"I'm pro-life and I voted for Beto O'Rourke"

Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa penned an op-ed for The Dallas Morning News explaining why she voted for Beto O'Rourke for US Senator from Texas. I love Destiny, and not just because she was the only one who begged me "Please don't go" when I quit blogging in 2010. She's probably one of the few writers who could successfully coax me to come back. She's a terrific writer, but she is also open-minded enough to consider alternative viewpoints. How else could a pro-life feminist consider voting for Beto O'Rourke?

Anyway, so here I am back at the keyboard. Read her op-ed, then come back here and read my open letter to Destiny.

American Self-Centeredness

It's often claimed that Americans have little knowledge of the rest of the world. It's the source of jokes. You know, like the report of the American tourist in Japan surprised by how many American brands he sees all around: Toyota, Sony, Nikon. Today we have evidence of self-centeredness in the White House (as if more evidence on that front is needed).

In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against. Bundle up!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 29, 2017

Here's the context for that quote: a world map from the University of Maine's Climate Change Institute showing today's temperatures in relation to average temperatures from 1979-2000. Regions colder than average are shown in blue. Regions warmer than average are shown in red.

When our president can't see farther than the end of his nose, our country is in great peril.

May I Have a Word: Uggianaqtuq

According to the New York Times:

The Inuit have a word for changes they are seeing to their environment: uggianaqtuq. It means "to behave strangely."

Tragically, according to Vox:

The Trump administration is backing away from calling climate change a national security threat, a move that contradicts nearly three decades of military planning.

Behaving strangely, indeed. 

The Future of Conversation

Someone just forwarded me an email that began "You didn't get this?" When I went to reply, Gmail offered me three ready-made answers, the first of which was "No, I didn't get it." I clicked that and then clicked Send. The entire text of my reply was generated automatically by Gmail and suggested to me. Soon our conversations will be nothing but Google talking to itself.

Life, Too Cheap to Meter if You're a Bluefin Tuna

But d*mn precious for us humans

William McKenzie, in The Dallas Morning News' late, lamented Religion blog, asks a panel of local religious professionals the question, "Do we put too great a premium on our biological lives?" Essentially none of them give a direct answer, so your lowly, humble layman correspondent gives it a go (by citing another, wiser layman, naturally):

No, we don't put too great a premium on our biological life. It's an instinctive part of our species' survival strategy. Other species have evolved other strategies. Wired magazine's Chris Anderson explains:

"Our brains seem wired to resist waste, but we are relatively unique in nature for this. Mammals have the fewest offspring in the animal kingdom, and as a result we invest enormous time and care in protecting each one ... However, the rest of nature doesn't work like that. A bluefin tuna can release 10 million fertilized eggs in a spawning season. Perhaps 10 of them will hatch and make it to adulthood. A million die for every one that survives. But there's good reason for it. Nature wastes life in search of better life."

Gail Lowe

Creationist named head of SBOE

Gov. Rick Perry has named Gail Lowe as chair of the State Board of Education (SBOE), replacing Don McLeroy, who couldn't win approval from the Texas Senate for reappointment. Like McLeroy, Lowe is a creationist. The Center for Inquiry (CFI) reports that, in 2009, Lowe voted for reintroducing the "strengths and weaknesses" clause in the Texas school science standards; in 2008, she Strongly Favored rejecting textbooks that do not teach weaknesses of the theory of evolution; and in 2002, she Strongly Favored treating intelligent design as a viable theory on the origin of life.

So what can William McKenzie, editorialist for The Dallas Morning News, be talking about when he says, "For the record, she voted against including creation teaching in science classes"? In a narrow, technical sense, that might or might not be true, but for the sake of journalistic clarity, McKenzie owes the readers more explanation about what vote he is talking about and what Lowe did vote for.

McKenzie does place Lowe in the camp of social conservatives. He also states that he would have preferred Perry pick someone from the moderate-conservative/Democratic minority side of the board, but didn't expect it. He got that right. Texas voters need to turn out of office all of the creationists on the SBOE, so Texas parents can rest assured that their children are learning science in school science classes and not religion dressed up in the pseudo-scientific jargon of intelligent design. The creationists on the SBOE include Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy (who retains his membership on the SBOE, if not his chairmanship), David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Terri Leo, and Ken Mercer. District 12 (Dallas) is represented by Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, who voted against reintroducing the "strengths and weaknesses" wording in the science standards, but she, too, should be voted out of office unless she takes a strong public stand in favor of science and against creationism in any of its guises.

2010 SBOE Election

We're not just voting for governor

The Texas State Board of Education (SBOE) has been the target of the social conservatives for some time now. The SBOE determines the curricula for Texas schools, including textbook selection. The religious right now has a majority, or close enough to it, on this board, to push Creationism and other right-wing causes.

The religious right achieved their power on the SBOE at the ballot box. Conservatives like vouncher proponent James Leininger funded one far right candidate, Cynthia Dunbar, with tens of thousands of dollars, even though she faced no Democratic opponent. Dunbar is famous, not just for being a fervent Creationist, but for predicting the "end of America as we know it" should Barack Obama be elected President. She claims his election is null and void because he isn't a United States citizen. She says that if America suffers a terrorist attack, it will likely be part of a conspiracy by Obama to impose tyranny through martial law. Obama is not the only subject of her conspiracy fantasies. She claims that America is under daily attack by the "militant leftist Judicial branch."

You might wonder how such an extremist achieved a position of such influence over the classrooms of our children in Texas. It's because moderates and liberals haven't paid enough attention to these elected positions. Maybe that's all about to change. According to Burnt Orange Report, organizers are taking notice of the upcoming 2010 election in which Cynthia Dunbar's place on the SBOE is before the voters. "Education First", a network of residents of Cynthia Dunbar's District 10, is holding meetups 17 months before the election "to promote educational excellence by reducing the influence of politics and ideology on the board."

SBOE District 12, including Richardson, is represented by Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, who is a mild pro-science member of the SBOE, but whose vote for teaching science in our schools' science classes and not Creationism is far from assured. It wouldn't hurt for the moderate voters in Richardson to pay attention to SBOE races, too, to keep the Creationists from taking over the SBOE entirely. So, don't get distracted by all the sound and fury that next year's governor race is going to generate. Save just a little attention for those down-ticket races for SBOE.

Stephen Hawking; Texas SBOE; FrontBurner comments

The Nightly Build

---

News of His Death Exaggerated

The famous physicist Stephen Hawking was taken to hospital Monday and was reported to be "very ill." On Tuesday, he was reported to be resting comfortably and his family is looking forward to his complete recovery, according to a statement issued by Cambridge University.

How did local media cover the story? Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, headlined his thoughts, "Stephen Hawking: obit editorial material?" When readers objected to "yack[ing] up someone's obituary before they're dead", Dreher deftly laid off responsibility on his co-workers: "Keven said we should take this to the blog. She was right to do so, because (as Nicole put it), part of this blog's raison d'etre is to show readers how we do our jobs."

Discussing the guidelines the paper uses to decide which figures merit an obit editorial is a fair subject for this blog.

Assigning writers to prepare obit editorials well in advance for significant public figures who may merit an obit editorial is sensible.

But asking the blog, whether a particular person who takes ill merits an obit editorial should he die, is in bad taste. That's true whether or not it's consistent with the purpose of the blog.

Now that we've settled that it's too early to talk about Stephen Hawking's obituary, is it too late to ask that The Dallas Morning News revive its Science section?

P.S. Kudos to Trey Garrison, who caught Dreher explaining that whether or not a famous person's death merits an editorial often comes down to a "matter of space and timing." "You did that on purpose" Garrison said.

---

Terri Leo on the Defensive

The Texas State Board of Education recently took votes to decide the standards for science textbooks used in Texas schools. Conservatives on the SBOE have long championed language that requires textbooks teach "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories such as evolution. Scientists have no objection to teaching strengths and weaknesses, but some do object to non-scientists like the SBOE members using such language to push schools to teach non-scientific notions such as Creationism, or its pseudo-scientific variant, intelligent design.

The recent SBOE votes on new standards were mixed. Creationists were unsuccessful in retaining the old "strengths and weaknesses" language in the science standards. But the Creationists were successful in inserting similar language requiring Texas students learn "all sides of scientific evidence." Again, there's nothing wrong with that, provided that Creationism and intelligent design are not passed off as scientific.

Will Lutz Terri Leo, a Creationist member of the SBOE, goes on the attack in an op-ed column in Dallas Blog (naturally!). Or is she on the defensive? She objects to recent moves in Austin to shift some responsibilities away from the SBOE. SB 2275, for example, would take away from the SBOE authority over curriculum and texbooks.

Leo defends the SBOE and its anti-scientific actions. She says it is popularly elected (as if scientific questions are best answered by popular vote). She says the SBOE holds public hearings at which all sides are presented (she doesn't say expert opinion is consistently ignored by some members). She says the SBOE has accomplished much (like suppressing environmentalism and multi-culturalism in schools).

But it's what she doesn't say that is the tell-tale sign that she and the Creationists on the SBOE are on the defensive. She doesn't bring up evolution or intelligent design at all. Perhaps the SBOE has finally gone too far, their attempts to push Creationism in public schools have finally gotten the public's attention, the legislature is finally saying enough is enough. It's time to put science curriculum and textbook decision back in the hands of experienced educators and scientific experts and take it away from ideological politicians like Terri Leo.

P.S. Texas voters can end this educational travesty once and for all by voting to remove these members from the SBOE as their terms expire: Terri Leo, David Bradley, Barbara Cargill, Cynthia Dunbar, Gail Lowe, Don McLeroy and Ken Mercer. Do it for the sake of quality science education in Texas.

Correction: The Dallas Blog article was apparently written by Will Lutz, not Terri Leo. See the comments for more information.

---

"Shut up he explained"

Wick Allison, publisher of D Magazine announced on its FrontBurner blog today that henceforth, reader comments will be disabled.

"Many of our commenters have been thoughtful and intelligent, but as months turned into years, Gresham's Law took hold. Comments became increasingly intemperate, irrelevant, and illiterate. Some good people hung on, but many good people left. The concept of user-generated content is fine -- for other Internet sites. But for ours, it has not been a successful experiment."

Like no one could see that coming. FrontBurner, which prides itself on being a "snarky celebration of ignorance," becomes overwhelmed by ignorant, snarky readers. Poetic justice. Hoist on his own petard and all that.

Are there alternatives? Allison hints that, in time, FrontBurner may be technologically capable of allowing comments from invited participants. Perhaps FrontBurner will consider a system like Yahoo! Groups, which can be set to require comments from new readers to be approved before being posted. Readers who demonstrate their ability to be thoughtful would be approved to post directly. Or perhaps FrontBurner will consider a system like Slashdot's, where reader comments are rated and, by default, only the highest rated are visible. Or perhaps FrontBurner is just not interested in readers' opinions. This latest action is the equivalent of Wick Allison sticking his fingers in his ears and saying, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah. I can't hear you!" Which, come to think of it, is a snarky celebration of ignorance, as well.

Tier 1 research universities

The Nightly Build

---

UT-Dallas, Engine of Growth

Promoting the growth of UT-Dallas into prominence as a nationally recognized research university is a goal that made a brief appearance in the recent forum for candidates for Richardson's city council. One candidate, Gary Slagel, raised the subject unprompted by any audience question. He identified the Richardson university as being an engine for growth for the whole city. It's an example of an issue the campaign for city council should be focusing on instead of the mean-spirited politics of personal destruction the campaign is descending into instead.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram recognizes the importance of having a local Tier 1 university. The paper calls attention to the fact that DFW is the state's largest metropolitan area and has no Tier 1 research university. UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington and University of North Texas have the potential but need state help to achieve the next level of greatness.

There are some tiny steps being taken in this year's legislative session in Austin. The Senate passed a resolution by Sen. Robert Duncan of Lubbock calling for a source of funding for state research institutions. Unfortunately, it would only apply to universities that have already reached that Tier 1 status, not to aspiring schools like UT-Dallas. Senate Bill 9 submitted by Sen. Judith Zaffirini of Laredo corrects that omission, but has its own drawbacks. According to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

"It would enable emerging research universities and other schools in Texas to compete for more state funding based on such criteria as their number of graduates in certain critical fields, their growth in research funding from business and government sources, their numbers of graduates each year and their ability to search out private gifts. The problem, of course, is that Zaffirini's bill has no funding."

Paul Burka has identified a potential source of funding, but even he doesn't seem to recognize the need for more Tier 1 research universities.

"The Legislature should abolish the emerging technology fund. The state has no business investing in start-ups. This is just wheeling and dealing with public funds that carries a huge potential for abuse and inside dealing. Lawmakers should take the $250 million appropriation and allocate it to the state's major research universities. Unlike the governor's office, the universities DO know who the world class researchers are, and they can use the money to recruit them from other states that are suffering worse budget crises than we are. As for the Enterprise Fund, used for closing deals, I would cut it in half and give the rest to the research universities."

All well and good, except Texas needs a few more Tier 1 research universities. The sad truth is that the Texas legislature still doesn't have a consensus on that. And, with a few exceptions, the candidates for Richardson city council don't seem to notice. And that's a shame. The city's future economic prosperity could could suffer because of it.

Guns, Pakistan, TAKS, Global cooling, Presidential respect

The Nightly Build...

---

DMN Opinion Roundup

Mike Hashimoto pokes fun at Dallas City Council candidate Charles "Chazz" Redd, who posed for a photo while shirtless, smiling, and holding two pistols. Maybe Dallas politics does resemble a freak show at times, and sensation sells, but it would be refreshing for Dallas' only daily to cover the suburbs once in a while and do it in a serious fashion.

Rod Dreher serves up another Chicken Little story. This time, Dreher sees Pakistan on the edge of apocalypse. He's going to be right one of these times. And Pakistan is truly a scary place. Unfortunately, Dreher himself has lost the ability to scare readers.

William McKenzie asks a question that he admits to being stumped by: Should Texas legislators exempt students who are not proficient in English from the TAKS test? The question is genius, combining two hot-button issues: student testing with immigration. My answer is simple. Test all students, but track results separately when it makes sense to do so and combine results when it makes sense to do that.

Colleen McCain Nelson keeps a straight face when reporting that the new Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele reassures us that the earth isn't warming, it's actually cooling. Michael Steele is becoming an embarrassment as he panders to the shrinking base of the Republican Party. The party is narrowing itself into irrelevance. It's down to about the five or six conservative wingnuts who, in the comments section, defend Steele and take McCain Nelson to task for her blog post.

Tod Robberson is bothered that President Obama lowered himself to appear on a late-night talk show. Joanna England is bothered that he revealed his common touch by filling out bracket picks for the NCAA basketball tournament. Hey, Presidents aren't kings. It's hard to make the "elite" label stick to this President. He'll take his suit jacket off in the Oval Office once in a while. And sit and talk about basketball and his bowling game, too. It's OK. The Presidency will survive and thrive under Barack Obama. It's about time for an end to form over substance.

Blow vs Schutze; Embryonic stem cells

The Nightly Build...

---

Round Umpteen

Unless you happen to live on another planet (such as north Dallas), you are already aware of the political brawl happening over plans for an inland port in south Dallas. Predictions are that such a project could attract billions of dollars in rail, truck and air freight to a region sorely in need of an economic engine.

The Dallas Observer's Jim Schutze has been digging into County Commissioner John Wiley Price's role in getting a share of those development spoils distributed to the African-American community.

A journalist knows he's on to something when his reporting itself becomes part of the story. Price has gone to court to extract information out of U.S. Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson and County Judge Jim Foster about what they told Jim Schutze.

What's all this got to do with Steve Blow of The Dallas Morning News? Not so much, as it turns out. Don't turn to Blow's column on Sunday looking for details about the inland port, the politics, or the merits of any position. Blow, you see, doesn't care much for either Price or Schutze and uses his utterly inconsequential column to, as he himself puts it, watch two guys fight:

"And, yeah, I'll confess to some guilty pleasure in watching this unfold -- like the guy who stands on the sideline and says, 'Let's you and him fight.'"

Naturally, you'd expect Schutze to respond. But how, given the lack of substance in Blow's column? Schutze latches on to the one good line in Blow's column, where he calls Schutze the "brooding Eeyore of Dallas journalism". Schutze returns the favor, calling Blow "the Goofy of Dallas journalism." That's it.

It's what Schutze does *not* say that so effectively eviscerates Steve Blow. Schutze doesn't even mention the inland port project in his putdown of Blow. The pointless banality of the response is a perfect counterpoint to Blow's banality in his opening essay in this exchange.

Ironically, Steve Blow's column was headlined: "You, residents of Dallas, could be the loser in this brawl." As if Steve Blow trash-talking from the sidelines is going to do anything good for the residents of Dallas.

---

Dreher Links Obama to Nazis

President Obama, in today's remarks as he signed executive orders overturning the Bush administration ban on federal funding of new lines of embryonic stem cells:

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient, especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Rod Dreher, in his response on The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog:

"Those who believe that politics, morality and religion should never interfere with what scientists want to do had better be prepared to pay their respects to Dr. Mengele."

It's unusual when Godwin's Law is demonstrated right in the original poster's own blog and not deep into a resulting comment flame war, but if any The Dallas Morning News writer can do it, it's Rod Dreher. Dreher claims he's simply making the point that there's no morally neutral position on science, but he didn't have to tar Obama with the Nazi brush to make that point. Dreher is too skilled a writer not to know that. Too bad Dreher didn't think of Joseph Goebbels before deciding to engage in rhetorical overkill.

Rod Dreher conveniently overlooks comments by President Obama that indicates that he, too, understands that there is no morally neutral position on science. President Obama said:

"Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. We will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted."

But that doesn't serve Dreher's purpose of drawing a moral equivalence between President Obama's position and the Nazi position. So Dreher conveniently omits it. Just like Goebbels might have.

Trey Garrison

The Nightly Build...

---

Obligatory Wack Stories

It's Monday and you know what that means. Trey Garrison has had the whole weekend to dig up wingnut, conspiratorial, paranoid, wack stories to share with us.

He starts with his obligatory, "More Guns are Good" story, using a belated local television story about how gun sales are up since Barack Obama's victory in November to praise higher gun sales.

He moves on to a "Watch Out For Bad Cops" story about an off duty cop who installed emergency lights in his private vehicle for "off duty jobs." Use you imagination about what happened next.

He closes with his "Monday Roundup", in which he tells us he hasn't been following the Trinity River Parkway debate, but he does know that it's now established fact that the Earth, instead of warming up, is actually cooling instead. Just be thankful Garrison can't cover everything.

Garrison used to be a writer for Dallas Blog. I don't know why he left. It couldn't have been because of his penchant for self-parody. The steady stream of Dallas Blog stories with themes like "Muslims Are Taking Over Europe" defined self-parody in Dallas media long ago. Trey Garrison has that part down pat. Maybe Garrison left Dallas Blog because he's not all that into saving Christendom ... unless it involves guns.

Global warming

The Nightly Build...

---

Lake Erie is Iced Over

Rodger Jones casts doubt on global warming by passing on news from his mother in Cleveland that Lake Erie has completely frozen over. Let's assume he's making a small joke as way of introduction of his more serious point, which is to cite a minority staff report issued by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) of the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee titled, "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims."

Jones says (jokingly again?) that he wished he understood global warming science as much as he gets the politics. He mocks Al Gore for warning of temperature changes that "would bring a screeching halt to human civilization." But he doesn't even identify Sen. Inhofe, perpetual climate change denier and easily mocked himself, as the source of the press release listing the dissenting "scientists." It sounds like Jones does know a lot about how to play politics.

Let's take a look at Inhofe's list of 650 "scientists," up from 400 in a list he published in 2007. The list includes physicists, biologists and even TV weathermen, probably all with good credentials in their field, but which usually isn't climate science. Some of the people on the list aren't even climate change deniers. For example, meteorologist George Waldenberger was on the 2007 list. In response, he contacted Inhofe's staffers and requested, "Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the 'Consensus.'" Guess what? He's still on Inhofe's updated 2008 list. Some estimate the list to be 80-90% bogus, leaving a few dozen credible climate skeptics, compared to thousands of qualified, practicing climate scientists who remain convinced of human-caused emissions being the dominant cause of climate change. It looks like the scientific consensus is still solid.

For more information about climate change, I recommend RealClimate.org.

Science curriculum; Education accountability

The Nightly Build...

---

SBOE: On Step Forward, One Back

Steve Blow, in The Dallas Morning News Metro blog, weighs in on last week's preliminary votes by the Texas State Board of Education on science curriculum standards. Blow's opinion? "The right-wing bloc basically wants humans exempted from evolution."

The way I read it, the right-wing bloc wants all life on earth exempted. The lost the vote to keep the requirement to teach "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, then slipped in a requirement to teach arguments "for and against" common ancestry and "sufficiency and insufficiency" of evolution to explain the fossil record.

Wonder what kind of lessons that language would enable? During the hearing, Don McLeroy, the chairman of the State Board of Education and a dentist in private practice, suggested that the fact that teeth fit together so perfectly was a sign of the weakness of the theory of evolution.

When people say Texas is becoming the laughingstock of the nation regarding science education, I don't think they are exaggerating. Steve Blow cites a New York Times editorial on the subject:

"The lesson we draw from these shenanigans is that scientifically illiterate boards of education should leave the curriculum to educators and scientists who know what constitutes a sound education."

Texas voters should retire the SBOE members who want our kids to learn religion instead of science in science classes. SBOE members like Don McLeroy, Cynthia Dunbar and Terri Leo don't know the damage they are doing to Texas' reputation and, more importantly, the education of our children.

---

TAKS' Mismeasured "Achievement Gap"

William McKenzie, in a Viewpoints essay in The Dallas Morning News, takes a crack at improving education in America. He bases it on his observation that Barack Obama is a product of Columbia University and Harvard Law School and Michelle Obama graduated from Princeton. McKenzie asks:

"Why wouldn't everyone in this country want to devote as much attention as possible to enabling every child to have those same opportunities? ... Why are we even having this debate? What parent doesn't want his or her child learning at grade level?"

Let me take a crack at answering. The measurement system called for by the federal "No Child Left Behind" act and the state program "Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills" (TAKS) defines a minimum level that students must achieve. It's all well and good to require our education system to do its very best to prepare children to get over that low bar. But let's not pretend that getting over that low bar will get our students into Columbia, Princeton, and Harvard. Only the top students will achieve that and then only if our schools pay attention to them, too. So, one explanation for some of the dissatisfaction with the TAKS system is not that it "teaches to the test" but that the test is only minimally helpful. We need programs tailored to all our students, from underachievers to overachievers. TAKS is not that program.

One of the ironies of TAKS is that it doesn't even necessarily measure one of the main goals of the program, what McKenzie calls closing the "achievement gap" between white and minority kids. TAKS measures how many kids get over that low bar, not by how much they exceed the standard. Say we reach the state where every last kid in class gets over that bar. TAKS would say the "achievement gap" has closed to zero. In reality, the minority kids all might be just making it over the bar, while the white kids are vaulting higher and higher each year. The real achievement gap between white and minority may be as wide as ever and even growing. TAKS is not designed to measure that.

Those are just a couple reasons why we are even having this debate. It's not that people have a problem with the goal that every child should learn at grade level. It's that many people want more than that. They want every child to learn to his maximum potential.

Predictions

The Nightly Build...

---

Long Range Predictions for Science

Rod Dreher, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, asks readers, "What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?" Dreher himself says he expects "to see quantum physics lead the way in breaking down the barrier between science and spirituality."

I very much doubt that quantum physics is going to give scientists new insights into spirituality. On the other hand, what insights spiritualists like Rod Dreher will claim to derive from quantum physics is anyone's guess.

I expect to see genetic engineering advances that will enable us to create new species. More controversial will be genetic manipulation of the human genome to create babies with almost any physical traits the parents desire.

Steve Blow; Madonna; Nature of science

The Nightly Build...

---

Self Parody

I admit I didn't get past the headline. Steve Blow columns have a way of doing that. He descends further into self parody with a The Dallas Morning News column today titled, "Lost Dog's Tale Has A Happy Ending."

---

Madonna Not Welcome by Church in Chile

In another story where the headline says all you need to know, Bruce Tomaso tells us on the The Dallas Morning News Religion blog that "Catholic cardinal says Madonna provokes 'lustful thoughts'".

Busted. Madonna should quit trying to be subtle about it. The cardinal is on to her.

I suppose it would be out of line for me to suggest that the cardinal's musical tastes probably lean to boy bands. OK, so I won't.

---

Science in a Nutshell

The Dallas Morning News Religion blog has a habit of posting a daily quote first thing in the morning. I've always suspected it's the lazy journalist's means to pushing copy without having to, you know, write anything. But sometimes you get get pure gems, like today.

"We know life only by its symptoms."

Albert Szent-Györgyi (1893 - 1986), the Hungarian physiologist and Nobel Prize winner who discovered Vitamin C

Only seven words, but they capture in a nutshell the nature of science (and science of nature). Science focuses on behavior, reactions, responses. In other words, the symptoms. "What happens to this if I do that?" is a scientific question. Science can't answer "Why do we exist?" It does't even have a good answer to the seemingly simple question "What is life?" But it's very good at describing the aggregate of responses that living organisms have to external stimuli. What it all means is left to philosophy or religion.

Science study on dogs

The Nightly Build...

---

Dogs Have a Sense of Fairness

Jeffrey Weiss, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reports what he calls a 'duh' science study. Experiments with dogs indicate that if master doesn't reward all dogs equally for doing tricks, then the dog that is treated unfairly is less likely to repeat the same trick. Weiss says this is obvious to anyone who owns more than one dog. Weiss still tells the story because he finds it interesting that "fair play seems hardwired into the brains of critters down the evolutionary chain from us."

We shouldn't mock studies that confirm conventional wisdom. Lots of common knowledge turns out to be false when looked at in a rigorous manner. Lots of common knowledge is confirmed. We don't know for sure which is which until we do the study.

One reason to test hypotheses we think we already know the answers to is to create the foundation for further studies. Rigorously understanding fair play in dogs might lead to better understanding of fair play in humans. Dogs can be made subjects of experiments that ethics would prevent running on humans.

That a sense of fair play is "hardwired" into the brains of dogs probably tells us something about ourselves. Will we discover that a sense of fair play is "hardwired" into human brains as well, whether from genes or from training? Don't be at all surprised to learn that if there's an evolutionary advantage for having a sense of fair play, that natural selection will select for it. That's hardwiring.

Dogs aren't "down the evolutionary chain from us." Dogs are just as highly evolved as humans are. Antelope are just as highly evolved as lions. Where one stands on the food chain does not imply anything about the inferiority or superiority of one's genes. All living things on Earth have about the same 4 billion years of evolution behind them, tailoring their genetic makeup for survival in their own environmental niches. It's been said that cockroaches have been around since the age of dinosaurs and will be around long after humans have destroyed themselves in nuclear or environmental disaster. If you're going to bestow rank in the "evolutionary chain", cockroaches would be at the head of the honor roll. Just in case you were feeling a little superior.

P.S. Coincidentally, another story was in the news today, headlined, "Homeless dog tries to save dog hit by car in Chile."

Macro-evolution

The Nightly Build...

---

Observing Species Jumps

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Opinion blog, brings us a "dog bites man" kind of story, headlined, "Scientists think science should be taught in science class."

As obvious as you might think that opinion is, nevertheless the reader comments inevitably brought forth complaints that evolution is preposterous. One skeptic demanded examples of "macro-evolution," "where a lizard changed to a dog (or whatever). ... Changes within a species are not sufficient to prove that jumps EVER happened."

Scientists agree with creationists on one thing: species "jumps" never happen. The offspring of a lizard always a lizard. If it were a new species, say a fubar, who would the new fubar mate with, being the only one of its kind.

Nevertheless we can "observe" species jumps over time. The fossil record shows slow changes in a species over time, so much so that there's no doubt that the individual at the beginning of the chain is a different species than the individual at the end, even though each step along the way was the offspring of the previous generation.

We can also observe species jumps over distance. A species spread along, say, a coastline sometimes exhibits a remarkable trait. Individuals living in close proximity have no trouble mating, but individuals at one end of the range cannot mate with an individual at the other end. If a natural disaster, say an earthquake or volcano, separates the range permanently, scientists would identify the individuals at each end as being of different species.

But don't expect these cases to keep the creationists from continuing to repeat the falsehood that "macro evolution" has never been observed.

Teaching evolution; Guns for kids

The Nightly Build...

---

Creationism Not Extinct in Texas

Bruce Tomaso, in The Dallas Morning News Religion blog, reports that the Texas State Board of Education is considering new science curriculum standards. Scientists from Texas universities are in favor of a proposal by an academic workgroup to eliminate language calling for the teaching students the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories. The scientists claim that talking of "weaknesses" is being used as an excuse to introduce creationism into the science curriculum.

The root problem is not the language in the curriculum standards. It's not the teaching of strengths and weaknesses of scientific theory -- that's what science is all about. The root problem is that Texas has a creationist, Don McLeroy, as chairman of the State Board of Education (and a creationist, Terri Leo, as chair of the instruction committee). It's like putting witch doctors in charge of the Texas Medical Board.

---

Guns for Kids

The Dallas Morning News, not content with just one Pavlovian conservative, Mark Davis, in its stable of local op-ed columnists, adds a new regular column by Trey Garrison. Today, Garrison descends into self-parody with a piece titled, "Buying my 5-year-old her first gun."

Evolution

The Nightly Build...

---

What Do UT Southwestern Scientists Think?

Recently, Steve Blow of The Dallas Morning News wrote a column on the results of an informal survey he gave to the sixteen faculty members at the UT Southwestern Medical School who have been elected to the National Academy of Sciences. Steve Blow said he was looking for a "Mr. Wizard" to help sort out controversies over subjects like evolution, global warming, and human stem cell research.

It turns out that all of the scientists believe in evolution and all but one believe in human evolution. 43% of the general public do not. There were similar discrepancies in attitudes towards global warming and stem cell research.

Steve Blow concludes by saying, "I don't imagine this is going to end any debates. But it's nice to know what our best science minds are thinking."

Brian Thomas, "Science Writer" for the Dallas-based Institute for Creation Research, takes Steve Blow to task in an essay published on the Creationists' Web site.

Thomas dismisses the sixteen top biomedical researchers for not being qualified, as if these members of the National Academy of Sciences know little more about the subject than the average car mechanic. Or real estate agent. Thomas says asking biomedical researchers' opinions on evolution is the same as asking sixteen real estate executives to guess Thomas' personal bank account balance. Thomas points out logical fallacies in Steve Blow's essay. Maybe Thomas can reread his own words and recognize an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Thomas argues that truth is not determined by majority vote. Thank God. Public opinion is far from knowledgeable about scientific matters. Ironically, Thomas then argues that more Americans believe in Creationism than Steve Blow reported, as if it matters whether it's Blow's report of 43% or Thomas' claim of 66%. Both numbers are embarrassingly large. Truth isn't determined by majority vote, remember? Steve Blow goes to the experts.

Thomas accuses Steve Blow of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. D'oh. Steve Blow admitted that's just what he was doing. He was looking for Mr. Wizard's opinion. Although authority doesn't prove truth or falsehood, it's generally a good working hypothesis until you have the time and inclination to personally repeat the research that led the experts to their conclusion. Thomas himself is guilty of a logical fallacy by implying that because an assertion originated from an expert, that that is a reason to disregard it. It isn't.

Thomas argues that just because scientists overwhelmingly accept evolution as a sound scientific theory, that doesn't mean it should be taught in science classes. Thomas doesn't say what we should teach instead. If not science, what?

Thomas tries to paint evolution as religion, not science. He claims evolution answers the "big questions of origin, purpose, and destiny." In fact, it does no such thing. Evolution has nothing to say about any of these questions. That's what religion is all about. And it's what Brian Thomas is interested in. He concludes by saying,

"We propose that there is overwhelming historical evidence that empirical scientists have been trained to reject -- the recorded eyewitness testimony to the original events of creation, the Flood, and the dispersion found in Genesis."

That's right. Thomas' source is the Bible. This is Thomas' own appeal to authority. Thomas should know that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Science relies on the formulation and testing of hypotheses through repeatable experimentation, not on revealed truth about conversations in the Garden of Eden. And you don't need sixteen eminent members of the National Academy of Sciences to tell you that.