My latest "Eureka!" moment while arguing that Charles Darwin's famous theory of common descent with modification is actually a rather pathetic explanation for the modern diversity of life came when I realized that the work of Gregor Mendel had been purloined by evolutionary biologists and made the centerpiece of their argument. Clearly, Mendel's research into genetic recombination demonstrated how descent with modification produced variety in plants, and it stood to reason to assume that the same sort of variety was produced by sexual reproduction by animals. Indeed, anyone brave (or foolish) enough to express skepticism at the idea that Charles Darwin's theory explains the origin of new species had better be prepared for an unprecedented degree of anger, scorn, ridicule, and frequent suggestions to consider remedial biology classes. The question remains: does Mendel's work truly explain the origin of new species, or is that explanation flawed? The idea sounds preposterous on the surface, sort of like the plot of a bad science fiction movie titled Planet of the Furless Apes. Darwin famously scribbled "Monkeys make men" in one of his notebooks to capture the idea that modern evolutionary biologists might call "changes of accumulations in allele frequency changes", which is a fancy way of saying that humans evolved from apes when certain DNA patterns become dominant while others become recessive. Humans lost their fur, grew physically smaller but developed bigger brains, simply because we could. It is theoretically possible, and the only other potential explanation in … [Read more...]
Bill Nye, the sciency guy
Before I get started with this post, let me first say that I was a big fan of "Bill Nye, the Science Guy" when my kids were young -- anything remotely educational was better than "Pokemon" or "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" -- cartoons that weren't mercifully killing brain cells, they were torturing them to death. It's virtually impossible to dislike the public persona. As an added benefit was the catchy jingle for the show intro: "Bill Nye the science guy -- Bill! Bill! Bill! Bill!" turned out to be infinitely more pleasant to have permanently etched into your brain than "...heroes on a half shell - Turtle power!" However, even back then I realized that Bill Nye was not actually a science guy, but a television personality playing the role of a science educator of young children. Bill Nye had been an engineer before he entered the world of entertainment as a stand-up comic. "Bill Nye the Science Guy" was literally born on a comedy ensemble show -- it was a character he created that turned out to be a long running joke that people now take very seriously. At a website called Big Think where Nye answers questions from viewers, he is listed in their roster of "experts" as Television Host and Science Educator -- and that catchy, rhyming title of "Bill Nye the Science Guy" appears to give him instant credibility. Basically, Bill Nye merely regurgitates what he's learned from reading popular science books and tries to sound really smart while occasionally reminding his followers that he once was a student of Carl Sagan, presumably to borrow from Sagan's credibility as … [Read more...]
Questioning Darwin
This month HBO is airing a program that it promotes as a documentary, called Questioning Darwin. Somewhat predictably, the program paints the picture that Ken Ham and his museum for Young Earth Creationism should be considered the only viable and true alternative philosophy to Darwinism, completely ignoring brilliant thinkers such as John Lennox, Francis Collins, Connor Cunningham, Stephen C. Meyer and Frank Turek, as well as competing ideas such as Intelligent Design and Old Earth Creationism. The documentary dredges up the old, tired creationism versus evolution debate once more, reinforcing many of the known, misleading stereotypes and repeating the same mistaken assumptions that have pretty much been hashed to death already. The narrator begins by claiming that Christians who insist the Bible must be accepted as the literal Word of God are creationists who consider Darwin the antichrist. This was news to me. Based on my limited knowledge mostly gleaned from biographies of his personal life, I was sort of under the impression that Darwin was sort of a spoiled, petulant rich guy who married his cousin and never really had to work for a living. Curiously, the documentary described creationism as a growing branch of Christianity, as if "Creationist" was comparable to Baptist, Lutheran, and Catholic. On the whole, the documentary depicted creationists as stubborn, ignorant and silly deniers of science, while the scientists were portrayed as calm, soft-spoken, rational people. There simply wasn't an option offered that didn't fit those two somewhat … [Read more...]
Charles Darwin and Creation, the movie
After reading an article in the UK Telegraph claiming that a film about Charles Darwin titled Creation had been deemed too controversial by distributors in America because it advocated evolution theory, I got suckered into watching it. Hey, at least it was free on HBO. In the Telegraph article by Showbiz editor Anita Singh, the film's producer Jeremy Thomas was quoted as saying: The film has no distributor in America. It has got a deal everywhere else in the world but in the US, and it's because of what the film is about. People have been saying this is the best film they've seen all year, yet nobody in the US has picked it up. It is unbelievable to us that this is still a really hot potato in America. There's still a great belief that He made the world in six days. It's quite difficult for we in the UK to imagine religion in America. We live in a country which is no longer so religious. But in the US, outside of New York and LA, religion rules. Charles Darwin is, I suppose, the hero of the film. But we tried to make the film in a very even-handed way. Darwin wasn't saying 'kill all religion', he never said such a thing, but he is a totem for people. Sounds like a tired cliche--Darwin good, religion bad. Was the moviemaker correct in his assessment? Why weren’t distributors fighting over the rights to the film in America? I think I know the answer. The movie wasn’t controversial. It was boring. That’s only when it wasn’t depressing as hell. Morose would be far too cheerful a word to describe this film. Besides, the premise for his complaint was completely … [Read more...]
