1

Geologic Hazards Coastlines

Oil Exploration Environment

Volcanoes Earthquakes

Tsunamis Landslides Sinkholes

Geologys societal relevance

Historical Geology

Past, Present, and Future Env ironments Paleoclimatology

History of climate

Climate change

Climate processes

2

Earths projected carbon dioxide concentrations by 2100 (reaching levels not seen in the last 30 million years!)

Earths natural climate cycle for the past 600,000 years

Temperature changes

CO2 Concentration and Radiative Forcing

From Kiehl: Science, 2011

50 Myr Early Eocene

Paleobiology History of LIFE

Origin of life

Evolution and adaptation

Extinction

3

Planetary Geology & Astrobiology

Cosmology

Planet formation

W hat is life?

Preconditions for

for life elsewhere

in the universe

The importance of theoretical science?

Quantum mechanics theor y ( 1920s) led to electronics used in todays

computers (from ipods to toasters)

Particl e accelerators for s tudyi ng matter now used in di agnostic

imaging to detect cancers.

X-ray detec tors used to study stars and g alaxi es now used in security

airport scanners.

Gecko foot pads inspire new internal bandages.

Evol uti onar y theor y used to disrupt evoluti on of pestici de r esistance i n

disease-transmitti ng mosquitos and anti-biotic resistance in bacteria.

DNA sequencing of entire human genome made possibl e by adapting

technology for studying star light.

Space travel? Asteroid mining, escape extinction, space weaponry

Firewalls f ailed to p rotec t computers from hack ers for

40 years.

Screening ai rline p assen gers does no t prev ent

explosive devices from getting onto planes.

Soldiers in Iraq did not get armo red vehicl es until 3 yrs

after need

In nature, organisms also face risks that are frequen t,

variable and uncertain.

Over 3.5 billion years, o rganisms hav e evolv ed an

enormous variety of methods to surviv e, grow and

proliferate on a continually changing planet.

Reduce or embrace uncertainty

Avoid centralization (too slow)

Cooperate (symbiosis)

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Nothing I learned [in high school] had any bearing at all on the big and real questions. Who am I? What am I doing

here? What is the world? What is my relationship to i t?

George G. Simpson " This View of Life," 1964

4

Is life inevitable in the universe? Is intelligent life inevitable? Can l ife evolve from non-living materials? How? How does evolution happen? Are we the products of unguided evolution or the creation of an intelligent designer? Why do we die? Whats the meaning of life?

Science can answer the BIG Questions

Most Americans reject scientific claims about the

origin of life, humans, and our place in the universe

Humans evolved,

but God had no

part in process

Humans

evolved,

with God

guiding

God created

humans in

present

form

OTHER/

No

opinion

2001 12% 37% 45% 6%

1999 9 40 47 4

1997 10 39 44 7

1993 11 35 47 7

1982 9 38 44 9

More than 80% of Americans believe that the history of life can

only be explained by reference to supernatural causes.

Gallup Polls Is it fair to exclude non-scientific viewpoints on

the history of life from school curricula?

Previous classes

American public

It IS fair to exclude non-scientific

opinions on the history of l ife,

IF scientists can tell the difference

between true explanations and false ones

about the natural world and its origins.

Only one explanation can be correct.

The METHOD of science gives it unique access to truth.

What is science?

5

Logical reasoning is necessary:

For example: If all humans are mortal, and Socrates is a human, then we know Socrates must be mortal.

Logical argumentation is necessary but not sufficient:

Why have men more teeth than women? By reason of the abundance of heat and blood which is more in men than in women.

Aristotle

And the following from Bertrand Russel, British philosopher (1872 - 1970) :

Aristotle maintained that women have fewer teeth than men; although he was twice

married, it never occurred to him to verify this statement by examining his wives' mouths.

We need evidence

EXAMPLE: The moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them Is this true?

There IS evidence supporting this hypothesis!

Humans landed on the moon and didnt see any green men.

What does this example show? Supporting evidence is not all that useful.

Truth demands that we actively search for potential falsifying evidence.

Science systematicall y tries to eliminate testable hypotheses that are

demonstrabl y false.

What does this example show? We also need to start with scientifically TESTABLE hypotheses.

An invalid (untestable) scientific hypothesis:

The moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and

hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them

There are no possible observations that could ever show this hypothesis

to be false.

A valid (testable) scientific hypothesis:

There are no little green men on the moon

It is valid because it can be falsified if we go to the moon and catch a little

green man. The original hypothesis is then wrong. We KNOW this. And

it is a FACT.

6

Why supporting evidence is bad

What is Intelligent Design? And is it Science?

Intelligent design is the proposition that "certain features

of the universe and of living things work so well that they

must have been the work of an intelligent designer, not an

unguided process such as natural selection.

Is intelligent design science?

Does it give us a testable hypothesis (potentially

refutable)?

1. Bones

Pound for pound strong than solid steel bars yet lighter and more flexible.

2. Heart v alv es

Even the best made one last only a few years and crush red blood cells with each closure

3. Brain

Capacity to recall small details in a fraction of a second, even after decades.

4. Sensory-motor system

Image of snake hits retina, cells transmit signal to brain, brain decodes signal, determines appropriate response, sends signal to arm and leg to jerk away . . . All in a fraction of a

second.

The human body

seems to be intelligently

designed

But some parts seem like they were designed by a prankster

Evolution is so good at improving traits that we sometimes forget that there are imperfections. They are expected if these were

accidents of evolutionary history without a designer.

We crave fats and sun yet they give us heart disease and cancer.

We age! (and not gracefully!

e.g., lower back problems,

prostate cancer, alzheimers,

incontinence, erectile disfunction,

arthritis, teeth fall out, vision loss)

25% of us are near-sighted

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/336/6084/974.full.pdf?sid=a176215b-fd2d-4333-9191-06985fcd35ef

The tube that

carries food and

liquid to your

stomach cr oss

the tube that

carries vital air to

your l ungs

(guarantees that

many of us will

eventuall y choke

to death).

7

The Vagus Nerv e Vertebrates have recurrent laryngeal nerve that branches off the vagus nerve and runs from brain to larynx. It coordinates breathing and swallowing, sound production. An intelligent design one that is not wasteful or arbitrary would have the nerve run straight to its target. In fish, the nerve runs in a straight line. However, in the evolution of animals with necks, this nerve got caught behind a pharyngeal arch. In humans, the nerve runs way down into the chest, loops around one of the main arteries of the heart (a U-turn), and goes straight back up again. A ridiculous detour.

This detour is even more

ridiculous in giraffes.

The nerve travels all the way

down the neck just to turn around

again and go back up to the

larynx.

Thats a detour of 15 feet, even

though a direct route would have

taken it just a few inches.

This solution, while awkward, wasteful, and perhaps even dangerous for mammals, was simpler than a major rewiring of a more direct route for the nerve. A designer would have gone back to the designing board, because a designer has foresight. Evolution can not plan ahead. When necks evolved, the vagus nerve was already trapped behind the aorta.

The Vagus Nerv e

Thousands of examples of poor design in our DNA

Human ge nome is littered with d ecomposing corpses of once functional

structural genes (remnants of evolutionary past).

We have 20,000 protein-coding genes.

4000 of those gen es ha ve mutan t copies floating abo ut. B ecause of their

close similarity, the y p redispose chromosomes to pair abno rmally during

meiosis, leading to a host of deleterious additions, in versions, deletions, and

translocations of genetic material.

8

In patients with severe bacterial

infections, the i mmune sys tem

responds by detecting pathogen-

associated molecul ar patterns

(PAM Ps), which are expressed by

a variety of pathogens.

In sever e trauma, mi tochondria

(which wer e once fr ee-li vi ng

bac teri a earlier in evol ution) are

damaged and r elease the same

PAMPs i nto the bl ood. Even in

the absence of microbial

infection, the i mmune system will

begin to act as if it is under attack

by pathog ens after tissue tr auma.

Some of those i mmune sys tem

responses have been linked to

organ failure.

http://www.nature.com/nature/j ournal/v464/n7285/pdf/464041a.pdf

Shrike

And some parts seem like they were designed by someone predisposed towards physical cruelty and violence

Shrike (Impaler)

And some parts seem like they were designed by someone predisposed towards physical cruelty and violence

Some snails can drill holes through protective shells of clam prey

9

The universe is HOSTILE to life as we know i t.

Tunguska event June 30, 1908

Siberia

The explosion knocked over an estimated 80

million trees covering 830 sqare miles.

Do these observations refute intelligent design?

Is there any room to claim that the world we live in was optimally designed by a benevolent creator?

Why intelligent design is not science

Some versions of intelligent design acknowledge apparent poor design in nature.

We have simply failed to understand the perfection of the design. (UNTESTABLE) or

Designers do not ne cessarily pr oduce the be st desig n they can. A designer may have good reasons for poor engineering (doesnt want to spoil us).

(UNTESTABLE) Or

Bad design is on purpose. AIDS was created to punish immorality. (UNTESTABLE)

Conclusion

I.D. is either refuted or its untestable.

Refuted or untestable hypotheses do not belong

in a science classroom.

Teaching I.D. as science is actually harmful!

Critical thinkers do not use supporting evidence.

Critical thinkers do not argue that untestable hypotheses are true.

When only 1 or 2 percent of

children score at the advanced levels on NAEP, the next

generation will not be ready to

be world-class inventors, doctors, and engineers.

The NAEP results also showed big achievement gaps between

races, income levels, public- and private-school students, and

gender.

http://www.csmonit or .c om/USA/Educ ati on /201 1/01 25/R eport-c ard- on -

science-Most-US-s tude nts -aren -t -pro fici en t

National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP)

10

Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA)

A wo rldwide study b y the Organis ation fo r

Economic Co-operation and Development

(OEC D) in member and non -member n ations

of 15-year-old school pupils' scholastic

perform ance on mathem atics, science, and

reading.

It was firs t performed in 2000 and then

repeated every three years.

Hypothesis Testing

1. TESTABLE hypotheses (ali en exampl e, God, etc .). Testabl e

hypotheses ar e those that, at l east i n theor y, coul d be falsified

through observation or experiment.

2. W e must make every att empt to use evidence to REFUTE

hypotheses, not support them. Supporting evi dence is ON LY

cited by pseudo-science.

3. W hat else are we missing?

An example of hypothesis testing:

Hypothesis:

The driver of the white car was at fault.

There is only ONE true story. This hypothesis may be the true one. But is this a testable hypothesis? In other words, is it possible to know whether

this hypothesis is true or false? Fact or fiction?

Hypothesis:

The driver of the white car was at fault.

Test 1: Ask the driver of the white car. Is this a falsifying or supporting observation? Is this a strong test or a weak test?

Test 2: Ask the witness in the rear-view mirror. Is this a falsifying or supporting observation? Is this a strong test or a weak test?

Hypothesis:

The driver of the white car was at fault.

11

Hypothesis:

The driver of the white car was at fault.

Test 3: Check a security camera on a nearby building that has a perfect view of the intersection.

Is this a falsifying or supporting observation? Is this a strong test or a weak test?

Hypothesis:

The driver of the white car was at fault.

If all 3 tests give the same account, we can confidently

reject or fail to reject the original hypothesis

ALL conclusions are provisional.

What if the drivers give conflicting accounts?

What if the security camera gives a different account than

the drivers?

What is SCIENCE?

1. TESTABLE h ypoth eses (ali en exampl e, God, etc .). Testabl e

hypotheses ar e those that, at l east i n theor y, coul d be falsified

through observation or experiment.

2. W e must make every att empt to u se evid en ce to REFUT E

h ypotheses, not su pport th em. Supporting evi dence is ON LY

cited by pseudo-science.

3. Strong tests vs. weak tests!

1 strong test is better than 1000 weak tests.

What is SCIENCE?

1. TESTABLE hypotheses

2. W e must make every att empt to use evidence to REFUTE

hypotheses, not support them.

3. Strong tests vs. weak tests!

4. Cautious conclusions. Scientists tr y to falsify hypotheses, not

prove them or accept them (except provisi onall y). The

strong est sci entific s tatement i n favor of a hypothesis is that it is

not yet falsifi ed (but well keep tryi ng). Science is a VERB, not

a noun.

Scientific Models

Simplified representations of reality (objects, phenomena, processes) Goal is to produce models that are NOT contrary to reality

Atom Evolution of Li fe Gravity (object) (process) (phenomena)

What is SCIENCE?

1. TESTABLE hypotheses (ali en exampl e, God, etc .). Testabl e

hypotheses ar e those that, at l east i n theor y, coul d be falsified

through observation or experiment.

2. W e must make every att empt to use evidence to REFUTE

hypotheses, not support them. Supporting evi dence is ON LY

cited by pseudo-science.

3. Strong tests vs. weak tests!

4. Cautious conclusions.

5. Theories vs. hypotheses . . .

12

IF a hypothesis survives repeated tests and attempts to

falsify it, then the hypothesis becomes elevated to the

status of THEORY.

The stronger the tests, the stronger the theory.

This does not mean theories can never be overturned.

It only means that it is highly unlikely that we will ever

find evidence to the contrary.

Weaknesses of the Scientific Method

1.Some very good ideas may be impossible to test (they are not within the realm of science)

Some dinosaurs had camouflage skin A supreme being created the universe There is no god

Weaknesses of the Scientific Method

2.Science is only as good as the hypotheses we are clever enough to invent.

Culture and history play a strong role in which

hypotheses occur to us at any given time.

Homo neanderthalensis depicted as brutish cave man

Buried their dead with flowers Helped the sick and wounded

Strengths of the Scientific Method

1. Strong tests that try to refute a hypothesis are the only proven way to

separate truth from fiction.

2. It is unprejudiced. It doesnt matter who does the test. The results

should be the same.

3. It works! Its not just a matter of opinion.

4. It is conservative.

(strong vs. weak tests; refutation vs. support)

5. Its honest. Scientists attack their own and each others ideas.

13

Can scientists test hypotheses

about the past?

Is it possible to know anything about events or l ifeforms that occurred millions (if not billions) of years ago?

We cant go back in time and do experiments or make direct observations.

The Earth is 6000 years old.

All l ife appeared in its current form.

Earliest l ife was complex, not simple.

Life evolved in the sea.

Early humans hunted dinosaurs.

Humans evolved from primate (ape) ancestors.

Climate change causes mass extinction events.

Are these claims testable? Can we refute them?

potentially v