basically that Christianity is true because there is scientific evidence for a young earth and a global flood. Now the claims they make are subject to scientific investigation, and they don't really stand up. Therefore, they are a very poor foundation for a relationship with God.

Evolution in the broadest sense can be defined as the idea that the universe has a history and has changed over time. Observation of the galaxies, stars, planet Earth, and life on Earth clearly demonstrates that significant changes have occurred. There is abundant and consistent evidence from astronomy, physics, biochemistry, geochronology, geology, biology, anthropology, and other sciences that evolution has taken place. This evidence is found in widely divergent areas, from the geologic fossil record to DNA analysis.

I've got mixed feelings about this paragraph. Sure, if you read through the literature about cosmic and geologic history you'll see the word "evolution" used, but that just means change (which afterall, is one of the definitions of evolution). The statement from the BoE kind of says that, but I don't really like their wording. There really isn't a overarching theory of evolution that covers everything from cosmology to biology (this sounds too much like Kent Hovind's caricature of evolution for my liking). Evolution refers only to the origin of biological diversity (not the origin of life, not the origin of the earth, and not the origin of the universe – all of those are separate topics). The reason this annoys me so much is that it leads to statements like "Amphibians couldn't have evolved from fish because we don't know how life first originated." Evolution and abiogenesis (the origin of life) are two separate, but certainly related, fields. Here's an example. Let's say I'm interested in the history of my family in Utah (which would cover the last 150 years or so). If someone were to come to me and say that my family couldn't have moved to Utah from England in the 19th century because we don't understand how Homo sapiens are related to Australopithecines, I’d think their argument was pretty flawed. The study of Australopithecines and their relationship to Homo sapiens is certainly interesting, and it's broadly similar to me researching the history of my family in Utah, but they're definitely not the same thing. If you wanted to refute my claim that my family moved to Utah from England you'd have to prove the records that were kept, etc., were false. Trying to do anything else would be trying to dodge the evidence. Similarly if you want to refute the idea that amphibians evolved from fish, you've got to directly address the evidence (transitional fossils like Icthyostega and Acanthostega, etc.). Anything else is just a distraction.

There is little or no debate among credible scientists about whether evolution has taken place. However, since our understanding is still incomplete, there is considerable and productive debate about processes of evolution. Research questions remain, and scientists often disagree about their explanations, as they should. The nature of science encourages ongoing and meaningful investigation of all assertions made by science. Scientific conclusions are tested by experiment and observation as all scientific theories are subject to continued evaluation.

While some describe the principle of evolution as “just a theory,” the scientific definition
of a theory is far more rigorous than may be commonly understood. In science, a theory
is a systematic explanation of observed phenomena. It must be consistent with all natural
laws and withstand the scrutiny and inquiry of the scientific community. The National Academy of Sciences has stated, "Evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have." As a fundamental scientific concept, evolution is a necessary part of science classroom instruction, and it will continue to be taught and progressively refined as a key scientific principle.

No complaints there. I am very glad that they point out the difference between the common and the scientific usage of the word "theory". That's very important, and it needs to be reinforced.

Teachers should be aware that students bring with them a set of beliefs. Teachers and students should respect and be nonjudgmental about students' beliefs, and teachers should help students understand that science is an essential way of knowing. Teachers should encourage students to discuss any seeming conflicts with their parents or religious leaders. Science teachers should make available to interested parents their planned instruction and the context for that instruction.

Again, I have no complaints here. People certainly have the right to reject findings that they think are incompatible with their religion. I think they're wrong, and I think the foundations of their religion aren't very solid, but I'm sure they think the same about me. When I teach about geology I'm not motivated by a desire to make people abandon their beliefs. If someone asks, I'll certainly tell them why I think Young Earth Creationism fails scientifically, and why I don't think that YEC is a very accurate description of the natural world. I will also tell them that I think religion should be outside the realm of science. What I say may conflict with their religious views, but I don't think that's an acceptable reason to avoid teaching a subject. Christian Scientists taking a health class for example, should be expected to understand surgery, antibiotics, etc., even though those practices conflict with their religious beliefs. They don't have the right to insist that health not be taught, or that healing prayer be taught 50/50 whenever health is taught. That's also true for creationism.

Earth's magnetic field

2006-02-18T16:53:00.000-08:00

As a member of the American Geophysical Union I receive a copy of Physics Today every month. I have to admit that I don't usually read it. I made an exception this month, and I'm glad I did. There was a really interesting article on an experimental set up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison that acts as an analog for Earth's magnetic field. Unfortunately the article is subscription only, but the research group that's discussed in the article has a pretty nice website (The University of Wisconsin-Madison Dynamo Experiment".

The earth's outer core is composed of molten iron, and motion in this liquid outer core generates the earth's magnetic field. There's still quite a lot that's not known about the processes that generate the magnetic field, and those processes can be hard to study. There are two main approaches that geophysicists have taken: 1) using computer models, and 2) trying to simulate the conditions that exist in the outer core.

There are quite a few geophysicists who use computer models to try to figure out what's going on in the interior of the earth. Most of the ones I know try to simulate the mantle, although there are some that deal with the inner and outer core. The mantle is around 2900 km thick, while the earth's crust is a measly 70 km thick at most, and is usually a lot thinner. So people who model the mantle have to deal with a really substantial volume of the earth. This can be a problem for computer models. The larger and more complex the model becomes the more computation time is needed. This isn't too much of a problem in the mantle because while the mantle is really big most of the features in the mantle that people are interested in are really big too. Things like mantle convection cells, mantle plumes, and subducting plates are all at least 100's of kilometers in size. That's definitely not too complicated to work with given the power of modern computers. Unfortunately for computer modelers the story is more complicated in the outer core. The Physics Today article points out that the magnetic structures in the outer core are at least a few hundreds of kilometers in size, small scale turbulence within those structures (on the order of 10m in size). This means that a realistic model would have to have 10^15 grid cells (10^12 = 1 trillion, for way of comparison). Even with supercomputers that number of grid cells would result in models that have computation times that are too long to work with. This is where the people who build machines to simulate outer core conditions really come into play. It's not possible to build machines that completely mimic the outer core, which is composed of incredibly hot and incredibly dense liquid iron. The temperature at the top of the outer core is something like 3000-5000 degrees C, while the pressure is ~100+ GPa (1,000,000 times the pressure at the surface of the earth). Fortunately there are things that behave like molten iron but at much lower temperatures. The properties of liquid sodium at 98 degrees C are much like the properties of iron in the outer core. That temperature is definitely low enough to work with.

The team at UW built a hollow sphere 1 meter in diameter that they fill with liquid sodium (as an aside, sodium doesn't react well with water, so it can be a tricky material to work with). They use propellers inside the sphere to simulate turbulence in the outer core. Fill the sphere and turn it on, and presto, you've got a working analog of the earth's core. The cool thing is that turbulent flow in the sphere can generate a magnetic dipole, which means a magnetic field with a north and a south pole, which is just like Earth's magnetic field. The UW team hasn't performed enough experiments to fully understand what's going on inside their sphere, but it's a really promising start.

Online Tours

2006-02-14T10:46:00.000-08:00

Are you aching for a vacation? Want to visit one of America's amazing National Parks? Can't get the time off of work? Well now you can visit a National Park online courtesy of the US Geological Survey. The site features photographs of natural wonders throughout the US. Some are even in 3D, if you can find some of those old-school red and blue glasses. Here are a some highlights:

Landscape Arch, Arches National Park

Carlsbad Cavern, Carlsbad Caverns National Park

Lava flows, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park

Petrified Tree Stump, Petrified Forest National Park

Bright Angel Canyon, Grand Canyon National Park

Special thanks to Geology News for pointing out this feature.

Thanks

2006-02-10T13:36:00.000-08:00

I would also like to thank Jared at LDS Science Review for linking to our blog. (Sorry I didn't get to this earlier, I have been too busy to post for a few days.)

Watering Down the "Origins of Life" Bill

2006-02-10T13:14:00.000-08:00

Chris Buttars' Origins of Life bill has been amended in the Utah House of Reps. The changes to the bill now require:

the State Board of Education to establish curriculum requirements and policies that:
stress that no scientific theory, hypothesis, or instruction regarding the origins of life or the origins of species has been indisputably proven; and do not endorse a particular theory or hypothesis regarding the origins of life or the origins of species.

The House education committee recommended the bill to the full House (by a 7-6 vote) and it is scheduled for debate and voting early next week.

The changes to the bill in the House have actually widened the scope of the bill, but have also rendered it practically useless.

The original bill stated that there was no scientific consensus on the origin of life or the origin of the human species, and that the State does not endorse any particular theory on either subject. It also required teachers to inform students of this.

The new version of the bill states that no theory (or idea or hypothesis) on the origin of life or the origin of any species has been indisputably proven and that the State does not endorse any particular theory on either subject. It still requires teachers to inform student of this.

I am all for encouraging students to critically examine any scientific theory. That way they can draw their own conclusions based on the evidence. The question then becomes, why single out the origin of life (abiogenesis) and the origins of species (evolution)? Why does this not apply to all scientific theories. The answer is obvious: the legislators (especially Sen. Buttars) feel that evolution and abiogenesis threaten their (and some of their constituents') religious beliefs. Given the past statements by supporters of this bill (see my previous post on this bill), it seems extremely unlikely that this bill would stand up to the inevitable constitutional challenge should it pass.

Official LDS Position on Evolution

2006-02-04T11:06:00.000-08:00

As I read the full text of Joe Maynard's letter to the editor, it became obvious that he doesn't understand the LDS church's official position on evolution. Neither current President, Gordon B. Hinckley, nor any of the previous church Prophets have issued an official declaration on the subject that says anything other than "the church has no official position on evolution." The most recent example of such a declaration that I know of is from a letter to William Lee Stokes (then Head of the University of Utah Geology Dept.) from President David O. McKay (then President of the LDS church) from February 1957. The full letter was published in the Winter 1979 issue of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought (p. 90-92). Dr. Stokes wrote to President McKay for a clarification of the church's official position on evolution. The response was (emphasis added):

Dear Brother Stokes,

Your letter dated February 11, 1957, has been received.

On the subject of organic evolution the Church has officially taken no position. The book "Man, His Origin and Destiny" was not published by the Church, and is not approved by the Church.

The book contains the expressions of the author's views for which he alone is responsible.

Sincerely your brother,
David O. McKay
(President)

A little background on the book "Man, His Origin and Destiny" may be helpful. The book was published Joseph Fielding Smith (who was president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles at the time*) in 1954. The book came out strongly against evolution and was the basis for the article on evolution in "Mormon Doctrine", a book compiled by Smith's son-in-law (who was also an Apostle). "Mormon Doctrine" was not published by the LDS church and is not the official doctrine of the LDS church. While members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles hold a position of high authority in the LDS church, they do not have the authority to dictate church doctrine. Only the President of the church has that authority. "Mormon Doctrine" is so widespread among members of the LDS church that most of them have assumed that the section on evolution represents the official position of the church, when in fact it does not.

Interestingly, since the official position of the LDS church on evolution is that it has not taken any position on evolution, it leaves a lot of room for individual interpretation. You can believe the literal creation story from Genesis and be a member in good standing. You can believe completely in evolution and be a member in good standing. This has lead to some extremely interesting and enjoyable conversations between myself and other LDS church members on the subject.

As hard as I've tried I just can't understand how people can really think that my belief in evolution is threatening to their belief in God. Evolution says nothing about God. Religion teaches us why, science teaches us how.

*Click here for more information on the organization of the LDS church.

Joe Maynard's Fatwa

2006-02-04T07:52:00.000-08:00

In this entry I blogged about a great letter to the editor in the Herald Journal propmpted by an earlier pro-intelligent design letter. I just came across a blog that has the text of the original letter.

To the editor:

I wasn’t going to read the anti-intelligent design Soapbox article by Richard Criddle until I noticed the very last line that stated he was a member of the LDS Church. I wondered why a member of the LDS Church would be against intelligent design, so I read it.

It quickly became apparent that he does not believe in the creation as expounded in the scriptures or by our prophets. That led me to wonder why he wants to be identified as a member of the LDS Church.

I understand those who don’t keep the commandments who want to be identified as members. All of us have our various weaknesses. I also understand those who are less motivated to attend on a regular basis. Some are not as motivated as others. This letter is not about either of those groups.

One of my favorite things is to talk to others about what they believe and why. People’s beliefs are based on what they consider to be facts, their own logic and their feelings. The key to understanding others is to understand what they believe and why. With that in mind, this letter is to those who don’t believe that President Hinckley is a prophet and who still want to be considered a member of the LDS Church.

The LDS Church has come out strongly on a number of issues. Three of those are: God created this earth and all things on it; homosexuality is a sin; and abortion is wrong.

This letter is not addressed to those who disagree with those stances, it is addressed to those who disagree and still want to be considered members of the LDS Church.

Do you believe that President Hinckley is a prophet except on evolution, or except homosexuality, or except some other point? How is that possible? Prophets speak for God, so is God also wrong?

To me, there is a huge difference between those who struggle with, for example, a Word of Wisdom problem and those who make a considered decision that the prophet is wrong. Again, this letter is not addressed to those who have weaknesses or who have decided to leave the LDS Church.

The belief that the president of the LDS Church is a prophet is probably the most key belief that makes the LDS Church different from every other church. So, if you don’t believe that he is the prophet of our savior, Jesus Christ, why would you call yourself a member of the LDS Church?

This letter is a sincere request to have someone explain to me why this group would want to be identified as members of the LDS Church.

What benefit do you expect to receive when you don’t believe?

Joe Maynard

Smithfield

New USGS Earthquake Publication

2006-02-03T11:28:00.000-08:00

The U.S. Geological Survey has just released a new publication on earthquakes, titled "Earthquake Science Explained: A series of ten short articles for students, teachers and families". If you are interested in earthquakes or how geologists study them it is a nice booklet (18 pages) with lots of diagrams. It is available as a free download from the USGS. The document is in PDF format (1.2 MB).

A layman's view

2006-01-31T18:58:00.000-08:00

Upate: My sister gently reminded me that she was stationed in Kuwait, not Saudi Arabia.

My sister was kind enough to share this essay with me, and to give me permission to upload it to the blog. She's currently part way through an undergrad degree, and is taking an anthropology class. She brings a very different perspective to the table than I do since our lives have diverged since we moved away from home. As you'll see if you read the essay she spent five years in the Air Force, and she's raising a family (I'll be there one day, but not just yet). During her time in the Air Force she was stationed in Turkey and Kuwait (and also more mundane places like New Mexico). She took classes when she could, and through a lot of hard work earned an associate's degree last year. I'm really proud of her for that.

I was thrilled when she sent this to me. I didn't know that she was taking an anthro class, let alone discussing creationism. We haven't talked much about it over the years (I'm pretty bad at keeping in touch), so I was very curious about what she thought about the issue. I really like her essay, especially the first sentence. It's really gratifying to see that the relationship between creationism and intelligent design is so transparent.

Without further ado, here's her essay:

Apparently, Intelligent Design is Ridiculous

Being a newcomer into the evolution vs. intelligent design (when did we stop calling it ‘creationism’?!) debate, I must apologize if my remarks in this essay come across as ignorant or presumptuous. After all, I’ve only seen a tiny amount of literature addressing this debate, and I am, after all, still a very green student.

However, the few articles I have read on this subject all seem to point out a glaring fact: intelligent design is nonsense; at least the argument to have it on the curriculum of every science teacher in America is. It doesn’t help things that the argument its supporters are making for its defense doesn’t hold much weight either. Just as an average layman, I would have to support those in favor of evolutionism. Let me tell you why.

The two articles assigned were very much on the side of the evolutionists, and I was aware of that while reading them. However, I did not find anything different from the creationist’s opposing viewpoints to change my mind when doing further research online. Skipping right through where most scientist-evolutionists seem to begin in their arguments, which is the definition and difference of facts and theories, I’ll go to the point I see as the most important one here: that creationists cannot make a solid argument. I picked up a pamphlet in the hallway outside the sociology department today that made its argument by listing various fossils, organisms, and such, and showing how each is missing the link to get from point A to point B, therefore evolution cannot possibly have occurred because scientists have found no evidence of those missing links yet. Naturally, there is no mention of the fact that science is ever-changing, or that it took probably a good deal of time just to collect the fossil samples mentioned. Of course, all this was supported by many important quotes from many important people with lots of credentials. I could not help but wonder if some of these people were being taken out of context, such as Gould described happening to him in his article; how maybe some of these people were making an entirely different point, before they were nabbed by a creationist and stuck in a pamphlet. Anyhow.

Creationists are in favor of pushing our society back into the past by putting religion above all else; and that’s a dangerous way of thinking. The city of Rome was believed, by its inhabitants, to have been founded by two brothers named Romulus and Remus, who were born from a goddess and raised by a she-wolf. For centuries, that is what the leading global power believed. But Rome, whether run by a Caesar or a Republic, had some huge societal flaws. Remember Caligula? Giving power all to one MORTAL person who stands up and declares himself divine is nothing but a recipe for human suffering. (I don’t favor any modern ideas to elevate Graham or Hinckley to divine status; but nor would I support building a shrine to Darwin or Einstein.) How is the concept of the Garden of Eden less far-fetched to those today than the she-wolf tale to the inhabitants of ancient Rome? The details have changed, but the believers are still basing their lives on completely unseen, unverified stories. I understand that religion needs faith to operate correctly, which does not need any evidence for its supporters. I also support the belief that people in society DO need religion- as a guidance system to help society from plunging into anarchy, to help teach its children morals, and as a source of strength and comfort. And that’s not wrong. But no one can deny that man (as in the male of the species) does distort and twist religion for selfish power reasons. A pope once had more power than a king. WWII was barely more than half a century ago. Tying this into the debate at hand, why would we want to start down that old, trodden path where mankind may have progressed but suffered just as much? Bringing intelligent design into the classrooms is like admitting to those religious leaders that we don’t need to continue on with modern scientific study or research (goodbye, cure for the big ‘C’; goodbye solution to global warming). Few leaders, even religious ones, could stand up to the moral promises they’d make to get to the top; even the president is kept in check by congress. There are no leaders among evolutionists who would benefit from elevated status if their side “won” this debate; science would just continue to quietly progress.

And that’s the bottom line I see the creationists’ argument heading toward: a kind of pre-rational, pre-modern thought. The unexamined life and so on. The comparison in one of the articles was really thought-provoking with raising the question of why do these same people kick science to the curb when it comes to evolution, yet if they’re sick, they seek out the most specialized scientist in the field of medicine for answers to their illnesses?
In my archaeology class, we recently watched a video on a 9,000 year-old skeleton that had been found; this man could not be linked definitely to any group of known persons. Yet four days after the archaeologist began his research on this skeleton, a group of American Indians claimed the remains under an act called NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) and tried to bury the prehistoric man in an undisclosed grave. No matter to them that this was one of the oldest known human remains found in North America, or more importantly, that no scientist could confirm that this man had been, in fact, even remotely related to them. This argument, like evolutionism vs. creationism, seems ridiculous. Another minority among the population is acting selfishly with hasty, half-baked reasons.

I mention this example because in both instances of the archaeologists with the prehistoric man and the scientists struggling to keep evolutionism on the teaching agenda both have a common, and noble goal in mind: to learn the answers to questions not just for them, the scientists, but for ALL of mankind. It was very selfish of the American Indians to take that man for themselves and deny the entire world the answers he could provide. And it’s selfish for the creationists to send a message to the world (the majority of which, like voting for a presidential candidate, does a minimal amount of research into the subject outside of a few hours of TV) that it’s blasphemy to believe in evolution. Those creationists with the background and the education are not being very responsible leaders to the unlearned, trusting (albeit lazy) masses by ignoring or misinterpreting the evidence given by the evolutionists.

This argument falls in with all the other political correctness sweeping America today and it’s really gotten out of hand (to get on my soapbox for another minute here). I completely agree with the statement that America is losing its place as a world leader because of the growth and acceptance of ignorance today. As a five-year active duty Air Force vet, I can honestly say it’s weakening our military. Our wishy-washiness to defend our borders or oppose those that threaten our country is shameful. Everyone is so scared of offending someone, anyone, that you can’t even chew gum in public anymore without looking over your shoulder. The idea of intelligent design should be in church, just as the Ten Commandments should be kept off the courthouse lawn or we risk returning to the days of the Inquisition.

Yet getting into these scientific debates as of late for me has been kind of reassuring: the archaeologists in the prehistoric man’s case ended up suing the American Indians for the right to study the skeleton, and the scientists defending the evolution theory don’t seem to show signs of backing down. That’s definitely out of step with America’s current fad of quickly backing down and apologizing to anyone who claims they were offended by something; no matter how obviously outrageous their claims. Perhaps there is hope for America after all if we can just continue to weather the storm!

A Scorpion's Tale

2006-01-30T16:25:00.000-08:00

You may have read about the scorpion found inside the fossil sample over the weekend. This story is surprising to me in two different ways. First, I am amazed that the scorpion survived in the plaster for 15 months. But I find it a bit more surprising how much publicity the story received. It was picked up by the Associated Press and suddenly the scorpion is a national hero. The story was even linked on Fark.com on Saturday. But I think no one is more surprised than the paleontologist who actually found the scorpion, Don DeBlieux (pronounced de-Blew). He was even amused when local radio personalities made fun of their inability to pronounce his last name and resorted to calling him "Scientist Don."

Don has received emails from biologists all over the world (OK, that may be a slight exaggeration), diagnosing the species of scorpion from this photo. Amusingly, each expert wants to ascribe a different species to the scorpion, based on his or her own area of expertise.

Well, congratulations Don! People all over the world are attempting to pronounce your name.

Climate cycles in the Cretaceous

2006-01-27T08:41:00.000-08:00

I should probably start this post by pointing out that I'm not a rock magnetist (although I've been friends and office mates with them), nor am I a paleoclimatologist or a sedimentologist. I don't usually think about those three subjects being related. Paleoclimatology and sedimentology, sure. Same thing for rock magnetism/paleomagnetism and sedimentology, I can see how those could sometimes overlap. I think it's pretty cool when a study can combine all three.

Several parameters of Earth's orbit vary cyclically (precession, axial tilt, and eccentricity – see this article about Milankovitch cycles (go Wikipedia!). These variations result in changes in climate, which cause changes in sedimentation, which result in changes in the geologic record. These changes are particularly clear in materials that have layers deposited annually. The classic example is varves. Changes in climate during the summer and winter result in changes in the types of sediments being deposited in lakes. For example, runoff during the spring and summer could carry more silt into a lake, while during the winter, when the runoff is low, clay would settle out. In that example a pair of silt and clay layers represents one year's worth of deposition. There can be changes in things like pollen concentration and microfossils too. By counting the pairs (called couplets) and tracking changes like couplet thickness and chemistry, it's possible to recognize cycles, and those cycles can be related to climate.

Varves occur in both modern and ancient lakes. For example, at Lake Suigetsu, (where the varves are defined by a couplet with a clay layer and a white fossiliferous layer) not only have varves been counted back 40,000 years (like counting tree rings), but the ages calculated from counting varves were also compared against radiocarbon dates from organic material plucked from the varves. (see Figure 2 at the link). In the Lake Suigetsu study the authors counted 80,000 thin layers of sediments (40,000 couplets). That's an impressive amount of work, but while 40,000 years is a long time from a human perspective, it's not really enough to record Milankovitch cycles (the timings of the cycles range from around 19 to 405 thousand years). If you want to see Milankovitch cycles you need to look at sequences of rock that record very long periods of time. People have done this for varved deposits (see here for example). Very cool stuff, definitely, but it gets better. The article that prompted this entry is about people who found a way to measure Milankovitch cycles in non-varved deposits.

"Magnetic record of Milankovitch rhythms in lithologically noncyclic marine carbonates", by a group of scientists from Lehigh University, Johns Hopkins, and the University of New Mexico came out in the December 2005 issue of Geology (to go off on a tangent, Geology is a nice journal to subscribe to – it's composed of short (4 page or so) articles in all areas of geology). "Lithologically noncyclic" means that there weren't any varves in the rocks they looked at 110 m of a "… thick-bedded lime mudstones with rare chert nodules, nannofossils, and planktonic foraminifera." To me that sounds like they looked at a thick, boring mass of limestone. They took 367 samples, crushed them, and measured their magnetic properties, in particular something called ARM (anhysteretic remanent magnetization – see this site for more information). ARM is a good way to measure the concentration of minerals like magnetite (the greater the ARM signal, the greater the concentration of magnetite). They plotted the strength of the ARM over the 110 m of limestone they measured, and then looked for cycles in the variations of magnetic strength. They found several – the largest at almost 29 m (which they report as 0.035 cycles/meter), and 5 more at closer spacings.

Converting that 29 m (and the other more narrowly spaced cycles) to time is the tricky part. As I mentioned above, the timing of the longest Milankovitch cycle is around 405 thousand years. They assigned this age to the 29 m cycle, assumed a constant deposition rate, and then inferred the time that would correspond to the rest of the cycles, coming up with 405, 123, 51.2, 39.4, 22.5, and 18.6 thousand years (ka). Those ages are about what is expected for Milankovitch cycles in the Cretaceous, which is when the limestone they were looking at was deposited. This does increase my confidence that they really are measuring something Milankovitch-related, but I do wish they had an independent control on the ages. They do have an independent verification that there should be cycles in the limestone they looked at (the San Angel limestone). The San Angel was deposited at the same time as the Cupido formation, which was deposited closer to shore, and has lithologic variations that record Milankovitch cycles. So, it seems reasonable to me to expect that there should be Milankovitch cycles in the San Angel too.

I mentioned above that the cycles are defined by variations in the concentration of magnetite. The authors of the paper used scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to image the magnetite. The grains were small, around 3 microns (3 millionths of a meter), which led the authors to infer that they originated as dust. Dust can make it pretty far out into the ocean. When there are dust storms in the Sahara for example, they can be detected far out into the Atlantic.

The idea is that cycles in the parameters of Earth's orbit (Milankokvitch cycles) lead to cycles in climate, which cause cycles in erosion, which cause cycles in the amount of dust carried out into the ocean, which cause cycles in the amount of magnetite deposited in marine limestones (even though there isn't a change in the lithology of the limestone). I was very impressed that the authors could take a massive limestone formation, just the opposite of the sort of formation that has typically been used to recognize Milankovitch cycles, and recognize cycles that correspond to variations in climate in the Cretaceous.

A new member

2006-01-24T18:56:00.000-08:00

The Western Geologist (likely soon to be renamed) has a new member. Welcome aboard Capt. Obsidian.

Chris Buttars' "Origins of Life" Bill in Utah.

2006-01-24T10:00:00.000-08:00

Well, it looks like Utah State Senator Chris Buttars' Bill on the origins of life (SB96) has passed in the Senate. Ironically (perhaps poetically) Buttars himself was not present to vote on the bill. Apparently, he was ill and spent the day in the hospital. Here's hoping that the House has the good sense to shoot this thing down. Barring that, I have the feeling that Governor Huntsman will veto it, given his previous statements on Intelligent Design (he is against teaching it in public schools).

The Dover ID case made it clear that past statements can and will be taken into account when determining a legislator's intent in crafting a bill. Given his past statements on evolution, I, like others, find it hard to believe that Sen. Buttars is motivated by anything other than religion in introducing this bill. He has been quite up front about his religious objections to evolution. His extremely poor understanding of evolution has also been well documented:

"there has not been any scientific fossil evidence linking apes to man. The trouble with the 'missing link' is that it is still missing! In fact, the whole fossil chain that could link apes to man is also missing!" USA Today, 8 Aug, 2005

I know of several paleoanthropologists who would disagree completely with this statement. Dr. Ian Tattersall, curator of the American Museum of Natural History has written many books on the subject of human evolution, including The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know About Human Evolution, which contains diagrams of all of the major hominid fossils. Additionally, Talk Origins has an excellent page on prominent hominid fossils. To quote from the summary:
"There are a number of clear trends (which were neither continuous nor uniform) from early australopithecines to recent humans: increasing brain size, increasing body size, increasing use of and sophistication in tools, decreasing tooth size, decreasing skeletal robustness. There are no clear dividing lines between some of the later gracile australopithecines and some of the early Homo, between erectus and archaic sapiens, or archaic sapiens and modern sapiens."
The "missing link" argument is simply a straw man. No matter how many intermediate species are found it can always be claimed that there is a link still missing. In fact as more intermediate species are found, a large single gap (with a single missing link) is broken into several smaller gaps, each with their own missing links. And don't even get me started on his "dat" straw man argument.

What's more, Buttars apparently doesn't even understand his own religion's stand on evolution. The reality is that the LDS church has never taken a position on evolution. While individual authorities (Apostles, etc.) have held differing opinions, the only statements ever issued by the First Presidency (the topmost leadership, who alone have the authority to shape church policy) have been to the effect that the church has no official position on evolution. This has been well documented in an excellent article from Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought titled The Mormon Myth of Evil Evolution.

Perhaps his most egregious offense has been labeling anyone who opposes his bill as an atheist. As a devout believer (belonging to the same church as Buttars, even), I am offended that he would question my belief in God. Presenting such a false dilemma only serves to confuse and alienate those who believe that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Editorial in the Herald Journal

2006-01-22T14:14:00.000-08:00

The Herald Journal is the daily paper in Cache Valley, located in northern Utah (with a bit of southern Idaho). It's home to the town of Logan, which is where Utah State University is located. It's a very LDS part of the state. The Herald Journal isn't very well known outside of Utah, so I was really surprised to read an entry at Red State Rabble about a letter to the editor in the paper published on January 21. It's a GREAT letter. Here it is:

"On Mr. Maynard’s LDS fatwa ...

To the editor:

Local LDS theologian Joe Maynard issued a fatwa in the Jan. 19 HJ that decreed membership in the LDS Church requires a literal interpretation of the Creation as well as support for intelligent design (Mr. Maynard didn’t bother citing any sources so I will assume his doctrine is derived from D&C 139).

I am LDS - born in the covenant, got my Eagle Scout award, served a mission, love funeral potatoes, was married in the temple and I think green Jell-O with carrot shavings is fetch’n tasty. And I know that the earth is older than 6,000 years and that evolution offers irrefutable facts (a semantic argument about the word “theory” is hardly sufficient refutation).

How do evolution facts and creation doctrine reconcile? A metaphoric explanation seems convenient, but is precluded by a lack of procreation and death before the fall (at which point the creation was complete). This quandary is not a hurdle to salvation or being a good person. I figure after I pass through the veil, I’ll sit down with the Good Lord and ask Him about it. He’ll explain it, and we’ll have ourselves a good hearty laugh about all the unnecessary strife and contention initiated through this controversy by self-proclaimed Christians.

Intelligent design is creationism masked. The widespread popularity of ID has caused some to invoke the principle of welcoming all ideas as justification for teaching it in public schools. Science isn’t about pluralism; it’s about facts, even when they are unpopular and rejected by the general populace. ID cannot withstand empirical scrutiny nor does it find its origins in the scientific method (or LDS doctrine). It has no place in the science classes of public schools.

Speaking of facts, Maynard’s fatwa was apparently so authoritative he didn’t need to cite any sources. I do not pretend to speak with such authority so I will defer to a 1931 First Presidency Statement on evolution: “Upon the fundamental doctrines of the Church we are all agreed. Our mission is to bear the message of the restored gospel to the people of the world. Leave geology, biology, archaeology and anthropology, no one of which has to do with the salvation of the souls of mankind, to scientific research, while we magnify our calling in the realm of the church. We can see no advantage to be gained by a continuation of the discussion to which reference is here made, but on the contrary are certain that it would lead to confusion, division and misunderstanding if carried further.”

Looks like when I get to the other side there will be some members of the First Presidency ahead of me in line waiting to ask the same questions.

Thomas Reed Grover

Logan"

Here's the link. I tried to look up Maynard's letter, but it looks like the Herald Journal doesn't have a free archive. It'd cost $2.95 to read it, and I don't want to that badly (at least not right now).

Orson Scott Card

2006-01-22T10:01:00.000-08:00

I have been a fan of Orson Scott Card's sci fi books for quite a while. Ender's Game is one of my favorite books (I enjoyed reading some of the other books in that series too, but some of them were a little flaky). I came across Card's political writing a couple of years ago. He writes a column titled "World Watch" that also published online. I read it from time to time, and I often enjoy his columns. I didn't enjoy his latest, which I found out about when I read this article by PZ Myers at The Panda's Thumb.It was about this article: Creation and evolution in schools by Orson Scott Card

" A few years ago it was "Creation Science" they were trying to teach in the schools.

Creation Science was an attempt by fundamentalist Christians to give the Genesis account, as interpreted by them, a scientific veneer.

But it was only that -- a thin surface -- and any student who actually believed that Creation Science had anything to do with science would have been educationally crippled.

Now the controversy is between advocates of the theory of Intelligent Design vs. strict Darwinists. And some people want you to think it's the same argument.

It isn't."

Card talks about intelligent design here, but after reading through his essay it looks to me like he's just talking about Behe (there's no mention of Dembski, Johnson, Wells, etc.). For example:

" Behe's conclusion is that since complex biochemical systems in advanced organisms could not have evolved through strict Darwinian evolution, the only possible explanation is that the system was designed and put into place deliberately."

Now, I must admit that I have kind of a soft spot for Behe (although much less of one after his testimony in the Dover trial). He actually proposed testable ideas, which isn't very common among the ID crowd. It turns out that he wasn't very careful about researching his ideas, and that his ideas have been falsified, but still I admired him. I am frustrated that he doesn't really seem to be willing to modify and/or discard his ideas once they're falsified (which is a trait he has in common with many members of the ID crowd). More below.

" The Darwinist answer was immediate. Unfortunately, it was also illogical, personal, and unscientific. The main points are:

1. Intelligent Design is just Creation Science in a new suit (name-calling).

2. Don't listen to these guys, they're not real scientists (credentialism).

3. If you actually understood science as we do, you'd realize that these guys are wrong and we're right; but you don't, so you have to trust us (expertism).

4. They got some details of those complex systems wrong, so they must be wrong about everything (sniping).

5. The first amendment requires the separation of church and state (politics).

6. We can't possibly find a fossil record of every step along the way in evolution, but evolution has already been so well-demonstrated it is absurd to challenge it in the details (prestidigitation).

7. Even if there are problems with the Darwinian model, there's no justification for postulating an "intelligent designer" (true)."

Myers' entry Orson Scott Card, Intelligent Design advocate at Pharyngula examines these claims in detail.

" 1. You have to be ignorant of either Creation Science or Intelligent Design -- or both -- to think that they're the same thing. Creation Science is embarrassing and laughable -- its authors either don't understand science or are deliberately deceiving readers who don't understand it. Frankly, Creation Science is, in my opinion, a pack of pious lies."

Card really needs to read the testimony from the Dover trial. The ID textbook, Of Pandas and People, that was being used in Dover, was clearly a creationist book. The most telling piece of evidence that this is true is that after the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision the words "creation", "creationism", "creationists", were replaced by "intelligent design" and "design proponents" (read Barbara Forrest's testimony in the Dover trial, or this article by Nick Matzke. In one instance, the copy and paste job was imperfect, and the word "creationist" was only changed to "cdesign proponentsists."

Behe and his group don't think we're stupid. They actually make the effort to explain the science accurately and clearly in terms that the lay audience can understand. So who is going to win this argument? Some people bow down before experts; most of us resent the experts who expect us to bow.

The irony is that there are plenty of Darwinists who are perfectly good writers, capable of explaining the science to us well enough to show us the flaws in the Designists' arguments. The fact that they refuse even to try to explain is, again, a confession that they don't have an answer."

I can't add much to Ed Brayton's response to this:

" I could sit here and link to hundreds of critiques of every single claim made by ID advocates. I've written many of them myself, as have dozens of actual scientists. I highly doubt that Card is completely unaware of them, or unaware of the fact that several scientists testified at the Dover trial and delivered detailed critiques of the ID arguments under oath as well. I don't know, or care, what universe Card inhabits, but it sure as hell isn't this one. In this universe, it is preposterous and utterly ridiculous to claim that scientists have not published volume after volume examining the flaws in ID arguments. If Card claims that the world he lives in is one in which scientists "refuse" to explain the flaws in those arguments, he is either lying through his teeth or he is completely delusional."

I don't think Card is lying (I hope that's not wishful thinking on my part), but his research was incredibly sloppy. It really seems to me like Card read "Darwin's Black Box", got all fired up, and wrote an article without bothering to read anything else from either the ID proponents or their opponents.

"Darwin's Black Box", and Behe's response to criticisms of it, are the reason I don't respect him anymore.

1) Behe made a point about how rigorous the peer review of "Darwin's Black Box" was. It wasn't. See here and here.

2) Behe's claims about bacterial flagella, the immune system, and the blood clotting cascade aren't supported. Once again referring to the verdict in the Dover trial:

From page 76:

"As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex."

From pages 76-77:

"First, with regard to the bacterial flagellum, Dr. Miller pointed to peer- reviewed studies that identified a possible precursor to the bacterial flagellum, a subsystem that was fully functional, namely the Type-III Secretory System. (2:8- 20 (Miller); P-854.23-854.32). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich admited that there is serious scientific research on the question of whether the bacterial flagellum evolved into the Type-III Secretary System, the Type-III
Secretory System into the bacterial flagellum, or whether they both evolved from a common ancestor. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). None of this research or thinking involves ID. (38:12-16 (Minnich)). In fact, Professor Minnich testified about his research as follows: “we’re looking at the function of these systems and how they could have been derived one from the other. And it’s a legitimate scientific inquiry.” (38:16 (Minnich))."

I've read Minnich's response before. Quite honestly I don't see how whether or not the flagellum evolved from the Type-III secretory system matters when it comes to irreducible complexity. For IC to matter when one or more parts were removed from the flagellum the result would have to be something useless, and it's not. Sure, if you remove parts from the flagellum, you may wind up with something that's no good as a "motor", but that doesn't mean it's not good for anything else. See The Flagellum Unspun by Ken Miller.

Continuing with the verdict:

From page 77:

"Second, with regard to the blood-clotting cascade, Dr. Miller demonstrated that the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969, which show that dolphins’ and whales’ blood clots despite missing a part of the cascade, a study that was confirmed by molecular testing in 1998. (1:122-29 (Miller); P-854.17- 854.22). Additionally and more recently, scientists published studies showing that
in puffer fish, blood clots despite the cascade missing not only one, but three parts. (1:128-29 (Miller)). Accordingly, scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade. Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe’s redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer- reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition. (20:26-28, 22:112-25 (Behe))."

From pages 77-78

"The immune system is the third system to which Professor Behe has applied the definition of irreducible complexity. Although in Darwin’s Black Box, Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)). However, Dr. Miller presented peer-reviewed studies refuting Professor Behe’s claim that the immune system was irreducibly complex. Between 1996 and 2002, various studies confirmed each element of the evolutionary hypothesis explaining the origin of the immune system. (2:31 (Miller)). In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He waspresented with fifty- eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough." (23:19 (Behe))."

Compare this with Behe's description:

" The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things."

This article at Pharyngula goes into more detail about Behe's testimony.

" 5. The church and state argument is deliberately misleading. First, the Designists are not, in fact, advocating "God." They are very careful not to specify who or what the Intelligent Designer might be. So they are not advocating for any particular religion, or any religion at all. For all anyone knows, the supposed Intelligent Designers might be an alien species of mortal, ungodlike beings."

and:

" Make no mistake: Not just the fossil record, but virtually every close examination of biology at every level reveals utterly convincing evidence that evolution takes place, has always taken place, and continues to take place. There is also plenty of evidence that natural selection takes place.

The Designists challenge only the sufficiency of Darwin's model. The claim only that it does not seem adequate to explain systems that were completely unknown at the time he created his theory."

This is just not true. Behe may accept common descent, but that's not the official ID position. The Intelligent Design camp includes Young Earth Creationists, who not only don't accept common ancestry, they don't accept the 4.6 Ga age of the earth. ID-founder Phillip Johnson won't even take a position on the age of the earth and doesn't accept common ancestry. This account of an ID proponent who was forced out due to his acceptance of common ancestry is particularly telling. In addition, ID proponents argue against "materialism" and "naturalism." The opposite of naturalism is supernaturalism. ID proponents are arguing for a supernatural creator, and argument that the designer may have been aliens is just a distraction.

Again it looks to me like Card read "Darwin's Black Box" and nothing else. Behe might not be explicitly referring to God as the designer, but that's not the case with the ID movement as a whole.

The ID camp doesn't have a coherent "theory" of ID, and proponents of ID hold directly conflicting views (YEC vs. non YEC for example). If the evidence for ID is so clear and compelling, they really ought to come up with a well-defined internally consistent ID hypothesis. Instead it seems like ID is a group of people who have a gut feeling that evolution just can't be right, and if they can only start teaching that to school kids, school boards, and members of congress they'll worry about sorting all the details of their ideas out later. It's obvious ID is nothing but a political movement, the practitioners don't care a whit about backing up their claims with hard science.

" To the Darwinists, of course, this is hypocrisy and deception -- of course the Designists are religious. They must be. Because only religious people would ever question the Darwinist model.

It comes to this: If you question the Darwinist model, you must be religious; therefore your side of the argument is not admissible in the public arena, and certainly not in the public schools.

This is an attempt to shut down discussion by hiding behind the Constitution. It's what you do when you're pretty sure you can't win on the merits."

This seems awfully like an attempt to class all opponents of ID as atheists (as Chris Buttars has done, and as was done in Dover, for example). If so, it's disgusting, plain and simple. Opponents of ID, who include many religious people as well as atheists, aren't opposed to religion. They're opposed to attempts to force religion on others.

Card's essay isn't all bad.

" Here's the thing: If you say that things are as they are because God made them that way, then they are off limits to science. Science is simply unsuited to studying God. Science requires impersonal, repeatable testing. Its business is discovering causal relationships, and it can only work with mechanical cause.

So when the answer to the question "why does this natural phenomenon occur?" is "because God wants it that way," then science simply has nothing to add to the conversation. Any more than when the question is "why are you wearing that combination of colors?" If some person -- divine or otherwise -- chose to make things as they are, then we're talking about purpose and motive; science can only work with mechanical causation.

In other words, until Darwin showed us evolution as a machine that did not require divine meddling to be explained, scientists were blocked from answering what seemed to be (and, in some ways, is) a mere historical, not scientific, question: How did this vast variety of life forms come to be?"

and:

" Real science does not in any way impinge on a belief that God (or some other Intelligent Designer) created the world and everything that dwells in it. At the same time, real science does not -- and never can -- prove or even support the hypothesis."

and:

"Intelligent design uses the evil "must" word: Well, if random mutation plus natural selection can't account for the existence of this complex system, then it must have been brought into existence by some intelligent designer
Why? Why must that be the only alternative?
Just because the Darwinian model seems to be inadequate at the molecular level does not imply in any way that the only other explanation is purposive causation.
There might be several or even many other hypotheses. To believe in Intelligent Design is still a leap of faith.
But the normal answer of the Darwinists is also a leap of faith. In effect, their arguments boil down to this: We have no idea right now how these complex systems came to be, but we have fervent, absolute faith that when we do figure it out, it will be found to have a completely mechanical, natural cause that requires no "intelligent designer" at all."

Well, the last couple of sentences of that last quote are pretty bad. I really hope that this is just a case of Card being really sloppy. It is glaringly obvious that he hasn't really looked into ID or the arguments of its opponents. If it turns out that he has, and he stands behind this article, it'll be hard for me to still respect him.

Buttars strikes back

2006-01-21T10:02:00.000-08:00

Chris Buttars' bill (SB 96) has passed its first senate vote. It needs to pass one more, and then it will go to the Utah House. If it passes there it will still need to be signed by Governor Hunstman.

There were two good articles in the Deseret News and in the Salt Lake Tribune. I've also been trying to find some transcript of the Senate proceedings, but I haven't had any luck. The Utah Senate site has audio files, but the won't work on my Mac. I'll fire up the ol' PC some time today and have a listen.

The articles:
Evolution bill debate revolves around religion
Preliminary OK: Utah skeptics of Darwin's theory won on an initial vote. Salt Lake Tribune, January 21, 2006. (Abbreviated SLT, Jan 21)

Panel OKs bill to add footnote to evolution
Disclaimer: Committee insists there is no consensus on the origins of people. Salt Lake Tribune, January 18, 2006. (Abbreviated SLT Jan 18)

Evolution: Buttars bill is an embarrassment. Salt Lake Tribune, Editorial, January 18, 2006 (Abbreviated SLT Jan 18 ed)

Senate gives initial OK to 'origins' bill Deseret Morning News, January 21, 2006. (Abbreviated DMN Jan 21)

Buttars claims that his bill isn't motivated by a desire to include religion in science classes. Apparently he thinks that all of his earlier comments and earlier attempts at bills will just vanish in a puff of smoke. I think that's nuts. Those documents and statements will be used as evidence in the lawsuit that will certainly be filed if this bill ever becomes law.

" Two ACLU attorneys who attended Friday's debate said the bill is obviously fueled by a religious, not scientific, revulsion to Charles Darwin's theory. They contend that courts look not only at the letter of the law but the intent of lawmakers when determining if legislation is constitutional.
"We were disappointed in the vote," said Dani Eyer, executive director of the ACLU of Utah. "But we were sitting there watching them make our case in legislative history.""(SLT, Jan 21)

Buttars' religious motivations are glaringly obvious. Buttars is wasting time and money working on this bill, and he's going to waste a lot more on a lawsuit defending the bill; a lawsuit that I think he'll very clearly lose. Didn't he pay any attention to the Dover ruling? Board members like Buckingham and Bonsell tried to claim that they weren't motivated by the desire to inject religion into science classes (even lying under oath to do so), but they had made statements that they wanted creationism taught. Even though the disclaimer that they required teachers to read didn't explicitly include the word "creationism" their statements clearly showed their intent. Buttars isn't being clever by keeping explicit mention of "creationism" or "intelligent design" out of this bill. His intentions are very well-established.

"Sen. Chris Buttars has tried to eliminate any possibility that his bill questioning the validity of evolution could allow for religious instruction in the classroom - and avoid the legal risks associated with such teaching.
But religion is the reason he proposed the bill and religion drove most of the debate Friday, as the full Senate gave its initial approval to SB96.
Comments on the Senate floor commending God's creation of man and condemning atheists for pushing their "religion," could potentially end up as evidence in court should the bill become law."(SLT, Jan 21)

" "I challenge anyone to say that somewhere in those lines that I'm trying to promote religious philosophies," Buttars said. "My bill from the get-go never included anything about intelligent design, creationism or any faith-based philosophy."" (SLT, Jan 21)

At this point I want to remind readers that Buttars' earlier bill was about "divine design." Frankly I question his honesty when he says his current bill isn't motivated by religion. That's also clear from this comments:

" But Darwin's theory of evolution is central to the high school biology core curriculum. Buttars has taken issue with that, saying the idea humans evolved from a lower species is not a proven fact. Friday, he noted a woman told him when her children were told "we evolved from a lower kind in school . . . it totally blew up their faith."" (DMN Jan 21)

" Buttars expressed disgust with the idea that humans could have evolved from some "lower animal." He has said he decided to sponsor this bill after parents called him concerned that the teaching of evolution conflicted with religious explanations." (SLT Jan 18)

Buttars is definitely entitled to be disgusted with the idea that humans evolved from other life forms. Buttars is free to teach that to his children, and he's free to try to convince others to share his ideas. Buttars is free to express his religious views. Buttars, and the senators who voted in favor of his bill, are absolutely not free to try to impose those ideas on others.

Buttars and his supporters also had the gall to say that opposition to SB96 was driven by atheists:

" The preliminary Senate vote Friday was 17-12, with all eight Senate Democrats and four Republicans opposing the bill, including Senate Majority Leader Peter Knudson.
Knudson rejected comments by Buttars and Sen. Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse, that the opposition is driven by "secularists and atheists."
"I will tell you that is not the spirit by which we should be debating this legislation," Knudson said. "There is a place in life for evolution."
He said religious people may also believe in evolution, since "we don't know how God created the Earth."" (SLT, Jan 21)

" Sen. Sheldon Killpack, R-Syracuse, said, "I'm amazed that this religion of atheism and secularism, they are so nervous about being able to simply say, not everyone agrees on this (theory). . . . The slippery slope is that religion's imposing view that we can't have a belief in God. I find that offensive, personally."" (DMN Jan 21)

I was so pleased by Knudson's statement. Killpack's, on the other hand, is nothing short of idiotic. The profs. from BYU who spoke against this bill are atheists? Killpack is the sort of Christian who spits in the face (figuratively) of members of organizations like the American Scientific Affiliation (many of whom accept evolution) and the Affiliation of Christian Geologists (many of whom don't accept Flood geology and who are ridiculed and despised by Young Earth creationist organizations for that reason). If belief in evolution is incompatible with Killpack's conception of God that's fine. Killpack really needs to recognize that an awful lot of people don't have a problem reconciling belief in God with acceptance of evolution. Caricaturing your opponents as atheists (which again happened in Dover) is a disgusting trick (and it's doubly bad coming from a state senator).

" "All it's asking is when you get done teaching your evolution, is (say) there is no consensus, and there are other theories. . . . We're trying to protect our kids," Buttars said. "That professor they brought in from the BYU talking about (how) we evolved from chimpanzees, he don't know that."" (DMN Jan 21)

This quote is the reason I'm particularly interested in seeing the transcripts of the Senate discussion. I'd love to read the comments about the professor from BYU, I doubt Buttars is describing them well. It is pretty clear that Buttars' doesn't understand evolution:

"Buttars and other Republican senators agreed that evolution exists but expressed dismay at the idea of inter-species evolution.
"There is evolution within species," Buttars said. "There are big dogs and little dogs, big cats and little cats, but you haven't seen a 'dat.' You don't see intermediate species."
As Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Lehi, put it: ''Unless there is something out there that I don't know about, the missing link is still missing.''" (SLT Jan 18)

A "dat" . . . he actually said a "dat." He actually thinks that conventional biologists think there should be "dats" if evolution occurred. I am disgusted that Buttars hasn't taken the time to learn what conventional scientists actually think before trying to introduce his bills.

" Listening to state Sen. Chris Buttars describe the theory of evolution is like hearing Karl Marx describe capitalism. If it were the only description you heard, you'd probably be as against it as he is." (SLT Jan 18 ed)

" The theory of evolution has been refined since it was first put forward in Charles Darwin's 1859 book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural
Selection, but it remains the rock-solid foundation of biological science. Its core principle, that all life on Earth has evolved from common beginnings and has changed over time to meet the demands of different environments, is not challenged by any scientist or scientific body worthy of the name.
Buttars' constant references to the lack of a "missing link" or his insistence that he's never seen a dog change into a cat display a towering ignorance of the subject. That would be his own business, and perhaps a source of comfort to him, were it not for the fact that he is trying to enshrine his willful misunderstandings into state law." (SLT Jan 18 ed)

Buttars and his supporters also can't claim that they're just trying to teach critical thinking. They are explicitly singling evolution out (another tactic that failed in Dover).

" Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake City, attempted to strip Buttars' bill of any reference to "origins of life," replacing it and similar statements with "scientific." Lawmakers shouldn't single out evolution, if the aim is for students to critically analyze scientific theories upon which some scientists disagree on, he said.
The amendment failed." (SLT, Jan 21)

" Sen. Scott McCoy, D-Salt Lake, unsuccessfully proposed amendments to replace references to the origins of life or "present state of the human race" with "scientific" theory. So, the bill would encourage students to critically analyze scientific theories, from relativity to plate tectonics.
"If we are actually going to do those things, we should do it not with just one theory in the biology classroom. We should do it with all theories in the classroom," McCoy said. "The fact it does target one particular theory points to the fact this debate is really about something much different than is being represented."" (DMN Jan 21)

Buttars religious motivations are transparent, and what's worse, they're clearly documented. This bill should be attached to a flashing neon sign that says "Violates separation of church and state." Buttars isn't trying anything at all that hasn't been tried (and failed) before.

I want to be very clear that I'm not using "religious" as an insult. I am not offended that people are motivated by their religious beliefs. I am incensed when they try to impose their religious beliefs on others. It seems obvious to me that this is the case with SB96.

Religion in higher education

2006-01-17T21:45:00.000-08:00

I'm recently come across a couple of interesting articles dealing with spirituality and higher education.

From Mirror of Justice (a blog I hadn't encountered before) comes: No Catholics at Wheaton?

Wheaton College is a Christian college in Wheaton, Illinois. Wheaton is a Protestant college in particular. Their Board of Trustees, faculty and staff must annually reaffirm a Statement of Faith that states:

" WE BELIEVE that God has revealed Himself and His truth in the created order, in the Scriptures, and supremely in Jesus Christ; and that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writing, so that they are fully trustworthy and of supreme and final authority in all they say." (from here).

The president of Wheaton holds that this statement is incompatible with the Catholic faith, which regards the Pope as fully authoritative as the Bible. This posed a problem for Joshua Hochschild, who taught philosophy at Wheaton. When Hochschild accepted his position at Wheaton he was an Episcopalian, but he later converted to Catholicism. Because of this he was asked to leave Wheaton (he currently teaches at Mount St Mary's, a Catholic school).

The article is a very good read.

I wouldn't be comfortable at a place like Wheaton. My religious beliefs are a very personal thing, and I would get very annoyed at a place that required me to annually affirm my beliefs. I do think that people have a right to form and attend schools like that though, and I think they had a right to fire Hochschild. I enormously admire Hochschild for converting when he knew that it might cost him his job.

" Mr. Hochschild, 33 years old, who was considered by his department a shoo-in for tenure, says he's still willing to sign the Wheaton faith statement. He left last spring, taking a 10% pay cut and roiling his family life, to move to a less-renowned Catholic college.

Mr. Hochschild's dismissal captures tensions coursing through many of America's religious colleges. At these institutions, which are mostly Protestant or Catholic, decisions about hiring and retaining faculty members are coming into conflict with a resurgence of religious identity."

The article has a very interesting discussion about the climate in religious colleges in the US. I was interested to read this about Notre Dame:

" Addressing faculty at the University of Notre Dame, the school's new president, the Rev. John Jenkins, recently expressed concern that the percentage of faculty who were Catholic had fallen to 53%, compared with 85% in the 1970s. Today's level is barely above a line set in 1990 by the late Pope John Paul II, who decreed that non-Catholics shouldn't be a majority of the faculty at a Catholic university."

When I think about it I realize that Notre Dame is a Catholic school, but honestly it doesn't usually cross my mind. I think they do well academically, and that's where I usually stop. I think that's the way a lot of academics (or at least most of the academics I know) are – religion isn't something that we think about in our professional lives. This holds true for the religious academics too – their religious life is separate from their professional life. You don't need the Bible to measure stable isotopes for example.

This leads me to the second part of my post. Spirituality in Higher Education at UCLA.

" What is the level and intensity of spiritual experiences among today’s college students? How are spiritual searching and behavior changing on campus? And what does this mean for higher education institutions and students?"

The reports they have are fairly long, and I'm not done going through them yet. There are several interesting statistics though:

" In 2003, the Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) at UCLA began a major, multi-year research project to examine the spiritual development of undergraduate students during their college years. Funded by the John Templeton Foundation, the study is designed to enhance our understanding of the role that spirituality plays in students’ lives and to identify strategies that institutions can use to enhance students’ spiritual development."

The report is a little fluffy (for lack of a better word) for me, and I wish I could see the raw answers to the questions, but there are some things about the religious beliefs of incoming undergrads that surprised me.

" Table 2. Indicators of Students’ Religiousness
Indicator Percent
Believe in God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Pray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 69
Attended religious services . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 *
Discussed religion/spirituality with frien . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 80 *
Discussed religion/spirituality with family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 *
Religious beliefs provide strength, support, and guidance. . 69 **
Follow religious teachings in everyday life . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 40 ***
* Occasionally or frequently
** Agree strongly or somewhat
*** Consider it essential or very important"

and

" Table 7. Students’ Religious Preferences
Religious Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Percent
Roman Catholic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Baptist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Other Christian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Methodist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Lutheran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 5
Presbyterian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Church of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Other Religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Episcopalian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Jewish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Buddhist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1
Eastern Orthodox . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Hindu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Islamic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
United Church of Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) . . . . . . . . . .4
7th Day Adventist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Unitarian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Quaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2"

I would love to a study that tracks the evolution of students' religious views (the report I linked to describes a pilot study of juniors). I would also love to know the percentage of students who hold religious beliefs because of cultural reasons (i.e., they were raised Catholic, they call themselves Catholic, but they aren't practicing Catholics. I would also love to see a study applied to grad students and faculty.

A momentous news day

2006-01-17T20:39:00.000-08:00

Well, quite a lot has happened in the world of science, politics and religion today.

I'll start with one of the funniest things I've read in a long time:

Judge Alito shot John Paul II

I was pretty skeptical of this at first, but according to this site the error appeared in the Purdue Exponent, that school's student paper. Sure enough, a correction appears in that paper. Good stuff.

El Tejon settles lawsuit

The school in California that was teaching a class titled "Philosophy of Intelligent Design" dropped the class and agreed not to teach it in the future. I mentioned this class in my last entry. For more background, and for a very interesting history of press releases from the Discovery Institute about this case read this entry at Dispatches From the Culture Wars.

" My oh my, how the tune has changed. On January 9th, the class was a legitimate attempt to teach about intelligent design in a philosophy course and by trying to get it removed, the AU was engaged in "censorship" and trying to "separate students and science". Two days later, the class isn't about ID at all, it's "advocating young earth creationism" and it needs to be changed or cancelled."

US Supreme Court rules on Oregon assisted suicide case (from Orin Kerr at the Volokh Conspiracy)

The decision was 6-3, with Thomas, Scalia and Roberts dissenting.

The assisted suicide initiative was passed by Oregon voters twice. I'm very curious about how long it will take for opponents to label this the result of an activist court.

Creationism in California

2006-01-10T21:17:00.000-08:00

Well it's definitely an exciting time to be interested in creationism in California. There are 3 relevant lawsuits (and a news story or two).

Intelligent design not an issue in Napa area schools.

"Intelligent Design states that living beings are made up of such complex components that they must have been made by an unspecified higher being. Relying on faith and not methodology, Intelligent Design cannot be considered a scientific theory, opponents say.

"Scientific theory is not a weak speculation," said Migdal. "It's the best explanation the scientific community has to fit the events that takes place in the universe. It involves evidence, experimentation, and peer review."

"Science will never prove or disprove the existence of a God," said Dean Wagner, a biology teacher at Vintage High School.

Several biology teachers in the NVUSD have stated that the national debate over Intelligent Design has not been much of a problem with students or parents.

For those students who have spoken against evolution, Migdal has encouraged them to learn Intelligent Design through their own individual faith learning."

Hat tip to Red State Rabble

Fresno High School Sued Over 'Intelligent Design'

"Frazier Mountain High School officials call the class "Philosophy of Design." They insist it is not being offered as science, but as an opportunity for students to discuss a controversial issue."

Dispatches from the Culture Wars goes into more detail and provides a lot of links.

I think both the first and second syllabi are terrible (although the second is much better than the first, but the second isn't really anything to be proud of. I don't think students will get much accurate information out of the class. I don't think this is as clear-cut as Dover though. It isn't being taught in a science class, which I think should count for a lot. However if it'll be taught from the point of view that both evolution and creationism/intelligent design are both philosophies, and are therefore equivalent that'd be disingenuous. Evolution (and conventional geology, which was attacked in the first syllabus) are based on science, creationism/intelligent design isn't. I don't think that any class that teaches otherwise is being accurate. That'd be awfully similar to the old creationist canard: "Evolution and creationism are both religion." Still, I'm going to wait for more information on this.

There are also a couple of older (but still relevant) lawsuits in California.

Lawsuit against the UC system for refusing to accept creationist textbooks

Covergae From Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

The NCSE also has a few stories. One of them links to an article in the Sacramento Bee that includes the following:

"Still UC is taking the suit seriously, concerned that it might compromise its right to set its admission standards. More important, according to UC spokesperson Ravi Poorsina, is the worry that the suit will create an impression that the university doesn't welcome students from Christian schools, something that she says simply isn't true. It could also bring another fatwa from Pat Robertson."

That's definitely going on my list of favorite quotes.

Lawsuit against UC Berkeley alleging a violation of the establishment clause

Someone is alleging that UC Berkeley is violating the establishment clause for stating "“most Christian and Jewish religious groups have no conflict with the theory of evolution” on its Understanding Evolution website. Honestly I don't think this is worth blogging about much since it's not exactly the most well thought out idea I've ever heard.

Timothy Sandefur has more at The Panda's Thumb

Alito confirmation hearings

2006-01-10T20:55:00.000-08:00

I've been partially listening to the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito the last couple of days. I haven't been paying full attention to the radio broadcasts since I've been listening to them while I've been preparing and loading samples into a triaxial deformation apparatus (maybe I'll blog on that later). I'm pretty new to that, so all of my attention has been focused on making sure I'm not making a mistake (I've made a few, but nothing that couldn't be fixed – I haven't blown anything up). I did hear the opening comments by the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Most of what I heard disappointed me. From what I heard (and admittedly I didn't hear all of the comments) the senators didn't care about evaluating Alito. Kennedy opposed him because he hoped that would hurt Bush, and Cornyn wanted to support him because they hoped he would favor their views (using all of the nonsensical catch phrases like "judicial activism" and "liberal agenda").

A couple of the blogs I regularly read have posted entries about the confirmation hearings. Here are a few:

Notes on the Alito Hearings from the Volokh Conspiracy.

Cornyn's Remarks on Alito from Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Kennedy's Remarks on Alito from Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Letters to the editor in the York Daily Record

2006-01-04T08:30:00.000-08:00

The entry about the Dover school board at Pharyngula yesterday made me curious about other letters to the editor in the York Daily Record. I'm glad I looked. I've included a few worthwhile quotes from a few of them.

Evolution believers will be damned

Nothing comes from nothing

Teach ID at home

Shelve 'Pandas' under 'fiction' (which includes the line: "Another idea I have is since the books were bought with money from a church's collection plate, maybe that's how we can raise the money to pay the legal bill for the case?")

Doverites did elect them...
"Bonsell, Buckingham, et al, are part of a nationwide campaign by the so-called Christian right to, by deception, guile and, as is clear from the trial and decision, lies, force its narrow, exclusive and often bigoted brand of theo-politics into virtually every facet of American society with no regard for the Constitution, or anything else. The good people of Dover got sucked right into it. Fortunately, they got it mostly right in the last election. One more to go.

Creationism is truth
"God's people need to settle this issue. You may call creationism "religion," you may call it "science," but if you are truly a blood-bought child of God, you need to call it "truth.""

There's only one real judge
"Well, I guess that settles it. A judge in Harrisburg has determined that intelligent design is "not science." Oh well, throw away the Bibles, close the churches. Man has determined that he is his own god, accountable to no one."

Evolution is a fact
Dec 30, 2005 — Dale Knepper claims evolution is unproven (YDR, Dec. 22). He says they haven't found any new evidence for it in 30 years. Since he's wrong on both counts, I can't help but wonder what kind of "critical thinking" he's trying to promote.
Evolution's a fact, so obviously God created it. Blaming Charles Darwin is like shooting the messenger. Parts of Darwin's theory are debatable, it's true, and scientists debate them. But Darwin's basic premise - that everything, including us, evolved - has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

In other words, folks, get over it.

Man designs "from the top down," but God's a lot smarter than us. In God's universe "the first shall be last, and the last first," so he started with a single cell that, like Topsy, "just grew."

But it grew with a purpose. It grew for God's reasons, not ours. Genesis isn't science; we weren't ready for science back then. Most of us aren't ready for it now, and that's OK. Nowhere does the Bible say we have to know how we got here.

But it does tell us how we're to treat each other. And bad-mouthing those who try to understand God's methods isn't very Christian. Christ, in the Beatitudes, didn't bless "those who beat dead horses."

Whether we descended from apes or from dust, God gave us work to do. And arguing who our ancestors were or weren't won't help us to get it done.

JEFFREY A. BROWN
DOVER TOWNSHIP

Get rid of both theories

Another suit suggested
"Thomas More Law Center solicited the former board to become their clients, then persuaded them to continue in a series of actions that now will cost Dover taxpayers over a million dollars. I suggest that the current board institute civil action against the Thomas More Law Center for legal malpractice, to recoup not only the costs involved in Kitzmiller v. Dover but also punitive damages for the ridicule and abuse our school district has been subjected to."

Let board members pay

Evolution, Torah consistent

Pope supports intelligent design
" When father monkey told his son when handing him a copy of Darwin's theory, "Read this, it will make a man out of you," should have been the Holy Bible."Definitely worth a read.

Intermediate species missing
" Little wonder that the evolutionists get angry when challenged, but name-calling is not an argument. If they can produce evidence of intermediate species, let them do it. They haven't yet. And that's what you should be asking for, instead of accepting everything they tell you like a yokel with a string attached to your hat."

Judge a disgrace to legal system
" It is not promoting religion; it is just teaching the history that our country was founded upon. Judge John E. Jones III is a disgrace to the American judicial system, and I would like him to resign immediately before he is allowed to make another unintelligent decision."

Let kids think for themselves
" Now we have a judge who has protected a "theory" from any other theories just like Hitler protected his followers by burning books that disagreed with his philosophy." It's just not an argument until you compare your opponent to Hitler (Stalin will do in a pinch).

No ID in socialstudies classes

Parents lead in religious teaching
Dec 25, 2005 — I am writing this with Mr. Alan Bonsell and others in mind. He appears to me to be a good-looking, upstanding citizen who wants the best for students in the schools.
The challenge he and others still face is how to preserve for these students a faith in almighty God.

I have an idea, and I hope he will humbly consider it, for "What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8.

Since the government (our schools) is prohibited from promoting a religion, we must look to some part of our society to come to the rescue. Churches come to mind as institutions that are available. Sunday schools seem to exist for that purpose. Christian clubs that meet after school or at night, etc., are available in some communities.

But none of these can be as effective as parents. Parents are continually teaching their children something about faith, about reverence, about respect, and about love for God whether these parents know it or not, whether they like it or not, and for better or worse. They cannot escape this fact. Parents who never pray, parents who never or rarely go to church (or synagogue) are teaching their children a lesson far more powerful than any instruction that might be provided by the schools. And the reverse is true. What parents can do is to sit with their children in church as soon as these children begin to read. They can model an attitude of respect and reverence. They can insist their children stay put and follow (participate in) the worship.

So I say to Mr. Bonsell, please do not worry over what may seem a dead end. Change direction and look to the word of God. There are many answers there.

J. EDWARD MUHLBACH
SHREWSBURY TOWNSHIP

Left-wing court muzzles truth

ID battle a big waste of time

What happened to free speech?

Board members should pay fees

Dover Area School Board rescinds intelligent design policy

2006-01-03T22:02:00.000-08:00

This was expected given the results of last November's elections, but it's still nice to hear.

From this story

"The Dover school board on Tuesday rescinded its policy of presenting "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution in high school biology classes, two weeks after a federal judge found the concept was religious and not scientific."

Not to mention the fact that the previous school board was generally less than honest.

FYI. I found out about this from Fark. That site picks up on breaking news REALLY quick.

UPDATE
This story is also covered in the York Daily Record, which provides a lot more detail than the blurb from Fox News. The story is also covered at Pharyngula, and PZ Myers also links to a letter to the editor in the York Daily Record titled "Evolution believers will be damned."

Recognizing earthquakes in the geologic record

2006-01-03T17:59:00.000-08:00

People are generally familiar with the relationship between earthquakes and faults – motion along a fault (like the San Andreas) causes an earthquake. However, motion along faults can occur without causing earthquakes (at least without causing large ones). Parts of the San Andreas, Hayward, and Calaveras faults in California all creep. They move slowly and steadily (perhaps through very small earthquakes) instead of moving through a series of jerks, thereby causing large earthquakes (like the 1906 Great San Francisco quake,the 1989 Loma Prieta quake, or the 1857 Fort Tejon event). So, not all faults cause earthquakes.

Ancient, inactive faults are very common, and a lot of geologists (like me, for example) study them since modern active faults can be hard to study. Large earthquakes generally occur at least 10 km below the earth's surface, and are therefore inaccessible (although the San Andreas Fault Observatory at Depth is an example of a project to drill through an active fault). These ancient faults are found in areas where rocks that were originally very deeply buried have been brought to the surface; for example in mountain ranges. So, these exhumed, ancient fault zones are great analogs for modern, active fault zones. If we want to understand the behavior of modern earthquake-generating (seismic) faults, we need to know which of these exhumed faults was seismic. In other words, we need a way to tell which of these faults were seismic, and which were creeping, and that's pretty tricky to do. The only generally agreed upon indicator of seismic motion along a fault is something called pseudotachylyte. Pseudotachylytes are glasses – they're formed when a fault slips fast enough that it generates enough heat to melt a part of the rocks adjacent to the fault. Therefore only seismogenic faults cause pseudotachylytes; creeping faults don't. The problem is that pseudotachylytes are very rare. Since they're so rare, papers describing them generate a fair bit of interest. In a recent paper in the journal Geology a team of geologists describe an unusually thick zone of pseudotachylytes along an exhumed subduction zone in Alaska. Subduction zone earthquakes are an area of intense research, because most of the world's largest earthquakes occur there. The tsunami-generating 2004 Sumatra-Andaman Islands earthquake occurred in a subduction zone, as did the 1964 Alaska earthquake. The pseudotachylyte described in the Geology paper may be a "fossil" of a great subduction zone earthquake. If this is true, this is as close as we can get to a great earthquake-generating fault without drilling through an active one, which is technologically and financially infeasible.

Committee to get religion into the science classroom

2006-01-03T11:16:00.000-08:00

I love the inset at the bottom of the comic.

Hat tip to The Austringer

More on the religious beliefs of Dover Plantiffs

2006-01-03T11:06:00.000-08:00

I just read this post at the Questionable Authority. It includes a really nice section about the religious beliefs of some of the plantiffs and anti-ID school board members involved in the Dover trial, and how they were harassed. For example:

"Now people stare. They know you're a Plaintiff or they know in this particular case that I'm a candidate opposing the school board, and you can't sit there and not worry about who's looking at you or what's going to happen, you know. You'll go out and regularly be called inappropriate things centering around the concept of atheist.

They don't know me. They don't know that I'm the co-director of the children's choir at church or that I run the music halfway at the second service, or that, you know, my wife and I run Vacation Bible School. Yet they have no problem going around calling me an atheist because my particular religious viewpoint doesn't agree with that of the school board, which is a public entity not a religious one."

The whole article's definitely worth reading.

Reactions to the Dover decision

2006-01-03T08:39:00.000-08:00

I've been sick that last couple of days, and while I've been laying on the couch drinking Theraflu I've been making the rounds on the web looking for reactions to the Dover decision. I came across an article written by Phyllis Schlafly, the president and founder of the Eagle Forum. In this column from Townhall.com titled "False judge makes mockery of case for 'intelligent design'" she gives her point of view about Judge Jones. Her article is discussed at Red State Rabble (posted on January 3rd) and at Evolutionblog. Both are worth reading.

Schlafly begins her article like this:

"Judge John E. Jones III could still be chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

As Red State Rabble points out, it's darkly amusing that Schlafly is complaining about activist judges (i.e., judges that render decisions based on their personal feelings rather than based on legal precedents), when she wanted Jones to behave in exactly that way - she wanted him to rule based on some perceived loyalty instead of the law. I'm not the first to write it, but comments like that make me think that people like Schlafly classify judges as "activist judges" not when they "legislate from the bench", but when those judges render a decision that they don't like.

I also don't like Schlafly's insinuation that Jones betrayed evangelical Christians by ruling against intelligent design. This mentality has been around for a long time - it's standard creationist fare: people who call themselves Christians, but who don't consider creationism/intelligent design valid aren't really Christians.

"Contrary to most media coverage, the Dover case was not about whether Darwin's theory of evolution, as set forth in "The Origin of the Species," or the theory of "intelligent design" is correct or should be taught. The Dover school board did not propose to say intelligent design is scientific or valid, or even to decrease its teaching of evolution."

If this is the case I wonder why the defendants had people like Michael Behe and Scott Minnich testify? If the Dover area school board didn't think ID was "scientific or valid" then why were they referring students to it? I suppose Schlafly is right that at least some board members who endorsed ID "did not propose to say intelligent design is scientific or valid", but that's because they didn't even know what ID was.

From pages 121-122 of Jones' ruling:

“In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly
no grasp of ID. To illustrate, consider that Geesey testified she did not understand the substance of the curriculum change, yet she voted for it. Moreover, as she indicated on multiple occasions, in voting for the curriculum change, Geesy deferred completely to Bonsell and Buckingham. Second, Buckingham, Chair of the Curriculum Committee at the time, admitted
that he had no basis to know whether ID amounted to good science as of the time of his first deposition, which was two and a half months after the ID Policy was approved, yet he voted for the curriculum change.
Third, Cleaver voted for the curriculum change despite the teachers’ objections, based upon assurances from Bonsell. Cleaver admittedly knew nothing about ID, including the words comprising the phrase, as she consistently referred to ID as “intelligence design” throughout her testimony. In addition, Cleaver was bereft of any understanding of Pandas except that Spahr had said it was not a good science book which should not be used in high school. In addition, Superintendent Nilsen’s entire understanding of ID was that “evolution has a design.””
(references removed)

Schlafly continues:

"Jones said that ninth-graders were referred to (although not assigned) a book called "Of Pandas and People" by Percival Davis and Dean H. Kenyon ($24.95; 1993) published by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, "a religious, Christian organization." Using guilt-by-association reasoning, he implied that books published by religious groups, or by people motivated by religious convictions, can and should be banned from public school."

The "guilt-by-association reasoning" claim is flatly false. From page 32 of Jones' ruling:

“As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation
(creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and
cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas.”

Schlafly continues:

"He lashed out at witnesses who expressed religious views different from his own, displaying a prejudice unworthy of our judiciary. He denigrated several officials because they "staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public.""

I commented on Schlafly use of tried and true creationist techniques above. This is another example; the out of context quote. Here's the paragraph from Jones' ruling that contains Schlafly's quote:

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

It's obvious Jones wasn't denigrating the board members because of their religious views. The board members were motivated to include ID by their religious beliefs (this is clear from the trial testimony)- they're also members of a religion (Christianity) that frowns on lying, and yet time and again board members (particularly Bonsell and Buckingham) lied. Under oath.

"The atheist evolutionists would not have made such a big case out of the four innocuous paragraphs ordered by the Dover school board unless they were pursuing an ideological cause. They converted the trial into a grand inquisition of religious beliefs instead of addressing science or the statement to be read to students."

This is just nonsense.

From page 89 of Jones' ruling:

“Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true “scientific” alternative to
evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable
conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.”

Schlafly's insinuation that it was only "atheist evolutionists" who opposed the school board is just flat wrong. This is another classic creationist trick - the appeal to emotion. Schlafly's trying to get her readers fired up against those darn "atheist evolutionists" who are out to get religion. The only people who were motivated by religion were the pro-ID school board members, and they behaved in an absolutely despicable manner (including toward other Christians).

From pages 124-125:

“The following excerpt from Casey Brown’s poignant resignation speech speaks volumes about what had occurred within the Board by that time:
There has been a slow but steady marginalization of
some board members. Our opinions are no longer valued
or listened to. Our contributions have been minimized or
not acknowledged at all. A measure of that is the fact
that I myself have been twice asked within the past year
if I was ‘born again.’ No one has, nor should have the
right, to ask that of a fellow board member. An
individual’s religious beliefs should have no impact on
his or her ability to serve as a school board director, nor
should a person’s beliefs be used as a yardstick to
measure the value of that service.
However, it has become increasingly evident that it is the
direction the board has now chosen to go, holding a
certain religious belief is of paramount importance.”

Additionally, at the following meeting, Board member Wenrich, who opposed the expedited vote on October 18, 2004 and engaged in parliamentary measures to have the vote delayed until the community could properly debate the issue while considering the science teachers’ position, resigned and stated the following:

I was referred to as unpatriotic, and my religious beliefs
were questioned. I served in the U.S. Army for 11 years
and six years on the board. Seventeen years of my life
have been devoted to public service, and my religion is
personal. It’s between me, God, and my pastor.”

From pages 129-130:

“Moreover, Board members and teachers opposing the curriculum change and its implementation have been confronted directly. First, Casey Brown testified that following her opposition to the curriculum change on October 18, 2004,
Buckingham called her an atheist and Bonsell told her that she would go to hell. Second, Angie Yingling was coerced into voting for the curriculum change by Board members accusing her of being an atheist and un- Christian. In addition, both Bryan Rehm and Fred Callahan have been confronted in similarly hostile ways, as have teachers in the DASD."(references removed)

The religious beliefs of those opposed to ID shouldn't matter, but it is worth noting that it's not just atheists. The religious beliefs of those in favor of ID shouldn't matter either, unless they try to force those views on others, which is unequivocally what the Dover Area school board did. The behavior of the pro-ID school board members was disgraceful from start to finish, and I think this was clear to Dover voters too - all of the pro-ID members were voted out of office.

Editorials on Intelligent Design in Utah

2005-12-29T16:35:00.000-08:00

I spent the Christmas Holiday with my folks in Utah. While I was there I made a habit of checking the editorial section (my favorite) of local papers for articles on intelligent design. The results are below. I've limited them to articles that came out post-Kitzmiller. I haven't posted any of my comments on the articles. I'm trying to put together something similar for other Western states, but I have to say that outside of Utah I'm pretty unimpressed with the online versions of local papers (outside of California - the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Jose Mercury News do a pretty good job).

Pro-Intelligent Design

A mature world
Salt Lake Tribune, Letter to the editor, 12/26/2005

Schools are not Congress
Salt Lake Tribune, Letter to the editor, 12/26/2005

Darwinian Luddites
Salt Lake Tribune, Letter to the editor, 12/25/2005

Evidences of intelligent design all around us
Standard Examiner, letter to the editor, 12/25/2005

Hard to believe Earth came about by chance
Standard Examiner, letter to the editor, 12/22/2005

Evolution arguments filled with inaccuracies
Standard Examiner, Letter to the editor, 12/21/2005

Designed rocks
Salt Lake Tribune, Letter to the editor, 12/20/2005

Anti-Intelligent Design

Just teasing
Salt Lake Tribune, Letter to the editor, 12/27/2005

Intelligent design is about God and religion
Standard Examiner, Letter to the editor, 12/26/2005

Thomas: Court's decision is a wake-up call for parents of faith
Salt Lake Tribune, Editorial, 12/25/2005

Faith and schools don't mix
Deseret News, Letter to the editor, 12/24/2005

Don't expect Intelligent Design advocates to stop trying to dish out their phony baloney
Salt Lake Tribune, Editorial, 12/23/2005

Madison had no kind words for Christianity
Standard Examiner, Letter to the editor, 12/23/2005

An intelligent ruling
Standard Examiner, editorial, 12/22/2005

Intelligent design is religion, not science
Standard Examiner, letter to the editor, 12/22/2005

Intelligent Design: Anti-evolution movement is plainly religious in purpose
Salt Lake Tribune Editorial, 12/21/2005

Cognition increases with brain complexity
Standard Examiner, Letter to the editor, 12/21/2005

Buttars’ New Evolution Bill

2005-12-24T08:36:00.000-08:00

After reading stories on the bill in the Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, it seems to me that Buttars is trying to take something like a “teach the controversy” approach when teaching evolution.

Buttars is quoted in the Deseret News:

"It doesn't hinder them about talking about evolution at all," Buttars said. "They can talk about evolution from the Big Bang or life crawled out of the slime somewhere. But what they can't do is . . . tell students, 'This is how it happened, how you became man, you evolved from an ape.' That is all I asked the State Board of Education to do in the first place, and they thumbed their noses at me.
"You don't know how life began; nobody does in the scientific community," Buttars said. "Therefore, you can only teach these things as theories. It's a small step, but it's a big step, and I can pass this bill."

“The proposed bill begins with a statement:
"In order to encourage students to critically analyze theories regarding the origins of life or the origins or present state of the human race, consider opposing viewpoints, and to form their own opinions, the Legislature desires to avoid the perception that all scientists agree on any one theory or that the state endorses one theory over another."”

Also from that story:
“When asked if it opens the door to intelligent design discussion, Buttars said: ‘I'm staying right out of that.
"This does not talk about intelligent design, this does not talk about faith-based theories," Buttars said. If teachers do talk about it, "they're on their own risk, aren't they," he said. "I'm talking about the scientific community and two things they do not know regarding evolution.’”

State officials responded:
“"It is a bill trying to force intelligent design on the school districts through the State Board of Education, when the state board has voted unanimously against imposing it as a scientific theory. I think he believes that by not saying (in the bill) science classes and not saying intelligent design that it's somehow constitutional," said Carol Lear, director of school law and legislation for the State Office of Education. "My (bottom line) is, the state board still has constitutional issues."”

And:

“But the proposal concerns state curriculum director Brett Moulding.
"The bill avoids talking about specifically the theory of evolution or intelligent design, but it's clear it's asking for other theories to be discussed, and there are many, many theories about the origin of life that have no scientific basis," he said.
While the bill is silent on intelligent design, Lear notes Buttars has discussed that concept at length, and she said the courts have considered discussion leading up to bills in determining a law's constitutional muster.
"I don't want to put words in his mouth. I'm just saying his comments before certainly factor into this discussion and the constitutionality of this bill. And he hasn't been subtle . . . in his desire to promote, and he has called it, intelligent design," Lear said. "He believes in it. This is just sanitized language."”

From an article in the Salt Lake Tribune:

“ Lear warns that while the bill doesn't directly mandate the teaching of intelligent design, Buttars' past statements could be used against
him if the bill became law and were challenged in court.
"He has been very clear he likes creationism theories and intelligent design theories. Just because now this bill is sanitized doesn't take it out of the arena of constitutional challenges,"”

Buttars is trying to make his bill survive by making it very vague. If he wants teachers to tell students that “scientists” don’t agree on “any one theory” he’s going to have to specify what those other “theories” are. That will lead to intelligent design/creationism, which will make it clear the bill is in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. I really hope someone asks him what other theories he has in mind. I think it’s very clear from his past statements that he’s pushing intelligent design.

Just as in Dover case, Buttars past statements and pieces of legislation can be used as evidence of his intentions regarding this bill. If he denies his religious motivation, I think it’ll be straight forward to show he’s wrong (it’s really hard to come up with any other meaning of “divine design”).

I’m also frustrated that Buttars is misusing “theory” (confusing the scientific and vernacular usage), and is equating the origin of life with evolution. All in all he hasn’t come up with a very strong bill. All of the angles he's taking (disclaimers, teach the controversy, etc.), have already failed.

Evolution in Utah (post 2 of 2)

2005-12-21T13:01:00.000-08:00

Evolution in Utah part 2 of 2

People like Utah state senator Chris Buttars may get a fair bit of attention when they talk about plans to introduce legislation to downplay evolution (deservedly so, I do think this is a very newsworthy topic). There are also people in Utah who oppose such attempts.

“ Scott Berryessa, president of the Jordan Education Association, representing about 2,100 teachers, says he more often gets complaints from students and families upset that divine design is mentioned in the classroom.”
(From this article in the Salt Lake Tribune that I referred to in part 1).

I’m very happy to hear that students and their families are complaining when “divine design” is mentioned in the classroom. At least it doesn’t belong in the science classroom, although I can certainly see a reasonable case for it to be included in some sort of social studies class.

Opposition to teaching intelligent design/creationism isn’t anti-religious. This quote from a story by KSL Local News very nicely illustrates that:

"Board member Bill Colbert said he personally believes in intelligent design, but thinks it should not be taught in schools.
‘I believe it needs to be taught in the home and perhaps, religious institutions," Colbert said. "It's a personal issue. Even if we try to teach it in a classroom, (I don't think teachers) can do justice to various beliefs that are out there in our communities.’”

I respect Colbert’s opinion. Intelligent design is an inherently religious proposition (detailed very nicely in Dover verdict), and so can’t be taught without violating the Establishment Clause – teaching intelligent design in public schools amounts to an endorsement of religion by the government. The fact that intelligent design is religious doesn’t mean that it’s invalid – noting that it’s unscientific isn’t the same as saying that it’s worthless (the judge in the Dover case was also careful to mention that he wasn’t ruling on the validity of intelligent design).

The Deseret Morning News also ran a very interesting story that included results from a poll about peoples’ thoughts about teaching intelligent design and evolution, and their religious impacts.

In that story a former science education specialist, and curriculum director for the Utah State Office of Education is reported as being able to “. . .count on his fingers the number of anti-evolution phone calls he's gotten in the past 10 years.” According to a poll of 624 Utahns conducted by a local paper and TV station 64% of Utahns want evolution taught in biology classes, while 70% want creationism taught as well. In addition 44% of Utahns think evolution is definitely or probably incompatible with a belief in God, while 47% think otherwise (and 9% are undecided). This article reports that teachers can, but don’t have to, talk about human evolution, and many choose to omit it to avoid creating controversy. The article quotes Duane Jeffery, a biology professor at BYU states “probably 90 percent of people who are LDS think the church is against evolution. But they don't get upset about it being taught in public schools.” He says the reason for this is that this is what students learn in LDS Seminary (a period of religious instruction that students in 9-12th grade can opt to take). I wrote yesterday about an LDS friend of mine who told me that seminary instructors were told not to take a position one way or another. Unfortunately at the moment that’s really just hearsay. From this article it sounds like some (many?) seminary instructors are going beyond that. Dr. Jeffery also wrote a book “Evolution and Mormonism”

From those poll results, the other stories I referred to, and my personal experiences I think there are:

1) People who view evolution as scientific and intelligent design as religious, and don’t want intelligent design taught as science (this category includes both religious and irreligious people).
2) People who view evolution as scientific and intelligent design as religious, but want intelligent design taught anyway.
3) People who view both evolution and intelligent design as scientific, and want intelligent design taught.
4) People who view both evolution and intelligent design as religious, and want intelligent design taught.

Overall, I’m fairly encouraged by those results. I’d say most of the 70% of respondents who want both creationism and evolution taught fit my category 3 or 4, while the 44% who think accepting evolution is incompatible with a belief in God fit category 2 or 4. As you can probably guess, I think the category 1 people have the right idea. I think there’s a fair bit of misunderstanding about the religious implications of evolution (i.e., evolution = atheism), and this is fueled by organizations like Focus on the Family (more on this later), and people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. The easiest way to refute that notion is to point to organizations like the American Scientific Affiliation (ASA), which doesn’t take an official stand on the issue, but whose membership includes a lot of Christians who accept evolution (more on this later too). I think it’s hard to claim that evolution is religious when adherents of many different religions, as well as agnostics and atheists accept evolution. I don’t see how someone could reasonably claim that there’s a Religion of Evolution in light of that observation. I think if more people were aware of this, some of the 70% who want creationism taught would change their mind.

Centennial of 1906 San Francisco Earthquake

2005-12-20T17:00:00.000-08:00

There is an increasing amount of activity in the Bay Area due to the approaching centennial of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. The Great San Francisco Earthquake occurred at 5:12 AM on April 18, 1906. On that day a 290 mile long section of the San Andreas fault moved (from Cape Mendocino in the north to San Juan Bautista in the south). The magnitude 7.7-7.9 quake and the following fire resulted in at least 700 deaths, and more likely 2000-3000. For comparison the well-known 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake had a rupture length of around 25 miles and a magnitude of 7.0. Earthquakes like the 1906 event happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. The plate motions that caused earthquakes in the past are still occurring. The Pacific plate is still moving north relative to the North American plate, and most of the motion is taken up by a fault that is a member of the San Andreas system. If an event like the 1906 earthquake were to occur today an estimated 155,000-160,000 households (not people) would be displaced, with the potential for great loss of life.

The 1906 Earthquake Centennial Alliance is a coalition of a huge number of universities, federal, state, and local governmental bodies, museums, parks, and businesses. This alliance hosts speakers, puts together museum displays, and so on. It’s well worth visiting their website if you live in an area that’s prone to earthquakes (or if you’re curious about places like that).

The San Andreas fault generally gets most of the attention, but there is the potential for large earthquakes on other faults in the Bay Area. There is a 62% probability of an M6.7+ in the Bay Areas in the next 30 years. The Hayward Fault has the highest probability of generating such an event (27% compared to 21% for the San Andreas). The last big earthquake along the Hayward fault was an M6.9 in 1868. The Association of Bay Area Governments offers a lot of resources about earthquakes in the Bay Area. You can look up maps of predicted ground shaking or liquefaction potential for your neighborhood for example. You can also learn what you can do to be prepared for an earthquake. Reading Putting Down Roots in Earthquake Country is also a great way to learn what you can do to protect yourself.

Decision in Kitzmiller vs. Dover School Board

2005-12-20T08:09:00.000-08:00

I've spent a few hours today going over Judge Jones' opinion. I've copied quite a lot of it (18 pages in Word so far). I'll post some of those quotes, along with my comments at some point. The verdict can be downloaded here).

The decision could not have been better for the Plaintiffs.

Here are the conclusions:

“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or
disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to
liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.“