Miller-Urey Experiments repeated

Saw this on Scientific American Online. Researchers have repeated the Miller-Urey experiments using the 'right' mixture of gases in the primordial atmosphere along with a new twist. Miller-Urey's original experiment produced amino acids, but the atmosphere used (methane and ammonia) was unlike the early atmosphere on earth. When Miller-Urey repeated the experiment, few amino acids were produced. The latest experiment adds what is essentially a buffer to the water system in the form of iron and carbonate. The addition of these buffers resulted in more neutral water system and bingo amino acids were formed.
The question remains as to whether or not the new experiment faithfully reproduces conditions on the early earth. Carbonate rocks are not present in abundance until later in Earth history (3.5 Ga) and certainly dissolved iron was present in the water as evidenced by Archean-age banded iron formation. The carbonates that are present in Greenstone belts are also ankerites (iron-rich carbonates) lending further support to the conditions mentioned in the news article (Veizer et al. 1989).
I like how the article mentions creationists view on this and no doubt they will respond to the latest experiment.

Cheers

Joe Meert

ref:

Veizer et al., 1989 Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta, 53, 859-871

Gould a Marxist

Well, I'm back (and hopefully on the right calendar). I check my e-mail only to find out from Christian Worldview Network that Stephen J. Gould was a Marxist and an atheist. The article goes through great lengths to discuss Gould's political views and the magical link to his scientific views. The absurdity should be clear to anyone, but the obvious goal of this article is to associate Evolutionary Biology (in this case, punctuated equilibrium) with Marxism and atheism. After all, no honest Christian or American could possibly agree with either Marxism or atheism, right? Here's the punch line from the article:

Gould, along with Lewontin, Levin, Jonathan Beckwith, Ruth Hubbard, and Herb Fox, founded an organization entitled “Science for the People.” Wikipedia begins its discussion of this organization as follows: “Science for the People is a leftwing organization that emerged from the antiwar culture of the United States in the 1970s.” Harvard’s E. O. Wilson labeled the organization “American Marxists.” Not insignificantly, the cover of its magazine contains the Communist clinched fist!

Oh No, not the clenched fist! To all of this I say, so what? Evolutionary biology is embraced for its utility in science. There are leftist, communist, right wing, centrists, liberal and socialist evolutionary biologists. There are Christian, muslim, buddhist, agnostic and atheistic evolutionary biologists. There are black, yellow, red and white evolutionary biologists. There are big, tall, skinny, short and medium evolutionary biologists. There are evolutionary biologists with glasses, contacts and good eyes. There are blonde, brunette, bald, redhead and every color in between evolutionary biologists. You won't ever hear from Christian Worldview than Gould was a salt-and-pepper haired reading glass wearing evolutionist! The article is another lame attempt by religious fanatics to paint evolutionary biology as something other than solid science. Of course, it took a while, but ultimately we hear the 'I hope he converted' arguments:

In other words, nearly everything Gould touched over his lifetime would force most neutral onlookers to the conclusion that he was indeed a Marxist and by implication an atheist. However, it would be nice to think that Gould saw the error of his ways and repented; that he saw what former atheist Antony Flew finally saw—that the universe could not have happened by chance; or what Whitaker Chambers discovered about Marxism-Leninism as related in his classic Witness.

and the rather disjointed link to global warming.....

Let me make a prediction—this new leftwing “science” organization will be heavily involved in the global warming controversy on the side of big government and the “greening” of America. You see, the “upper class” greens are the new Communists of our era, and they have already decided that “science” is on their side and Western capitalism must be destroyed in order to save the planet from too much capitalistically produced carbon dioxide.

Does anyone proof-read for this publication? The entire article was a wacked out brain-fart from someone trying to make, what point?

Cheers

Joe Meert

FYI

I am on 'vacation' (I only wish it were a real vacation) for a few days. I'll be back on Tuesday March6, 2007.

Cheers

Joe Meert

RATE Presentation DOES indeed get interesting

Back in February, I blogged about a conference put on by the RATE Group in an undisclosed location. Today, I've heard back from my colleague Dr. Todd Feeley, University of Montana in Bozeman. What Todd was trying to do behind the scenes of this upcoming event was to arrange with the speaker John Baumgardner to attend a field trip with the faculty at Montana and explain the geology of the region in the young earth global flood model. I received permission from Todd to go ahead and post his e-mails to my blog, but have no permission to post John Baumgardner's replies. That means it's up to you to fill-in-the-blanks regarding what was/wasn't said. So, here is the first message from Todd to John:

Dear John,

Greetings from one former Bruin (Ph.D., 1993) to another. I've read in our local newspaper that you will be in Bozeman this April for a conference to discuss the results of your work with the RATE group. As you are probably aware, the geology of the northern Rocky Mountains is exceptionally diverse. In less than a days drive we can examine Archean Wyoming Province meta-igneous and sedimentary rocks, the Quaternary and Pliocene Yellowstone Plateau volcanic field (and Snake River Plain), world-class dinosaur localities, Laramide deformational features, massive sections of Proterozoic Belt Supergroup sedimentary rocks, Paleozoic to Eocene terrestrial and marine sedimentary rocks, Cretaceous to Eocene extensional deformation and magmatism, and just about everything else one can imagine in between.

Of course, as geologists we're always interested in learning more about how these features fit into the complex geologic evolution of our region and, in this regard, your rapid plate tectonic and genesis flood models are provocative. Therefore, if you have an hour or so to spare before your conference, we would like to invite you, personally, to an informal meeting with some of our faculty and students so we may gauge how well your models actually explain the details of the rocks and fossils we are so intimately familiar with. Better yet, if time permits, we could drive out to the field for a longer trip and you could explain the local geology at actual outcrops to our group in young earth terms. Note, in order to better facilitate scientific discussion, we would prefer to keep these activities unadvertised outside of our department so as not to create debate-like atmospheres. We envision friendly get-togethers among researchers and students to compare the predictions of your models with the evidence in the rocks.

As a flexible researcher who has simultaneously published both old-earth (and moon!) and young-earth models in the mainstream scientific and creationist literature, respectively, we hope you will accept this invitation. I look forward to your reply.

Best regards,

Todd

This is a wonderful request and idea for confronting creationists and I applaud Todd for using this tactic. In fact, a video of the whole thing would be priceless. The problem, as you might guess would be getting Baumgardner to reply positively. Todd did indeed get a response from Baumgardner which I cannot post here, but you might be able to figure out the gist of the e-mail by reading Todd's reply:

Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007

Hi John,

Thanks for the quick response - your schedule certainly seems full. Regarding a seminar, we will pass on this format as the RATE conference will already be several days of formal talks. As per my initial email, what we have in mind is an informal, unadvertised discussion session between you and members of our department. For background, we acknowledge that Terra was a great piece of code writing and as your resume shows you have used it to support both old earth and young earth models. With the RATE conference coming to town, the latter is of most interest to us because from our perspective you have used it, quite frankly, to develop models that appear to violate nearly every scientific principle from gravity, electromagnetism, to the consistency of nuclear decay constants on down. Furthermore, the heat problems appear to be enormous and impossible to overcome without invoking miracles. That aside, as geologists who spend a good amount of time in the field we are most interested in the rock record and your rapid plate tectonic and genesis flood models make predictions that we should be able to clearly see in the rock record. As scientists, it is these predictions we would like to test. Therefore, because you don't have time for a field trip, what we have in mind is to spread out geologic maps and stratigraphic sections from the northern Rockies and other localities on a variety of scales, set out collections of rocks we are working on, look at geochemical and geochronologic data, and have you explain all this to us in young earth terms. For example, let's take a close look at the stratigraphy of southwestern Montana and you point out to us specifically which rocks represent the rise, peak, and fall of the flood waters. I imagine that this should be fairly straightforward because as I understand it the flood was a global event and therefore the geology here should not be markedly different from other areas you are already familiar with. Personally, I am interested in learning which rocks are flood and which are post-flood because I have been dating volcanic rocks in the region by the 40Ar/39Ar method. The data look excellent (all stratigraphically consistent with no apparent inherited argon). However, if they are flood rocks by your model I would need to recalulate the raw data using the new accelerated decay constants, which your group has probably worked out by now. If they are post-flood rocks then the data should be good using the present day observed decay constants, no?

In any case, thank you for offering to present a seminar, but we will wait for the RATE conference to hear more about your geophysical models. However, our offer still remains open for you to explain the geology of our region to us in young earth terms.

Best wishes,

Todd

Another detailed suggestion outlining a course of action. The following is the next e-mail in the 'exchange' (or lack thereof)

Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007

Hi John,

Please forgive me if I am being presumptous, but I will take your lack of response to my previous email (below) as an indication that you have, unfortunately, decided not to accept our offer to discuss with members of our department the geology of the northern Rocky Mountains in young earth terms. However, if I am wrong, please contact me soon so that we may schedule a meeting time. If I don't hear back from you, good luck with your conference.

Best wishes,

Todd

Todd contacted me today and gave me the ok to post his e-mails on the blog. I'll keep you updated if anything further develops. It's precisely these sorts of invites that may be useful in the battle against young earth creationism and intelligent design. The key, I think is to make the invitation like this and then record the event (if any of them agree). For the record, I doubt that this is the sort of venue that would be pleasing to creationist. They must lay bare all their 'science' before people more knowledgeable (or at least equally so) than themselves. Baumgardner would simply be out of his league discussing flood geology with the geologists at Montana. He would probably do ok discussing the computer code for Terra and how it can be (mis)used to generate a global flood, but when it comes to ground truth, Baumgardner (or any other young earth creationist) does not have a leg to stand on.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Oregon Biology teacher fired over creationism

FoxNews is reporting that an Oregon biology teacher was fired over his attack on evolution. According to the news report, the teacher made a direct link between evolution, Nazi Germany and Planned Parenthood (the three sisters of the creation apocalypse). He was terminated for deviating from the planned curriculum (and was apparently a part-time instructor). Kris Helphenstine, the teacher said:

Critical thinking is vital to scientific inquiry," said Helphinstine, who has a master's degree in science from Oregon State. "My whole purpose was to give accurate information and to get them thinking

Thinking about what Kris? How well you've been duped by young earth creationists and ID'ers into buying one of the lamest (yet emotional) attacks on evolution? Helphenstine claims he went out of his way not to teach creationism, but the evidence stated above shows he was following the creationism curriculum right down the line. Was firing him a good idea? Probably so, it's quite clear he did not have a grasp of the subject material he was responsible for teaching.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Richard Fortey attacks ID and is counter-attacked

Renowned British paleontologist Richard Fortey took on Intelligent Design last week in the London Daily Telelgraph. His article was titled "The Ego and the ID" and he concluded with the following statement:

So that is why biologists get so mad at the propagation of ID. It wastes time. It suppresses research rather than encouraging it. It's not really a theory, it's a story. It deflects the young from asking the important questions. It serves to kill curiosity rather than encourage it. Sometimes it is right to get angry in the face of unreason. Darwinists are readily labelled. There should be an equivalent term for the proponents of Intelligent Design. May I suggest IDiots?

Now, to be fair, many of us have been using the term IDiots for some time. It's cute, accurate and it works. Of course, the DISCO folk got a hold of the article and began to deconstruct Fortey's message. Peter Williams takes on Fortey in his response. Williams claims that Fortey is attacking a straw-man. Williams fails to recognize that ID IS a strawman set up to look like science! So, Richard is forced to attack a strawman by design!
Sadly, Williams does not really offer a single worthwhile point in his counter-argument. Of course he tries to separate ID'ology from religion whereas fundamentalist religion is the source of their funding and are one of ID'ers strongest allies. Seems very strange to constantly deny the obvious, but how else does one explain ID except through constant denial of the obvious?

Cheers

Joe Meert

As sophomore who gets it

Sometimes I wonder how well students are receiving and processing information. As I was searching through some newspaper articles, a point-counterpoint exchange by two students at Drexel University shows that at least one of them 'gets it' when it comes to science. The student is a sophomore in physics and yet shows quite a latitude of understanding about physics, biology and even some geology. To read on.....

The response (by a history major) is also enlightening in a scientifically sad sort of way.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Subduction gets a new face

Mantle slab model of rollback and return flow of a subducting slab (Schellart et al., 2007 Nature, London copyright)

Today's Nature (link requires subscription) has an interesting article on the nature of subduction zones and their evolution. Subduction is the process where denser and older oceanic crust is recycled back into the mantle. As the crust is recycled, it also pulls the accompanying plate and provides part of the driving force for plate tectonics. What is interesting about the study published in Nature is that it moves us away from a typical 'cartoonish' view of subduction to a more sophisticated view involving time/space evolution of the subduction zones. A bit of an explanation is needed before delving into the specifics of this new study. Here is a textbook picture of a subduction zone:

Textbook Subduction zone showing the descending oceanic lithosphere

The above picture shows the descending oceanic lithosphere penetrating the mantle and going down into the mantle. The picture also shows a long trench intersection with the surface and the depth to which the slab penetrates is not shown. We've known for some time that this simplified picture is not going to give us tremendous detailed insight into the process of subduction or how it affects the mantle or surface features of the earth. We know for example that a slab intersecting the surface of a sphere will create an arcuate shape (Marianas Arc is shown below) and cartoon showing the arcuate shape formed during subduction, but not necessarily how that arcuate shape will evolve through time or whether it should be nearly linear concave or convex. We also do not know how the shape should change with time as the slab interacts with the mantle.

Marianas Arc in the South Pacific formed by the intersection of a linear slab with the curved surface of the earth

Click on Figure for Larger view. Note arcuate shape on right hand side.

The problem has come in modeling the evolution (time/space) of a subduction zone. Subduction does not continue forever. Oceanic plates disappear, the mantle changes density with depth, plates vary in size, slabs vary in width and trenches don't continue on forever. Therefore in trying to look at the time/space evolution of the subduction process, mathematical modelers have been forced to place artificial limits on the process in order to gain insight into subduction. Previous models simplify the subduction zone by doing one of two things. In order to gain information on the temporal sequence of events, they treat the slab as infinite in extent (no end). In order to obtain information about the geometry of the slab, they treat the slab as finite, but fixed in space. Neither treatment allows us to gain full insight into the process of subduction which varies in time and 3-D space. That's what is new with the model published today in Nature.

Schellart et al. model the subduction process as a 3-D variable slab that changes as the subduction geometries change and as the slab encounters different forces during subduction. Their model explains two key features associated with the real earth. They show that slab width constrains the curvature of subduction zones and their tendency to retreat backwards through time (trench migration). Very narrow plates have a concave boundary and retreat much more quickly than wide plates. Wider plates develop a convex boundary and retreat more slowly. It's the very largest subduction zones that are the most intriguing because the models show that the middle regions can actually advance over short time periods rather than retreat. It's that last part that is quite interesting because the Nazca plate is diving beneath South America and there is a feature in the Andes called the Peru-Chile orocline (or bend; see below):

Peru-Chile trench, note the bend in the in the trench (dark blue area that parallels the Andean coastline). The so-called stagnation zone (see figure below) and variable retreat velocity formed the orocline. Mantle flow at either end of the subducting slab changes the velocity of edges of the slab.

The idea put forth in this paper suggests that the advancing zone of the trench is responsible for the apparent indentation in the Peru-Bolivia region of the South American plate. The evolving geometry of the trench is shown in the figure below courtesy of the article in Nature:

Evolution of a Nazca-type trench according to Schellart et al. (2007). Copyright Nature London (2007). The mantle return flow around the edges correspond with the Caribbean region to the north and the Scotia arc to the south.

The model accurately predicts the shapes of various subduction zones around the globe based on the 3-D geometry of the subducting slab. A very nice little study with bearings on real earth processes (and all in the millions of years timeframe) :)

Cheers


Joe Meert

Junk Science Elimination Act

There is a bill being considered in the Florida Senate entitled "Junk Science Elimination Act". Don't get your hopes up, it's not going to eliminate young earth creationism/intelligent design from the state of Florida, but it pertains to the weight of testimony given by non-experts. A similar bill has been introduced in the house. According to the general description the bill is about:

Testimony of Witnesses: Creates "Junk Science Elimination Act"; provides standards for opinion testimony by lay witnesses; provides standards for, bases of, & limitations on expert testimony; authorizes expert witness fees; provides requirements for mandatory pretrial hearings; provides requirements for mandatory pretrial disclosure of expert testimony; provides for interlocutory appeals; specifies standards of review.

So yes I got very excited in reading this bill because I thought for sure it would prevent 'expert testimony' against evolution taking place in Florida courts. Then I started to follow the paper trail. First and foremost, this legislation is sponsored by Republican Senator Wise who also sits on the K-12 education commission in Florida. Secondly, this legislation is being pushed by a group known as ALEC run by Executive director Lori Roman. Roman's bio states:

Lori Roman is the Executive Director of ALEC. Formerly Mrs. Roman served as the Chief of Staff of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Education where she was responsible for strategic planning and management of resources to achieve the goals set forth in the President’s Management Agenda.

Warning bells began to go off inside my head and I began to read some of the material on the site. ALEC has been critical of legislation in states trying to reduce carbon emissions according to the Kyoto protocol. ALEC has also been linked with efforts to erode civil liberties and in labeling what is and isn't 'junk science'. The legislation is partly about limiting corporate lawsuits and the label 'junk science' has been applied elsewhere in ALEC's documentation. Want to guess where? Under their 'junk science' page, ALEC makes the following assertion:

Students are increasingly exposed to classroom and textbook material designed to influence their point of view about certain topics. Furthermore, many classes in political action theory promote political action activity. These two facts, when presented together, present a threat to education and to the greater society as an entire generation of students matures into advocates of causes in which they may have been inadvertently coerced into believing, and for which they may feel coerced into fighting.

Students have the right to be educated from textbooks and curricula based on sound scientific evidence, and textbooks should be written in language appropriate for education that is understandable, factual, and based on sound scientifically replicable data.

Sounds great, but the reality is that there is not a clear definition of what constitutes sound science. That could mean that Intelligent Design should be considered sound science and that evolutionary biology is a form of coercive education. I'm just paranoid though, right? Here is their model legislation:

Resolution on Non-Verified Science Curriculum Funding. This legislation establishes that the state legislature will no longer fund curricula or textbooks that present “science” that promotes and advocates for or against only one side of an issue.

There you have it. In other words, these 'junk science' bills are simply a backdoor to allow junk science into the classrooms under the guise of 'equal opportunity'. While the above bill is supposedly about tort reform, the notion that 'junk science' legislation is making it's way into the legislature offers a cautionary note for those of us concerned with valid science. "Junk Science" bills are, in my opinion, trash.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Source of Dark Matter Discovered

One of the hallmark mysteries in cosmology is whether or not the universe will continue to expand forever or will eventually collapse in on itself in a Big Crunch. Either way, I'm not likely to be around to see which way we end up. However, this morning I was thinking about these issues and in particular the source/existence of so-called dark-matter in the Universe. Although this area is far outside my own expertise (that being hydrocephalic earth studies) a visit by my mother-in-law provided the inspiration for solving one of cosmology's most enduring riddles. How much dark matter is in the universe and what is dark matter composed of? The leading candidates according to modern physics are baryonic and non-baryonic (hot dark matter and cold dark matter). Dark matter is important to expansion/contraction/flat theories of the universe because according to Martin White (UC Berkeley):

This is quite interesting because as the Universe expands the value of Omega changes. In fact the value 1 is unstable, and the Universe would prefer to evolve towards one of the two natural values: 0, if the expands forever further apart until the Universe is almost totally empty ; and infinity, if the matter recollapses to a state of higher and higher density. Then the observation that Omega is fairly close to 1 today, means that it must have been even closer to 1 in the past. It is unsatisfying to believe that we just happen to live at the time when Omega is just starting to depart from 1 by a small factor.

It's the last sentence that got me. Why should omega be departing from 1 at the present time. Following a morning coffee discussion with my wife and mother-in-law, I propose the following alternative. A brief explanation for the inspiration is needed:

(1) My mother-in-law is in her 70's and yet she loves her Windows98 computer. She'll often call me up to say that files just disappeared from her list and she is unable to find them. Most recently, she received a new dial-up service package and she mentioned that all her phone number files just 'disappeared' from her computer. She said "I know they're out there somewhere".

It was an aha! moment for me. Indeed, those lost files are out there. They are winging their way through the cosmos. Tiny electrons (baryonic matter) or even WIMP's (non-baryonic matter) containing phone numbers, soup recipes, e-mails with photos of some cute cat or dog performing a trick, photos of ice covering cars in Switzerland distributed to a list of friends, advertisements for Viagra at a discount are all part of the root cause for omega's departure from unity in the present era.

Gravitational lensing caused by spam e-mail electrons in Abell 2218 (Hubble Image). Note the cute-kitty, soup recipe and lost phone number in the image.

There's more of course. My mother-in-law helps with the laundry and invariably the dryer eats some of my socks. It is my hypothesis that baryonic dark matter is also made up of socks that were sucked up by the dryer, thrown at light speed from the vent and now populate the cosmos causing additional gravity ripples and excess matter in the Universe.Astrophysicists spend millions of dollars looking for objects like MACHOS (MAssive Compact Halo Objects) as candidates for dark matter such as brown dwarfs. The real search should begin at home. If we consider the TLSN (total lost sock number) based on the current global population of ~6 billion people. Each lost sock contains a mass of 100 grams (plus some static charge build up) and if each person loses 3 socks per year, we are adding about 1.8 x 10^9 kilograms of matter to the universe per year + an unknown number of charged particles. It follows that socks must simply appear from nowhere via some quantum fluctuation in order to add mass to the universe rather than a simple transfer of mass. This would account for locating socks which have no match and that I have no memory of owning.

Socks orbiting Brown Dwarf in Orion's Trapezium Cluster (courtesy Hubble)

If these socks were to gravitationallly collapse amongst themselves, they may create dark regions of space thought previously to be black holes. In fact, the black hole at the center of our galaxy may simply be nothing more than a sock repository (though probably the socks may be fully ionized). I'm beginning to think that additional matter (far exceeding the mass of lost socks) is also entering the universe from playgrounds and elementary schools around the globe in the form of mittens, hats, gloves, coats, homework, report cards etc.....

Cheers

Joe Meert

Florida Next up on the Science Standards Block

The state of Florida, which received an 'F' from the Fordham foundation for its state science standards, is beginning the process of revising those standards. There are areas of concern as the State launches into the review and also some hope that the new standards will be much improved from the previous version.
The main concern is that the standards reach a higher level than the previous standards and that politically motivated groups like the Intelligent Design PAC doesn't try to move ID into the science curriculum. The current K-12 Chancellor of Florida, Cheri Yecke came from Minnesota where she was sympathetic towards creationism and Intelligent Design. The ID crowd here in Florida is fairly active and groups like Physicians for Surgeons for Scientific Integrity have been actively promoting Intelligent design around the state of florida. We also are home to two of the more active young earth creationists Kent Hovind and D. James Kennedy. Kennedy has suffered from health problems and Hovind is currently in jail for income tax evasion. Nevertheless, they both have a reasonable following and there are numerous young earth creationism/Intelligent Design supporters in the state.
On the plus side, there are several active citizens groups in the state including the recently formed Florida Citizens for Science and the Humanist Society of Florida who will be carefully watching the framing and writing of the new standards. It is also heartening to learn that the beginning of the process will also involve an information session including speakers from the Fordham Foundation who will explain why Florida got an F for its standards and the involvement of other "A" grade states in presenting their standards to the framers and writers of the Florida standards. We also have Law Professor Steven Gey (FSU) although he is also currently facing some health problems. Gey is a long time defender of good science and is leading scholar on religious liberty and free speech issues. Michael Ruse, philosopher and frequent pro-evolution debate expert is also at FSU. Lastly, Nobel Prize winner Sir Harold Kroto will also be involved in framing the Science standards.
There are many other proponents for good education and many proponents for pushing socio-political agendas like ID/creationism into the classroom. The fire is now lit in the state of Florida and we'll have to wait and see if it becomes a wildfire or merely a campfire. I think Florida has a good shot at avoiding the same sorts of problems that plagued Kansas and a few other states, but time will tell!

Cheers

Joe Meert

Denial: Flowing swiftly through Pensacola

"What? Me worry?"

Creation 'evangelist' Kent Hovind continues to sit in Escambia County jail while his lawyers file multiple appeals on the case (or so he says). What's most interesting about his plight is that his blogs are always the same. They are filled with "Everyone else should be in here, so glad I'm not like them". In fact, Kent may not have committed the same sorts of crimes as the people he shares G20 with, but that does not make him any less deserving of his current living quarters. I suppose a psychiatrist might have a field day examining Hovind. Reading his blogs makes me think of someone who simply refuses to accept that he has been convicted and also thinks he is better than everyone else in that place because he has found God. Read some of this stuff:

My last four months in jail have been similar in many ways. Most of the men God sent me to reach in here have a very different way of viewing the world and thinking about many things. In one Bible study, I mentioned that God’s plan is for both the man and the woman to be virgins on their wedding day and to stay faithful for life. I said that is what my wife and I have done for over thirty three years. No one in this jail pod had ever heard of such a thing! One man said, “That would be so cool! You could really trust your wife and have a great relationship, couldn’t you!”

This is the same 'loving husband' who told his crying wife over the phone 'Maybe you better change" when she asked if 'their marriage was going to be the same'. Listen to the tapes and you'll find a woman agonizing over their relationship. So, even in prison, Kent has denied any problems whatsover. I suppose that's one of the ways to make it through such an ordeal.

Just as Don had to spend hours listening to the Sawis to understand their culture before he found the key to reaching them for Christ; I have spent untold hours listening to men who were raised completely opposite of me, describe their world view. It is important to “sit where they sit” to really reach them (Ezekiel 3:15). Understanding the reasons behind why they take drugs, wear pants halfway down with their boxers showing, have gold front teeth, have 16″ long dread locks that they have not combed in eight years, or flock to the TV for the local news to see if their “home-boy” was arrested, is all part of my current missionary assignment.

"Don" was a missionary who supposedly converted a bunch of lying treacherous cannibals to Christ. Aside from the obvious criticism of his fellow prisoners, Kent pretends he's not one of them, he's on a mission assignment. Not really Kent, your serving a 10-year prison term.

I have seen men shake and sweat as they come off some of the worst drugs known to man. I learned that black men can shave with a plastic spoon!

Sometimes when I hear/read Hovind, I wonder if there is a more bigoted person in the world. What's so important about shaving with a plastic spoon?

I see the results of the failure of our society, school system, and churches. Why weren’t these men reached when they were kids?

Coming from someone who expresses amazement at how someone shaves, I'd suggest that Kent did not bother to try to 'reach' any of these folks when they were kids. Furthermore, I think one of the worse drugs known to man is the self-induced Savior psychosis apparent in so many of the 'creationist ministries' today. Creationists want to ruin America by driving it towards a Taliban-esque state where these same men you are 'saving' would likely be thrown in prison anyway for failure to conform to your world-view. So, we have a choice here. These men have a chance to get over their addictions or they can be addicted to creationist stupidity for the rest of their lives.

I’ve been able to witness to Muslims, Buddhists, Nazis, drug dealers, Jehovah Witnesses, whoremongers, adulterers, child molesters, and homosexuals, as well as men who have no clue who their father is and whose mother was a prostitute. Most have never been to church or read the Bible in their entire life.

Been able to witness to any tax-evaders (look in the mirror)? As anyone who follows you would know, going to church (or even creating one as a tax-shelter) and reading the bible does not stop anyone from turning to drugs or trying to bilk the system.

The CSE Ministry Team is still doing well, in spite of the devastating blow.
My son Eric has done an awesome job filling in for me during my “extended leave!” We still get dozens of reports every week of souls being saved and lives being changed. That is our main purpose on earth. We praise God for using us even during this great time of trial and testing.

Hmm, from the looks of the CSE Home page, this also seems to be denying the obvious.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Dr. D. James Kennedy

Well Dr. James Kennedy is wacking out against evolution again. In his 'bara' series, Kennedy tells us that no human being can ever prove there is no God, in fact it is also true that no human being can ever prove there is a God, so the first few minutes of his speech are wasted. Kennedy is worried about atheists being 'foolish little ants'. Of course all of this is a lead in to his attack on evolutionary biology and blaming all the world's problems on evolutionary science. Yes, folks Kennedy tells us this important message 'if you tell people they are animals, then all hell breaks loose'. They are just acting out what we are teaching them in school. Evolution is getting nailed down (i.e. overtaught) in schools at the very same time that evolution is 'falling apart' and the evolutionary castles are falling apart and evolution is in Chaos! Hmm, someone should tell the biologists. Don't you just love stories about the imminent demise of science? The Big Bang theory is also apparently falling apart as is most of modern science to hear D. James telling it.

Here is what D. James Kennedy tells us evolution relies on:

(1) Fertility of imagination.
(2) Gullibility of the audience

Hmm, sounds like another lie. He also tells us that there are over 100 million fossils in museums now and there are no transitional forms. Hmm, wonder what he thinks of tiktaalik roseae or these? Next he'll be telling us about the lie of partial derivatives (See also the first comment attached to this blog). It's one of the great mysteries of math, there should be hundreds of partials if full derivatives exist. But all the so-called 'partials' we see in the math books are fakes.

The guy sounds like he's reading directly from pamphlets supplied to him by Answers in Genesis without ever exploring whether that information is indeed accurate. It's a classic case of belief suspending skepticism. I know he's skeptical of evolution, but did he ever stop to think how science could be so wrong about so many things? Geology is wrong, paleontology is wrong, biology is wrong, astronomy is wrong, physics is wrong etc etc. Don't extraordinary claims like 'all science is wrong' send up a big red flag? The answer for D. James Kennedy is 'not really, cuz the message SELLS!'. Chalk up another liar for Jesus.

Sorry, I can't listen to this anymore. If you want to listen to someone lie, lie again in the name of God, D. James Kennedy is right there alongside Kent Hovind!

Cheers

Joe Meert

PS: Ed Brayton has a very interesting blog on the Templeton foundation and their relationship with ID'er William Dembski (very interesting read).

AIG attacks dinosaur find- Sort of

Well, it was bound to happen. Anytime evolution is in the news, Answers in Genesis is there to attack the news. So, it is with the find of Albertaceratops earlier this week.. Answers in Genesis criticism is the usual superficial 'but it's still a dinosaur' claptrap. Here's what I don't get about AIG. They call themselves scientists, they think that young earth creationism is good science, but they don't do any science themselves. In fact, it's apparent that they read an associated press report, decided that it was invalid on the basis of what was reported and case is closed. Dr. David Menton gives us his critical view of the find:

And what is Dr. Menton’s conclusion about this dinosaur and other similar claims? He states: “The evidence for evolution always looks much worse when examined critically and in detail.”

However, there is nothing in the Answers in Genesis article that even hints that Menton bothered to read the literature on the topic. Menton reacted to a news piece. In fact, the AIG article tells us how it was determined that Albertaceratops was found to be an intermediate:

This newly uncovered dinosaur, Albertaceratops nesmoi, had horns about three–feet long (located right above its eyebrows). In the evolutionists’ timeline, dinosaurs that were 12 million years older than this one had larger horns, and the ones that followed had smaller horns. Hence, evolutionists say, this creature represents a middle step.

So, what have they really found? Well, this is a dinosaur that is in the same family of already-discovered dinosaurs, yet possesses a difference in thickness and size of its horns. But because of the pre-supposed evolutionary dates involving millions of years, this latest find is considered to be an intermediate in an evolutionary sequence.

As a comparison, we would ask: what would evolutionists say about today’s many cattle varieties with their different horn lengths and thicknesses if they were to be found as fossils in the ground, but which they dated to be millions of years apart?

Instead, the reason that this dinosaur is thought to be an intermediate is based on a cladistic analysis of multiple features and not simply the horns. Menton did not bother to read the article or even investigate the claim in more detail. The cladogram from the paper is shown below.

The paper describes the analysis in the following manner (snippet only to give a flavor of the fact that it was not simply the horns that placed Albertaceratops in the evolutionary sequence.

The analysis presented here supports the monophyly of the Ceratopsidae (node 2) based on two unambiguous characters—35¹ and 36¹ (superscripts indicate character states [0–4] as indicated in the character description), but the monophyly of the clade is also well supported by numerous characters excluded from this analysis (e.g., Sereno, 2000). The Centrosaurinae (node 4) is supported by eight characters (Fig. 12), only one of which is ambiguous (13¹), and the Chasmosaurinae (node 10) is supported by nine characters (Fig. 12), of which three (11¹, 19⁰, and 28⁰) are ambiguous.

The basal neoceratopsid Zuniceratops is the sister taxon of the Ceratopsidae, supporting the assertion of Wolfe and Kirkland (1998) that was published without phylogenetic analysis.

The Centrosaurinae was first proposed by Lambe (1915) and was rediagnosed by Lehman (1990). Of the eight characters supporting this clade (Fig. 12) only one (presence of the jugal infratemporal flange) is shared with the Chasmosaurine. Albertaceratops is determined to be the least derived centrosaur and is defined by four ambiguous characters (9¹, 30⁰, 31², and 32²), and one unambiguous character (10²), the shape of the adult nasal ornamentation. The length (but not the shape) of the nasal ornamentation is shared with Achelousaurus, and orientation of the spike at locus 3 is shared with Pachyrhinosaurus.

So the analysis was far more detailed than simply comparing horn sizes of antecedent dinosaurs and those that came after. Basically, a number of features are compared and a 'tree' is constructed based on those features. The closer the branches, the more closely related are the dinosaurs. In fact, a good read of the paper explains in detail how robust the phylogenetic analysis really was (and this is another reason I know Menton did not read the paper). Anyway, I guess 'Science' at Answers in Genesis means 'react to any news report and deny, deny, deny. I wonder if AIG was founded in the Nixon era? Hmm.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Reference: A NEW BASAL CENTROSAURINE CERATOPSID FROM THE OLDMAN FORMATION, SOUTHEASTERN ALBERTA. M. RYAN Journal of Paleontology.2007; 81: 376-396.

Kent Hovind seeks partial acquittal

Well, he's back in the news. Kent tried to get acquittal on the charges that he was trying to avoid the bank reporting laws on deposits less than $10,000. Federal law requires banks to report such withdrawals or deposits greater than $10,000. Yes, sure Kent, we know you weren't aware of the limit when you made deposits/withdrawals consistently just under the limit. His wife Jo's sentencing has been delayed pending the judges decision. From the newspaper:

Kent and Jo Hovind were back in federal court this week seeking acquittal on charges of bank structuring.
The couple's attorneys argued there was no intent to defraud the government by making large deposits just under the $10,000 threshold that triggers bank-reporting requirements.
In November, Kent Hovind, a Pensacola creationist who owns Dinosaur Adventure Land on North Palafox Street, was found guilty of 58 federal charges, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes.
Jo Hovind was convicted of 44 of the counts that involved the bank reporting requirements.
In January, Kent Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
He remains in the Escambia County Jail awaiting transfer.
A date for Jo Hovind's sentencing has been delayed pending a ruling by U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers on the request for acquittal on the bank structuring conviction.

No date has been set for her ruling.

__________________________________________________________________

Meanwhile, over on the West Coast where evolution is part of a textbook battle led by religious zealot Ron Mathews, I read an excellent editorial on the topic by Richard Larsen. The opening statement was perfect:

When an elected official bases public-policy decisions on his personal religious beliefs, he snubs the people he supposedly serves. When an elected board acquiesces to this official, it abdicates not merely its governance functions, but its moral duty to the voting public.

Both concepts lie at the heart of a Ventura County Board of Education flap over a science textbook's treatment of the theory of evolution. Area 5 trustee Ron Matthews, who represents a good chunk of Oxnard and areas adjacent to it, objects to "Focus on California's Life Science" because it teaches the theory of evolution as fact.

Pity the poor parents who send their child to school only to learn the child has actually been taught facts. No wonder this nation's education system has faltered in recent years: Educators have been teaching facts as fact.

To continue reading click. The rest of the article is a bit fuzzy in its explanation of theories, hypotheses and laws, but overall the first few paragraphs captured the essence of the message.
__________________________________________________________________

And finally from the West coast, we learn that Kirk Cameron's (Growing Pains cum evangelist) little sister Candace Cameron Bure (Full House cum evangelist) is following in her brothers footsteps and getting inspiration from Banana man cum evangelist Ray Comfort. Here's Candace's bio:

You know Candace Cameron Bure best as the lovable sister D.J. Tanner on ABC's hit sitcom Full House. Acting since the age of five, Candace has grown up in front of the camera working on numerous television commercials, films, primetime hits and critically acclaimed made for T.V. movies. Candace's testimony includes coming to the Lord at age 12, but not having a spiritual awakening until several years later. At that time, she began a self-imposed hiatus from acting to stay at home and raise her three children with husband, NHL star, Valeri Bure. Married for 10 years, Candace shares how learning to be the wife God intended ultimately brought her husband to the Lord and changed her good marriage to a God centered, purpose-filled one. Her passions include sharing the importance of being the wife God created her to be as well as presenting the gospel message in the same way that changed her walk with the Lord forever. It's been said, "Everywhere Candace goes it's as if a huge light is shining all around her. She brightens every room and every life she enters. No matter how down or discouraged a person might be before she arrives, they'll be lifted up and feeling the love only Jesus can bring in a person surrendered to Him."
Candace Would be an ideal speaker for:
-Outreach events
-Youth conferences
-Events for young wives and mothers
-Woman's retreats

Candace has been greatly influenced by the ministry of her brother Kirk Cameron and her friend Ray Comfort. Candace has joined Kirk and Ray in their cause to teach and proclaim the need to return to Biblical evangelism and to reject the man-centered evangelism strategies that are producing false-converts. You will be encouraged, inspired and equipped as you hear the testimony and keynote presentation of Candace.

UGH.

Joe Meert

Erosion of the Geology Curriculum

I just finished reading an article by an MS seeking geologist (Nancy Price) in The Professional Geologist (American Institute of Professional Geologists) with the title of today's blog. The piece was very well-written and described some of the issues facing students/faculty in the Geological sciences. These problems may be faced to some degree by other programs. It was interesting to hear the students perspective and although she was right on with many of her comments, she did miss one big picture item.

Here's the gist of what is going on with geology today. At many universities, geology is being eliminated as a major or combined with other departments so as to make the major nearly invisible. I can think of three recent cases. The first is Indiana State University (my first professorial job). When I arrived, the Department was called "Geography, Geology and Anthropology". That's an already watered-down version of Geology, but ISU is a smallish campus (11,000) with a mainly commuter student body. Still, the departmental faculty were all vibrant hard workers and we served a lot of students well. I was tenured at ISU in 2000, but saw the handwriting on the wall. I was lucky in that a tenure-track position opened up at the University of Florida and I was hired (back at the Assistant Prof level and had to go through the tenure process again). Two other colleagues 'escaped' and sure enough Geology is now gone absorbed into a new department of environmental ecology or some such name. The second is the University of Albany which had a very strong (and solid reputation) in Geology. The program is being eliminated. At other universities, Geology programs are being told to increase the number of majors, or else! The last one that I know of is at Southern Oregon University which axed Geography and Geology.

Against that backdrop, we have an increasing need for professional geologists. There are more jobs than there are students and most pay a decent wage. So, how do we attract students, keep them and make sure that they are successful? Nancy notes that one of the problems is that in order to increase majors, we must adapt the major to make it more attractive to students. When you read 'attractive' you must read 'easier'. The traditional geology major requires students to take 2 semesters of calculus, 2 semesters of calculus-based physics and 2 semesters of chemistry. That alone is enough to turn many, otherwise excited heads away.
Nancy Price, writing to other students, notes this in her article stating:

"Put yourself in your professors shoes for a moment. You have designed a curriculum that requires higher-level calculus. Study in some fields of geology hinges on your understanding calculus principles and you personally do not feel that the level of calculus that is required is enough (JM: It's like she read what was written in my soul!). Yet, no one is taking the higher math and students are telling you that they don't want to be geology majors because they can't even handle the basic level of calculus. You need more majors...."

She's right. In fact, she is spot on with her observations (though I don't personally consider Calc 2 as higher level calculus). Nancy goes on to explain how professional companies don't want to teach incoming employees the courses they missed in their undergraduate days and most importantly she notes:

"As a student, you don't see things from the outside because you are in the thick of it. It (eroding curriculum) is probably not even a problem to you. The geology curriculum seems challenging enough already without the accusation that you are not being pushed hard enough."

So, she's right that the geology curriculum has eroded. Here at the University of Florida, we have instituted 2 different majors. The Bachelor of Arts program requires no calculus, no physics and no chemistry! However, as the advisor, we make it very clear that this degree is not intended for students who want to work in the field of geology. So, is this a bogus degree? Hardly, students may head to law school, towards a high school earth science teaching degree or into business of some kind. The degree limits what one might do as a professional geologist, but it does not hinder future success. Our B.S. degree is more rigorous, but we now require one calculus, one non-calculus based physics and one chemisty. After those core courses, students must take one additional second-level class in one of the three areas (calc, physics or chem). So, most definitely the rigor of our non-geology curriculum has decreased. The geology curriculum itself is still rigorous and all the 'normal' geology courses are required including 6 hours of summer field credit.

This is how it is today. If we want majors, we must alter the curriculum in a manner that does not please the marketplace. If we continue to not please the marketplace, then we will stop getting majors because there won't be jobs. We are caught between a rock and a hard place (yes, that was intentional). What's the solution? Here's how Nancy sees us getting out of the cycle:

"Instead of deciding whom to blame, why don't we think about how we are going to fix this problem? As students, I think we could have a role to play. Geology students are very interested and driven people. It is not that we are lazy, it is just that if we can't see the connection to geology then it does not seem as interesting. The problem is that we don't necessarily want to learn calculus, it is just that many of us don't see what it has to do with geology. Why learn it if it doesn't apply? The same thing goes for all the other subjects that geology students typically avoid. The designers of the geology curriculum need to understand this. Instead of making students sit in a classroom with a math teacher teaching in a way that is centered on theory, professors need to design their own calculus class that teaches with real-life geology problems....."

The remainder of the article is full of suggestions for how professors can do a better job. This is the point where I say "Not so fast Nancy". What exactly is the role that students can play (after all that was your lead-in)? It's simple. When you choose a major, it is important that you understand the job opportunities and requirements to succeed in that major. As an undergraduate advisor, I make it very clear to students who choose the BA track that they won't be working as professional geologists. For those who enter the BS track, I make them aware why we require only one calc, physics and chem course and that they will need to take more if they want to get a good job or continue on to graduate school. Those who want to do geophysics are guided to take more math and physics and those who are interested in geochemistry will take more math and chemistry. Our major is flexible enough so that budding paleontology students can take more biology and zoology, geophysics students can take more math and physics and geochemistry students can take more math and chemistry.

As for 'geology profs teaching calc, chemistry or physics', the answer is, we do. I teach geophysics where students with a knowledge of calculus and physics see how it is applied to real world problems. The only requirement is that you understand the theoretical underpinnings of calculus and physics because otherwise the real world problems won't have any meaning. The same is true for geochemistry classes. Should we also require that professors of geology teach 'geology-based' religion? Geology-based philosophy courses? I think Nancy missed the boat here and that's not unusual. Instead of trying to avoid these courses, sit down with an advisor to find out how exactly the curriculum was designed with the students best interest in mind. A good advisor will do that.

To her credit, she does explain at the outset of her article that the only person being hurt by not following the more difficult curriculum is the student. She also has good suggestions for taking the students out to the field more and letting them 'crawl around' for 15 minutes on the outcrop before telling them what they are looking at. In fact, many students must be instructed to crawl around the outcrop and bang on it as well! Nancy also suggests that professors stop making classes easier and change the way they teach. Most of us do both. We make our classes more challenging and alter our teaching styles to fit the personality of the class.
Nancy has written a very thought-provoking article and hopefully students, faculty and administrators will have a look at it (I'm sending a copy to the Dean). I think the best way to 'solve' the problem is through a three-step approach:

(1) Good advising: Students should talk to their advisor and their advisor should talk back. The curriculum should be developed with the students best interest at heart. The advisor can (and should say), yes we only require non-calculus based physics, but you would be farther ahead by taking the calc-based version.

(2) Active students- Rather than lament the fact that you don't know why calculus is important, go find out. Visit a geological firm (there are many). Ask them why chemistry calculus and physics are important. Ask them what they need most. Work for a professor in the department. You will quickly see the utility of math, physics and chemistry in their research.

(3) Active Professors- Stay in touch with the professional geologists. There are far more of them than there are of you. Find out what skills will make for better employees (GIS is one that comes to mind).

Rant off!

Cheers

Joe Meert

Oops, evolutionary theory really works

The creationists are not going to like this one! This is not necessarily a brand new find as it's discovery has been known for while. The full analysis including cladistics was just published this month in the Journal of Paleontology and thus Albertaceratops is getting a bit of a publicity boost. The original skull was named by it's discoverer, Michael Ryan as "Medusaceratops". The Press reports state:

A new dinosaur species was a plant-eater with yard-long horns over its eyebrows, suggesting an evolutionary middle step between older dinosaurs with even larger horns and the small-horned creatures that followed, experts said.

The dinosaur's horns, thick as a human arm, are like those of triceratops - which came 10 million years later. However, this animal belonged to a subfamily that usually had bony nubbins a few inches long above their eyes.

I really liked the last few paragraphs of the story.

Unquestionably, it's an important find," said Peter Dodson, a University of Pennsylvania paleontologist. "It was sort of the grandfather or great-uncle of the really diverse horned dinosaurs that came after it."

Ryan named the new dinosaur Albertaceratops nesmoi, after the region and Cecil Nesmo, a rancher near Manyberries, Alberta, who has helped fossil hunters.

The creature was about 20 feet long and lived 78 million years ago.

The oldest-known horned dinosaur in North America is called Zuniceratops. It lived 12 million years before Ryan's find, and also had large horns.

That makes the newly found creature an intermediate between older forms with large horns and later small-horned relatives, said State of Utah paleontologist Jim Kirkland, who with Douglas Wolfe identified Zuniceratops in New Mexico in 1998. He predicted then that something like Ryan's find would turn up.

"Lo and behold, evolutionary theory actually works," he said.

So this new find lies somewhere between the horned triceratops and the less ornamented protoceratops. I put the skulls in order below. Protoceratops, Albertaceratops and Triceratops. It is also the basal clade for the centrosaurines (see cladistic analysis below).

Protoceratops Skull
Albertaceratops Skull (copyright J. Paleontology, 2007)
Triceratops

The cladistic analysis in the paper is also given below for those who wish to see exactly where albertaceratops lies in the evolutionary scheme:

One gap down, two new ones opened!

Cheers

Joe Meert

Reference: A NEW BASAL CENTROSAURINE CERATOPSID FROM THE OLDMAN FORMATION, SOUTHEASTERN ALBERTA. M. RYAN Journal of Paleontology.2007; 81: 376-396.

Hold on to your hats, fountains of the deep discovered

In a fantastic news story that is sure to be leveraged by young earth flood proponents, we learn that a giant body of water was discovered beneath Asia with a size of approximately the Arctic Ocean. The news story states:

Scientists scanning the deep interior of Earth have found evidence of a vast water reservoir beneath eastern Asia that is at least the volume of the Arctic Ocean.

The discovery marks the first time such a large body of water has found in the planet’s deep mantle.

The finding, made by Michael Wysession, a seismologist at Washington State University in St. Louis, and his former graduate student Jesse Lawrence, now at the University of California, San Diego, will be detailed in a forthcoming monograph to be published by the American Geophysical Union.

But don't get your hopes up too quickly flood fans! This is not a giant pool of water ready to be unleashed on the earth to kill the next generation of evil people. Although the amount of water contained in this region may be equivalent to the volume of the Arctic Ocean, you would not be able to fill your pool with the water because it's locked up in ancient oceanic crust that has subducted back into the mantle. As the oceanic crust dives back into the mantle, the water contained in the slab is released. Near the subduction zone some of this water is released and lowers the melting temperature of the surrounding mantle causing volcanism above the slab.

Model of a subduction zone showing potential sources of dehydration water from sea-floor sediments (blue), subducting oceanic crust (white) and serpentinized subducting mantle (yellow). Crust and mantle structures (faults and fractures) are shows as red lines. Volcanism will occur as the water lowers the melting point of the surrounding mantle wedge.

In other cases, the slab continues down and the water is released more slowly and incorporated into the surrounding rock. Dubbed the Beijing anomaly because of its prominence there, the water was released during the heating of the subducting slab (see image).

Scientists probing the Earth's interior have found a large reservoir of water equal to the volume of the Arctic Ocean beneath eastern Asia. The left figure is a slice through the Earth, taken from the figure on the right, showing the attenuation anomalies within the mantle at a depth of roughly 620 miles. In both images, red shows unusually soft and weak rock believed to be saturated with water, and the blue shows unusually stiff rock (yellow and white show near-average values). Credit: Eric Chou

Since the water is locked up in the lattice structure of the mantle rock (about 200-500 parts per million in the mineral pyroxene for example), you can't tap into it and use it for drinking and you certainly can't use it for powering the 'fountains of the deep' during the Noachian flood. So, my bet is that creationists, like Walt Brown, will hype this as evidence for the flood and won't bother to tell you all the facts.

Cheers

Joe Meert

The evolution of a creationist

I have a story to tell and it's an interesting one (I think, I am going to change the names and places to protect the individual). Several years ago a young man began debating Baumgardner's hyperplate tectonic model on one of the various creation/evolution debate boards. The kid was bright, well-read and reasonably good at debating. He was, at the time, a junior and then senior in high school. It was obvious that this kid was smart and he was very interested in geology and geophysics. He read books, I gave him copies of my old books and he really thought through the problems he was debating.
He applied to UF and I wrote him a strong letter of support, but for whatever reason, he was not admitted. He is now at a different university and studying geology. I have been in contact with him and following his progress. The young man desires to get a Ph.D. and is working in the labs at his university doing interesting stuff. Here is his entry from Facebook (with names removed of course):

I am a student member of: American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, Geological Society of America, and Philosophy of Science Association.

I work for the XXX geology department doing geochemical research. The current project has to do with the chemical geodynamics of subduction zones and what information we can derive from trace B, Be, and Li concentration analyses.

If anyone has an ion microprobe I can get my hands on, lets hang out.

One goal of mine is to get published in a respected journal while still an undergraduate. I am working on projects in geochemistry and geodynamics and have a lengthy list of of geology related projects I would like to pursue at some point. I am also working on some very interesting projects in philosophy. My work here will probably culminate in a book which I tentatively call "love transcending".

He is doing well in school and from what I can tell has seen through the guise of young earth creationism. I'm hoping he'll consider UF for graduate work. He is no Marcus Ross.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Law Review supports teaching of ID

In their never-ending push to get ID into the public classroom, the DI put out a press release stating that it's ok and constitutional to teach intelligent design. Arnold Loewy (according to the article a liberal first amendment lawyer) wrote:

I believe that teaching intelligent design in public schools is constitutional (outside of the unusual context of the Kitzmiller situation). First, under Establishment Clause doctrine, States may not disapprove of religion. And, a fortiori, courts cannot disapprove of religion. Of course, I am not arguing that a State must teach intelligent design. States are free within quite broad parameters to set their own curricula. As important as the question of intelligent design is, failure to teach it hardly constitutes disapproval of religion. But when the Court invalidates teaching a theory of origin because of its partial congruence with religion, that is disapproval.

The ID folks are, naturally claiming this a victory and noting that this is precisely what they tried to argue in the Dover case. I'm not a lawyer (though I have played one in local theatre) and so I followed the Dover case as an interested spectator. Here's why I think Loewy maybe legally correct, but his opinion on the matter has too narrow of focus and completely irrelevant to the real underlying arguments. Loewy goes on to say

[I]nvalidating the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is flatly inconsistent with free speech principles. … If the Supreme Court ever gets a case, unlike Kitzmiller, where the School Board or Legislature's apparent motive for integrating intelligent design into the curriculum is to maximize student exposure to different ideas about the origin of the species, and not to indoctrinate religion, the Court should uphold the provision.

This is where the spin comes in. The reason that ID changed its name (and appearance) was to skirt the issues that arose in previous Supreme Court cases. In self-proclaiming intelligent design a scientific theory, the ID folk hoped that they could leverage free speech laws. What Dover did for us was to show that ID was creationism's Trojan Horse. Furthermore, the very notion that one can simply purchase equal time in the classroom for any wacko idea is absurd. Yet, this is exactly what the ID folk are doing. They conduct no/very little science and work as a well-funded political action committee. I'd also like to ask the ID folk the following. "What's the big deal?". If ID is good science, it will eventually find its way into the classroom the same way that all good science finds its way into the classroom. It will have earned a place in the textbooks by building up a strong scientific base. Whatever happened to patience and hard work?
If ID really wants to be science, then the battle should not be taken to K-12 level. The fight should be taken to other scientists. Instead of battling for a legal precedence to be taught in high school, they should be battling Nature and Science reviewers with their testable hypotheses. Instead of arguing about the nuances of first amendment rights, they should be arguing about first authorship on the scientific papers. Instead of lobbying the halls of congress, they should be lobbying the IVY-covered halls of academia.
This is not a first amendment issue and the Wedge document gave us a taste that ID was a new 'broad tent' religion. Their unscientific actions thus far have confirmed their true agenda. Someone should tell them that in order to drive a wedge, you need a hammer. That hammer is solid science, not legal opinion.

Cheers

Joe Meert