Science Made Cool

Animated Contribution

A couple of weeks ago, Pharyngula pointed to an interesting appeal from a Scottish animator. Iain Gardner wants to put together a short film that shows how many people accept the scientific theory of evolution by natural selection relative to the people who believe in the creation of life by an intelligent designer. He wants you to send him a photo of yourself – holding an apple if you’re in the evolution camp, or a light bulb if you’re an ID-er. When he strings the images together into an animated video, you’ll be able to see the relative proportion of people in each group.

If you want to join in the project, just take a digital photo and send it on. But there are some composition issues to keep in mind. Iain explains in this video stashed below the fold:

Is This the Best They Can Do?

On Thursday night I went to a talk at UMass given by Michael Behe.  He’s one of the leading proponents of “Intelligent Design” theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution, and was a star witness at the Dover school board trial.  Behe laid out his argument for Intelligent Design, and in a congenial and folksy way explained that he had simply ‘followed the evidence’ to reach his conclusions. But at no point in his talk did he show us any clear scientific evidence to support his ideas.

Here, in a nutshell, is his argument.
1. Organisms contain complex parts that perform specific functions.
2. Many of these parts appear designed.
3. Some structures are too complex to have arisen by natural selection.
4. Darwinian claims rest on imagination.
5. Therefore, there is strong evidence for design and little evidence for Darwinism.

Superficially, this looks like a logical argument. It certainly follows the pattern of premise, argument, and conclusion that make up a logical argument. But it’s rife with fallacy. What’s worse, Behe claimed he was making a scientific argument. Scientific arguments can be tested, have the potential of being falsified, and make predictions about the real world. Behe’s argument can’t be tested and has no predictive ability. So whatever it is, it isn’t science.

Let me show you what I mean. Behe starts with two statements of fact as his premise. Living organisms are fantastically complex things. They’re filled with structures that are intricately put together (organisms also have some pretty kludgy structures, but let’s leave that point alone for the moment).

Judgement Day

The U.S. District Court for central Pennsylvania handed down a decision in the case of Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District on Tuesday, and dealt a serious blow to the Creationists trying to sneak the doctrine of divine creation into high-school science classes.  The court decided in favor of the plaintiffs (a group of parents and teachers) and against the school board. 

In 2004 the Dover school board voted to change the school curriculum to include a disclaimer stating that Darwinian evolution was just a theory with gaps which could not be explained.  They also added an "Intelligent Design" textbook to the course.  All this was justified in the name of giving equal time to a rival scientific theory.

The judge didn't buy it.  "The effect of Defendants’ actions in adopting the curriculum change was to impose a religious view of biological origins into the biology course, in violation of the Establishment Clause."

Judge Jones (who is, by the way, a Republican and who goes out of his way to point out that "this is manifestly not an activist Court.") was obviously very unhappy with the Dover school board members behind the curriculum change.  In his 138-page decision (which can be found here), the judge concluded that "Intelligent Design" is not science at all, for three reasons:

"(1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community."

The judge noticed that the "Intelligent Design" proponents were being deliberately deceptive in their attempt to sneak it into the curriculum:

"Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class.  This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.  The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID."

The really devastating part is where the decision scolds the defendants for their dishonesty in lying about their motives and actions.  He practically throws his gavel at them:

"Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere."

Finally, Judge Jones seems to have run out of patience entirely: 

"The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial."

So, no discount on BONE WARS for Pennsylvanians.  Sorry, folks.

CARD GAME ENTERS EVOLUTION DISPUTE

We're making good on our threat. Starting immediately, we're offering a 20% discount to anyone in Kansas who buys BONE WARS: The Game of Ruthless Paleontology from our online retail store. The offer is valid through December 31, 2005. We'll also give the discount to anyone shipping to Kansas, so feel free to send a copy to your cousin in Topeka.

Why give a discount to Kansas? Simple: the Kansas Board of Education has attempted to give equal space in the state public school biology curriculum to the doctrine of "Intelligent Design," claiming that it is a "scientific theory" of the origin and development of life. When real scientists complained that "Intelligent Design" fits none of the criteria for an actual scientific theory, the Board responded by redefining "science" so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations for phenomena.

So we're doing our part for science. BONE WARS shows players how a scientific theory is developed and tested, and they can learn lots of fun dinosaur lore along the way. Best of all, one of the four "ruthless paleontologists" in the game, Charles Sternberg, was actually raised in Kansas and collected many important fossils in the state.

If you're one of the many Kansans that love science for what it really is, you have our sympathy. We wish we could do more to help. But we don't have the awe-inspiring power of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Starship

This is more technology than science but we have to mention the fact that the US Patent Office just granted someone a patent on an anti-grav spaceship.

A cooled hollow superconductive shield is energized by an electromagnetic field resulting in the quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly outside the space vehicle. The spacetime curvature imbalance, the spacetime curvature being the same as gravity, provides for the space vehicle’s propulsion. The space vehicle, surrounded by the spacetime anomaly, may move at a speed approaching the light-speed characteristic for the modified locale.

Watch this space for the announcement on venture funding! And see additional comment by Science Made Cool blogger Jim Cambias after the jump. (via Gizmodo)

Science Redefined!

Science has been redefined in Kansas! In addition to voting for language in school texbooks that casts doubt on the theory of evolution, the school board "rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena." Ah hah! Maybe we should offer everyone in Kansas a copy of BONE WARS at a discount.

LATER: We have decided on a special deal for people in Kansas or shipping to Kansas. See www.zygotegames.com for ordering information.