I do exactly the same thing, but instead of just any creationist, I target public school administrators who are soft on science, and instead of a fossil I just yell, “Dover!”

Nobody wants to get Dovered.

Dover was the US Federal court decision that found that science class can not teach religion, that creationism is a form of religion, affirmed that so called creation science is just another form of creationism, and specifically determined that “Intelligent Design” is just more creationism.

Dover is to the teaching of evolutionary biology what Rove v. Wade is to reproductive rights, plus or minus. Plus, in the sense that Dover may well be an even more solid decision (though not at SCOUTS, never got to SCOTUS because it was so solid). Minus in the sense that it restricts an activity that can still go on at low level if we are not careful.

The point is, the 15th anniversary of the Dover decision is coming up. The National Center for Science Education, under the directorship of my friend Genie Scott, coordinated the Dover win, and has produced “Rembering Kitzmiller v Dover” for your perusal. For a deepre dive, see Laura Lebo’s book The Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma V. Darwin in Small-town America.

“cdesign proponentsists” = smoking gun

^^ look it up ^^^

In response to this, Ken Ham, president of Kentucky’s Creation Museum, commented, “What he is saying ultimately undermines the authority of God’s word.”

Both statements seem to be true. (I don’t think you necessarily need to have faith in a god to accept the basic logic of Ham’s statement.) Also, that’s really all you need to know about young earth creationism. It is God’s word, and the FAQ on the matter is the Bible.

Last night, science communicator Bill Nye debated Ken Ham at Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky. This debate came about because of a statement Bill Nye made not long ago suggesting that creationism, and in particular efforts to force creationism into textbooks and, via other means, into classrooms, does harm to children and ultimately to society. Ham took that statement as a cue to challenge Nye to a debate, and Nye accepted.

Many people, myself included, objected to Bill Nye’s acceptance of this challenge. The reasons for that objection are outlined here, and here. I need not repeat them.

The debate happened last night. When it comes to creationism, I admit that I am not an objective observer, but I can try. I think Ken Ham did fine in that debate. He spoke before his own audience. A remarkably white but gender and age diverse gathering of followers of the Bible and believers in creationism seem to have responded well to Ham. His rhetoric was consistent. We know everything, we understand the most important issues of origins, creation, and evolution, and all of this information comes mainly from the Bible. There are a few other details.

At the same time, however, Bill Nye also did well in this debate, objectively speaking. He presented science, science, science and more science. He presented the science clearly, convincingly, chose his examples well, personalized the discussion wherever possible even to the point of doing a Lewis Black moment (pulling out a fossil he had picked up earlier in the week!). During the few moments when we were allowed to see the evangelical audience during Bill Nye’s presentation they looked, frankly, charmed. And how could they not be, Bill Nye is a charming guy!

In my view, again biased in favor of science because, well, because it’s the correct view, Bill Nye won the debate by a large margin. Friends on Twitter and Facebook equated the debate to the Superbowl, with Bill Nye being the Seahawks and Ken Ham being Denver. Apt. Perhaps even an understatement. Even a poll on a Christian web site gave a strong win to Nye

One could say that it was easy. Bill Nye made it look easy. He focused on the science, as I mentioned, but he also frequently applied that science to Ken Ham’s young earth creationism. One might wonder if Noah’s Ark could have stayed afloat during the great flood, with all those animals on it, for as long as the Bible says it did. But during this debate, Bill Nye sunk that Ark again and again. In addition to an excellent and convincing high altitude view of evolutionary science, and effective deconstruction of young earth creationism, Nye also made frequent and engaging references to the amazing outcome of unfettered scientific study and technology, which I think helps people appreciate and personalized science. He even made an argument from patriotism (not a scientific argument for evolution, but an argument for honest pursuit of knowledge).

Ken Ham’s argument for the young age of the Earth was unassailable. The Bible tells us the age of the Earth, period. Ham claims all of the dating methods are fallible, none are as good as eye witness evidence. (That would be God.) This is unassailable because it is untestable, but based on good science, we can say it is wrong. But you can’t really do much about a religious belief. Ham presented counter evidence contrary to the generally accepted science, but it was the usual bogus, incorrect, easily dismissed set of arguments. For example, some really old stuff was dated to really old (as it is) with the potassium argon method but to only 40-something thousand years using radiocarbon dating. The reason for that, of course, is that radiocarbon dating generally does not function beyond 40-something thousand years old, so all older material produces a young date with that particular method. If you measure the height of a great mountain with a ruler, the mountain will come out to be one foot tall, unless you get a bigger ruler. Also, somewhere in there I think Ken Ham made the argument that we should not wear clothes. Yet he was wearing clothes. Please explain.

An edited version of this debate, with just the Bill Nye parts, will make an excellent overview of why evolutionary biology is the way to go and young earth creationism is not.

There were definitely several moment where I wish I could have jumped on the stage and given Bill’s answer for him. For example, Ham scored a point by deconstructing functional interpretations of mammalian dental anatomy, in relation to the question of whether all the animals were vegetarians during Ark-times. I could have crushed that response in a way that would introduce even more evidence for evolution. But Bill Nye is an expert in other areas. Moreover, Bill Nye did the right thing by not responding to most of Ham’s specific points, but rather, continuing to return to his own main points. Nye, in a sense, provided a slower and more ponderous, and well done, science version of the Gish Gallop. He had a number of powerful points and stuck to them, and mostly avoided going off track.

The fact that Bill Nye did very well in this debate does not mean that we should all start debating creationists, especially at events with a door charge that goes to support an entity like the Creation Museum. Put a different way: Bill Nye is a professional. DO NOT TRY THIS AT HOME. But the widespread concern, including that expressed by yours truly, for this particular debate was wrong. I will be happily be dining on crow today at lunch.

Bill recently made a few comments on the debate on CNN.

Here, I’d like to list a handful of the points I’d make if I was doing this debate.

• It is not necessary or even possible to argue against “creationism” because creationism is a belief system based on faith. Science, on the other hand, is all about arguing about interpretation of observations and developing the best descriptions and explanations we can of the natural world.

• In the 18th century, western thinking, “Natural philosophy,” described and explained the world in a way that incorporated religious thinking and referred to scripture. That view is almost identical to the 21st century creationist view. “Intelligent design” is indistinguishable from Paley’s view of the natural world, which he wrote about in his book “Natural Theology: or, Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity” in 1809, which is a kind of capstone for the previous century’s thinking.

• The 19th century, with Darwin and Wallace and a host of others advanced modern scientific thinking and challenged the previous century’s way of thinking. There was indeed a debate at that time, and evolutionary biology won that debate.

• During the early 20th century, Darwinian thinking was advanced and revised to include a huge amount of ongoing observations about nature, including the discovery of genetics. By some time early in the 20th century, what might have been a valid debate about the nature of nature itself faded away and became a political debate instead.

• That political debate, not a scientific debate, between a religious belief system (creationism) and science (evolutionary biology), persisted through the 20th century and into the 21st century and has been used by a minority of religious institutions and individuals as a tool. There is no longer a scientific debate about the validity of evolution, and there has not been one for a very long time.

• Many of the criticisms of evolution maintained by creationists are about the age of the earth and the way that fossils are ordered in time. That ordering in time is central to evolution because it demonstrates dramatic changes in life forms. But those criticisms are not so much about the biology, but rather, about the physics and geology.

• The physics that help us understand evolutionary change over time is the same science that the United States military uses to develop and maintain our all-important Nuclear Navy. It is the same physics that underlies the development of an important part of our power grid, the nuclear power plants. It is the same physics that underlies the development of the not-so-pleasant nuclear arsenal. Before creationists complain to biologists that the science of nuclear physics is wrong, they should take their case to the Military and the nuclear power industry, because if nuclear physics is wrong, we are all in a great deal of trouble.

• The geology that helps us understand the record of evolutionary change in the past is the same geology that gives us the ability to engineer safer structures, build seemingly impossible bridges, locate and exploit important resources such as minerals and, of course, petroleum. Before creationists complain about evolutionary biology’s use of this geology they should talk to civil engineers and petroleum and mining geologists about how they must have all of that wrong as well.

• Evolutionary biology also underlies our medical practices. Comparative anatomy is part of the proof of evolution, and it is also the source of much of our understanding of human physiology. The study and treatment of infectious disease and epidemiology is based on evolutionary thinking. Before creationists complain about evolution they should talk to our medical professionals and inform them that the basis of their efforts to treat and prevent disease and medical disorders is all wrong.

Check out the Planetary Society, where Bill Nye is Executive Director.

More on science education HERE.

Also, check out my novella, Sungudogo, HERE. It is an adventure story set in Central Africa which ultimately turns out to be a parody of the skeptics movement.

I think Bill is going to make excellent points in this debate. I don’t think changing creationists minds is the point, as Bill Nye says. I also like Nye asking about the sincerity of the creationist point of view. I wish him the best of luck.

And not just luck, but Science-Power. Because we’re right and they’re wrong.

Also, check out my novella, Sungudogo, HERE. It is an adventure story set in Central Africa which ultimately turns out to be a parody of the skeptics movement. It seems to have struck a nerve with a few of the skeptics, while others seem to have enjoyed it. Who knew?

First, Bill Nye is not really an expert on evolution and is actually not that experienced in debates. Being really really pro science and science education isn’t enough. When they went in after Osama Bin Laden (my errand distant cousin) they did not send people who are really really against terrorism. They sent in Seal Team Six with a huge amount of support such as Army Rangers and such and even that was risky.

Second, there isn’t a debate so why debate?

Third, creationists can pretty much win any debate because they are not talking about science. See this post for a more detailed explanation for how any anti-science spokesperson can win a debate against any pro-science person.

I once debated a creationist and it went OK. But when I was first invited to the debate I contacted my friend Genie Scott who had this organization called the National Center for Science Education for advice and the first thing she said to me is that I was an idiot for agreeing to the debate (or words to that effect). Why? See this post if you haven’t already. In that case the good christians setting up the debate lied to me about the format and carried out other forms of trickery. They can’t be trusted.

Fourth, if I understand the situation correctly this will be a fundraiser for the Creation “Musuem.” Bad idea.

Very bad idea.

UPDATED: Bill Nye talks about the upcoming debate.

Also, check out my novella, Sungudogo, HERE. It is an adventure story set in Central Africa which ultimately turns out to be a parody of the skeptics movement. It seems to have struck a nerve with a few of the skeptics, while others seem to have enjoyed it. Who knew?

Theological ideas about the origin and history of life are very much the same today as they were in the mid 19th century. There were and there are young Earthers and there were and there are those who did not care about the Usher young-earth chronology but have God’s hands on the levers of biological creation and history. A careful analysis would probably reveal differences between Paley’s Natural Theology and Behe’s intelligent design but both are Intelligent Design theories and the differences between them … and this is critically important … are not related to which one is more correct. Both are way incorrect. They are both unfixably wrong. Irreducibly wrong maybe. They are both made up, religiously motivated, and politically motivated. They would both ultimately become constructions of anti-science rhetoric more so than they had ever been religious doctrine.

The history of change in scientific theories should be considered much more complex and dynamic. Pre-Darwinian evolution is probably understudied. Darwinian theory consisted of multiple ideas related to each other to varying degrees. “Darwinism” is the idea of common descent, but it is also the idea of Natural Selection. The former is an assertion about what the history of life looks like, the latter a mechanism for change. “Darwinism” is a theory about branching, or speciation, of life forms, something that we probably take more for granted today than in an age where the prevailing culture was linked to a theology in which all species were made within a few days time as we see them today, more or less. I recommend Ernst Mayr’s short book One Long Argument: Charles Darwin and the Genesis of Modern Evolutionary Thought (Questions of Science) for a quick read on the complexity of Darwin’s theories.

Meanwhile, other aspects of the science related to evolution subsequent to the Origin have been very dynamic. The mechanism of inheritance and the role of mutation and population genetics were only vaguely, and in many details incorrectly, understood by Darwin and his contemporaries. I find it interesting that starting some time in perhaps the 1970s or a bit later, many people including geneticists but also various science writers and others have attributed to our understanding of DNA a much greater power than it has earned. Even before DNA was figured out, this was true. The “Synthesis” was all about imbuing Darwinian Theory with newly understood genetics and some cool math to finish off the central theories of life and evolution, and thus understand everything (I oversimplify but not much). But there was a lot more to know, it turned out. With the realization that the DNA molecule is the place where inherited information is stored, and that it is a double helix, and so on, we could now aspire to understand life at the most basic level and in all its details and expressions. Well, it’s been a few decades and we are still discovering new and important things about how DNA works, and the connection between complex ecology, evolutionary histories, and behavior on one hand and DNA on the other is a gap that grows wider, not narrower. The Human Genome Project was going to advance our understanding of human biology including development, disease, mechanism, all of it. But the day after the sequence was published we did not know a lot more than before, but we certainly had a lot more interesting questions to pursue.

Granted, I’m characterizing and lampooning a public view of science more than what scientists actually thought. But not really. Geneticists will not want to hear this, but they have long associated their work with words like “truth” and the work of morphlogists or other scientists with terms like “conjecture” and “indirect evidence” and have had a hard time dealing with he fact that truth comes along with a lot of … conjecture and uncertainty, rethinking after some “conjectural” field disproves your overly neat theory, and so on.

But that is a bit of a digression. My main point is that despite the shortcomings of the egos of those involved in the cognate set of genetics related fields of research, the process of understanding the mechanisms of inheritance has expanded and changed the Darwinian body of theories and continues to do so in ways that no theological revelation or understanding has affected any of the religious ideas about the origin and history of life. Biogeography, ecology, the investigations of the deep sea, experimental work on the origin of life, and of course behavioral biology are also major players in reshaping Darwinian Theory.

Very little of Darwin has been thrown out. Less Darwin has been thrown out than Newton, considering that everything Newton did with mechanics was at least a tiny bit wrong. (Yes, I know, that is an absurd comparison on most levels, but still interesting to think about.) Most of what has become known since The Origin has related to, been informed by, modified but not destroyed, and built on that which is in The Origin.

I suspect the first 150 years of The Origin is just the beginning. As it were.

The two antievolution bills in the New Hampshire legislature attracted the attention of the Concord Monitor (December 29, 2011). As NCSE previously reported, House Bill 1148, introduced by Jerry Bergevin (R-District 17), would charge the state board of education to “[r]equire evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists’ political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism,” while House Bill 1457, introduced by Gary Hopper (R-District 7) and John Burt (R-District 7), would charge the state board of education to “[r]equire science teachers to instruct pupils that proper scientific inquire [sic] results from not committing to any one theory or hypothesis, no matter how firmly it appears to be established, and that scientific and technological innovations based on new evidence can challenge accepted scientific theories or modes.”

Bergevin told the Monitor, “I want the full portrait of evolution and the people who came up with the ideas to be presented. It’s a worldview and it’s godless.” He reportedly blamed the acceptance of evolution for the atrocities of Nazi Germany and the 1999 Columbine shooting. NCSE’s executive director Eugenie C. Scott explained, however, that “Evolutionary scientists are Democrats and Republicans, Libertarians and Greens and everything. Similarly, their religious views are all over the map, too. … If you replace atheism in the bill with Protestantism, or Catholicism, or Judaism or any other view, it’s clear to see it’s not going to pass legal muster.” She also noted that the bill would presumably require teachers to ascertain the political and religious views of every scientist mentioned in their biology textbooks, a requirement which she characterized as “pretty dopey.”

More here.

Adventures in Defending Evolution:

This will be a struggle, a fight even, against academic indolence, against strongly held opinions; An invasion across a sea separating two worlds … two world views. You might have to land on a beach somewhere. You hope, however, that this can be a surgical strike. You need to educate yourself on the basics of evolution. You need to find a way to talk your way out of confrontation should that happen. You need resources for your children. You may not realize it now, but you may also need training in Defense Against the Snark Arts, should you encounter paraprofessional creationists.

You need to arm yourself. With books.

Before we lay out what books you need, I just wanted to mention that most issues in evolutionary biology can be addressed in one of four ways, looking at one of four different aspects of how life, the universe, and everything works: The phylogenetic (fossils, family trees of species, what an organism brings to the table from its past); Ontogenetic (how an organism develops in its own life time and how adjustments to that developmental process determine outcomes); Mechanistic (how stuff works … how does an eye make an image in the brain, how does skin function as part of the immune system); and, of course, Ultimate (the adaptive aspects of life, natural selection and its creative products). That may seem like a bit of a digression but you’ll find that most books related to evolution can be described in these terms, at least in part. So, if you want to know what a “great book on evolution” would be, I’ll need to know if you’re thinking fossils or adaptations.

Here is what you will need, minimally.

• A book on the history of life and the big picture of evolution, for yourself, to hide under your mattress and read at night with a flashlight. That will be mainly but not entirely phylogenetic.
• Another book on evolution that takes a more ontogenetic and adaptive view of evolution, that you also hide under your bed.
• A book that simply has a lot of pictures of fossils and stuff and is also full of information … more pictures than words … so if you get caught by your child reading your evo-porn you can pull that out and look at the pretty pictures together.
• One or two children’s books that utilize or imply evolution, or at least, dinosaurs, to slyly drop into your children’s book collection.
• A book addressing the evolution-creationism debate from the perspective of a religious person, which you can refer to when formulating your arguments when your mother in law catches you reading your evo-porn.
• A book that is a horror story about what happens when anti-evolutionary sentiment turns into activism and everybody has to get lawyers. That will be especially important if your children go to public schools. Give a copy to the principal.

And, for the most part, you want most of this material to be about evolution and not so much about the debate about evolution, when it can be. Because your objective is really to learn about evolution, not have a big fight. But you will be armed in case it comes to that.

The Evolution Arsenal: The books you need to engage in evolutionary biology

Start with getting a grasp on the fossil record. Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero (PROTH aro) is a very enjoyable read and covers the fossil record, outlines historical problems in evolution, discusses methods, and all of that. Don’s book also discusses the problems creationists have with the fossil record and evolution, and why they’ve got it wrong. But, this is not a book about the evolution-creationism debate. It is a book about evolution that addresses that debate to some degree.

Donald Prothero’s book has lots of pictures and stuff, but for the visual enrichment part of the equation, I’d recommend DK’s Prehistoric Life: The Definitive Visual History of Life on Earth. DK is always good for this sort of thing. Thousands of illustrations of fossils and reconstructions and all sorts of stuff. There are other books that have good illustrations and information such as Evolution of Life (with the foreword by Gould) but they are out of date and ultimately that will matter, because even though at the moment you may not really care if the particular version of bird evolution you are seeing in a book is what is being thought at the cutting edge, you are going to run into that or some other question and you’ll want to feel reasonably secure in the currency of your reference library.

For a more ontogenetic and adaptive perspective that relates evolution more to humans (and thus allows for a more personal touch) I recommend Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body (Vintage) by Neil Shubin. It’s an inexpensive paperback and as long as you read Chapter 1 last (seriously, trust me) you’ll love it, and will find numerous ways to relate evolution and the study of evolution to the things around you. Like fish. Or, say, if you go to the grand canyon or have a disease or something. The ways in which Prothero’s book and Shubin’s book overlap are more mutually supportive than redundant.

For children’s books, I’ll just throw out a few suggestions. This will depend so much on age and what you know a kid likes that a specific suggestion would likely miss the mark. Consider:

• Earthsteps: A Rock’s Journey through Time
• Darwin and Evolution for Kids: His Life and Ideas with 21 Activities (For Kids series)
• Earthsteps: A Rock’s Journey through Time
• The Little Giant Book of Dinosaurs (Little Giant Books)

OK, now that your child’s library is sorted, and you’ve read your two big-person books about evolution and pretty much get the idea, how do you deal with the evolution-creation thing when everyone is sitting around at Easter Dinner and six year old sally asks an embarrassing question, such as:

“Mommy, do you think the pterosaurs went extinct because of competition with early birds, or because of the KT meteor impact 65 million years ago?”

Ken Miller is one of the authors of one of the very small number of text books that are used in virtually every high school or first year college biology classes. Ken is probably the biggest name in the initial counter-attack on Intelligent Design Creationism, which proposed that various anatomical parts of organisms (like the flagellum of the protist) could not have evolved but must have been designed. Ken wrote an essay and made a video in which he did the unthinkable: He explained how they were evolved and could not have been designed. Whatever.

Ken Miller is also a Catholic and wrote a book called Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (P.S.). Now, you must understand that as an Atheist I can’t endorse this book and of course there is no “Darwin’s God.” But if you are the person I think you are, you will want a copy of it, and you’ll find it interesting. Get two copies so you can loan one to Uncle Frank or somebody.

There is enough religion in this book that I advise public high school teachers to NOT recommend this to students who come to them after class with questions about god vs. Darwin. It has enough science in it that I recommend that public high school teachers should feel comfortable recommending it to concerned parents who show up at conference. It all depends on how one interprets the Constitution of the United States of America, which may or may not apply to any given person reading this because you could be Canadian or something. Anyway, get Miller’s book.

And finally, the horror stories. There are two. One written by Barbara Forrest, who lost her government job for suggesting that we should make sure Evolution and not Creationism is taught in public schools (how she lost her job is an interesting story I won’t go into now). It’s called Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design and discusses the problem from a policy, law, and scientific point of view. And I would pair this with The Devil in Dover: An Insider’s Story of Dogma V. Darwin in Small-town America by Lauri Lebo.

“Dover” refers to a very important Federal Court decision which is essentially the Roe v. Wade of the evolution-creationism struggle. The Dover decision is unassailable legally and asserts that Intelligent Design is creationism, and affirms that creationism is religion, and reminds us that there will be no teaching of religion in science class. Lebo was a reporter covering the trial as her creationist father was …. well, actually, it gets complicated. It is quite a story.

If you are who I think you are you won’t bother with these last two books because that is not what you are really looking for, and I understand and respect that. But I thought I’d mention them for completeness.

But you will find your own completeness. These are just suggestions.