Richard Dawkins (this time with Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago) explains it again, in probably the most clear language you can find, why intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution in science classes:

What is wrong with the apparently sweet reasonableness of “it is only fair to teach both sides”? The answer is simple. This is not a scientific controversy at all. And it is a time-wasting distraction because evolutionary science, perhaps more than any other major science, is bountifully endowed with genuine controversy.

Among the controversies that students of evolution commonly face, these are genuinely challenging and of great educational value: neutralism versus selectionism in molecular evolution; adaptationism; group selection; punctuated equilibrium; cladism; “evo-devo”; the “Cambrian Explosion”; mass extinctions; interspecies competition; sympatric speciation; sexual selection; the evolution of sex itself; evolutionary psychology; Darwinian medicine and so on. The point is that all these controversies, and many more, provide fodder for fascinating and lively argument, not just in essays but for student discussions late at night.

Intelligent design is not an argument of the same character as these controversies. It is not a scientific argument at all, but a religious one. It might be worth discussing in a class on the history of ideas, in a philosophy class on popular logical fallacies, or in a comparative religion class on origin myths from around the world. But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class. In those cases, the demand for equal time for “both theories” would be ludicrous. Similarly, in a class on 20th-century European history, who would demand equal time for the theory that the Holocaust never happened?

Talking about Dawkins: in the September issue of Discover magazine, there is an article about him entitled “Darwin’s Rottweiler – Sir Richard Dawkins: Evolution’s fiercest champion, far too fierce“. The author, Stephen S. Hall, paints an overall positive picture about Dawkins, but, as he makes it clear already in the title, he thinks that Sir Richard is “far too fierce”. This is how the article ends:

This recusal underlines the most obvious contradiction about Richard Dawkins and the cultural war in which he has so much to contribute: You can be the world’s greatest apostle of scientific rationalism, but if you come across as a rottweiler, Darwin’s or anybody else’s, when you enter that marketplace, it’s very hard to make the sale.

Well, first of all, in most of his writings and talks, Dawkins does not come across to me as a rottweiler. Read the quotation above: is there any barking and biting in it? I don’t think so. It just states facts and draws conclusions that make sense to any reasonable person. 99% percent of his books consist of crystal-clear explanations of how evolution or science in general work. The remaining 1% is similarly well-written and convincing – it just happens that a lot of people are offended because it makes them uncomfortable. Should he never talk about religion just because some people get offended? There are incredibly few people who have the intellect and courage to talk about these issues honestly; even if you disagree sometimes with him, why should one of the most eloquent guys shut up?

At times when American science education is endangered by a few politically powerful, but scientifically challenged people, we would need to clone professor Dawkins, not to tame him. When it comes to speaking the truth in clear and honest terms, I wish we had more rottweilers of the calibre of Dawkins and fewer lapdogs that never bark and never bite.

The first signs that the US is lagging behind in stem cell research started to show: for the first time, “scientists have created nearly a dozen new lines of human embryonic stem (ES) cells that […] carry the genetic signature of diseased or injured patients”, and this did not happen in America, but at Seoul National University in South Korea. Here is an explanation from The New York Times why it is important to get stem cells from cloned embrios rather than from surplus embrios from fertility clinics:

“Stem cells derived from cloned human embryos that are genetically matched to sick patients are potentially much more useful than stem cells derived from surplus embryos at fertility clinics, both for research and for potential treatments. Since cloned embryos carry the genetic makeup of patients with known diseases, scientists can study how those diseases develop from the earliest stages and can perhaps find drug treatments to interrupt the process. And if scientists ultimately succeed in converting the stem cells themselves into replacement tissues to repair damaged organs, those tissues would have the best chance of avoiding rejection by a patient’s immune system if they were genetically matched to the patient through therapeutic cloning.”

Scientists are excited — but, of course, some people immediately expressed their concerns. The president said today that “the use of federal money, taxpayers’ money, to promote science which destroys life in order to save life is – I’m against that.” Destroys life? What life? Using a few cells that happen to come from a fertilized egg in order to save real, living and breathing humans, whose quality of life could be tremendously improved with the potential new techniques — why is that unethical?

It is a lot more unethical to ban this kind of research just because one’s religion declares that life begins at conception. It makes sense to ban reproductive cloning because it is still unsafe. But to ban therapeutic cloning is utter nonsense, and it is really time to shut up for those who have only learned about genetics at Sunday school.

The New Scientist talks about “The 13 things that don’t make sense“. Some of the 13 items are at least questionable. For example, it seems to me pretty one-sided to claim that the experimental case for cold fusion is ‘bulletproof’. Bob Park has a much less positive view of the issue, for example here. Also, after reading Brian Greene’s The Fabric of the Cosmos, I thought that inflationary cosmology gave a good explanation for the ‘horizon problem’. According to the New Scientist, “In scientific terms, the uniform temperature of the background radiation remains an anomaly.” The third item that I am quite skeptical about is number 4 – the Belfast homeopathy results:

“MADELEINE Ennis, a pharmacologist at Queen’s University, Belfast, was the scourge of homeopathy. She railed against its claims that a chemical remedy could be diluted to the point where a sample was unlikely to contain a single molecule of anything but water, and yet still have a healing effect. Until, that is, she set out to prove once and for all that homeopathy was bunkum.

In her most recent paper, Ennis describes how her team looked at the effects of ultra-dilute solutions of histamine on human white blood cells involved in inflammation. These “basophils” release histamine when the cells are under attack. Once released, the histamine stops them releasing any more. The study, replicated in four different labs, found that homeopathic solutions – so dilute that they probably didn’t contain a single histamine molecule – worked just like histamine. Ennis might not be happy with the homeopaths’ claims, but she admits that an effect cannot be ruled out.”

I am looking forward to more results that show that homeopathy works. However, scientists and editors and journalists alike should keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have a feeling that New Scientist’s free advertisment for homeopaths was a bit too early and unnecessary.