Archive for February, 2006

The evolution debate in Utah

Tuesday, February 28th, 2006

Utah has torpedoed a bill sponsored by Republican Chris Buttars requiring schools to tell studens that “evolution is not a fact” and that “the state does not endorse evolution”. THe first part of the bill is yet another misunderstanding of the term evolution (which describes both observed facts and tested explanations of those facts – much like the term gravity). The second part of the bill makes it sound like the state’s official policy is that they reject biology – a rather bizarre solution for a state to take if the state presumably plans to then teach its students biology. Can you imagine being a biology teacher that has to read a statement saying that the state rejects biology, then ask students to open their biology textbooks to study?

I think the best point made in the article linked above was made by Republican representative Scott Wyatt:

“I would leave you with two questions,” Wyatt said. “If we decide to weigh in on this part, are we going to begin weighing in on all the others and are we the correct body to do that?”

It’s refreshing to see a few conservatives describing the antievolution crusade as it is – an assault on all science. That’s why I care about the issue, and it’s why I would continue to care about the issue even if my wife weren’t a biology teacher. Where would it end? There are people out there who, often on religious grounds, deny the findings of almost every modern science. Astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, biology, psychology, anthropology – none are immune. I found, to my disappointment, that even something so basic to science as atomic theory is declared false on religious grounds by some.

Senator Buttars, though, is undeterred by his defeat.

“I don’t believe that anybody in there really wants their kids to be taught that their great-grandfather was an ape.”

… so it looks like there is still more work to do.

I can’t compete with that!

Monday, February 27th, 2006

As a chemistry teacher, I’m sometimes faced with the dilemma of how to make the material interesting and relevant to students. I’d like to think I succeed more than I fail at this, but there are some things I just can’t compete with.

Case in point – a while ago this note turned up in one of classrooms where I teach. (The names have been changed and one word has an asterisk added to protect the guilty/innocent.)

I’m here in Chemistry and it’s burning inside of me to tell you in some way how much I miss you! I know we are supposed to go to Plan-B, but I can’t deal with this Annie. I miss you so much and no matter what I do I still miss you so. I don’t know if I did anything to start whatever it is you believe you’re doing!? This is killing me. I don’t think I can deal with this kind of interaction with the two of us. I can’t Annie. I’m sorry! I think the main thing is that you don’t tell me anything. I never know. That’s a problem. Why don’t I understand what’s going on. Did we ever have anything right for things to get so bad! Would you just stop being such a hard-*ss!?

Well, we’ve got denial, anger, and bargaining all here in one note!

There I stood thiinking I’d finally gotten one of those guys who sit in the very back of the room (you’ve seen the type if you have been on either side of the podium in college) to actually pay attention and take good notes! Oh well …

The noisy dining room

Sunday, February 26th, 2006

[Dinning Room]

I can’t eat in here. It’s too noisy!

Sign on the side of the drink machine in the Wiener Works in Fayetteville, NC

Ice is nice

Thursday, February 23rd, 2006

Via a post on Panda’s Thumb, here is an New York Times article about the slipperiness of ice.

Water has always fascinated chemists, because it has some rather unusual properties. For one, you would expect that tiny water molecules would exist as gas even at temperatures well below room temperature – since it’s usually true that the larger the molecule is, the higher its boiling point. Also unlike most other substances, water ice floats on top of liquid water. In just about any other substance, the opposite is true – the solid is more dense than and sinks in the liquid.

Water is so unusual that some early chemists even considered it as a proof of the existence of a god. Here’s JL Comstock, writing in his 1845 book Elements of Chemistry:

The effects of temperature upon liquid water is distinguished by a peculiarity of a very striking kind, and exhibits a departure from the general laws of nature, for a purpose so wise and beneficient, as to afford one of the strongest and most impressive of those endless proofs of design and onniscience in the frame of creation, which it is the most exalted pleasure of the chemist, no less than of the naturalist, to trace and admire.

The New York Times article talks about the various explanations offered for why ice is slippery.

  1. Ice’s solid phase is less dense than its liquid, and a large amount of pressure can lower the melting point of ice.
  2. The friction of dragging something (like your shoes) across ice generates enough heat to melt the ice.
  3. Solid ice is coated with a very thin layer of liquid water, even at temperatures well below 0C (32F).

Of the three explanations for ice being slippery, the first one appears in the most books. Ironically enough, it appears to be the least significant effect – except at temperatures close to the freezing point. We don’t put very much pressure on ice by walking on it. The real answer may lie in a cmbination of the second and third explanations – or somewhere else entirely.

It is, after all, a slippery subject.

Also interesting is that there is more than one kind of ice:

At higher pressures, the usual hexagonal structure breaks down, and the bonds rearrange themselves in more compact, denser crystal structures, neatly labeled with Roman numerals: Ice II, Ice III, Ice IV and so on. Scientists have also discovered several forms of ice in which the water molecules are arranged randomly, as in glass.

(What, no ice nine?)

These other arrangements of water molecules are more dense than the form of water ice that we observe in our freezers. That’s interesting too, but one ice researcher points out that these many different forms of ice can help us better inderstand how water molecules interact with other substances. This is pretty important for creatures like us, who are made of mostly water!

Freshman chemistry takes on homeopathy

Tuesday, February 21st, 2006

Homeopathy is an old form of “alternative” medicine that just doesn’t want to fade back into obscurity. One of the admittedly strange central ideas behind homeopathy is the idea that the more dilute a substance, the more potent it is. One homeopathy web site ( here ) explains it this way.

Key to the philosophy is the serial dilution of the remedies that get STRONGER “Biologically” as they get more dilute, or WEAKER from a “chemical” standpoint.

The problem with this line of thinking should be pretty obvious to anyone with some training in either biology or biochemistry – biology is, at the small scale, chemistry.

On the other hand, since many of the actve ingredients in homeopathic remedies are poisonous, perhaps making them weaker is no bad thing!

Homeopathic remedies are made by a process called serial dilution – which actually is a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a chemistry lab, as any student of analytical chemistry would be able to tell you. A serial dilution is just what it sounds like – repeated dilutions. Make a solution, then take a small portion of it and dilute it with water. Take a small portion of the new solution and dilute it with more water, and so on. The homeopaths add an extra step between each dilution, a kind of ritual shaking which they call succussion. The website referenced above tell us that this extra step

somehow energizes the remedy and adds “Necessary Energy” to the solution. Experiments have been done with hard physical measurements that have proven that the chemical bonds between the molecules actually get stronger.

Since they don’t say what kind of measurements have been made and where these results have been published, I’m not even going to attempt to evaulate this claim except to say that it’s unlikely based on what I know about the nature of chemical bonds. But even if there’s a small grain of truth in their claims, the homeopaths have another problem: there is a finite number of molecules in a solution. If you dilute a solution too much, you will eventually reach a point where a given volume of the solution is not likely to contain any molecules of the substance you are trying to dilute. Figuring this out should be simple enough for any student with a semester of freshman chemistry under their belt, and it’s an assignment I have given my freshman chemistry classes.

When I first made the assignment, I chose sulfuric acid as the substance to be diluted, mainly because it is a relatively simple molecule whose physical properties (like density) are easy to find. After doing a little more research, I find that sulfuric acid actually is used as a homeopathic remedy – going by the more impressive sounding name Sulphuricum Acidum. The homeopaths don’t seem to be in 100% agreement over the usage of sulfuric acid solutions, but they use it for treating weakness, trembling, skin discoloration, yellow stool, perspiration (after eating warm food), etc. (See here). Homeopathic sulfuric acid soltuions are available in a wide variety of dilutions, and it’s at this point that we need to define the system that homeopaths use to describe “potency” (in homeopathic language, that’s how dilute a solution is).

The system basically tells how many dilution steps were used, then follows it with a Roman numeral indicating the factor the solution was diluted by. For example, a 1X dilution contains one part (I’ll assume a volume here) of substance in ten parts of solution. The “1” indicates that only one dilution step was performed, while the “X” indicates that it’s a 1 in 10 solution. A 1L dilution contains 1 part of substance in 50 parts of solution. A 1C dilution contains 1 part of substance in 100 parts of solution … and so on.

If the number in front of the Roman numeral is bigger than 1, a serial dilution was performed. A 2X solution, for example, would take two steps to make: First prepare the 1X solution, then take one part of that solution and make another solution containing one part of “1X” solution per ten parts. With an “X” solution, each successive dilution decreases the concentration by a factor of ten. For a “C” solution, each successive dilution decreases the concentration by a factor of 100 … and so on.

Here’s where freshman chemistry comes in. Using calculations that any freshman chemistry student should be able to perform, it’s possible to calculate the approximate number of molecules contained in each solution after each dilution. Here’s how it’s done.

First, we assume that the first dilution is made from pure sulfuric acid in water. This may or may not be the starting point for the homeopathic preparations (they don’t say), but this would givw the largest number of molecules of sulfuric acid that the solutions could possibly have. If the homeopaths start from a solution of sulfuric acid instead of the pure subtance, their preparations will contain fewer molecules that we will calculate here.

Next, we’ll need the density of pure sulfuric acid, about 1.85 grams per milliliter at room temperature. We need this to figure out the mass (and later, the number of molecules) of sulfuric acid in the first solution. From a supplier of homeopathic remedies ( here ), we find that sulfuric acid is available in many concentrations. A few of them are 6C, 12C, 24C, and 30C. Our goal is to find out how much sulfuric acid is actually present in these solutions. The largest bottle available from this supplier is 50 mL, so we will do our calculation of the number of molecules based on this volume.

(If you’re not interested in the math, feel free to skip down a bit to the table.)

The simplest way to figure out the number of molecules in a bottle is to first change the “C” notation into a unit that actually relates simply to the number of molecules. In preparing the first dilution (1C), we would dissolve 1 mL of pure sulfuric acid into enough water to make 100 mL of solution. How much sulfuric acid, in terms of molecules, is that?

Since individual molecules are so small, chemical calculations are based on moles of molecules. A mole is simply a large number of molecules, 6.02 times 1023 ( 6.02×1023) of them. (This is no different than egg suppliers selling eggs by the dozen, or fireworks manufacturers selling firecrackers by the gross.) We will calculate the number of moles of sulfuric acid molecules in the 1C solution.

It is known that 98.09 grams of sulfuric acid contains one mole of sulfuric acid molecules (this is the called the molecular weight of sulfuric acid). We also know the density of the sulfuric acid, so we can calculate the number of moles of sulfuric acid in a milliliter.

So, the 1C solution will contain 0.01886 moles of sulfuric acid in every 100 mL. Chemists routinely describe the concentration of solution in terms of molarity (abbreviated as M) – which is simply the number of moles of substance dissolved in a liter of solution. We have prepared 100 mL (0.100 L) of 1C solution, so the concentration is

If the concentration of the 1C solution is 0.1886 M, then each liter of the solution would contain 1.13 times 1023 molecules (which sounds like a really large number, right? We’ll compare it to plain vinegar later). 50 mL (0.050 L) of the solution – the biggest bottle of homeopathic sulfuric acid available from our supplier – would contain 5.68 times 1021 molecules. This still seems like a really large number, but remember that molecules are really small.

Each serial dilution requires one mL of the previous solution to be diluted to 100 mL. That means that each dilution will contain 1/100th of the number of molecules of sulfuric acid as the solution before it. Here’s a table of some dilutions of sulfuric acid and the number of molecules that a 50 mL bottle of each would (on average) contain.

Dilution Number of molecules in 50 mL
1C 5.68 times 1021
2C 5.68 times 1019
6C 5.68 times 1011
11C 56.8
12C 0.568
24C 5.68 times 10-23
30C 5.68 times 10-37

To put this in perspective, even the most concentrated (1C) dilution of sulfuric acid contains only about half the acid that the same amount of plain vinegar does (and that’s including the fact that sulfuric acid itself has two acidic protons while the acetic acid in vinegar only has one). So the 6C dilution is about 1/20,000,000,000th the strength of plain vinegar.

Another way to look at the numbers is to think about how many bottles of remedy you would have to buy to get a single molecule of sulfuric acid, For the 6C dilution, that’s not a problem – but for the 12C, 24C, and 30C solutions it is! If each bottle of 12C contains on average half a molecule of sulfuric acid, then you’d need to buy two bottles of remedy to be reasonably sure of getting a single molecule of active ingredient. That might not be too expensive, but you’d need about 2 times 1024 bottles of the 24C, and 2 times 1036 bottles of 30C. (Better open your wallet!)

Some homeopaths are at least a little honest about the fact that most of these bottles they sell contain nothing but water and perhaps some alcohol. Here’s what one web site ( here ) has to say on the matter.

Higher potencies of homeopathic remedies (anything higher than 12C) have been diluted past the point that molecules of the original substance would be measurable in the solution.

It’s not that the substanes aren’t detectable, it’s that quite likely a bottle will simply contain no molecules of the substance. Getting a molecule of the remedy, for the higher dilutions, would be like winning the Powerball. Occasionally, somebody wins – but how many people buy Powerball tickets and get nothing?

This is a major stumbling block for skeptics when it comes to understanding and accepting the idea of homeopathy.

Skeptics being defned as the set people who can do solution calculations?

Homeopathic remedies, when correctly chosen, clearly work—but not in the way that drugs do (through chemical actions that affect the body processes).

Or is it more likely that the most “potent” of the homeopathic medicines do not do anything at all and any “healing” that patients see is a result of the body’s ability to heal itself? Maybe some of this healing is simply the power of persuasion – people are told by a respected authority that thry’ll feel better, so they do.

If I bruise my arm, for instance, I could (if I weren’t very bright) decide that drinking one drop of toilet bowl cleaner dissolved in an eight ounce glass of water each day would make the bruise heal. If I did this, the toilet bowl cleaner probably wouldn’t do me any serious harm, and the bruise would heal in a matter of days. Can I claim that my “homeopathic toiletum bowlium cleanerum remedy” helped my arm to heal?

It is not completely understood why potentized remedies can work so deeply and specifically, but many likely theories have arisen through research and observation. It appears that they function on an energetic level to stimulate the body to heal itself more efficiently.

It is by no means proven that these remedies work at all, but look at the mechanism that is proposed: these remedies, many of which contain nothing at all, “function on an energetic level to stimulate the body”.

We have a name for things like that: the placebo effect.

Paying attention

Sunday, February 19th, 2006

[3 cats]

Say hello to Ash, Tom, and Rusty.

Biblically Correct Tours

Sunday, February 19th, 2006

An open thread on Pharyngula leads to this article about an outfit called “Biblically Correct Tours”, which seems to specialize in trying to squeeze scientific data through a very narrow view of the Christian bible.

For a minimum of a hundred bucks, they will take a group through a museum and put their own spin on history, science, art, et cetera. Because …

“Museums are the secular temples of our day,” founder Bill Jack says. “If you watch people walk in, especially in (Denver’s) Museum of Nature and Science, they fold their hands reverently, they speak in hushed tones, they don’t let kids touch.

“The kid says, `What’s this?’ Dad reads the sign and they say, `Ooh, ahh.’ They worship the creature rather than the creator.”

I went in a few museums during my childhood, and I certainly don’t recall worshipping dinosaurs, sharks, stars, or even electricity. I found all of those topics interesting, but I hardly think that qualifies as “worship”.

Another person from Biblically Correct Tours continues…

Carter, who has a degree in biblical studies, admits feeling somewhat intimidated when he first gave tours, knowing scientists were listening. “I used to think, `What are they thinking? Are they going to come out and correct me?'” he says.

This is an interesting admission. He’s basically saying that he knows he’s presenting things that are wrong. What kinds of things?

  • Evolution promotes racism and abortion.
  • Hitler’s racism was motivated by evolution.
  • “Evolution kills people”
  • “If you believe you came from slime there is no reason not to, if you can, get away with anything.”

Sad, isn’t it?

I’d say that a lack of knowledge about evolution can kill – since evolutionary theory has a lot to say about things like infectious diseases.

Biblically Correct Tours also has media for sale, which sheds more light on what sort of ideas kids get exposed to on these tours.

One video is called The Emperor’s New Clothes – Bill Jack exposes the naked truth behind “progressive” creationism (and theistic evolution). The description makes it appear that the video is a diatribe against rational Christians that accept modern science.

It gets better. Have a look at Jack Theist Meets Dr. Secular!

[Scary Doctor Secular!]Plan 9 from Outer Space is a great film.

I’d also really love to see how “Jack Theist destroys Dr. Secular’s arguments with Biblical Truth”, as the description says. If it’s anything like Kent Hovind’s videos, it’ll be a laugh riot.

If only these people weren’t serious

A visit to Summerville

Saturday, February 18th, 2006

I’ve been to Summerville. It seems like a nice enough place. Just make sure you keep your kids out of any school where Pastor Mike Moore (scroll down to Prayer and creation) has any influence.

I also want to comment on intelligent design versus evolution. The biggest problem here is that the evolutionists are just plain ignorant on the subject. I don’t mean that in an insulting way, but you must deeply study both sides.

It’s certainly possible to deeply study the evolution side, since it’s been a subject of much scientific inquiry for more than a century. The “intelligent design” side, on the other hand, doesn’t provide much of a side to study. Even their Of Pandas and People textbook is creationism with the word “creation” replaced by “intelligent design”. Is it really any wonder that we science folks don’t find a whole lot to “deeply study”? The arguments are old and discredited. They don’t lead us to useful new things to study. For that matter, there’s not really that much to look at. That Amazon link above will lead you to most of the intelligent design books.

I challenge those who are one-sided on the subject to investigate the material.

Read Dr. Carl Baugh, an expert on both sides and a leading expert on creationism and intelligent design. I know you evolutionists are asking: “Dr. Carl who?” I rest my case. Expand your horizons.

Actually, the first thing I thought of when I read that was “Oh no, Doctor Baugh and his man-tracks again. We science types have seen his stuff and we’re not impressed with his work. (Even creationists tend to distance themselves from Baugh these days. I guess they’ve seen too many questionable finds and fakes from him.)

Both should be taught, and let young, inquisitive and intelligent American minds decide for themselves.

We have little enough time as it is to get our students a good science background. Why make the situation even worse by wasting class time with unsubstantiated junk?

Where do we lose them?

Friday, February 17th, 2006

PZ Myers, at rips into the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen for wasting electrons with a flow of bull called What is the value of algebra?. Cohen consluded that

Writing is the highest form of reasoning. This is a fact. Algebra is not.

… which, however you try to parse it, is sheer stupidity.

In the comments thread on PZ’s blog, though, we find a link to the story that got Cohen to go off the deep end, and it’s much more intertesting that Cohen’s garbage.

A Formula for Failure in L.A. Schools

This is the story of Gabriela Ocampo, a high school dropout, and the LA school system. There appear to be many failures – and blame enough to go all around.

Gabriela failed that first semester of freshman algebra. She failed again and again — six times in six semesters.

Frankly, what business does the school system have putting this student in the same class six times in a row and letting her fail? With this many failures, why wasn’t the student evaluated to see what level of math she was functioning at and placing her there? Or checking to see if there was some sort of psychological problem or learning disability evident? The student’s supposed to be getting an education, not a ride on the “Ferris Wheel of Algebra”!

But it’s not just the school at fault, here.

Shane Sauby, who worked as an attorney and stockbroker before becoming a teacher, volunteered to teach the students confronting first-year algebra for a second, third or fourth time. He thought he could reach them.

But, Sauby said, many of his students ignored homework, rarely studied for tests and often skipped class.

If the parents of these students don’t care enough to see that they’re actually in their classes in the first place, it’s no wonder that the students themelves don’t care. It’s uphill work to teach someone who simply does not want to learn, and it becomes an impossible job if the students simply don’t show up in the first place.

Gabriela’s algebra teacher learned this the hard way.

Only seven of 39 students brought their textbooks. Several had no paper or pencils. One sat for the entire period with his backpack on his shoulders, tapping his desk with a finger.

Gabriela […] skipped 62 of 93 days that semester.

I’m torn when I read stuff like this. On the one hand, I feel sorry for students like Gabriela, who may have been “passed” in lower-level classes that they shouldn’t have passed and find themselves in way over their head in high school. On the other hand, I feel that people who can’t be bothered to make even the most basic effort in a class neither deserve to pass the class nor deserve to be given a high school diploma. Less than 20% of these people could trouble themselves to simply bring their book … and that’s when they did show up!

One other point to bring out is the class size. The last thing students with a history of failure need is to be put into a large class environment. They probably need much more individual help than the teacher (however good) can possibly give them. Even a class half the size of Gabriela’s might be too large. This, unfortunately, is probably caused by lack of funds. (Tax cuts and budget cuts are the rage these days.) Education is expensive, but I still believe ignorance costs more in the long run.

Another interesting point from the article is yet another sign that we might want to rethink how we distribute funds for schools. One school has decided to take students who fail their algebra classes and simply put them into remedial classes focusing not on algebra but on the basic math skills from earlier grades that these students probably lack. Sounds good, and it appears that their students actually end up doing better in algebra in the long run. But …

The state can lower the academic rankings of schools that remove ninth graders from first-year algebra. Consistently low rankings can invite district audits and penalties, including removal of teachers and administrators.

So, getting the students the help they need might cause the school to lose funding and teachers! This, apparently, is what some people think “accountability” means.

Read the article, and see the train wreck in LA for yourself. It’ll take money, effort, and time to get it fixed – from parents, from students, from schools, from teachers, and from government. Who’s up for it?

Teaching the teachers?

Thursday, February 16th, 2006

CNN has a short article about a school district in Wilmington, NC that has spent about $20,000 on Sony Playstations (hopefully, they meant PS2s here). They got, according to the article, 23 machines.

They must have one heck of a game library, with $15000+ left over for games. Can I come over to play?

The most amusing thing to me, though, was this snippet.

But not all the teachers took to the video games — one became so flustered that she didn’t want use them in class, principal Sharon Sand said.

Maybe they were just pretending so that they could take home some of those games. Nevertheless, students stepped in to save the day!

So on Wednesday, students gave advice on plugging in the machines, using the software and navigating the buttons.

Bravo, students! This just go to show you that teachers will respect student expertise!

(Can I get some of that federal money for videogames? I’m sure I could tie Dragon Quest VIII in with the colligative properties … somehow!)