Evolution of the zebra fish

I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about evolutionary biology, but after sending a letter to the WSJ yesterday on intelligent design, I opened my morning Globe to find a front page story about a biologist who was fired for his “creationist” beliefs.

The story mentions his “Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation,” but it’s not clear if this is the reporter’s interpretation of what all creationists believe or his own view, i.e., that he’s a knuckle-dragging Bible literalist who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. Given that the man has a master’s degree in biology and a Ph.D. in philosophy (from St. John's University), it seems hard to imagine, but anything is possible.

However, the following paragraph gave me pause:

"[Nathaniel Abraham] was hired by Hahn's marine biology lab in March 2004 because of his expertise working with zebra fish and in toxicology and developmental biology, according to court documents. He did not tell anyone his creationist views before being hired. Hahn's lab, according to its website, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining '. . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective.'"

One would hope that given Dr. Abraham’s education and profession, he does not deny that animals are capable of adapting to their environment, i.e., that evolution through a process of genetic mutation exists. Dr Abraham might differ with Darwin however, on two of Darwin’s larger hypotheses: 1) that new species are created through a series of genetic mutations; and 2) that these mutations are entirely random. Intelligent design theory proposes that although genetic mutation creates micro-evolution within species, there is no proof that it creates new species. I assume that Woods Hole is not expecting the zebra fish Dr. Abraham is studying to evolve into elephant seals.

On the second point, one can accept that some mutations are random, and one can study these mutations using scientific methods—see Michael Behe’s recent book The Edge of Evolution, which examines the limits of random mutation in the malaria virus—without accepting that all mutation is random. If a scientist believes that the awesome complexity of life requires an intelligent designer, i.e., God, it need not affect his research on the response of a zebra fish to chemical contaminants.

"Not comfortable thinking about science"

Letter to the WSJ:
Lawrence M. Krauss’s valid case for increasing scientific literacy in America (Wall Street Journal, “Science and the Candidates," 12/6/07) would have been more compelling if he had not tried to bring in the debate about evolutionary theory. The ability of a presidential candidate to tackle the technological challenges facing America is unrelated to his views on intelligent design.

Mr. Krauss points out that when avian flu appeared, “no one suggested that ‘intelligent design’… could provide answers.” No one suggested that a rocket scientist or an auto mechanic could provide answers, either. Intelligent design investigates a very specific question: did the complex design observable everywhere around us arise through a series of completely random genetic mutations, as Darwin proposed, or was some form of intelligence necessary to guide the process?

In fact the mutation of viruses like avian flu are studied by intelligent design researchers—but not with the goal of preventing infectious disease that Mr. Krauss is referring to. In his recent book, The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe makes the case from data on the malaria virus that the power of random mutation to create new forms of life is limited.

Michael Behe seems convincing to a layman. He may be proven wrong. I’m not averse to the idea that evolutionary biology will one day trace how random mutation created a whale from a paramecium. At present though Darwin’s hypothesis is still being tested, and the larger question of the origin of life remains an unsolved mystery. I find this debate about where we came from lively and exciting. When Lawrence Krauss tells us that the debate is over (not unlike global warming alarmists), that intelligent design is believed by people who don’t know that the earth goes around the sun, who are “not comfortable thinking about science,” it comes across as anti-intellectual and close-minded.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119690672602315322.html

Irrational obsession with CO2

The Globe editorial "Carbon Capture, but then what?" points out that converting the Somerset facility to coal gas will reduce air pollution, including mercury and sulfur, but you urge the DEP to halt this good project because the details haven't been perfectly worked out for capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions. One might say that this illustrates the maxim that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but I'm not convinced that the goal of capturing carbon is worthwhile. There is very good evidence that increases in CO2 lag behind increases in temperature by 800 to 2000 years; i.e., increased CO2 does not lead to global warming--global warming leads to increased CO2. An irrational obsession with CO2, a non-toxic gas necessary for plant life, should not obstruct valid efforts to reduce air pollution.

Free market subsidies

Allen E. Smith calls for new energy policy legislation, arguing that the ethanol industry is an example of "our preoccupation with letting the free market determine our national energy policy."

The only reason that ethanol is in our gas tanks is because of energy policy legislation mandating its use, along with billions in subsidies for ethanol producers. Rather than a failure of the free market, ethanol is a perfect example of how legislators with a poor grasp of the energy market, abetted by corn and green lobbyists, can push an ill-conceived project forward. Allen Smith, no. Adam Smith, yes.
(published in Boston Globe 11/20/07)

We want more social justice

Much has been written about the attempts of the educators to brainwash our kids with liberal values. Last night at an informational meeting for a local prep school (sorry, “independent” school) I got a glimpse of another side of the story. The Dean of Students was met with a several questions:

-- An insufferable bore whose daughter has been at the (Gay, Multicultural and Non-judgmental) Friends School asked, What will your school do to instill the values of social justice in my daughter?

--From a black woman: “What is your diversity percentage?” Not an unreasonable question, but her tone was accusatory. And the question is distressingly at the top of many parents concerns. And easily answered in 15 seconds on the school website. When she heard the number (20%), the woman then asked, “Yeah, but what is the African-American number?” Gotcha.

--This was followed up by an Hispanic woman who said with great disdain, “Yeah, I look around this room and I see a lot of Caucasians.”

The Dean fielded these questions with grace and honesty, and I saw a picture of school administrators under the onslaught of a public snarling for more diversity, more social justice curriculum, more multiculturalism, more “service oriented learning.”

Then this morning’s Globe had a story (naturally on page 1) about UMass students going on strike—marching in the streets--because the school’s “diversity recruitment was lackluster.” Of course, it’s the fault of the university for not recruiting strongly enough. The idea that admissions departments aren’t interested in increasing “diversity” is ludicrous.

I don’t want my kids spending their education being taught tbe Robin Hood theory of socialist justice--take from the rich, give to the poor. Or being lectured by Al Gore that the end is neigh! Or being taught to hate America. Or being taught that Islam is really wonderful because it’s not just a religion, it’s a system of government (from an educational training video I saw earlier in the week). I’d rather they study their biology and grow up to be a doctor than spend a week in the spring restocking a food pantry for the homeless.

I know that Laura Ingraham is calling for us to take back our schools, but at the moment I just want to hide in the corner until these bad people go away.

Tutu

Archbishop Tutu uses flowery language and talk about peace, love and truth to camouflage his offensive anti-Israel bias. He acknowledges that some people are enraged when he (and his fellow Nobelist Jimmy Carter) label Israel an apartheid state, but he nevertheless repeats the comparison numerous times. Most egregious is his treatment of Palestinian suicide bombers. Although he does not condone their acts, he praises their motives; they believe it is “heroic and pious’; “they strap bombs to their torsos to achieve liberation.” In sum, blowing up pizza parlors, buses and weddings is misguided and tragic—not for the victims but for the perpetrators. The Israeli response to the murder of civilians is described as, a “lust for revenge…crowding out all reason and restraint.” A man who sympathizes with murderers and vilifies their victims should not be considered a moral leader.

Mommie dearest

James Carroll writes about suicide bombers: "Anguish and dread must fill the hearts of their family members, if they know ahead of time. After the fact, grief must anchor every feeling...What was the meaning of [a mother's] life if not the well-being of her children?" This may be true for the two Afghani mothers he describes and for many families, but--unimaginable as it may seem to us--these feelings are not universal among the mothers of suicide bombers; Mr. Carroll is projecting his liberal western values onto fanatics who love death more than life. I suggest he go to Youtube and listen to the chilling interview with Palestinian legislator Umm Nidal who describes the joy she felt after sending three of her sons to paradise through martyrdom.