Evolution Engineered

This one’s been in the EE closet for a while, and I’m just getting around to clearing it out.

Here is an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal:

“A Dark Matter Breakthrough?”by Lawrence Krauss

Note the hesitant language used throughout the article. IMHO, this is a breath of fresh air that is sorely needed in popular science articles.

“It is time to make a radical change in our present geocentric mindset for life as we know it on Earth,” said Dr Leitner. “Even though this is the only kind of life we know, it cannot be ruled out that life forms have evolved somewhere that neither rely on water nor on a carbon and oxygen based metabolism.”

Exotic Life Beyond Earth? Looking for life as we don’t know it – PhysOrg.com

Nor is it likely we will ever confirm it.

Even though I’m one of those guys that never sees a movie on the first (or second, or third) week it’s release, I admit this is taking the cake.

After watching Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, the documentary(?) starring Ben Stein, here are my comments:

1. Remember Spider-Man 3 or Pirates of the Carribean: At World’s End? I loved the first two movies of each franchise, but felt that the writers/directors/producers/whoever tried cramming in too much story and thus left behind a bloated and less satisfying movie experience. I felt the same about Expelled (except it ain’t a sequel, let alone a sequel to a sequel – threequel???). In my view, there were at least 4 plot lines: the (alleged) persecution of ID advocates in the ivory tower, examining the holes in evolutionary theory, the atheists (again, I’ll expand on this later), and the link between Darwinism and the Holocaust/Eugenics. Each one could constitute a documentary on its own, but crammed together in less than 90 minutes doesn’t do justice to each topic. Pass the Ovol, please!

2. Richard Von Steinberg and Guillermo Gonzalez were the best candidates for “ID persecution”. IMHO, the others (Crocker, Egnor, Marks) were quite weak. I firmly believe that no one has the right to not be offended. Some thick skin is in order. (see here for examples of true persecution). Also, lip service was given to the “persecuted” who did not want to be identified. This topic needed to be expanded on to be properly explored. Bottom line, Expelled failed to prove their case of wide-spread persecution.

3. One of the funniest parts of the film was Ben Stein “lost” in Seattle trying to find the offices (or is that walk-in closet) of the Discovery Institute. It was a brilliant move to counteract the critics’ claims that the DI is (to paraphrase) massive, privately funded, religious front for theocracy.

4. Putting aside “transparency issues”, Dickie Dawkins looked pathetic*, Eugenie Scott radiated pseudo self-importance**, and P.Z. had the manner of a cold dictator***. The only atheist I came away impressed with was the fiery cowboy, Will Provine. If you’re gonna slam them “creationists” into the ground, that’s what I expect to see and hear, not the duality that is P.Z.*** Regarding Michael Ruse, I would like to see the entire interview so I can try to understand why he was so exasperated. I mean, he HAD to have provided more than just crystals. He HAD to go into SOME detail, didn’t he? If not, well, the footage speaks for itself.

5. Eugenics is a topic that needs to be treated with extreme caution. Expelled did the subject a great disservice by merely scratching the surface.

Overall, not bad. Better than other so-called documentaries I’ve seen (Bowling for Columbine, The Corporation), but not by much. (Sorry, I don’t have a cool scoring systemlike some bloggers do).

*Quoting Alvin Plantinga: “You might say that some of [Dawkins's] forays into philosophy are at best sophomoric, but that would be unfair to sophomores; the fact is (grade inflation aside), many of his arguments would receive a failing grade in a sophomore philosophy class.” (and it shows in his interviews).

**I came away with the feeling that Eugenie considers herself important but that the more militant atheists (Dawkins, P.Z.) would consider her a “useful idiot”. This is what I mean by pseudo self-importance.

***In his review, Dr. Heddle has a great description of P.Z. (third paragraph of “The Atheists” section).

I find there to be quite the contrast between the P.Z. of the interview (and real life, so I’m told) and the P.Z. of Pharyngula, so much so I figure one of them has to be fake (or a muppet). It’s this duality that I consider disingenuous.

Regarding Ida (or Darwinius masillae):

From the beginning, Ida’s unveiling has been a master class in ballyhoo. A week ago, the first breathless press releases began to arrive, portending the presentation of the now famous 47-million-year-old primate fossil from Germany: “MEDIA ALERT,” the notice shouted in all caps. “WORLD RENOWNED SCIENTISTS REVEAL A REVOLUTIONARY SCIENTIFIC FIND THAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING.” …

Most paleontologists roll their eyes at that sort of overhyped nonsense, especially given that there’s real science lurking underneath. After wading through the false advertising, though, most people might have a hard time finding it.

Read the rest here.

UPDATE: Some more critical articles/posts of the (undeserved) media hype surrounding “Ida” (HT: Robert Crowther @ ENV):

From Tim Arango @ The New York Times

On Tuesday morning, researchers will unveil a 47-million-year-old fossil they say could revolutionize the understanding of human evolution at a ceremony at the American Museum of Natural History.

But the event, which will coincide with the publishing of a peer-reviewed article about the find, is the first stop in a coordinated, branded media event, orchestrated by the scientists and the History Channel, including a film detailing the secretive two-year study of the fossil, a book release, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News and an elaborate Web site.

“Any pop band is doing the same thing,” said Jorn H. Hurum, a scientist at the University of Oslo who acquired the fossil and assembled the team of scientists that studied it. “Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science.” …

But despite a television teaser campaign with the slogan “This changes everything” and comparisons to the moon landing and the Kennedy assassination, the significance of this discovery may not be known for years. …

All of this seems a departure from the normal turn of events, where researchers study their subject and publish their findings, and let the media chips fall where they may. But this campaign is only the latest example of the scientific media blockbuster, of which the National Geographic Society has become perhaps the most successful practitioner. It often gives grants to researchers, with National Geographic gaining the rights to produce television shows and magazine articles related to any discoveries.

And these kinds of publicity campaigns can backfire. In 2007, for example, the Discovery Channel ran a documentary called “The Lost Tomb of Jesus,” which had its share of detractors in the academic community.

From Ed Yong @ Not Exactly Rocket Science (with tongue planted firmly in cheek):

Scientists and people who actually know a thing or two about evolution warned of hype and exaggeration but were forced to abandon their reason and critical analysis in the face of incontrovertible speculation that Ida could convert base metals into gold and has already led to the invention of flying cars.

From Brian Switek @ Laelaps (Caution: the following textual smackdown may cause certain heads to spin!):

The bottom line is that the hypothesis that Darwinius is closer to anthropoids than tarsiers or omomyids does not have strong support. Even though the authors of the paper constructed a very simple cladogram they did not undertake a full, rigorous cladistic analysis to support their claims. I am baffled as to how they could stress the significance of this fossil without undertaking the requisite research to support their hypothesis.

Is Darwinius important to understanding primate evolution? Of course! It is an exceptionally preserved specimen that could do much to aid our understanding of adapid evolution and paleobiology. The grand claims about it being our ancestor, though, can not be upheld as true. The researchers simply did not do the work to support their case, and even if their language was more reserved in the technical paper they have gone hand-in-hand with the History Channel to create an aura of sensationalism around the fossil. I hardly think this is a responsible way to conduct or communicate science, flooding the media with poorly supported claims, but as reported in the New York Times some of this paper’s authors care more about marketing than about good science; …

This is a shame. I would have hoped that this fossil would receive the care and attention it deserves, but for now it looks like a cash cow for the History Channel. Indeed, this association may not have only presented overblown claims to the public, but hindered good science, as well. As Karen James has suggested, the overall poor quality of the paper and the disproportionate hyping of the find make me wonder if this research was rushed into publication so that the media splash would occur on time.