Jekyll2024-03-28T21:32:54-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/feed.xmlThe Panda’s ThumbLeaf with dew drops2024-03-18T11:00:00-07:002024-03-18T11:00:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/03/leaf-with-dew-drops<p>Photograph by <strong>Ken Phelps</strong>, a.k.a. Capt. Stormfield.</p>
<p>Photography Contest, <strong>Honorable Mention</strong>.</p>
<figure>
<img src="/uploads/2024/Phelps_Dewy_Leaf_Sunrise.jpg" alt="Leaf with dew drops" />
<figcaption>Morning dew on an unidentified leaf, Ganges, Saltspring Island, B.C. Canon 40D, 100 mm macro. Mr. Phelps writes: "Vancouver Island is temperate rainforest. Our property is mostly a sharp, rocky ridge with a couple micro-climates. Standard issue fir trees, ferns, etc. on the north side, and a bit more of a Southern Oregon feel on the top of the ridge, with some pines and lots of Arbutus. Very hot in summer with all the rock." He adds that since taking the photo some years ago, he has learned that the droplets might be due to transpiration rather than dew. He further adds parenthetically that Capt Stormfield is a "name adopted from Mark Twain's short story '<a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1044/1044-h/1044-h.htm">Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven</a>.' Reading this at the age of 14 – despite the disapproval of the teacher at the [Seventh Day Adventist] church school I was attending – is my first recollection of the awakening skepticism that led me out of fundamentalism by my undergrad years."
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><i>To see comments on this post click below:</i> <!--more--></p>Matt YoungPhotograph by Ken Phelps, a.k.a. Capt. Stormfield. Photography Contest, Honorable Mention. Morning dew on an unidentified leaf, Ganges, Saltspring Island, B.C. Canon 40D, 100 mm macro. Mr. Phelps writes: "Vancouver Island is temperate rainforest. Our property is mostly a sharp, rocky ridge with a couple micro-climates. Standard issue fir trees, ferns, etc. on the north side, and a bit more of a Southern Oregon feel on the top of the ridge, with some pines and lots of Arbutus. Very hot in summer with all the rock." He adds that since taking the photo some years ago, he has learned that the droplets might be due to transpiration rather than dew. He further adds parenthetically that Capt Stormfield is a "name adopted from Mark Twain's short story 'Extract from Captain Stormfield's Visit to Heaven.' Reading this at the age of 14 – despite the disapproval of the teacher at the [Seventh Day Adventist] church school I was attending – is my first recollection of the awakening skepticism that led me out of fundamentalism by my undergrad years." To see comments on this post click below:The difference between skepticism and denial; Darwin, Wilberforce, and the Discovery Institute2024-03-09T16:30:00-07:002024-03-09T16:30:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/03/difference-skepticism-denial<figure class="on-the-left-side" style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 40px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<img src="/uploads/2024/Shedinger_Cover_600.jpg" alt="Book cover" />
<figcaption><a href=""></a>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bishop Wilberforce, in 1860, was a <i>skeptic</i>, praised by Darwin for the skill of his questioning. Today’s creationists, not least the Discovery Institute, are <i>denialists</i>, endlessly asking the same questions as he did, although they have long since been answered.</p>
<p>Yes, Bishop Wilberforce really did ask T.H. Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog,” whether he would prefer an ape for his grandfather, and a woman for his grandmother, or a man for his grandfather, and an ape for his grandmother. And Huxley really did say that he would prefer this to descent from a man conspicuous for his talents and eloquence, but who misused his gifts to ridicule science and obscure the light of truth. This and more at the very first public debate regarding Darwin’s work on evolution, only months after the publication of <i>On the Origin of Species</i>.</p>
<p>I first wrote the above paragraph in <a href="https://3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2017/10/huxley-wilberforce-darwin-apes-and-grandparents-a-victorian-scandal-revisited.html">3 Quarks Daily</a> in 2017, shortly after <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0058">Richard England had published</a> on the way that the events had been described in the <i>Oxford Chronicle</i>, the fullest contemporary account available of the encounter. That account refuted doubts that had been raised <sup>1</sup> by some historians, and which I had seen referred to by creationists, wishing to minimise the episode or even to regard it as legendary. These doubts were based largely on the absence of the episode from the account in the gentlemanly <i>Athenaeum</i>, but England convincingly showed that the <i>Athenaeum</i> had practised censorship.</p>
<p>I am writing about this again today in response to an <a href="https://evolutionnews.org/2024/02/what-really-happened-at-the-huxley-wilberforce-debate/">article</a> in the mendaciously mistitled <i>Evolution News</i>, mouthpiece of the neocreationist Discovery Institute, by Robert Shedinger, Professor of Religion at Luther College, Iowa. Shedinger has discovered a second career dissing Darwin. He is best known to readers here for his recent book, <i>Darwin’s Bluff</i>, where he argues that Darwin’s voluminous unpublished notes demonstrate his inability to support his views, and the article I am discussing is an extract from that book. We must therefore regard it, not as a mere passing comment, but as the author’s considered opinion.</p>
<!--more-->
<p>Shedinger starts by telling us that the reality is more nuanced than the well-known account, by deliberately muddling it with the crude version in which “the serious scientist and man of reason who won the debate over the unreasoning bishop who was unable to accept evidence when it flew in the face of church doctrine.” He cites the <i>Athenaeum</i>, acknowledges England’s account (which he describes as “overlooked,” although the <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/metrics/10.1098/rsnr.2016.0058">Royal Society tells us</a> that the article has been downloaded more than 3000 times), and reminds us as England did that the <i>Oxford Chronicle</i> was a liberal publication that had criticised Wilberforce before. He then spends considerable time establishing that from a contemporary point of view, it was Hooker rather than Huxley who had been Darwin’s most prominent defender. Since I don’t think anyone would disagree, and nothing much hangs on it, why does he bother to do this? I suspect the influence of the Down With Huxley movement, which <a href="https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2021/05/22/th-huxleys-legacy-a-campus-building-renaming-controversy-and-appeal-for-signatures/">recently succeeded</a> in removing his name from the Environmental Sciences Building in Western Washington University, and came <a href="https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2022/03/29/damage-limitation-at-imperial/">perilously close</a> to inflicting comparable damage on Imperial College, which of course Huxley had helped found.</p>
<p>Next, Shedinger regrets that because of this episode, Wilberforce is widely ridiculed, and his criticism of Darwin not taken seriously. To the extent that this actually happens, I agree. So would Darwin, who himself wrote of Wilberforce’s article in <i>Quarterly Review</i> (freely available <a href="https://victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/wilberforce.htm">here</a>),</p>
<blockquote> It is uncommonly clever. It picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the difficulties. It quizzes me quite splendidly by quoting the ‘Anti-Jacobin’ versus my Grandfather.<sup>2</sup></blockquote>
<p>Darwin even recommended Wilberforce’s article to his local vicar, who was a long-time friend.</p>
<p>However, Shedinger’s main motive is to repeat Wilberforce’s arguments and claim that they have not been answered. Since my quarrel is with him, and not with Wilberforce, I will simply take material from his article and comment on it:</p>
<blockquote> Wilberforce is not averse to the doctrine of evolution by natural selection should the evidence weigh clearly in its favor. He even acknowledges not only that organisms vary, but also that natural selection has led to great diversity within specific types. </blockquote>
<p>Here Wilberforce is putting forward the creationist doctrine that allows evolutionary change up to a point. He was probably influenced by Richard Owen’s theory of “body plans,” setting limits to such change. But it is not clear what those limits would be, or how they could be enforced.</p>
<blockquote>Moreover, the struggle for life clearly exists, “and that it tends continually to lead the strong to exterminate the weak, we readily admit; and in this law we see a merciful provision against the deterioration, in a world apt to deteriorate, of the works of the Creator’s hands.” So natural selection for Wilberforce acts to maintain the fitness of species in their environment, thus preventing their deterioration. </blockquote>
<p>Wilberforce recognises here what we might now call a negative or purifying role for natural selection, which he sees as acting against the general tendency to deteriorate (compare the present-day creationists’ invocation of entropy), but, like today’s Intelligent Design theorists, denies that it can play a more positive role.</p>
<p>Next Shedinger writes:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Darwin Fails</strong></p>
<p>But Wilberforce notes that what Darwin needs to show is that there is active in nature a power capable of accumulating favorable variations through successive generations toward the production of entirely new species. And on this point, according to Wilberforce, Darwin fails.</p></blockquote>
<p>[The bold headline is Shedinger’s.] Remember that in 1860, there was already extensive evidence for common ancestry, in the form of nested families, deep homologies (Darwin mentions the hand of a man, the leg of the horse, the paddle of the porpoise and the wing of the bat), to some extent the fossil record, limited as it was, and everything else that is mentioned in <i>Origin</i>. Nevertheless, Wilberforce is arguing that (to use modern terminology) Darwin has not shown that diversification beyond the species level can happen, even though Darwin’s book was one long argument to show that it <i>had</i> happened. To Darwin’s arguments we would now of course add an enormously richer fossil record, together with molecular phylogenies and their detailed similarity to phylogenies derived in other ways, along with <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/">additional overwhelming evidence</a>.</p>
<p>Despite this, I would say that Wilberforce is making an important point. Darwin is telling us that these changes have happened, yet he has no convincing mechanism as to what processes could have produced them. This is indeed an unsatisfactory situation, and would remain so for the next 40 years. (Although there is nothing unusual here. When Newton put forward his theory of gravity, the objection was raised that there was no mechanism by which one massive body would influence another, and this conundrum remained unsolved until Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. In Darwin’s own lifetime, acceptance of Avogadro’s famous hypothesis regarding molecules was delayed, on the grounds that it required neutral hydrogen atoms to be bonded together, and there was no process that could explain this, nor would there be until the advent of quantum mechanics. And as Huxley himself pointed out at the time, it was known that light propagated as a wave, showing the properties of diffraction and polarisation, although no one then knew what these waves consisted of. Wilberforce’s argument is powerful, but not necessarily lethal.)</p>
<blockquote>His scientific critique continues. “We think it difficult to find a theory fuller of assumptions; and of assumptions not grounded upon alleged facts in nature, but which are absolutely opposed to all the facts we have been able to observe.” In addition, the variations produced in domestic animals by breeders are selected because of their utility to people, not for the good of the animal. So artificial selection is simply irrelevant to what happens in nature. If natural selection is continually producing innumerable variations, where, Wilberforce asks, is the evidence for this in the geological record?</blockquote>
<p>So we have the claim that evolution, or at any rate evolution as profound as the species level, has not been observed. A much more reasonable claim in 1860 than it is today. We continue to hear it, in the face of counterexamples, although today’s young earth creationism allows, and indeed requires, speciation within a “kind.” Next Wilberforce criticises Darwin for using artificial selection as evidence for the possibility of natural selection. Here I think we can say in all fairness that Wilberforce had missed the point. Darwinian evolution is driven by fitness for the environment, and this is just as true in artificial as in natural selection. The only difference is that in the case of artificial selection, one major element of fitness is the ability to satisfy the breeder.</p>
<p>Then comes the argument from the inadequacy of the fossil record. I don’t know how adequate that argument was in 1860, but it was not long afterwards that Huxley was already able to infer, correctly, that birds were related to dinosaurs, while Archaeopteryx was first described in between editions of <i>Origins</i>. Today, the argument is endlessly repeated on creationist sites, but lacks all conviction.</p>
<blockquote>Darwin recognized the seeming sudden appearance of complex animals during the Cambrian era — a feature of the geological record known today as the Cambrian explosion — and openly admitted that if a long line of diversification in Precambrian deposits failed to show up in the fossil record, his theory would be in ruins. Wilberforce took this concession and ran with it…</blockquote>
<p>Another argument that had force at the time, and is reiterated by today’s creationists, despite having been totally refuted by discoveries in the interim. Precambrian fossils are rare, but this is hardly surprising, since unmetamorphosed Precambrian sediments are rare, and the Precambrian fauna was predominantly soft-bodied. Stephen Meyer, Shedinger’s colleague at the Discovery Institute, has made a career out of misrepresenting what we now know about the Cambrian explosion. Here Shedinger refers us to Meyer and other creationist sources, but also to the genuinely scientific study, <i>The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Biodiversity</i>, Douglas H. Erwin and James W. Valentine (2013), as if in support of his thesis, although he must know that he is doing violence to their position.</p>
<blockquote>Wilberforce took this concession and ran with it. “Now it is proved to demonstration by Sir Roderick Murchison, and admitted by all geologists, that we possess these earlier formations, stretching over vast extents, perfectly unaltered, and exhibiting no signs of life.”</blockquote>
<p>And</p>
<blockquote>Did the ensuing decades make a fool of Wilberforce? In fact, the findings of modern paleontology substantially agree with Wilberforce here. The wealth of Precambrian transitional fossils that Darwin hoped would be discovered and so rescue his theory have remained persistently absent, despite assiduous efforts to locate them, and despite the fossil record having shown itself quite capable of preserving other Precambrian fossils.</blockquote>
<p>See the goalposts moving! In one sentence, Wilberforce is vindicated because of the total absence of a Precambrian fossil record. In the next, he is proven right because the fossil record does not have sufficient “wealth of transitional fossils” to “rescue his [Darwin’s] theory.”</p>
<blockquote>Wilberforce further objected to Darwin’s handling of time, and accuses him of positing enormous stretches of time in places where his theory requires them, but then gathering up into a point the duration in which certain forms of life prevailed, thus obscuring the fact that, as the fossil record shows, many forms of life endured for many millions of years without undergoing substantial change.</blockquote>
<p>Indeed, Darwin had only the crudest of comparative timescales, and could be accused of making the timescale fit his theory. But that issue is now of only historical interest. Wilberforce’s more serious argument continues to be used; how come, if on occasion evolution requires relatively rapid change over time, some species have persisted for millions of years more or less unchanged? The rebuttal is the simplest possible; why shouldn’t some species have stayed more or less the same, if they were well adapted to their habitat and their habitat was stable?</p>
<blockquote>Similarly, Wilberforce also objected to Darwin’s employment of facts: “Together with this large licence of assumption we notice in this book several instances of receiving as facts whatever seems to bear out the theory upon the slightest evidence, and rejecting summarily others, merely because they are fatal to it. We grieve to charge upon Mr. Darwin this freedom in handling facts, but truth extorts it from us.”</blockquote>
<p>Wilberforce is accusing Darwin of cherrypicking, and Shedinger is relaying the charge with apparent approval, but without showing us the evidence. On this occasion, I fear, the fault lies with Wilberforce. Consulting the actual text of Wilberforce’s review, I find that he gave no examples, but continued the above passage by saying,</p>
<blockquote>That the loose statements and unfounded speculations of this book should come from the author of the monograms on Cirripedes, and the writer, in the natural history of the Voyage of the 'Beagle,' of the paper on the Coral Reefs, is indeed a sad warning how far the love of a theory may seduce even a first-rate naturalist from the very articles of his creed.</blockquote>
<p>A strongly stated accusation of deplorable bias and lack of judgement. Without supporting evidence, however, this is just so much hot air. Also worth noting is the care with which Wilberforce acknowledges, repeatedly in his review, Darwin’s position as a man of science. The same cannot be said for today’s creationists, from Henry Morris on, who minimise his contributions and deny his merits.</p>
<p>Shedinger concludes:</p>
<blockquote> The stereotype portraying Wilberforce as the pompous bishop rejecting Darwin on theological grounds is easily dispelled by the scientifically informed, scientifically focused, and comprehensive nature of his lengthy review. Hooker may have accused Wilberforce of not understanding Darwin’s theory, but Wilberforce’s review suggests he understood it only too well.</blockquote>
<p>The takeaway message is clear. The overall thrust of Wilberforce’s arguments were sound, and Darwin fails.</p>
<p>I have tried throughout this account to refute Wilberforce’s arguments, or at least the crude version of them offered by Shedinger, though I expect that for most readers here such refutation was unnecessary. It is more interesting to see how many of these arguments are still used today. The list is impressive; I show them here, together with the date when I think they became untenable:</p>
<ul><li>Variation is possible, but only within types. Dead on arrival. Standard creationist argument today, accompanied since the 1940s by an elaborate theory of types, within which variation is possible.</li>
<li>Selection works only to remove unfavourable variations. Dead on arrival. </li>
<li>Selection is necessary because of the general tendency of things to degrade. True, since so many mutations are harmful, to the point of being tautologous. The observations that things tend to degrade is echoed in the claim, made by RED Clark in 1948 and repeated by Henry Morris in <i>The Genesis Flood</i>, that evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics. We can regard this as dead on arrival, since it clearly does not apply to open systems far from equilibrium, or we can wait until the work of Prigogine from the 1950s onwards, showing that such systems actively generate novel structures. </li>
<li>Closely linked is the argument that there is no mechanism to explain advantageous novelty. Dead and buried by 1920, with the recognition of mutations and the development of population genetics. </li>
<li>Artificial selection is different from natural selection, and doesn’t count. Dead on arrival. To be fair, I have not come across present-day creationists using it. </li>
<li>Inadequacy of fossil record. This one will never die, since the creationists will always be able to point to gaps in the record, unaware of the fact that by complaining about gaps, they are effectively conceding the existence of the record. To my mind, two fossil discoveries more than any others refute this argument; Archaeopteryx described in 1861, and the Taung Child, described in 1925, now classified as a juvenile Australopithecine. </li>
<li>Absence of Precambrian fossils: the first Ediacaran fossils were reported in 1868, but discounted because of scepticism about the existence of a Precambrian biota, and their status was not recognised until 1955.<sup>3</sup> Fossil stromatolites in the early Archean were recognised from around 1980. However, the alleged absence of Precambrian fossils is completely separate from the question of what has happened in the next half billion years or so. </li>
<li>Existence of groups of organisms essentially unaltered over millions of years (note that the Bishop had no difficulty accepting millions of years; the popularisation of Young Earth creationism is a much more recent development): I would describe this as dead on arrival, since the refutation is so obvious. </li>
<li>Defenders of evolution do so out of belief, despite the evidence. This argument presupposes that the evidence for evolution is so unconvincing that it is only accepted because of bias. Dead on arrival. Dead, decaying, and stinking of nasty personal attack. </li>
</ul>
<p>To summarise, Shedinger’s article, and I must therefore presume the book from which it is a sample, is a stale and shoddy contribution to the voluminous anti-Darwin literature.</p>
<p>I had the pleasure of hearing Genie Scott’s talk in Glasgow some years ago, with the title “What would Darwin say to today’s Creationists?” Her answer was, “Haven’t you been paying attention during the last 156 years?” 156 should now be amended to 165, but apart from this, as Shedinger convincingly shows, her answer stands.</p>
<p>Wilberforce, faced with a new paradigm, was not convinced and mustered counterarguments, some of them at the time quite powerful. He was a skeptic. Whether he would have changed his mind over time, we will unfortunately never know, because of his death in a horseriding accident in 1873. What we do know is that within decades evolution, as opposed to separate creation, was the dominant paradigm even in ecclesiastical circles.</p>
<p>Today’s creationists, presented as they are with a science of evolution that has met every test that Wilberforce could suggest and many others that he could not even imagine, are not skeptics but denialists. There’s a difference.</p>
<p>1] J. R. Lucas, The Historical Journal , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 313 – 330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0018246X00016848, and references therein; The Huxley-Wilberforce Debate: A Reconsideration, Sheridan Gilley, Studies in Church History, 17, 2016, pp. 325 – 340. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0424208400010421</p>
<p>2] The reference is to a pamphlet attacking Erasmus Darwin, Charles’s grandfather, who had put forward his own version of evolutionary theory.</p>
<p>3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ediacaran_biota.</p>Paul BratermanBishop Wilberforce, in 1860, was a skeptic, praised by Darwin for the skill of his questioning. Today’s creationists, not least the Discovery Institute, are denialists, endlessly asking the same questions as he did, although they have long since been answered. Yes, Bishop Wilberforce really did ask T.H. Huxley, “Darwin’s bulldog,” whether he would prefer an ape for his grandfather, and a woman for his grandmother, or a man for his grandfather, and an ape for his grandmother. And Huxley really did say that he would prefer this to descent from a man conspicuous for his talents and eloquence, but who misused his gifts to ridicule science and obscure the light of truth. This and more at the very first public debate regarding Darwin’s work on evolution, only months after the publication of On the Origin of Species. I first wrote the above paragraph in 3 Quarks Daily in 2017, shortly after Richard England had published on the way that the events had been described in the Oxford Chronicle, the fullest contemporary account available of the encounter. That account refuted doubts that had been raised 1 by some historians, and which I had seen referred to by creationists, wishing to minimise the episode or even to regard it as legendary. These doubts were based largely on the absence of the episode from the account in the gentlemanly Athenaeum, but England convincingly showed that the Athenaeum had practised censorship. I am writing about this again today in response to an article in the mendaciously mistitled Evolution News, mouthpiece of the neocreationist Discovery Institute, by Robert Shedinger, Professor of Religion at Luther College, Iowa. Shedinger has discovered a second career dissing Darwin. He is best known to readers here for his recent book, Darwin’s Bluff, where he argues that Darwin’s voluminous unpublished notes demonstrate his inability to support his views, and the article I am discussing is an extract from that book. We must therefore regard it, not as a mere passing comment, but as the author’s considered opinion.In Kentucky, “inclusive” means “Christian”2024-03-06T16:08:00-07:002024-03-06T16:08:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/03/in-kentucky-inclusive<figure class="on-the-left-side" style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 40px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<img src="/uploads/2024/Phelps_Ark_On_Opening_Day_Crop_600.jpg" alt="Replica of Ark on opening day" />
<figcaption>"Replica" of the Ark on opening day. <small>Credit: Dan Phelps.</small>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It appears that, in Kentucky, at least, “inclusive” means “Christian.” At least, that is what you might deduce from an <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/local/2023/12/08/what-is-the-kentucky-faith-trail/71842251007/">article by Jolene Almendarez and
Ana Rocío Álvarez Bríñez</a> in the Cincinnati <i>Enquirer</i> late last year. The article announces the launch of the <a href="https://www.kentuckyfaithtrail.com/">Kentucky Faith Trail</a>, which is a self-guided road trip that will take you to 11 important faith-based sites, all of them Christian.* The program has received a $305,000 grant from the state. Its purpose, according to a press release of the northern Kentucky tourism organization, as paraphrased by the <i>Enquirer</i>, is to “pay homage to the role religion plays in Kentucky’s identity.” It is also designed to promote religious tolerance and understanding:</p>
<blockquote>The trail is designed to be inclusive, welcoming people of all faiths and backgrounds to embark on a shared journey of discovery and reflection[.]</blockquote>
<p>The <a href="https://ffrf.org">Freedom from Religion Foundation</a> (FFRF) will have none of it. In an article entitled <a href="https://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/43493-don-t-promote-ark-encounter-and-creation-museum-ffrf-asks-state-of-kentucky">Don’t promote Ark Encounter and Creation Museum, FFRF asks state of Kentucky</a>, FFRF notes that all 11 sites are Christian sites, a fact which hardly makes the trail welcoming to people of all faiths and backgrounds. Worse, they note that two of the sites, “the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum, are well known for spreading misinformation and promoting anti-science worldviews[.]” Here at PT, where we are perhaps more forthright, we would say they spread <i>disinformation</i>, which is to say, deliberate misinformation. Additionally, unlike most of the others, they have no historical value.</p>
<p>FFRF goes on to describe these two “museums” and notes that they are owned by Answers in Genesis (AIG), which they accurately describe as “an extreme evangelical Christian organization that spreads misinformation and scientifically inaccurate teachings about our world.” Homing in on AIG, they stress that the Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau “must cease using taxpayer money to promote a Faith Trail that includes the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum” and conclude that “[b]y promoting exclusively Christian sites, including two sites that spread blatant misinformation, the Bureau is unconstitutionally favoring Christianity over all other faiths.” You may see the complete letter to the president of the Convention and Visitors Bureau <a href="https://ffrf.org/uploads/files/Northern%20Kentucky%20CVB%2C%20KY%20LTR2.pdf">here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p>* Here, for the record, are the 11 attractions: Abbey of Gethsemani (<i>sic</i>), Ark Encounter, Basilica of St. Joseph Proto-Cathedral, Cathedral Basilica of the Assumption, Creation Museum, Mother of God Catholic Church, Old Mud Meeting House (Dutch Reformed Church), Old Mulkey Meeting House, “Raccoon” John Smith’s Cabin, Red River Meeting House, South Union Shaker Village.</p>Matt Young"Replica" of the Ark on opening day. Credit: Dan Phelps. It appears that, in Kentucky, at least, “inclusive” means “Christian.” At least, that is what you might deduce from an article by Jolene Almendarez and Ana Rocío Álvarez Bríñez in the Cincinnati Enquirer late last year. The article announces the launch of the Kentucky Faith Trail, which is a self-guided road trip that will take you to 11 important faith-based sites, all of them Christian.* The program has received a $305,000 grant from the state. Its purpose, according to a press release of the northern Kentucky tourism organization, as paraphrased by the Enquirer, is to “pay homage to the role religion plays in Kentucky’s identity.” It is also designed to promote religious tolerance and understanding: The trail is designed to be inclusive, welcoming people of all faiths and backgrounds to embark on a shared journey of discovery and reflection[.] The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) will have none of it. In an article entitled Don’t promote Ark Encounter and Creation Museum, FFRF asks state of Kentucky, FFRF notes that all 11 sites are Christian sites, a fact which hardly makes the trail welcoming to people of all faiths and backgrounds. Worse, they note that two of the sites, “the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum, are well known for spreading misinformation and promoting anti-science worldviews[.]” Here at PT, where we are perhaps more forthright, we would say they spread disinformation, which is to say, deliberate misinformation. Additionally, unlike most of the others, they have no historical value. FFRF goes on to describe these two “museums” and notes that they are owned by Answers in Genesis (AIG), which they accurately describe as “an extreme evangelical Christian organization that spreads misinformation and scientifically inaccurate teachings about our world.” Homing in on AIG, they stress that the Northern Kentucky Convention & Visitors Bureau “must cease using taxpayer money to promote a Faith Trail that includes the Ark Encounter and Creation Museum” and conclude that “[b]y promoting exclusively Christian sites, including two sites that spread blatant misinformation, the Bureau is unconstitutionally favoring Christianity over all other faiths.” You may see the complete letter to the president of the Convention and Visitors Bureau here. * Here, for the record, are the 11 attractions: Abbey of Gethsemani (sic), Ark Encounter, Basilica of St. Joseph Proto-Cathedral, Cathedral Basilica of the Assumption, Creation Museum, Mother of God Catholic Church, Old Mud Meeting House (Dutch Reformed Church), Old Mulkey Meeting House, “Raccoon” John Smith’s Cabin, Red River Meeting House, South Union Shaker Village.Anas platyrhynchos2024-03-04T12:00:00-07:002024-03-04T12:00:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/03/anas-platyrhynchos<figure>
<img src="/uploads/2024/P1021045_Mallard_Iridescence_600.jpg" alt="mallard duck" />
<figcaption> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallard"><i>Anas platyrhynchos</i></a> – mallard duck, Boulder, Colorado, March, 2024. I am no great fan of mallard ducks (we have almost as many as we have Canada geese, but at least they seem to be housebroken). This one, a male, must have had especially clean, new feathers, because he clearly shows the green, iridescent coloring on his head. That is, the coloring is not due to pigment, but rather interference colors owing to layering in the feathers. You can tell because the color faces you, but is absent elsewhere. Mallards also show bluish iridescence farther back, but that is not visible in this picture. Like many things, the green head looks better in life than in a photograph, but a photograph is the best I can do.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><i>To see comments on this post, click below.</i>
<!--more--></p>Matt YoungAnas platyrhynchos – mallard duck, Boulder, Colorado, March, 2024. I am no great fan of mallard ducks (we have almost as many as we have Canada geese, but at least they seem to be housebroken). This one, a male, must have had especially clean, new feathers, because he clearly shows the green, iridescent coloring on his head. That is, the coloring is not due to pigment, but rather interference colors owing to layering in the feathers. You can tell because the color faces you, but is absent elsewhere. Mallards also show bluish iridescence farther back, but that is not visible in this picture. Like many things, the green head looks better in life than in a photograph, but a photograph is the best I can do. To see comments on this post, click below.Spider web2024-02-19T12:00:00-07:002024-02-19T12:00:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/02/spider-web<p>Photograph by <strong>John Trawick</strong>.</p>
<p>Photography Contest, <strong>Honorable Mention</strong>.</p>
<figure>
<img src="/uploads/2024/Trawick.Spider_web.jpg" alt="Spider web" />
<figcaption>Spider web – made visible by early morning dew at Lake Murray Reservoir, San Diego, California. Nikon D7100.</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><br /><br /></p>
<p><i>To see comments on this post click below:</i></p>Matt YoungPhotograph by John Trawick. Photography Contest, Honorable Mention. Spider web – made visible by early morning dew at Lake Murray Reservoir, San Diego, California. Nikon D7100. To see comments on this post click below:Dolomedes triton2024-02-05T12:00:00-07:002024-02-05T12:00:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/02/dolomedes-triton<p>Photograph by <strong>Mark Sturtevant</strong>.</p>
<p>Photography Contest, <strong>Honorable Mention</strong>.</p>
<figure>
<img src="/uploads/2024/Sturtevant.Fishing_spider_under_water.jpg" alt="Fishing spider" />
<figcaption><i>Dolomedes triton</i> – fishing spider under water. The six-spotted fishing spider hunts on water for insects and even fish. They can also hide under water to escape danger, as is shown in this staged picture, which was taken from the under-side of an aquarium. </figcaption>
</figure>
<p><br /><br /></p>
<p><i>To see comments on this post click below:</i></p>Matt YoungPhotograph by Mark Sturtevant. Photography Contest, Honorable Mention. Dolomedes triton – fishing spider under water. The six-spotted fishing spider hunts on water for insects and even fish. They can also hide under water to escape danger, as is shown in this staged picture, which was taken from the under-side of an aquarium. To see comments on this post click below:Interview with “Executive CEO” of AIG2024-02-03T11:51:00-07:002024-02-03T11:51:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/02/interview-with-executive<figure class="on-the-left-side" style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 40px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<img src="/uploads/2024/Phelps_DSC07195_Ark_Reverse_Side_600.jpg" alt="Ark seen from rear" />
<figcaption>A view of the floatless Ark seen from the rear. <small>Photograph by Dan Phelps.</small>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Paul Braterman reported earlier that <a href="https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2023/11/Martyn-Iles-Is-Executive.html"> Martyn Iles is the new Executive CEO of Answers in Genesis</a>. Professor Braterman found the appointment of Mr. Iles troubling.</p>
<p>Mr. Iles was <a href="https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2024/02/01/martyn-iles-is-new-ceo-of-creation-museum-ark-encounter/72004202007/">interviewed</a> the other day by Jolene Almendarez of the Cincinnati Enquirer. I will admit that I was slightly put off by Ms. Almendarez’s first comment, that “most” reputable scientists and educators debunk AIG’s “controversial” claims about the age of the earth and so on. Nevertheless, it was a good interview which asked pertinent questions – though I fear that it will make Prof. Braterman no less troubled.</p>
<!--more-->
<p>Here are a few of Mr. Iles’s remarks. In response to a question about how AIG will change under his leadership, he said,</p>
<blockquote> So it used to be that the main argument raised by the culture to say Christianity is false is that evolution is true. I just don't think that's where we are anymore. We're much more into social issues about climate change, racial issues, LGBT issues, all that kind of stuff. ... [ellipsis in original] So there's kind of a broadening of the message ….</blockquote>
<p>Apart from the usual conflation of Christianity with Mr. Iles’s bizarre brand of evangelical Christianity, we see the expansion into “social issues” that troubled Prof. Braterman. And well it should. In case you wonder just what kind of person we are dealing with, I will anticipate the last sentence in the article, which claims that</p>
<blockquote>Iles has also supported controversial rugby player Israel Folau, who posted online “drunks, homosexuals, adulterers, liars, fornicators, thieves, atheists and idolators” would go to hell if they don't repent, <i>The Guardian</i> reported.</blockquote>
<p>Back to the interview. Regarding climate change, Mr. Iles assured us that climate change would not destroy the world; rather, God would do that:</p>
<blockquote><p><strong>Question</strong>: When do you think the world will be destroyed by climate change?</p>
<p><strong>Answer</strong>: (Laughs) My philosophy is that God will destroy it first. God has a plan for the world, and it will exist until he's done with it. ... I mean, we could do some damage in the meantime, don't get me wrong, but we're not going to completely destroy it. </p>
<p><strong>Question</strong>: That's the most optimistic perspective I've ever heard about climate change. </p>
<p><strong>Answer</strong>: (Laughs more) There's a lot of optimism in this message, I've got to tell you. It all ends well. </p> </blockquote>
<p>I am certainly relieved to hear that.</p>
<p>In an e-mailed answer to a question, Mr. Iles stressed,</p>
<blockquote><p>The message will include anything that is introduced in the book of Genesis – this includes race, climate change, family, sexuality, gender, (all LGBTQ issues) [parentheses in original], identity, life, truth, the problem of evil, political power, and others. Many contemporary topics.... </p></blockquote>
<p>There is much more, including plans to introduce digital technology such as virtual reality. But I will leave that to read for yourselves.</p>Matt YoungA view of the floatless Ark seen from the rear. Photograph by Dan Phelps. Paul Braterman reported earlier that Martyn Iles is the new Executive CEO of Answers in Genesis. Professor Braterman found the appointment of Mr. Iles troubling. Mr. Iles was interviewed the other day by Jolene Almendarez of the Cincinnati Enquirer. I will admit that I was slightly put off by Ms. Almendarez’s first comment, that “most” reputable scientists and educators debunk AIG’s “controversial” claims about the age of the earth and so on. Nevertheless, it was a good interview which asked pertinent questions – though I fear that it will make Prof. Braterman no less troubled.An Immense World: newish book2024-02-01T14:26:00-07:002024-02-01T14:26:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/02/immense-world-book<figure class="on-the-left-side" style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 40px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<img src="/uploads/2024/Yong_Immense_World_Cover_600.jpg" alt="Book cover" />
<figcaption><a href=""></a>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>I have been reading, intermittently, I afraid, <a href="https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09JBJS1MF/"> An Immense World</a>, subtitled “How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Around Us,” by Ed Yong. The book is about senses: vision, touch, pain, hearing, taste, smell, but also heat, vibration, electric and magnetic fields, and echoes and echolocation. I am about up to the part where he tries to tell you, with a sort of apology to Thomas Nagel, what it is like to be a bat.</p>
<p>In the meantime, I heard Mr. Yong interviewed by Arielle Duhaime-Ross last week on Science Friday, under the title, <a href="https://www.sciencefriday.com/segments/an-immense-world-umwelt-animals/">Expanding our Umwelt: Understanding animal experiences</a>. <i>Umwelt</i> is a German word that Mr. Yong borrows to mean “the part of [its] surroundings that an animal can sense and experience—its perceptual world.”</p>
<p>Additionally, <i>The New York Times</i> ran an article, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/23/science/animals-vision-video.html">A bird’s-eye view of a Technicolor world</a>, by Emily Anthes. This article shows some videos supposedly demonstrating what the world might look like to a bird whose vision is sensitive to ultraviolet light. There seemed to be an implicit assumption that ultraviolet looked a lot like violet and the birds see the primary colors about the same as we do, but never mind.</p>
<!--more-->
<p>I am supposed to know something about optics and even a little bit about vision. I once read Ivan Schwab’s monumental work <i>Evolution’s Witness: How Eyes Evolved</i> cover to cover and discussed it on Panda’s Thumb, <a href="https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2012/07/evolutions-witn.html">here</a>. Yet in the chapter on vision I learned</p>
<ol><li>that a certain kind of jumping spider has a Galilean telescope in each of 2 eyes and can see about as acutely as a dog. Its retinas are weird, but you will have to read the book to find out how. The field-of-view of each telescope is greatly limited, but that is OK because the spider has 4 other eyes to work with;</li>
<li>that birds of prey have 2 foveas, one for tracking prey and one for looking at the horizon;</li>
<li>that a certain microbe sports an eye that uses a reflecting mirror instead of a lens, all in a single cell (I showed a picture of a single-celled microbe that contained a focusing lens in the article on Prof. Schwab's book, so the concept of a microbe with an eye was interesting but not entirely shocking).</li></ol>
<p>I read the book on a Kindle Paperwhite, which gives a black-and-white image. A photographic gallery was lumped at the back of the book and not particularly good in black-and-white, so I had to go to a computer to look at them. Except for, I think, 2 embedded figures, none was called out in the text, so you could not easily link the photographs back to the appropriate portion of the text. Additionally, I hereby lodge my perennial complaint about endnotes: Each chapter had countless endnotes, and most contained interesting and important information. Indeed, I learned about the foveas of birds of prey in an endnote in a chapter about bats and of the microbe with the reflecting mirror in another endnote. All of that material should have been worked into the text. If I had had a hard copy of the book – a codex – and had to shuffle back-and-forth 20-odd times in a given chapter, my Umwelt would have been greatly disturbed.</p>
<p><strong>Reference</strong>. The <i>Times</i> article is based on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002444">Recording animal-view videos of the natural world using a novel camera system and software package</a>, by Vera Vasas, <i>et</i> 14 other <i>alia</i>, Plos Biology, January 23, 2024. I have barely glanced at the article and will likely not read it.</p>Matt YoungI have been reading, intermittently, I afraid, An Immense World, subtitled “How Animal Senses Reveal the Hidden Realms Around Us,” by Ed Yong. The book is about senses: vision, touch, pain, hearing, taste, smell, but also heat, vibration, electric and magnetic fields, and echoes and echolocation. I am about up to the part where he tries to tell you, with a sort of apology to Thomas Nagel, what it is like to be a bat. In the meantime, I heard Mr. Yong interviewed by Arielle Duhaime-Ross last week on Science Friday, under the title, Expanding our Umwelt: Understanding animal experiences. Umwelt is a German word that Mr. Yong borrows to mean “the part of [its] surroundings that an animal can sense and experience—its perceptual world.” Additionally, The New York Times ran an article, A bird’s-eye view of a Technicolor world, by Emily Anthes. This article shows some videos supposedly demonstrating what the world might look like to a bird whose vision is sensitive to ultraviolet light. There seemed to be an implicit assumption that ultraviolet looked a lot like violet and the birds see the primary colors about the same as we do, but never mind.Darwin Day is February 122024-01-22T12:30:00-07:002024-01-22T12:30:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/01/darwin-day-is<figure class="on-the-left-side" style="margin-top: 10px; margin-right: 40px; margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 10px;">
<img src="/uploads/2024/Darwin_And_William_600.jpg" alt="Charles Darwin and son William" />
<figcaption><a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charles-Darwin-and-William-Darwin,-1842.png">Daguerrotype of Charles Darwin and his son William</a> in 1842. <small>Photographer unknown. Cambridge University Library. Public domain, not subject to copyright in the United States.</small>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Darwin Day, that is, the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth in 1809, is February 12. If you are sponsoring any Darwin Day events, or indeed if you know of any, please submit them to <a href="https://darwinday.org/">International Darwin Day</a>. As I write, only a half-dozen events are listed, and I am sure that there are many more.</p>
<p><i>To see comments on this post click below:</i> <!--more--></p>Matt YoungDaguerrotype of Charles Darwin and his son William in 1842. Photographer unknown. Cambridge University Library. Public domain, not subject to copyright in the United States. Darwin Day, that is, the anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth in 1809, is February 12. If you are sponsoring any Darwin Day events, or indeed if you know of any, please submit them to International Darwin Day. As I write, only a half-dozen events are listed, and I am sure that there are many more. To see comments on this post click below:Sinopah Mountain2024-01-22T12:00:00-07:002024-01-22T12:00:00-07:00https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2024/01/sinopah-mountain<p>Photograph by <strong>James Kocher</strong>.</p>
<p>Photography Contest, <strong>Honorable Mention</strong>.</p>
<figure>
<img src="/uploads/2024/Photo Contest JamesKocher_SinopahMountainGNP.jpg" alt="Sinopah Mountain" />
<figcaption> Morning reflections of <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinopah_Mountain">Sinopah Mountain</a> (8,271 ft) and Paradise Point, eastern shore of <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Medicine_Lake"> Two Medicine Lake</a>, Glacier National Park, Montana. Also visible on horizon (L-R) are Painted Teepee (7,850 ft); Two Medicine Pass, Sinopah Mountain, Mt. Helen (8,538 ft) and Dawson Pass. The purple/maroon tints of these mountains are colored by mudstones and argillites in the Appekunny and Grinnell Formations (Mesoproterozoic Belt Supergroup, ~1.4 Ga). These formations are also a portion of the <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Overthrust">Lewis Overthrust</a> structure of the Rocky Mountain front range in Northern Montana.
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><br /><br /></p>
<p><i>To see comments on this post click below:</i></p>Matt YoungPhotograph by James Kocher. Photography Contest, Honorable Mention. Morning reflections of Sinopah Mountain (8,271 ft) and Paradise Point, eastern shore of Two Medicine Lake, Glacier National Park, Montana. Also visible on horizon (L-R) are Painted Teepee (7,850 ft); Two Medicine Pass, Sinopah Mountain, Mt. Helen (8,538 ft) and Dawson Pass. The purple/maroon tints of these mountains are colored by mudstones and argillites in the Appekunny and Grinnell Formations (Mesoproterozoic Belt Supergroup, ~1.4 Ga). These formations are also a portion of the Lewis Overthrust structure of the Rocky Mountain front range in Northern Montana. To see comments on this post click below: