Last week, a website called Big Think, released the above video, in which Bill Nye shares some of his thoughts on why creationism is not an appropriate thing to teach children to believe. Not surprisingly, this prompted a predictable response from both sides of the..issue? Debate? No... Ummm.... AH: Prompting a predictable response from both sides of the ongoing commentary on the meaningless and distracting waste of time that is the non-theory of creationism and intelligent design, and the non existent scientific controversy over evolution. Which the creators of said non-theory have deliberately manufactured, in order to try and keep their nonsensical, simpleminded little fantasy about the nature of reality alive just a WEEeee-bit longer. Ya, that seems right. Unwieldy, yes. But right.

In case you don't know (are you new here?), creationism (young Earth creationism, creation science, intelligent design, ETC.) is a made up, pseudo-scientific means, of  attempting to prove a literal interpretation of the bible, through the age old  art of special pleading, and a little good ole fashioned misinformation, self-delusion, and denial. But -like every other established cell of the Abrahamic religions- intelligent designers aren't content to live in their own lukewarm pool of happy ignorance, and have spent the better part of the past 60 years or so, attempting to subvert science education, and even the public understanding of the basic words and terms associated with science, in order to wedge their personal religious beliefs into the public consciousness. Their tactic of choice for achieving this goal, has been through continued and still ongoing attempts to eliminate or at least retard the teaching of evolution in public schools, while deliberately re-branding and mislabeling their own biblically inspired belief system as a legitimate science. Which, not to spoil the ending for you, BUT- it isn't. 

Just in case I haven't been clear enough about my feelings on the subject yet, either here or in past writings, it's safe to say that I am not a fan of creationism/intelligent design; or whatever the hell it is they may be calling themselves this week, or at any point in the future. More to the point, it's one of the many worthless ideas in the world that I see as deserving of only ridicule, disrespect, and out right dismissal, as it is of absolutely no intellectual value whatsoever. I genuinely don't think I can make my feelings about it any more clear than that. And yes, the fact that it's a religious interpretation of reality doesn't win it any points, where my particular world view is concerned. But the real reason I think creationism deserving of  uninhibited criticism and attack, is the fact that it's creators and promoters openly and deliberately work to deny and disguise the religious nature of  their beliefs, in order to subvert the general public's understanding of the scientific facts of reality. Also, it's just silly.

Whatever your feelings on people's rights to their personal beliefs and interpretations of reality; and on a personal level, I'm fine with people believing whatever nutty thing they like, provided it doesn't impact my existence in any way shape or form; determining the value of creationism is simple. Your proposed model of reality is either, A: a personal philosophical view without need of outside verification. Or B: it's a scientific theory. You don't get to have it both ways. If it's a personal choice, then you are free to shield both it and yourself, from the facts which contradict it. But, if you choose to label what you believe a science, then it must stand up to critical scrutiny and the trials of the scientific method. If it cannot, and intelligent design (creationism, ETC.), can't, then it is not science.

-CAINE-

Last week I finally got around to writing about Tennessee's new monkey bill and the creationist/intelligent design movement's ongoing efforts to subvert science education, by forcing the fantasy of their belief system into the classroom. Since then, I've had creationism and evolution on the brain. So I thought I'd try writing up a series of posts about the subject. Today: A few examples of science directly observing the process of evolution as it happens.

But first, a quick reset.

In case I wasn't clear before, there is no question amongst scientists as to weather or not evolution took place, either in our own genetic past, or that of every other living thing on the planet. We know this because, contrary to creationists arguments, fossil records alone -though certainly not "complete*"- are enough to confirm that evolution is a real process responsible for the forming of all species, and almost certainly life itself. Modern genetic studies have gone even farther in mapping, not only the relation of all species to one another, but the points at which specific biological mutations led to their diversification; the point at which one genetic makeup changes (evolves) enough to become another. But in the monkey bill entry, I brought up the idea that evolution was not only a scientific reality of our biological past, but that it was still an ongoing process in the world today. One of the things that makes this, as well as the idea of evolution in general a hard fact for may people to accept, is that evolution happens too slowly in complex, long living organisms, to be observed in real time. But that doesn't mean it can't be observed at all.

Because of their rudimentary genetic makeup and brief lifespans, which can allow for the passage of  thousands of generations in a relatively short amount of time, single celled organisms like bacteria, are invaluable in the study of evolution. The E. coli bacteria in particular, has played an integral role in it's study.

 Arguably one of the most definitive and direct observations of evolution ever made, was published in the 2009, result of a research experiment conducted at Michigan State University. The experiment was conducted by Professor Richard Lenski, on a sum total of 40,000 generations of  E. coli bacteria, grown over the course of  20 years. By the 20,000-generation midpoint, researchers discovered 45 mutations among surviving cells. Mutations, which, in accordance with the theory of Darwinian evolution, afforded those generations of the bacteria distinct survival advantages over their ancestors. One of the the most dramatic examples of the evolution of the bacterial colonies in Lenski's experiment, was one population of  bacterias development of the ability to utilize a carbon source other generations and populations could not.

The Michigan state experiment is just one of the many examples of E.coli in particular, being used to directly study and observe the evolutionary process as it takes place, and there are countless other examples of similar experiments to choose from. A recent favorite of mine -What? How could you not know by now that I'd be the kind of guy who'd have a list of favorite scientific experiments?- was a result published just this year.

In an experiment lead by researchers Travisano and William Ratcliff , brewers yeast was successfully coaxed into evolving into a multi-cellular organism. The yeast was grown in flasks of nutrient rich broth. Those flasks were shaken once a day, and the yeast which sank to the bottom of the flasks was removed, leaving the free-floating yeasts behind. After just 60 days, the yeasts which clumped together had grown into permanent clumps of individual yeast cells, displaying all the tendencies associated with “higher” forms of life, including: a division of labor between specialized cells, juvenile and adult life stages, and multi-cellular offspring. Now, because the yeast was exposed to artificial pressures to grow larger, including artificial selection at the hand of the researchers involved, it could be argued that this was not a "natural" evolutionary process. But it does show that seemingly complex traits like multicellularity, can actually develop astonishingly quickly under the right conditions.

But let's be honest, all the bacterial experiments in the world, no matter how unambiguous the result, aren't about to convince the hardcore evolution denier; which is the only proper way to describe someone who chooses to ignore the factual reality of evolution, in case you disagree with my usage of the term.

-CAINE-

* The incomplete fossil record is something of a logical fallacy. Not only because most creationists choose to ignore the existence of transitional fossils, but because it implies 1) That all the steps in the evolutionary process from point A to point B, have been identified. And 2) That such a thing could even exist, since, given that many creatures would not have left any physical evidence behind, it could not.

As usual, my work schedule has kept me from getting to the blogs all week. But I've got a whole onslaught of evolution vs creationist-themed posts planned for the weekend. For now, here's Lewis Black's take on the "scientific theory" that the Earth is 6000 years old, and all Dinosaurs used to be happy vegetarians that lived peacefully along side man in the garden of Eden.

More to come tomorrow...

-CAINE-

One of the many things I missed commenting on during my latest hiatus from the web, was the passage of the so-called "Monkey Bill" in Tennessee. This bill grants teachers in the state the right to teach the "strengths and weaknesses" of scientific theories like, climate change, human cloning, and evolution, with little fear of repercussion. The idea of allowing individual teachers to promote their own personal agenda under the guise of teaching any subject is so obviously flawed a concept, it seems utterly insane that anyone would even suggest it. That is, of course, unless personal agendas, not academic freedom or even truth,  are what you actually care about, as is the case with the supporters of this bills, and others like it. Then it starts making sense.

The "strength and weaknesses" argument, or the idea that teachers should be allowed to "teach the controversy" of certain scientific theories -specifically, evolution- is a tired, but growingly successful tactic employed by religious creationists. The group adopted the strategy as part of a pseudo-scientific makeover the organization underwent, following their defeat at the hands of a1987 supreme court ruling, which rightly deemed the teaching of their religiously based fiction in public schools to be a violation of church and state. In response to this defeat, Creationists manufactured a completely non-existent scientific controversy (more on that in a minute), relabeled their efforts a struggle for academic freedom, adopted the, extra sciency-sounding moniker: "Intelligent Design", and went back to lobbying for their cause: Undermining the teaching of science and circumventing the separation of church and state, in order to infect public education with religion.

But just for fun, let's pretend the creationist agenda really is about education (which it isn't) and not about promoting a religious agenda through pseudo-science (which it is). So what about the scientific controversy surrounding the validity of Darwinian Evolution? I mean, if science isn't even sure evolution is real, isn't that something children should know about?

It certainly would be, if it were true. But it isn't.

There is NO scientific controversy as to weather or not evolution is true, NONE.  To science, evolution is as much a fact of reality, as gravity; which is also absolutely true, and also "just a theory". Yes, there's an ongoing effort to fully understand the specific mechanisms which drive the phenomena of evolution, and to complete the paths it has taken to drive all species on the planet to their current states; because that's how science works. But there is NO question as to weather or not evolution has taken place, or that it continues to take place today.

As for Creationism/Intelligent Design, on the other hand. The lack of scientific evidence supporting the handful of quantifiable claims they're willing to make, is equally definitive. IN other words, there isn't any. Which is the problem with trying to label your religious fantasy a testable, provable science; people will try and test it, and then end up disproving it.

The simple fact is, the "theory" that we live in a universe that's 6,000 to 12,000 years old; that all the organisms on the planet were either designed as they exist today, or, after escaping extinction by taking refuge from a world-wide flood on the deck of mythical boat, underwent some ridiculous, made up, hyperactive version of evolution in order to diverge into all of the species on the planet today- simply does not fit with reality.  Evolution on the other hand, like climate change (sorry, it's real too. But we'll deal with that another day), does. And the only place any controversy about evolution exits, is in the mind of creationists.

-CAINE-