Banner
Melville on Science vs. Creation Myth

From Melville's under-appreciated Mardi: On a quest for his missing love Yillah, an AWOL sailor...

Non-coding DNA Function... Surprising?

The existence of functional, non-protein-coding DNA is all too frequently portrayed as a great...

Yep, This Should Get You Fired

An Ohio 8th-grade creationist science teacher with a habit of branding crosses on his students'...

No, There Are No Alien Bar Codes In Our Genomes

Even for a physicist, this is bad: Larry Moran, in preparation for the appropriate dose of ridicule...

User picture.
picture for Hank Campbellpicture for Heidi Hendersonpicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Wes Sturdevantpicture for Ian Ramjohnpicture for Patrick Lockerby
Michael WhiteRSS Feed of this column.

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist

... Read More »

Blogroll
Nearly every summary of creationism and the law that I've read includes some sort of statement to the effect that 'the judicial decisions have left the door cracked slightly open for creation science.' Two generally excellent books on the subject illustrate this phenomenon.

Edward Humes, in Monkey Girl writes about the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision striking down a Louisiana law requiring that "creation science" be taught. Humes quotes Scalia's rather juvenile dissent (the man couldn't help but drape his argument in insults for his colleagues), and writes:
Are we ""natural-born cyborgs", as Carl Zimmer argues?

We tend to think of the mind as separated from the world; we imagine information trickling into our senses and reaching our isolated minds, which then turn that information into a detailed picture of reality. The Internet and iPhones seem to be crashing the gate of the mind, taking over its natural work and leaving it to wither away to a mental stump. As plausible as this picture may seem, it does a bad job of explaining a lot of recent scientific research. In fact, the mind appears to be adapted for reaching out from our heads and making the world, including our machines, an extension of itself.


Or are we becoming a distracted, alien nation, as Tom Vanderbilt writes in Bookforum?
Edward Larson, author of a Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the Scopes trial (which I highly recommend), writes in Bookforum about the influence of racism on Darwin's thinking. Creationists argue (as most recently exemplified in Ben Stein's widely panned film Expelled) that "practically all the harmful practices and deadly philosophies that plague mankind have their roots and pseudo-rationale in evolutionism." To these people, in this year of big Darwin bicentennial celebrations,  "all the hoopla must seem like throwing a birthday party for Hitler."
Daniel at Genetic Future has posted the latest edition of Gene Genie. Go read about blog reactions to Steven Pinker's genome, a DNA database for Portuguese criminals, predictions on what super-power-conferring mutations George Church might find in the genomes of his first 10 volunteers for the Personal Genome Project,  how DNA can tell us where medieval scholars got their cows to make cow-hide manuscripts, and much, much more.

It's a great edition of Gene Genie, so go pay Daniel a visit.

The Age of Entanglement
by Louisa Gilder
Alfred A. Knopf, 2008

Perhaps there is no greater demonstration of Einstein's brilliance and famous independence than his rejection of the spookiness at the heart of quantum theory. Einstein recognized early that quantum mechanics plays a "risky game with reality", and the stakes are nothing less than our deep beliefs about cause and effect that make up the support beams holding science together as a coherent structure.

OK, here's more commentary on some of the interesting stuff over at Cosmic Variance, this time on the cult of genius:

During high school or college, many aspiring physicists latch onto Feynman or Einstein or Hawking as representing all they hope to become. The problem is, the vast majority of us are just not that smart. Oh sure, we’re plenty clever, and are whizzes at figuring out the tip when the check comes due, but we’re not Feynman-Einstein-Hawking smart. We go through a phase where we hope that we are, and then reality sets in, and we either (1) deal, (2) spend the rest of our career trying to hide the fact that we’re not, or (3) drop out. It’s always bugged the crap out of me that physicists’ worship of genius conveys the simultaneous message that if you’re not F-E-H smart, then what good are you? In physics recommendation land, there is no more damning praise than saying someone is a “hard worker”.


I'm not a physicist, so I don't have any personal experience with how badly physics is infected by a cult of genius. In biology, our geniuses aren't as flashy, partly because brilliant mathematical theories of the type found in theoretical physics don't do much good in biology.