Reason Magazine - Topics > Evolution

Other Science Facts

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:07:00 EDT

The BBC reports:

Ancient humans started down the path of evolving into two separate species before merging back into a single population, a genetic study suggests.

The genetic split in Africa resulted in distinct populations that lived in isolation for as much as 100,000 years, the scientists say.

That's one possibility, anyway; the reporter adds that "other scenarios could also account for the data." The paper, published in the American Journal of Human Genetics, is available here.

[Via The Art of the Possible.]

Flunk This Movie!

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:00:00 EDT

"This is not a religious argument," asserts Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman in conservative Hollywood gadfly Ben Stein's new anti-science propaganda film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The movie opens this Friday in 1,100 theaters, the largest theatrical release ever for a documentary, according to Expelled's producers.

The movie's basic point? To quote a transcript from a Rush Limbaugh show posted to the movie's offical website: "Darwinism has taken root, taken hold at every major intellectual institution around the world in Western Society, from Great Britain to the United States, you name it. Darwinism, of course, does not permit for the existence of a supreme being, a higher power, or a God."

Yet despite its topic, the film is entirely free of scientific content—no scientific evidence against biological evolution and none for "intelligent design" (ID) theory is given. Which makes sense because biological evolution is amply supported by evidence from the fossil record, molecular biology, and morphology. For example, the younger the rocks in which fossils are found, the more closely they resemble species alive today, and the older the rocks, the less resemblance there is. In addition, molecular biology confirms that the more distantly related the fossil record suggests species lineages are, the more their genes differ.

Instead of evaluating this evidence, Stein spends most of the movie asking various proponents of evolutionary theory, including Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Michael Ruse, and Daniel Dennett, for their religious views. Neither the producers nor Stein understand that offering critiques of a theory with which they disagree is not the same as proving their own theory.

Stein and the film's producers maintain that belief in evolutionary biology makes societies more likely to succumb to totalitarianism. The flick is replete with grim black-and-white shots of Soviet armies, Nazi thugs, Stalin, Hitler, and concentration camps. The filmmakers portray opposition to teaching ID in universities and public schools as a threat to freedom on a par with Communist and Nazi repression. But ID proponents in the academy are not being dragged off to concentration camps by goose-stepping Darwinist thugs—the worst thing they suffer is the loss of their jobs. That's not fun, but it's not the gas chamber either.

This silly, duplicitous film features one associate after another of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based "think tank" that has been at the forefront of campaign to smuggle intelligent design into science classrooms and public discourse. This campaign was outlined in the Discovery Institute's infamous "Wedge Strategy" document in 1998. That document begins with the sentence, "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built." The Wedge document goes on to complain: "Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science."

The Wedge document makes it crystal clear what comes first for intelligent designers, and it isn't evidence. Under activities to popularize intelligent design, the Wedge document mentions "documentaries and other media productions." Expelled is just part of that propaganda strategy.

The film is being bankrolled by Walt Ruloff, a Christian evangelical software millionaire. A resident of Vancouver, British Columbia, Ruloff hooked up with another Expelled producer, Logan Craft, when Craft was studying with evangelical theologian J.I. Packer at Regent College in Vancouver. Ruloff claims that he was shocked when one of the leading genomic researchers in the U.S. told him that as much 30 percent of research in his field is never published because it points toward intelligent design theory. Just how this much research is hidden from view goes unexplained.

The film begins with moody shots of Ben Stein backstage before he addresses an unidentified audience on the alleged suppression of scientific research in the name of Darwinian orthodoxy. Stein stalks onstage and declares that freedom is the essence of America. So far, so good. Then he muses, What if our freedom was taken away? In fact, Stein asserts that this is already happening. We are losing our freedom in one of the most important sectors of our society—science.

As evidence of this loss of freedom, Stein trots out a small parade of intelligent design martyrs. Let's look at a few cases. In 2004, Richard Sternberg, who was editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, published an article by Stephen Meyer arguing that the "Cambrian explosion" 570 to 530 million years ago in which most of the body types of animals developed was evidence for intelligent design. Meyer was then a professor at Palm Beach Atlantic University where all "trustees, officers, members of the faculty or of the staff, must believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments; that man was directly created by God."

Sternberg was serving on the editorial board of the Baraminology Study Group, a group of young-earth creationists. Baraminology is the study of biblical animal "kinds." Sternberg argued that he was a friendly outsider advising them against their young-earth views. Meyer is now the head of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture and Sternberg is a signatory of the Discovery Institute's A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

Many of Sternberg's colleagues reacted with dismay and the journal retracted Meyer's article. In the film, Sternberg says he lost his office at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History, was pressured to resign, and had his religious and political beliefs questioned. Yet, he still has office space in the Museum and has been reappointed for three more years. To be sure, probably some of his colleagues are unhappy with him and don't want to hang out with him anymore. This is far cry from the concentration camps, or what Stalin did to proponents of evolutionary biology in the name of Lysenkoism.

In another case of alleged persecution, George Mason University (GMU) did not renew a teaching contract with Caroline Crocker, an adjunct biology lecturer who believes in ID. She says that she only wanted to teach students to question scientific orthodoxies. "I was only trying to teach what the university stands for—academic freedom," she says in the Stein's film. Since GMU let her go, she says that she can no longer find work. In the film, Crocker insists, "I did not teach creationism." Interestingly, Crocker apparently delivered the same offending lecture at a local community college later. It didn't turn out to be a "balanced" presentation of evidence for and against biological evolution. Why not? "There really is not a lot of evidence for evolution," Crocker said.

Assistant professor of astronomy and ID proponent Guillermo Gonzalez was denied tenure at Iowa State University in 2007. In 2004, Gonzalez was coauthor, with theologian and Discovery Institute fellow Jay Richards, of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery. The publisher's press release claims that the authors "demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth—and the universe itself—were designed both for life and for scientific discovery." Gonzalez is arguing that the Earth is precisely positioned to enable researchers like him to make scientific measurements. But is this so? An Iowa State colleague, associate professor of religious studies Hector Avalos, disagrees and neatly skewers this conceit. To wit:

This rationale is analogous to a plumber arguing that if our planet had not been positioned precisely where it is, then he might not be able to do his work as a plumber. Lead pipes might melt if the Sun were much closer. And, if our planet were any farther from the Sun, it might be so frozen that plumbers might not exist at all. Therefore, plumbing must have been the reason that our planet was located where it is.

Did Gonzalez fail to get tenure because of his ID views? Although the university denies it, my guess is probably yes. Why? On the evidence of The Privileged Planet, Guillermo's colleagues could reasonably worry that his ID views weren't likely to lead to fruitful research results. Gonzalez was not thrown into a concentration camp for his views. He just didn't get tenure.

The most egregious part of the film is the attempt to link evolutionary biology with Communism and Nazism. The claim that Communism was motivated by Darwin is just plain silly. Official Soviet biological doctrine was Lysenkoism, which was opposed to the findings of the modern synthesis of genetics and evolutionary biology. In fact, evolutionary biologists and geneticists were denounced as "Trotskyite agents of international fascism" and actually thrown into the Gulag for their scientific sins.

As for Nazism, the film interviews mathematician and Discovery Institute fellow David Berlinski who says, "Darwinism is not a sufficient condition for a phenomenon like Nazism, but I think it was a necessary one." To visually illustrate the alleged totalitarian temptations of evolutionary biology, Stein wanders through the Nazi death camp at Dachau. Berlinski and other Discovery Institute denizens are basically claiming that scientific materialism undermines the notion that human beings occupy a special place in the universe. If humans aren't special, goes this line of thinking, then morals don't apply. This is a variation of the adage, "If god is dead, then everything is permitted."

Of course, this overlooks the fact that people down through the millennia have found all sorts of justifications for why they are permitted to murder each other, including plunder, tribal competition, and, yes, religion. Meanwhile, insights from evolutionary psychology are helping us to better understand how our in-group/out-group dynamics contribute to our disturbing capacity for racism, xenophobia, genocide, and warfare. Evolutionary psychology is also offering new ideas about how human morality developed, including our capacities for cooperation, love, and tolerance.

Near the end of the film, Stein asks Dawkins, author of The God Delusion and arguably the best-known living evolutionary biologist on the planet, if he could think of any circumstances under which intelligent design might have occurred. Incautiously, Dawkins brings up the idea that aliens might have seeded life on earth; so-called directed panspermia. This idea was suggested by biologists Francis Crick and Leslie Orgel back in the 1970s. In the film, Stein acts like this a great "gotcha" and is the silliest thing he's ever heard. Of course, the irony is that this is precisely what proponents of intelligent design are claiming—that a higher intelligence created life on earth. Only, they don't want that higher intelligence to be a race of purple space squids. (By the way, Dawkins says that he is not a proponent of directed panspermia.)

The film's close returns to Stein's speech in which he declares, "There are people out there who want to keep science in a little box where it can't possibly touch a higher power." Earlier in the film, Warwick University "science studies" sociologist Steve Fuller archly poses the question: Which comes first, worldview or evidence? Fuller aims his question at the proponents of evolutionary biology. However, as this dreary film itself makes it painfully clear, the question is far more relevant to the supporters of intelligent design theory.

If ID is all worldview and no evidence, here's something else to ponder. At an April 15 press conference for bloggers held at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., the movie's producers said that they plan to use the movie as part of a campaign to roll out legislation in states—so-called "freedom bills"—that would forbid anyone from "punishing" teachers and professors who question "Darwinism." Walt Ruloff noted that the science standards of about 26 states are currently in play and that Florida was likely to pass such a "freedom bill."

Asked if the movie's makers expected any friendly interest from scientific journals, Ruloff noted that Scientific American had savaged Expelled, adding, "I would expect that any other 'science rag' would do exactly the same thing."

"What's happening here is politics," lamented the film's star, Ben Stein, at Heritage. "Politics in the halls of science and that needs to be stopped."

I couldn't agree more.

Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His most recent book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, is available from Prometheus Books.

To Suggest That We Can Learn Anything About the Simian Nature from a Study of Man is Sheer Nonsense

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 10:15:00 EST

ScienceDaily summarizes a paper from PNAS:

Socially-learned cultural behaviour thought to be unique to humans is also found among chimpanzees colonies, scientists at the University of Liverpool have found.

Historically, scientists believed that behavioural differences between colonies of chimpanzees were due to variations in genetics. A team at Liverpool, however, has now discovered that variations in behaviour are down to chimpanzees migrating to other colonies, proving that they build their 'cultures' in a similar way to humans.

The paper itself is available only to PNAS subscribers, but the abstract is open to all.

Evolutionary Politics

rbailey@reason.com (Ronald Bailey) — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 12:22:00 EST

Biological evolution became a hot topic in the presidential campaign last May when Republican presidential hopefuls were asked during a debate if "there was anybody on the stage that does not agree, believe in evolution?" Three held up their hands, Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.) and former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.). Evolution deniers Brownback and Tancredo have now dropped out of the race. So what do all the remaining candidates—Republican and Democratic—think about biological evolution? And does it matter?

REPUBLICANS

In December 2007, former Gov. Huckabee, who was once a Baptist minister, declared at an Iowa press conference, "I believe God created the heavens and the Earth." He noted, "I wasn't there when he did it, so how he did it, I don't know." Besides, he added, "What I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states." (Huckabee has been endorsed by action movie star Chuck Norris, prompting a mildly amusing quip: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.")

What about Sen. John McCain (Ariz.)? McCain answered that he did believe in evolution during the May 2007 debate. He added, "But I also believe, when I hike the Grand Canyon and see it at sunset, that the hand of God is there also." It turns out that McCain's views have, well, evolved over time. Back in 2005, McCain thought that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes because "all points of view should be presented." By the next year, McCain said that he respected those who believed that world was created in seven days. However, he asked, "Should it be taught in a science class? Probably not."

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.) has said, "I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe. And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body." Romney also stated, "In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution." He added, "If we're going to talk about more philosophical matters, like why [the world] was created, and was there an intelligent designer behind it, that's for the religion class or philosophy class or social studies class."

Search as I might I could find no specific reported comments by Rudy Giuliani about evolutionary biology. He appears to be skittish about addressing science policy issues. But to his credit Giuliani did not hold up his hand during the May debate to declare disbelief in biological evolution. When journal Science looked at the science policy positions of various candidates in its January 4, 2008 issue, it reported that Giuliani's campaign had "successfully discouraged key advisors from speaking to Science about specific issues." However, during the November CNN/YouTube debate, when a questioner holding a King James Bible asked all of the candidates, "Do you believe every word of this book?," Giuliani replied, "The reality is, I believe it, but I don't believe it's necessarily literally true in every single respect." It should be noted that Romney also said that the Bible was subject to interpretation and even Huckabee acknowledged that some portions were allegorical.

During the Values Voter Debate in September, Tom DeRosa, president of the hardcore anti-evolution Creation Studies Institute asked the candidates: "Will your office support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.), Rep. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), and Huckabee all answered yes. A reasonable interpretation is that they favored allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. The debate was not attended by McCain, Romney, Giuliani or Thompson.

In a South Carolina forum, Paul was asked about his views on evolution, to which he replied, "I think it's a theory, the theory of evolution and I don't accept it as a theory." He also said that he thought it was an inappropriate question to be asking presidential candidates.

As far as I can tell former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.) has not told the world his views on evolutionary biology. However, campaign spokeswoman, Karen Hanretty was asked in a radio interview if Thompson "thinks intelligent design is a credible curriculum?" Hanretty responded, "I think that what he is most concerned about is that families, parents who sit on local school boards, local elected school boards ought to be making those decisions for themselves."

DEMOCRATS

On CNN back in May 2007, Democratic operative James Carville claimed, "Every Democratic candidate believes in evolution." And that appears to be so, although Democratic candidates seem to be asked about their views of evolutionary biology far less than do Republicans.

For instance, in October The New York Times quoted Sen. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.) as declaring, ''I believe in evolution, and I am shocked at some of the things that people in public life have been saying." She added, "I believe that our founders had faith in reason and they also had faith in God, and one of our gifts from God is the ability to reason."

During a debate sponsored by the progressive Christian group Sojourners in June, 2007, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was asked, "Do you believe in evolution or do you believe in creationism?" Edwards replied, "I believe in evolution." He was then asked if he thought that the people who believed the world was created in six days were wrong. Edwards said that he had been brought up a Southern Baptist (he is now a United Methodist), and explained, "I think it's perfectly possible to make our faith, my faith belief system consistent with a recognition that there is real science out there and scientific evidence of evolution."

An extensive search could find no explicit statement on evolution from Democratic frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.). In June 2006, Obama gave a keynote talk at a Sojourners conference in which he noted, "Substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution." Obama declared in that speech that the single biggest political gap in America was "between those who attend church regularly and those who don't." He then excoriated "conservative leaders" for exploiting this gap by suggesting that "religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design." At the very least, this implies that Obama believes intelligent design is unnecessarily divisive.

The LiveScience website reported on January 3, 2008 that it had asked various candidates if they thought creationism should be taught in public schools. Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.) tersely responded, "No."

I could find no explicit comment by Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) about creationism and evolutionary biology. I was reassured, however, by his 2004 statement reported by the Jewish Review that, "it is important to remember that our Constitution protects all of us to worship as we choose in the faith of our choice. Our founding fathers recognized that for us to enjoy religious freedom, there must be a complete separation of church and state." On the other hand, I am somewhat less reassured by his apparent belief in UFOs.

My favorite response from any candidate about the evolution/creationism debate was from former Sen. Mike Gravel (Alaska). When LiveScience asked the senator if he thought creationism should be taught in public schools, Gravel replied, ""Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial....My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they've got a mental problem. We can't afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I'm concerned."

All of the candidates say they believe in God. So even those candidates who accept biological evolution as the scientifically valid way to describe how living things came to be are theistic evolutionists. They believe that God has somehow guided the process of evolution to create us (perhaps by intervening undetectably at the quantum level). It looks as though all of the Democratic presidential candidates are theistic evolutionists. Among the Republicans McCain, Giuliani, and Romney also appear to be theistic evolutionists. Both Huckabee and Paul say that they don't know how God created the world, but they both say that they don't accept biological evolution as the explanation. They, along with Hunter and Thompson, apparently would allow creationism/intelligent design to be taught in public school science classes.

IT MATTERS WHAT CANDIDATES THINK

Does it matter what presidential candidates believe about biological evolution? After all, they are running for commander-in-chief, not scientist-in-chief. For example, why not practice educational federalism as many Republican candidates suggest and let local school boards and individual states decide what should be taught in science classes? This may seem like an initially appealing option until one considers that schooling is mandatory.

The problem is that creationism and its latest intellectual spawn, intelligent design, are clearly religious teachings. So a local school board or state would be imposing religious teachings on all students if they required the teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools. The U.S. Supreme court acknowledged this fact in 1987 when it ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard against a Louisiana law that required the teaching of creationism whenever evolutionary biology was taught. The Court struck down the Louisiana law because it "impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind." In 2005, a federal district court found in Kitzmiller v. Dover that the goal of the local school board's mandate that schools teach intelligent design "was to promote religion in the public school classroom."

Americans simply would not tolerate it if public schools were required to teach their kids religious doctrines with which they disagreed. One way out of this morass would be a thoroughgoing privatization of elementary and secondary education. But until that glad day dawns, it is not acceptable for presidential candidates to argue that teaching religion in the guise of creationism and intelligent design in public schools should be just a local matter. Furthermore, as the foregoing court cases highlight, it is essential that a president nominate federal judges who understand the importance of maintaining the separation between church and state.

A larger question is whether a candidate's belief about the validity of evolutionary biology has anything to say about his or her ability to evaluate evidence. A January 4, 2008, editorial by Science editor Donald Kennedy correctly argues, "The candidates should be asked hard questions about science policy, including questions about how those positions reflect belief. What is your view about stem cell research, and does it relate to a view of the time at which human life begins? Have you examined the scientific evidence regarding the age of Earth? Can the process of organic evolution lead to the production of new species, and how? Are you able to look at data on past climates in search of inferences about the future of climate change?" Kennedy concludes, "I don't need them to describe their faith; that's their business and not mine. But I do care about their scientific knowledge and how it will inform their leadership."

Since science and technology policy issues are only going to become more important as the 21st century unfolds, we should all care how scientific knowledge informs a president's leadership.

Ronald Bailey is reason's science correspondent. His most recent book, Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution, is available from Prometheus Books.

That Burger Looks Suspiciously Like a Shish Kabob

jwalker@reason.com (Jesse Walker) — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:08:00 EDT

In his latest tract, the gloriously mad evangelist-cartoonist Jack Chick explains what really happened to the dinosaurs.

For the whole theory -- sorry, Biblically proven fact -- go here. I'd like to see some fancy-pants biologist answer that one.

Brother, Can You Spare a Banana?

jsullum@reason.com (Jacob Sullum) — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:46:00 EDT

In yesterday's New York Times, science columnist John Tierney notes that the gesture of the upturned palm, "signifying 'Gimme,'" is "one of the oldest and most widely understood signals in the world." He claims it's "activated by neural circuits inherited from ancient reptiles that abased themselves before larger animals":

The palm-up gesture is what the anthropologist David Givens, director of the Center for Nonverbal Studies in Spokane, Wash., calls a "gestural byproduct" of the circuits in the brain and spinal cord that protected vertebrates hundreds of millions of years ago.
Confronted with a threat, ancient lizards would instinctively bend their spine and limbs to press their bodies closer to the ground, protecting the neck and head and signaling submission to a larger animal. This crouch display is the opposite of the high-stand display, the aggressive posture of a stallion or a gorilla raising its chest and head to appear larger.
The human remnant of the crouch display is a shrug of the shoulders, which lowers the head and rotates the forearms outwards so that the palms face up. Conversely, the high-stand display persists in humans as a rotation of the forearms and palms in the opposite direction, producing the domineering palm-down gesture used by a boss slapping the conference table or an orator commanding quiet from his audience.

I'm no anthropologist, but I always thought the palm-up gesture came from holding out your hand so that the person from whom you want something can put it there. That, at least, is what I have in mind when I ask someone for some cash or the salt. Isn't it more plausible to suppose that the metaphorical meanings of the gesture evolved from its use by creatures that hold things in their hands than to think we're echoing the submissive displays of lizards?