Posts Tagged ‘hero’

Darwin and the Journey of Evolutionary Theory

Thursday, February 26th, 2009

I recently had the pleasure of attending a lecture by historian of science Dr. Michael Shermer, paleontologist and geologist Dr. Donald Prothero, and biologist Dr. Joel Smith. These men provided insights into the life of Darwin and how evolutionary theory, and the methods by which we study it, have changed since Darwin’s time. I would like to share a bit of my experience and what I learned at this event, but since I am far from a scientist, I must implore the reader to consider any errors herein to be my own misunderstanding (or poor note-taking) and not the errors of these great minds.

Dr. Prothero can speak about as quickly as he can think, and he managed to fit an enormous amount of information into his brief allotted time. Dr. Shermer later quipped that Prothero is the only man he knows “who can fit a three hour lecture into thirty minutes!” Dr. Prothero took us on a frenzied tour of the entire history of evolutionary theory, from Darwin to today. During Darwin’s life and the following years, evolution was widely accepted as fact in the scientific community, but acceptance of Darwin’s method by which it occurred, natural selection, was hard-won. Even after the importance of Mendel’s findings in the field of genetics was realized in the early 20th century, the majority of scientists still did not view natural selection as plausible. George Gaylord Simpson’s book, Tempo and Mode in Evolution, began to change this view by demonstrating a consistency between the facts of paleontology and those of natural selection and genetics. However, Simpson believed that genetics alone was sufficient to explain what was observed by paleontologists.

By the late 1950s, there was little controversy or dissent about the methods by which evolution occurred, but in science this is not a good thing; science gets better through being challenged. This challenge came in the 1970s, when the theory of punctuated equilibrium was brought to fruition, demonstrating the inaccuracy of the “Galapagos finch” idea that organisms are infinitely flexible in their ability to adapt, evolving in one gradual, smooth line. Rather, long periods of stability are observed, even during extreme environmental changes. In fact, there was close to no observable response to the largest climate change in the last 65 million years, the Oligocene cooling event. Darwin’s friend, Hugh Falconer, actually warned Darwin that stability of Ice Age Mammoths through glacial cycles was common. The majority of Pleistocene mammals display stasis. Yet, this does not mean that the concept of phyletic gradualism is entirely incorrect. Punctuated equilibrium is actually a form of gradualism, and when huge geological time scales are taken into consideration, the tiny incremental changes from one generation to the next become apparent.

According to Prothero, Neo-Darwinism, and the idea inferred by George Gaylord Simpson that genetics has made paleontology somewhat obsolete, still dominate in classrooms. To paraphrase the late Stephen Jay Gould, ‘A revolution has occurred, but the textbooks don’t show it!’ Neo-Darwinists don’t distinguish between microevolution and macroevolution, and geneticists working with fruit flies simply can’t take into account the massive time scales that paleontologists and geologists work with. When “species sorting” is considered to be on a different hierarchical level than individual natural selection, a much more accurate picture can be drawn.

Next up was Dr. Joel Smith, who gave us a peek into systems biology and some of the work he has been doing with genome sequencing, gene expression profiling, and perturbation assays. Systems biologists are able to graph the genes of an organism, knock out or “perturb” one individual gene, and observe the effect. In working with sea urchin embryos, they have been able to synthetically recreate evolutionary change. Sea urchins and sea stars share a common ancestor and at some point, sea stars ceased to develop larval skeletons, while sea urchins did not. By transplanting the regulatory sequences of a sea urchin’s genes into a sea star embryo, they have been able to cause the sea star to develop a larval skeleton. Dr. Smith believes that this method of experimentation may help us draw more general rules for how evolution takes place and help us make predictions about how evolution will occur in the future.

The delightful Dr. Shermer finished up the event, beginning by showing photos from his recent trips to Darwin’s stomping grounds in the Galapagos Islands and England, and the Creation Museum in Kentucky. He shared some of the “wisdom” he acquired at the Creation Museum, such as the real age of the earth (4004 B.C. – about the same time the Mesopotamians invented beer), the real reason we have viruses and diseases (The Fall), and the real reason T-Rex had such fearsome and sharp teeth (so that it could crack coconuts!)

In Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England, Dr. Shermer visited Darwin’s home and school, and he shared some of Darwin’s life story with us. Darwin’s mother died when he was eight years old and, since his father was very aloof, he was essentially raised by his sisters. Although his father wanted him to follow in his own profession, medicine, Darwin was distressed by the fact that, at that time, surgery was a bloody, screaming affair, without benefit of anesthesia. Darwin had a fairly liberal religious upbringing, and while studying at Christ’s College, Cambridge, he became engrossed with many of the then popular works of natural theology, which sought to unite nature with religion. Later in life, Darwin lamented on the “cruel works of nature,” and this observation of cruelty, in addition to the death of his young daughter, led him to disbelief. He adopted the label of “agnostic,” which was a term coined by his friend, Thomas Henry Huxley.

Although it is commonly believed that Darwin discovered the theory of evolution while he was in the Galapagos, he did not begin to put together these ideas until much later, in the years following his five year voyage on the HMS Beagle. In fact, rather than noting the differences in the various tortoises while there, Darwin ate these tortoises on his journey! At that time, it was commonly believed that all truth could be derived from merely thinking about it. Testing and observation were not the norm.

Darwin was a gentleman scholar, but he was also competitive. He had planned to postpone the release of On the Origin of Species until after his death, in part to protect the sensibilities of his evangelical Christian wife, but after he became aware that Alfred Russel Wallace had reached similar conclusions about natural selection, he decided to proceed with the announcement of his findings. His theory was given its first public exposure at the Linnean Society meeting of 1858, and its legacy has endured.

As many of you know, Darwin would have been 200 years old this month, and I can only imagine how awestruck he would be to see the journey his theory has taken. Happy Birthday, Darwin!

-Laura

More Intolerable Tolerance

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

Pat Condell, the infamous British anti-religious humorist, recently posted a video on YouTube complaining about the increasing acceptance of Sharia law by the British government, and asking that viewers sign a petition against Sharia law in Britain. Being tolerant (of, apparently, only offended religious nutters), YouTube (owned by Google) banned the video.

In my August article, Intolerable Tolerance, I chastised the British government for allowing itself to be further perverted by religious-based law, all in the name of tolerance. I guess the Brits just don’t listen to the rational. Heck, let’s ban all the rationals!

Here’s the Pat Condell banned video:

Please also sign (if you’re British or live in Britain) the petition against Sharia law in Britain (not that it’ll do any good, but perhaps it’ll make some of us feel better about democracy or something).

Deadline for signing is October 4.

(by the way, Pat Condell is officially a State of Protest Hero)

Now can we get a petition to ban American nutters like Sarah Palin?

Dear Procrustes, I’m going to kill you!

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2008

Dear Procrustes,

You are a moron, with your liberal anti-Christian views, and you’d better shut your site down, or I’m going to find you and your family and I’m going to crack your skull with a baseball bat and mutilate your family.

Signed,
Hypothetical

Yes, fortunately this is still a hypothetical situation for me, but it’s certainly real enough for a number of rational activists out there, including, fairly recently, PZ Myers, a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, who blogs at Pharyngula.1 On July 13, PZ Myers received an email with the subject line: “your short life.” The sender went on to state that if PZ Myers did not cease and desist his job (for the sake of his children), the PZ Myers would get his “brains beat in.”2

I’m not going to bother addressing the fact that someone who purports to follow a higher spiritual code is threatening the life of someone (and his kids) who follows a code of reason. Instead, I’d like to cite a few more examples, and then ask the readers if anyone else has had similar experiences, what have they done in those situations, and what can be done if we ever find ourselves in such a situation.

Before I jump into other examples, I’ll give some closure to the PZ Myers issue. First of all, PZ Myers made it quite clear that he reserved the right to post any emails (in full, with metadata) that contain threats of violence. What, pray tell, must have someone endured to require such a disclaimer! Word got around, and AIGBusted, from Answers in Genesis Busted, sent an email to the threatener’s employer3 (since the email threat was sent from a work address). It turns out that the threatener, Melanie Kroll, who, ironically, worked for 1-800-Flowers, was fired over the matter.4 Although it’s unknown how many readers possibly sent similar emails, AIGBusted appropriately feels no guilt over the firing. “I don’t feel guilty about reporting her. I think it is important for atheists to realize that large numbers of us wield a fair amount of power in these situations.”5

Apparently that is true. We have shown that we have the ability to do more than just sit idly by, wondering how valid a threat is. But how many of us (and by us, I mean anyone in the non-believing, rational, atheist, etc., community) are actually being threatened, how consistently, and, most importantly, how viable are these threats?

Where to begin? Of course, with the blog post that prompted Melanie Kroll’s threat.

July 12, 2008:
PZ Myers wrote, in a blog entry: “Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker… Unlike those nutty Muslims who are always taking offense over cartoons, these people have serious grievances.” And went on to describe and criticize the overreaction by the Catholics, media, and others, to Webster Cook’s forcible removal of The Body of Christ from a church.6 Accused of having “kidnapped” the equivalent of Jesus Christ, Cook began receiving death threats shortly after the media exploded the issue beyond repair, and PZ Myers, in turn, received a death threat for reporting about it. (Yes, I’m anxiously anticipating my day in the sniper scope.)

July 17, 2007:

Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution
Letters from a Christian extremist last week threatened the lives of evolution biology professors at the University of Colorado at Boulder. The letters claimed to be on behalf of a group, but newspapers and at least one blog have reported that an individual, Michael Korn, a Jew-turned-Christian extremist, is likely behind the threats (an image from his web site is at right). CU police spokesman Brad Wiesley told me they haven’t officially named a suspect but the Colorado Daily wrote that others “close to the case” named Korn.7

July 7, 2007:
J.K. Rowling announces the end of her beloved Harry Potter series of books, indicating that although it was a wonderful experience for her, there was a darker side to writing something Christians didn’t agree with: “Rowling says her success has been “the experience of a lifetime.” But it also has brought an intense level of pressure, scrutiny and criticism. In the United States, her book tours have attracted thousands of screaming children, but also death threats. Some Christians have called for the books to be banned, claiming they promote witchcraft.”8

March 28, 2008:
“Popular video site LiveLeak have been forced to remove the controversial film critical of Islam FITNA [by Geert Wilders9] after it received death threats from primitive, violent intolerant muslims.”10 Both Geert Wilders and some LiveLeak staff received a variety of threats of death and violence.

July, 2008:
Army Spc. Jeremy Hall’s “sudden lack of faith, he said, cost him his military career and put his life at risk. Hall said his life was threatened by other troops and the military assigned a full-time bodyguard to protect him out of fear for his safety.”11

June, 2002:
Michael Newdow, a TIME Person of the Week, received multiple death threats for his attempt to challenge the constitutionality of the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance, which was recited every morning at his daughter’s public school. 12 (As a side note, I met Mr. Newdow during that time period, and heard him discuss his various issues. He has also advocated for the removal of “In God We Trust” from U.S. currency,13 and he has won the Freethought Hero Award.14 )

October, 2006:
Robert Redeker is “a writer and high school philosophy teacher who has been under police protection and in hiding with his family since the newspaper Le Figaro published his op-ed piece about Islam on Sept.19. Entitled “Faced with Islamist intimidations, what should the free world do?”" “Redeker writes that he and his family are being forced to move every two days. “I’m a homeless person,” he complains. “I exercised a constitutional right, and I’m being punished for it right here on the territory of the Republic.” Redeker is only the latest in a lengthening list of Europeans who have been subjected to death threats from Muslims outraged by criticism of their faith and prophet.”15

1988:
Salman Rushdie had a fatwa issued against him for his publication of The Satanic Verses.16

November, 2004:
Mohammed Bouyeri shot Theo van Gogh, the Dutch film director and critic of Islam, eight times, killing him, and then nearly decapitated him by cutting his throat. Then Bouyeri stabbed van Gogh in the chest. A few weeks prior to the murder, Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague gave a sermon, calling van Gogh a “criminal bastard” and beseeching Allah to inflict an incurable disease upon him. 17

These examples are frightening and real, and they can all be Googled rather easily. But are the numbers of threats against the rational much higher? Have you ever received a threat of violence, death, or other retaliatory act for something you’ve done or that you’ve believed in? Please share!

If you’ve received a threat, did you take it seriously? How did you react to it? (did you reply, post the message, contact the authorities?) Regardless of whether you’ve received a threat, do you have any advice or suggestions for those who do?

Is this a trend we should be worried about?

  1. Pharyngula, “Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.” http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/ [<]
  2. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/mail_dump.php [<]
  3. Did I Get a Woman Fired? Answers in Genesis Busted. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [<]
  4. http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/071608-woman-fired-over-death-threat.html [<]
  5. http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2008/07/did-i-get-woman-fired.html [<]
  6. Christian Lunatics Issue Death Threats Over a Cracker, AlterNet. http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/91269/ [<]
  7. Professors in Colorado Receive Death Threats for Teaching Evolution, Wired.com. http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/professors-in-c.html [<]
  8. Rowling bids her boy wizard goodbye, USATODAY.com. http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/news/2007-07-19-rowling-potter_N.htm [<]
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geert_Wilders [<]
  10. LiveLeak Remove “Fitna” After Death Threats, GBG Atheist News. http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2008/03/liveleak-remove-fitna-after-death.html [<]
  11. Atheist soldier sues Army for ‘unconstitutional’ discrimination, CNN.com. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/07/08/atheist.soldier/index.html [<]
  12. Person of the Week: Michael Newdow. http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,266658,00.html [<]
  13. Michael Newdow’s “In God We Trust” Lawsuit Dismissed, Austin’s Atheism Blog. http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/06/13/michael-newdows-in-god-we-trust-lawsuit-dismissed.htm [<]
  14. Freethought Hero Award, Freedom From Religion Foundation. http://ffrf.org/awards/special/2004_newdow.php [<]
  15. Did a Critic of Islam Go Too Far?, TIME.com. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1541776,00.html?cnn=yes [<]
  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie [<]
  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_%28film_director%29 [<]

We Need 3000 Sean Tevises

Monday, July 21st, 2008

Look up rational activism in the encyclopedia, and you should find Sean Tevis. If not, slip his bio in there.

Sean Tevis

Last week (on or about July 16), Sean created a web page with some stick-figure action figures resembling Frank Miller’s “300.” These stick figures were yelling something about how the Internet could change the face of political history. Well, it did, and it’s still going strong.

Arlen Siegfreid is a Kansas state representative, a right-wing conservative who is anti-abortion, pro-censorship, anti-same-sex marriage, pro-surveillance, and pro-creationism (in public schools). Although Representative Siegfreid seems a shoe-in for the next election, Sean, a non-politician “Information Architect,” wants to run against him.

With a common sense platform, mostly designed to oppose Siegfreid, Sean readied himself to play the political race game, until he stumbled upon a hurdle that would seem insurmountable for most would-be activists: he needed name recognition cash. According to Sean’s entertaining stick-figured explanation of the situation, 93.4% of the time it’s the candidate with the most advertising money who wins an election. It’s mid-July, and Sean asks, “How much do I need?” The verdict: $26,000. By July 28.

Game over, man! Game over!

No, not for Sean! See, Sean is an educated man. Sean knew that it would require 52 donors, donating $500 each, to meet his goal. However, having spent some time learning basic math in school, Sean figured that he could reduce the amount of individual donations required by increasing the number of donors. Brilliant! Reminds me of the idea I had as a child to send a letter to every resident of the U.S., asking for them to send me a dollar each. I’d have been a millionaire for sure! Except that I wasn’t so great at math, and I didn’t account for the fact that it would actually cost me money to send those letters, and I would have to offset any earnings made by the cost of those letters, and I wasn’t guaranteed to get any money. Even if half of the U.S. sent me a dollar, I’d still end up with a negative return. But, as Sean says, This is the Internet!

Instead of trying to find a handful of very generous donors, Sean would seek out great gobs of very slightly generous donors, via the Internet, which is practically free.

His goal was to acquire 3000 donors, donating $8.34 each.

He drew his stick-figure story, and posted his request website page, with a little button link to donate via PayPal. He even listed the basic campaign finance rules and a list of perks for higher than requested donations (campaign t-shirts, coffee mugs, and Kansas flags, among them).

And then he waited. (I’m sure the waiting involved a bit of “alerting the press”)

BoingBoing (one of my favorite must-visit-daily websites), and a few others got the word. I got the word from BB, and spread it to the Atheist Think Tank forum. I monitored Sean’s website, watching the donors increase slowly. I was getting worried. When I first started watching, he had only acquired a hundred or so. But, probably because of all the latency created by the flood of visitors to his website, I was likely not seeing what was really happening. My forum friends informed me that they had either donated or that the website was sluggish. We started passing out Sean’s direct email so that we could donate via PayPal without going through his website. We sat and watched and cheered and rallied. And, apparently, so did a hell of a lot of others.

And today, July 21, the number of donors is 5,298.

That’s five-thousand, two hundred and ninety-eight donors.

Screw 3000, make 6000!

Apparently no state representative in Kansas history has ever had more than 644 donors.

WIN!1

But you know what has gotten me really excited about all this? It’s not Sean Tevis specifically, although I think he’s established himself as a hero. It’s that this has given us an example of how we can use our resources to make progressive change, to rally against the incumbents who want to tell us that the way to live our lives must conform to their twisted ideologies. It shows us that there are people out there who give a shit, and although they might not all individually be able to stand up and fight, they sure can click a button and send a real representative a few bucks to help do something about this strangulation we’re enduring. And that representative can do what needs to be done without worrying about not being related to an oil tycoon. If you want to phrase that in popular terminology (that, in its spiritual sense, doesn’t necessarily correspond to my rational belief system, but is a close enough word), it gives us rationals some hope.

Sean Tevis needed 3000 of us to help him kick some ass.

What we need is 3000 Sean Tevises.

[Update: At the end of July, Sean had nearly $100,000 in donations. According to his Weblog, he's made more money than his opponent, and since his money hasn't come from lobbyists, he's not tied down by promises that would shaft the voters. Great job, Sean!]

First, go visit Sean Tevis by clicking these words, and see what he’s done, and maybe donate a little.

Second, do something about something. I can’t tell you exactly what to do. All I know is that if we even had ten, twenty more people like Sean Tevis, we could start reversing this trend of government-sponsored, taxpayer funded perniciousness. Donate to a Sean Tevis, run your own campaign, start a local paper or a blog, get active.

  1. or “PWN!” if that suits you [<]