Thoughts Before The Alarm Sounds

The Smithsonian is presenting a traveling exhibit in 19 libraries across the country, asking What Does It Mean to Be Human? Fortunately, one of them is located nearby, and a friend and I visited it this past week. The primary subject of the exhibit is, of course, human evolution, and timelines illustrating skeletal changes, social gatherings, tool use, art, etc. are abundantly displayed. But I was more interested in just how the scientists have arrived at today’s body of knowledge on the subject. And I was not disappointed; explanations were plentifully supplied. For example:   Early African Homo erectus fossils (sometimes called  Homo ergaster)  are the oldest known early humans to have possessed modern human-like body proportions with relatively elongated legs and shorter arms compared to the size of the torso. These features are considered adaptations to a life lived on the ground, indicating the loss of earlier tree-climbing adaptations, wi...

There is considerable controversy at the present time between the competing “theories” of natural selection and intelligent design. This disagreement has several roots, but I believe one of the most important ones has to do with a misunderstanding of what it is that scientists do. Even many scientists seem to have forgotten.         When a scientist is doing science, he is testing a theory and reporting his observations. For example, he may have a theory that if he mixes vinegar and baking soda, he will observe that oxygen will be formed. To his dismay he finds that when he actually performs the experiment carbon dioxide appears instead. He must retest and update his theory under all conceivable conditions.         But when he issues a report of his findings to other scientists, he will not say that carbon dioxide is “caused” by mixing vinegar and baking soda; he will report that mixing the two is followed by the ap...

      If you have been following my blog, you know that I am not very happy with President Obama's approach to solving the country's problems. But at least his activities are grounded in reality – I do not believe they are based on a disbelief of modern science. I cannot say the same about any of his Republican rivals, and that has me concerned.      The recent hurricane has people asking the question: Was Irene a result of global warming? And the answer has two parts: (1) No one knows, and (2) That's the wrong question. It is impossible for anyone to say whether a particular phenomenon is a result of global warming; hurricanes have been around since long before global warming began.      The proper question is: Should we expect more such catastrophic phenomena as a result of global warming? And the answer is: Absolutely, including not only hurricanes, but also extremes of temperature, droughts, floods and tornados. ...

     I think most people would agree that a candidate for U.S. Senator or Representative should have some modicum of personal responsibillity, although some of the current crop seem to be lacking in that respect. So when I saw the responses that the GOP senate nominee from Delaware, Christine O'Donnell, made on a nationally televised debate, I thought I would take a quick look into her background.      She was born on August 27, 1969, and has been a marketing consultant, worked in public relations, and appeared as a political commentator on several news media outlets including Fox News. In 2006 and 2008 she ran for Senator in the primary elections, and was soundly defeated both times.      In 2010 she scored a surprising primary upset against nine-term Representative and ex-governor Mike Castle. Her victory was due to backing by Sarah Palin and an infusion of cash in the amount of $150,000 from the Tea Party. Her campaign als...

      A born again Christian once asked me if I believe in evolution. My answer was, “Evolution is not something one ‘believes in’ like one believes in a religion. I accept it as a fact because the evidence for it is overwhelming.”       Of course, no amount of evidence could convince my questioner that evolution is a fact and “creation science” is an oxymoron. But the conversation did cause me to ponder exactly what the difference is between a fact and a belief.       The difference can be explained in one sentence, although really understanding it can take a long time: When an event, idea, system, theory, etc. is supported by evidence, we accept it as a fact; when there is no supporting evidence we have a belief. Notice: we accept facts, we have beliefs. Here are a few examples: (1) I do not believe that birds fly – I accept it as a fact. I have seen pictures of flying birds, I have seen them fly and I hav...

      The following information has been gleaned from various Texas sources with the exception of the section that begins with the words "Among the new Texas directives..." and ends with the words "...separation of church and state." That section was taken from an editorial in The Keene (N.H.) Sentinel of the same date. I don’t think it needs any comment.       For several years the Texas Board of Education members have been locked in an ideological battle between a bloc of conservatives who question Darwin’s theory of evolution and believe the Founding Fathers were guided by Christian principles, and a handful of Democrats and moderate Republicans who have fought to preserve the teaching of Darwinism and the separation of church and state. Last Friday the board approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Fo...

      In Kentucky, a recently introduced bill would encourage teachers to discuss “the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories,” including “evolution, the origins of life, global warming and human cloning.” I agree that a discussion of the last item on the list is an excellent topic for a class in ethics, although I am not sure there is such a class in public schools. Too many right-thinking people think that is a job for the parents.       Perhaps teachers should take the legislature at its word and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of scientific theories. Period.       The advantage, of course, is that such theories express the most up-to-date knowledge we have of how the universe works. And they work. Eliminate all scientific theories and we are suddenly back in the dark ages – no television, no radio and no travel that is not dependent upon horsepower, to name a few things.   ...

      Last night Barbara and I watched the 1960 movie Inherit The Wind starring Spender Tracy, Fredric March and Gene Kelly. Although based on the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Dayton, Tennessee, names and some of the plot were changed somewhat from the original event. But we enjoyed it – as we expected, the acting was superb.       The original case was sparked by the ACLU, which wanted to test the constitutionality of the state’s Butler Act, which decreed "That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals."       A further contention was that while the Butler Act prohibited the teaching of the ...

      In Shakespeare’s play, King Henry VI, Dick the Butcher says, “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” In the play Dick was a follower of Jack Cade, who planned to overthrow the government and install himself as king. Taken out of context the quote appears to denigrate lawyers; coming from disreputable characters such as Dick and Jack, the quote is actually a compliment to those who are the first line of defense against disorder in society.       But over the past few decades the same sort of attitude seems to have become popular about scientists, and it comes from people who should know better. One of the drawbacks of the information explosion is that everyone thinks his or her personal opinion is as good as the next person’s. And perhaps it would be if not for two problems: 1.) Not all the information received over the internet is accurate, or even true, and 2.) Not everyone is trained to correctly or logically proce...