Aren't the airlines fun?

Ok, so the good news is that I have been invited to interview at some of my potenital grad schools. The bad news is that flying there is a right pain in the posterior. I seem to remember a day when air travel was easy, and flight times were more than just approximations. Instead, I have to pay three times as much to travel from Little Rock to Atlanta (Atlanta! Not exactly a small airport!) instead of connecting through two or three different cities.

Now normally, connecting wouldn't be a problem, but with the track record I have with Continental and American, I'm pretty sure I would be looking at - at least - a three-hour delay (if they don't just strand me outright). Instead, I can shell out a premium for connection-less flights; I can pay more to ensure that I actually arrive at my destination when they say I will. How did we get to the point that timely, schedule-adhering travel costs extra?!

I don't know how many times I've seen something like this. If you can make it past the poorly written surface, you might notice that it highlights a very disturbing trend. This particular wingnut makes the bold claim that a new ream of anti-evolution material is going to appear on the internet and somehow destroy the evolutionary position. When this happens, he is sure, science will reject evolution and once more return to creationism, lest they lose public support.

There are so many things wrong with that idea, but I just want to mention two.

1. Why is it that creation "science" has to rely on the internet, already not the most reliable source of information, as the vehicle for its dissemination? If they really had a real position, they would be able to get publications in real journals and reputable print media. As it is, all they can do is clog up the fringe of the internet and make otherwise respectable sites look foolish by association.
2. What does it matter if public support for evolution drops? That would indicate one thing: public ignorance. Scientific fact is not determined by the opinions of an uneducated public; and let's be thankful for that! I know this sounds awfully elitist, but the science should really be left to the scientists. Not necessarily the people with Ph.D.'s, mind you, but at least the people who have taken the time to actually educate themselves. If the scientific establishment were to start rejecting an idea, then we could start paying attention.

If creationists want to actually go to the effort and produce real science in favor of what they say - if they're willing to sit down and go through the peer review process and subject their ideas to scientific scrutiny - then I might be willing to give it at least some attention. But if you want to be treated like science, then you have to play by science's rules.

Academic Freedom?

I live in Arkansas...I probably don't need to say much more to my fellow scientists. This is the state that recently had a Young Earth Creationist as its governor (the same one that now has a show on Fox). As such, I've heard the phrase "Academic Freedom" more times than I care to admit. This site really highlights the stupidity of the movement. Though I think my favorite line may be this:

Don't worry if 99.9% of the experts on some subject agree on one conclusion about the facts -- if your 'gut' says differently, then go for it! No matter how wacky the idea is, you can usually find a handful of cranks with Ph.D.s to back you up!

The site as a whole makes a great point: what's the difference between academic freedom and a free-for-all? If we start allowing intelligent design creationism in the classroom as some form of protected speech, what's next? Would it be too much of a stretch to imagine a professor, somewhere, somehow espousing the idea that the earth is flat? We have academic standards for a reason: to make sure that students are taught factual positions, not to indoctrinate. If teachers want to give high school students a chance to think critically about a theory (yes, I'm thinking of evolution), have at it. But don't go at it unless you're really willing to teach it. Because let's face it: evolution is a complicated theory, and it takes more than reading a couple of articles to understand it. I'm all for teaching critical thinking and scientific skepticism, but not at the price of actually teaching the basic science.

You have to give credit to the ID proponents, though, for being deviously clever. Their famous stickers are a perfect example of the "poisoning the well" fallacy, and what better way to play off of public ignorance than famous "list of dissenting scientists"? Yeah, let's teach that there is a controversy, but let's use it as an opportunity to learn. Put intelligent design in the classroom as what it is: bad science. I'm sure it would go really well right next to the sections on spontaneous generation.

The First Post

I've always considered it something of a tragedy that I (and perhaps all humans) have such a strong tendency to vow to do something yet never get around to it. For instance, I've always wanted to write a book on aquarium-keeping (and maybe do something with those years I've spent with reef aquaria), but after a few months, I have yet to get past the introduction.

Oh well...

There's another thing that's always bothered me: as a scientist, I simply cannot stand when lay people butcher science. Sometimes the problem is one of ignorance, but sometimes the motivations are more sinister. Regardless, such instances always send me into a flying rage. And what better way to deal with that than to blog about it? As an educator, I must view every scientific snafu as a chance for further instruction, and perhaps this blog will allow me to share my own, insignificant insights with the rest of the world.

Perhaps a little background is in order. I'm a biologist, and I focus specifically on evolution and ecology (and I consider the two inextricably linked). I also have the unfortunate habit of getting onto the Conservapedia (www.conservapedia.com is always good for a laugh), where the anti-science movement lives strong. Oh, the stories I could tell...but that's for another time. I'm also getting ready to embark on the final leg of my journey towards my Ph.D., and every day I get new insights into science that I simply cannot resist sharing.

Readers might be curious about the name of the blog: The Discontinuous Mind. It is an homage to my favorite scientific author, Richard Dawkins, and an idea that he develops in The Ancestor's Tale (which is, by the way, an extremely good read). Put simply, the "Tyranny of the Discontinuous Mind" is the natural tendency of humanity to place things in categories, especially where none exist. We have a hard time accepting the fact that species A can evolve to species B along a lineage of varieties which are, on their own, part of the same species. It's a problem I face every time I teach taxonomy to my zoology students, and there is no end to the challenges faced by the discontinous mind.

That, and some of the "science" I read simply makes my mind fall to pieces. That's the stuff I'll be sharing with my readers.