Monk

The proud state of Kentucky wants to instruct the rest of the country and the world on what is science, and that evoluton is not science but merely a theory, and they obviously don't want their children being bogged down in airy-fairy theories, but only in hard facts such as those found in the Bible. Heh, was America a great country once?

_ _ _

"Republicans did want the end-of-course tests tied to national norms; now they're upset because when ACT surveyed biology professors across the nation, they said students have to have a thorough knowledge of evolution to do well in college biology courses," said Rep. Carl Rollins, D-Midway, chairman of the House Education Committee.

Givens said he and other legislators have been contacted by a number of educators with concerns about Kentucky's proposed new science standards, which are tied to ACT testing and are scheduled to be adopted this fall.

"I think we are very committed to being able to take Kentucky students and put them on a report card beside students across the nation," Givens said. "We're simply saying to the ACT people we don't want what is a theory to be taught as a fact in such a way it may damage students' ability to do critical thinking."

-- News-LJ

For sleep is rather extraordinary. If I told you that I had a neurological disease which meant that for eight or more hours a day I lost control of my faculties, bade farewell to the outside world, and was subject to complex hallucinations and delusions – such as being chased by a grizzly bear at Stockport Railway Station – you would think I was in a pretty bad way.

-- Raymond Tallis at Philosophy Now Magazine

Our animal natures are indeed dark and mysterious. Just think of sex! Talk about a strange condition. You feel compelled to run your hands all over another person's body and to lick and suck, and your dick becomes larger and completely solid, and you want to ram it into her openings until this charged-up dick discharges its milky load. Or for something less provocative, consider our constant need to stuff our mouths with food, rather like sharks on two legs. Being pregnant and giving birth is also something to wonder at. Getting old and dying is no light matter either. Of course, it could be said that what truly makes us stange is the fact that we should be so intelligent and conscious about all of this.

Wherever I turn, the popular media, scientists and even fellow philosophers are telling me that I’m a machine or a beast. My ethics can be illuminated by the behavior of termites. My brain is a sloppy computer with a flicker of consciousness and the illusion of free will. I’m anything but human.

-- Richard Polt at The New York Times

I imagine that what makes us 'human' is the fact that we can be analogized to both, the animals and the computer - that potent admixture of bestiality and genius. It can drive us kind of crazy too, but that's part of the wonder of our life and its tragedy.

"You believe we're descended from apes?"

"Well, boys definitely are."

"And girls?"

"Unicorns."

-- "Doonesbury" by G. B. Trudeau

It's been a long time since I've seen anything from Doonesbury. This one hits on the idea that schools give equal class-time to creationism with evolution. I see Trudeau still gots game.

( Cartoon )

Australopithecus africanus This species lived about 2.5 million years ago and, like A. afarensis, is thought by some paleoanthropologists to be one of our direct ancestors. “I wanted to get an expression that captures something that both humans and great apes do, though the meaning is a little different,” Gurche says. “I wanted to build a smile, but a smile with a lot of tension in it. You might even call it a nervous smile, like the fear grin of the chimpanzee.”

-- The Daily Dish

For a moment there, I was wondering who put my picture on the Internet.

Although morality has always been viewed as a human trait that sets us apart from the animals, it now appears our closest ancestors share the same scruples.

Scientists have that discovered monkeys and apes can make judgements about fairness, offer sympathy and help and remember obligations.

Researchers say the findings may demonstrate morality developed through evolution, a view that is likely to antagonise the devoutly religious, who see it as God-given.

Professor Frans de Waal, who led the study at Emory University in Georgia, US, said: "I am not arguing that non-human primates are moral beings but there is enough evidence for the following of social rules to agree that some of the stepping stones towards human morality can be found in other animals."

In tests carried out by Prof de Waal, the primates were given a set of tasks to carry out and rewarded with food and affection.

But researchers discovered that the animals strongly objected if they perceived others were being rewarded more than themselves for the same task. Some even sulked or refused to take part any further.

A separate study found chimpanzees spontaneously helped both humans and each other during controlled tests.

Prof De Waal suggests the traits may have developed through natural selection. Some anthropologists believe a sense of morality developed during the last ice age when humans were forced to band together to survive in an increasingly hostile environment.

Other theories suggest communities were forced to develop social codes to stop alpha males hogging all the food supplies.

Christopher Boeham, director of the Jane Goodall Research Center, part of Southern California's anthropology department argues that anyone not following the moral code would have been killed and their 'amoral' genes lost forever.

-- Sarah Knapton for The Telegraph

But how did Republicans and bankers lose out on these morality genes?

The Vatican is planning a special conference in 2009 to mark the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of the Species, Charles Darwin’s groundbreaking theory of evolution.

...

Next year's conference will be held in Rome and organised by Poupard's former office, the Pontifical Council for Culture as well as by the University of Notre Dame and six pontifical universities. The event, claim its organisers, is a milestone in the rapprochement between science and the Church. They say it is time for the Church to look at Evolution again, “from a broader perspective”, explaining “appropriate consideration is needed more than ever before.”

-- Bess Twiston Davies for Times Online

♠
Cornelia Dean reports on America's shaky relationship with science. If this dominance falls away, then you know the decline is setting in. You would really rather lead the world in science and innovation than in religious fundamentalism.

( article )

That Huckabee is a serious contender for the presidency is suggestive of the problem:


xXx

♠
The National Academy of Sciences makes a more diplomatic effort to deal with the evolution debate, putting out a book that self-consciously addresses the concerns of the sectarian:

But this volume is unusual, people who worked on it say, because it is intended specifically for the lay public and because it devotes much of its space to explaining the differences between science and religion, and asserting that acceptance of evolution does not require abandoning belief in God.

... The 70-page book, “Science, Evolution and Creationism,” says, among other things, that “attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.” And it offers statements from several eminent biologists and members of the clergy to support the view.

Sounds elementary, doesn't it? You would like to think that America has long gone beyond this basic synthesis. This little book does denounce creationism and its latest incarnation as Intelligent Design, "calling them devoid of evidence, 'disproven' or 'simply false'." So, I suppose the controversy will not be going away quite yet.


(Source: Cornelia Dean for The New York Times)

xXx

♠
An article in Scientific American relates research that concludes culture has sped up human evolution in the last ten thousand years, "a host of changes to everything from digestion to bones has been taking place", attributed to the increasing complexity of society and the increase in the population.

A striking note is also raised with respect to Africans, for whom it is reported that the rate of evolutionary change has been slower, due to the fact that the population has not had to undergo the more dramatic adaptations that those who migrated to Europe and Asia had to undergo in their new climates:

Not all populations show the same evolutionary speed. For example, Africans show a slightly lower mutation rate. "Africans haven't had to adapt to a fundamentally new climate," because modern humanity evolved where they live, Cochran says. "Europeans and East Asians, living in environments very different from those of their African ancestors and early adopters of agriculture, were more maladapted, less fitted to their environments."

One cannot help drawing an association to the recent debate on race and IQ. However, if there is a connection, the overall thrust of these findings is positive, in that our differences are more about culture rather than something innate, and hence malleable and progressive.

xXx