Science Words

Eleven parents of students at a Pennsylvania high school are suing over the school district's decision to include "intelligent design" -- an alternative to evolution that involves a God-like creator -- in the curriculum of ninth-grade biology classes.

The parents and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) say the policy of the Dover Area School District in south-central Pennsylvania violates the constitutional separation of church and state, which forbids teaching religion in public schools.

The school board says there are "gaps" in evolution, which it emphasizes is a theory rather than established fact, and that students have a right to consider other views on the origins of life.

(CNN)

The problem in this story, and much of the "evolution is only a theory" story, is that English and Science are different languages that share a few words, but they mean different things. I figured I'd give a few definitions / explanations here of some words commonly used in the evolution versus ID argument.

Fact/Know/True
English: Something that is absolutely correct, beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Science: These terms are not generally used as their meanings are imprecise. Sometimes when talking w/ laypeople they're used to mean "observation," other times to mean "theory." When talking to other scientists we use different words. Nothing in science can be "known" absolutely as "true," so these words are meaningless.

Observation/Measurement
English: (self-evident)
Science: Data, numbers. This is the only stuff we "know" for "sure" is "true," and even then there can be mistakes in the scientist's methods to get the data. ("Data" is plural, "datum" is singular.) "Observation" is sometimes used to refer to the first step of the Scientific Method, which is also called "Question" at times.

Hypothesis
Science: An untested educated guess about the REASONS or explanation behind what's being experimented upon. May be proven correct or incorrect in the long run. Leads to predictions for specific experiments, and if consistently upheld leads to a theory.

Prediction
Science: A guess about the results of a particular experiment before we've done anything on it. Meaningless in the long term, because (1) it only applies to that specific experiment, and (2) it gets supplanted by data and theories.

Law
Science: A theory that can be expressed in simple terms, such as an easily memorized sentence, or a formula. I've seen many other definitions for the term Law, but this is the one I like. Some such "laws" have since been disproven, or were based upon faulty assumptions, but by tradition they are still called laws.

Theory
English: An untested guess at a reason, with a high chance of being wrong.
Science: A hypothesis that's been tested many many times for many years and hasn't ever been disproven. It's impossible to ever prove anything is absolutely "true" in science, as there is always the possibility of other explanations. A theory is the most likely one, and is as close to being "true" or "right" as scientists will ever admit. (Think of scientists as a non-committal boyfriend who won't say "I do." When he says "if I were going to marry anyone, it'd be you," that's like scientists saying "this is our theory, it hasn't been disproven yet.") Theories are often refined as time progresses, but rarely proven entirely wrong.

For example the geocentric solar system / universe proved wrong and was changed to the heliocentric model. It was refined when we determined the distance to stars, so we knew that the solar system was just part of the universe. Hubble further discovered (1923) that there were other galaxies than our own. Similarly, the reasons behind it all were refined, as Aristotle's "natural motion" turned into Galileo's inertia, Newton's gravity, and then Einstein's General Relativity (~1910). Further tweaks are continuing as Stephen Hawking and others study information in black holes and string theory.

Evolution is a good example of a theory still in the process of being refined at a coarser level. Where we are with evolution would be somewhere between Newton and Einstein with gravity, or between knowing the distance to stars and the distance to galaxies. Natural selection was presented before Darwin (I believe). Darwin extrapolated that, carried to extremes, natural selection could mutate species into other species, and that process was called evolution. During the 20th century it was recognized that there were distinct times when new species "quickly" (hundreds of thousands of years) developed, and this has been incorporated into an updated version of evolution called punctuated equilibrium (not often taught in K-12 schools, sadly). This refinement of the theory of evolution states that environemtnal triggers, such as massive habitat change brought on by a comet or asteroid collision, or ice ages or global warming, would cause "rapid" evolution of new species - faster than can be captured in the fossil record, but still gradual in terms of tens of thousands of generations.

Current-day theory about the geography of the universe is pretty solid. Current theory on gravity/GR (General Relativity) has a major gap, in that we can't yet reconcile GR with quantum mechanics. But we're working on it. Current theory on evolution is pretty solid but has some small gaps, in that we haven't found missing links from the evolutionary explosions, and some subsystems seem difficult to evolve in small steps. But we're working on it.

Steve's for Evolution

Spread this around.

Denver, Colorado, February 16, 2003 -- A first-of-its-kind statement on evolution signed by over 200 scientists was unveiled today at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual convention in Denver, Colorado, following Lawrence Krauss's topical lecture entitled "Scientific Ignorance as a Way of Life: From Science Fiction in Washington to Intelligent Design in the Classroom." The statement -- sponsored by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools -- reads:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate scientific debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism of evolution. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of the public schools.

The 220 signatories are a distinguished group. Almost all hold PhDs in the sciences. They include two Nobel prize winners, eight members of the National Academy of Sciences, and several well-known authors of popular science books such as Why We Age, Darwin's Ghost, and How the Mind Works.

And they're all named Steve.

(National Center for Science Education)

As of 9/26/05 the list had 626 signatures. Over 600 scientists named Steve agree that evolution is a fact!

More Evolution

The vast majority of working scientists contend that biological evolution is an established fact supported by overwhelming evidence. They say that evolution's mechanism is well explained by the process of random mutation and natural selection that Charles Darwin described 147 years ago. Darwin's theory - updated and confirmed by recent genetic discoveries - eventually will answer all or most questions about the origin and history of life, they say.

Nevertheless, polls repeatedly have found that a majority of Americans accept the concept of intelligent design and want it to be taught in schools along with evolution. President Bush waded into the debate in August, saying that schools should teach both.
...
Asked to cite scientific evidence for supernatural design, John Marburger, President Bush's science adviser, replied: "There isn't any. ... Intelligent design is not a scientific concept."

(Knight Ridder Newspapers)

ID-ers say that we have insufficient evidence to prove 100% conclusively that evolution is what formed life. That is a flawed argument. It's important to recognize that "lack of evidence" isn't the same as "contrary evidence."

For example, can you prove 100% conclusively that the sex of a person you know is female or male? The person may have secondary sex characteristics (such as breasts, muscles, or facial features) indiciative of a particular biologicial sex, but have you seen their primary sex characteristics (genetalia)? If so, there's still the possibility of that belying the individual's genetics, as in the case of hermaphrodites and individuals whom have undergone sexual reassignment surgery (aka a sex change operation). Have you taken a sample of their cells and looked at their chromosomes with a super-powerful microscope and counted the X's and Y's? That's the only way today to be certain of a person's sex, and yet I don't know a single person whose sex has been confirmed this way, and yet I still assert that I am female, my boyfriend is male, and for many other individuals I claim to "know" their sex.

If we are to accept that we need 100% conclusive evidence to accept evolution, we would have to also accept that we cannot know anyone's sex without analyzing their chromosomes.

Nothing's Inexplicable

No, we don't know everything yet, but we're continually getting closer. Take the core of Andromeda for example.

The Andromeda galaxy (aka M31) is our closest neighboring galaxy, and we think it's a lot like ours (the Milky Way). Eleven years ago we didn't know why the center was black, then the Hubble discovered it's a supermassive black hole. The next mystery was what's the blue glow around the center. Now Hubble's revealed that it's a disk of young blue giant stars. The disk is 1 light-year across and contains some 400 stars. Around that is a larger disk of old red stars about five light-years across (not sure how many of them).

To put things in perspective, the next star over from ours, Proxima Centauri (part of the Alpha Centauri system) is 4 ly away. And in the center of Andromeda there's 100 times that many stars in a diameter one fourth of that. We suspect the same thing is going on in the center of our own galaxy, as we've seen a number of bright blue stars there. Also if it were an uncommon thing, what's the chance that the only galaxy doing it would be the one next door? (That sort of ex post facto argument has flaws though, similar to the anthropic principle.)

Why is this freakish stuff going on in the core of a galaxy? We've no clue. But I bet we will in another 10 years. Maybe an IDer would say "God did it" and stop there, but not astronomers.

Armchair Science and Amateurs

There are few science fields where amateurs can make a contribution. One such field used to be in discovering new comets and asteroids, but now automated telescopes do the vast majority of the discovering. Amateurs still make a good contribution when they follow them with their own telescopes for a week after, but it's a bit less glamorous. Another case where they make a difference is tracking common birds at birdfeeders in Project Feederwatch.

However, amateur archaeology is a bit less common, and more so armchair archaeology, partly because of the training usually required, and I've never before heard of amateur satellite archaeology, but now some guy's done it, using Google Earth nonetheless. I wonder how many crackpot calls each museum gets compared to how many eventually pan out like this?

Sources Say

Always check your sources. An unreliable person quoting an unreliable source isn't the way to go. This goes double for the internet--don't believe anything you read online unless you can confirm it with two sources you trust.

Ozone Hole

Read these articles about the present state of the ozone layer and ozone hole.

• Recovering - CNN 9/02/05


• Growing - CNN/Reuters 9/16/05

Ozone is a formerly hot topic, when they first discovered what was going down with it in the 80's. Today, we know a lot more about it, but fail to communicate this to the general public, as can be seen in the conflicting articles above. There are three aspects of ozone that should be discussed.

1. Ground Level Ozone


2. Stratospheric Ozone (Ozone Layer)


3. Depletion of Stratospheric Ozone (Ozone Hole)

First off, what is ozone in general? Ozone's chemical compound is O₃ - it is made up of three oxygen atoms. Oxygen atoms can form up to two bonds with other atoms. Think of it like your typical person with two hands who can hold hands with up to two other people. If you and your sweetheart hold hands just with each other, right to left and left to right, you get the oxygen molecule, O₂. When you hear about "breathing oxygen," this is what they mean. If you hold hands with two other people, and they each hold hands with each other, in a triangle shape, that's ozone. It's easier to break you three apart, to tear your hands from each other, as is true with ozone. Theoretically you could have O₄ and so on, but these larger molecules get increasingly easy to break apart, increasingly unstable, and are pretty much never found in nature.

The next important aspect to ozone is that of UV light. Ultraviolet light is just the right energy to interact with ozone molecules, either forming or destroying the molecules. High up in the atmosphere, within the stratosphere, the ozone layer absorbs UV light when the UV breaks apart molecules. This protects all life on Earth from UV light, which causes cancer and various mutations. The molecules naturally reform on their own, so (without human interference) the amount of ozone in the ozone layer stays constant. Stratospheric ozone (the ozone layer) is good for humanity.

Low in the atmosphere, in the troposphere near the ground, not much ozone forms naturally. When UV light sneaks through past the upper layers and interacts with pollutants (such as nitrous oxide) it forms ozone. Not enough ozone to block UV light, so it doesn't do much good. But enough ozone to hurt us in other ways -- because it is so unstable, when you breathe ozone in, it interacts with the lining of your lungs and essentially "burns" (oxidizes) your lungs. This is especially bad for people with asthma or lung diseases. Tropospheric ozone (ground-level ozone) is bad for humanity.

To complicate matters more, not only does ground-level pollution help form ozone, other pollutants help destroy stratospheric ozone. Specfically, the chemicals that used to be used in air conditioners, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), interact quickly with ozone to break it apart, and then move on to break apart other ozone molecules. This contributed to the current day ozone hole. We have since banned CFCs, which is slowing the destruction of the ozone layer (destroying the ozone layer is the same as creating the ozone hole).

All that's fine and dandy, but it doesn't explain the flip-flopping results that CNN reports. As is often the case, I'm pretty sure it's all a matter of what they measured. The first group (that said the ozone layer is recovering) went to certain specific locations and measured how much ozone was in the ozone layer above those spots on the ground, for the dates 1996 to 2002. They are not up to date, and it's possible things have happened since then. The second group (ozone hole worst ever) measured specifically the size of the ozone hole over Antarctica this year. Perhaps this year was an anamoly?

I think most of the issue is in the locations chosen by both groups. It's possible that most of the ozone layer is getting thicker, but that one section of it over Antarctica is getting worse. What's the overall result if we combine the two groups? I don't know, and I don't think I could without looking at their data in depth and probably doing additional research. Give it a year or so and someone will do that and come up with a whole new set of answers. That's what's great about science -- no one person or group can claim to know what's "right"! :)