[ECOLOG-L] Forest Ecology Grad Position Open
An opportunity exists at the University of Dayton (UD) for graduate-level training in deciduous forest ecology. The student will be based at UD and will work in the laboratory of Dr. Ryan McEwan. I am seeking a motivated student who is eager to perform the arduous tasks associated with ecology field research, the careful work of experimentation and who has an eagerness to learn and implement complex statistical analyses. Evidence of scientific writing experience would be beneficial to the application process. I will consider applicants at both the MS and PhD-level; however, the qualifications for acceptance at the PhD-level are quantitatively, and qualitatively, different than those of MS-level applicants. The student will be supported by a teaching assistantship through the Department of Biology at UD. The assistantship is associated with a stipend of ~$19,000/year; however, ~$5,000 of this comes in the form of a University summer fellowship which is awarded through a competitive process. The assistantship also comes with 100% tuition remission. UD is the largest private University in the state of Ohio, and is consistently award winning for both academic programs and scholarship http://www.udayton.edu/awards_and_rankings.php. Enrollment is ~11,000 with approximately 3,000 graduate students. The Department of Biology is one of the largest majors at UD, Interested individuals are encouraged to view the following web sites: Dr. McEwan’s Lab Pages: http://academic.udayton.edu/RyanMcEwan UD Department of Biology: http://biology.udayton.edu University of Dayton: http://www.udayton.edu To being the application process, please send a CV and both GPA and GRE scores to: ryan.mce...@udayton.edu.
[ECOLOG-L] Call for Papers - US – Africa Workshop on Conserva tion Biology Kenya Wildlife Service Training Institute, Naiv asha, Kenya
Call for Papers in Conservation Biology The Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (DIMACS) and the Mathematical Biosciences Institute (MBI) at Ohio State University are sponsoring a Workshop in Conservation Biology to be held August 11 – 13, 2010 at the Kenya Wildlife Services Training Institute in Naivasha, Kenya. The sponsors seek submission of papers on original and unpublished research in areas of conservation biology that include population viability analysis (PVA), conservation genetics, reserve design, GIS and remotely sensed data, plant and animal disease, and global change including climate change. In a broad sense, conservation biology is concerned with the problems of conserving genes, populations, and biological communities. Among the key issues involved in the subject are biological invasions, habitat destruction, species persistence, emerging plant and animal disease, and climate change. As the subject has grown, so too have its links with epidemiology, economics, and the management sciences. The biological systems of concern to conservation biology are complex, and improved understanding has required increasingly quantitative approaches, leading to an urgent demand for better and more appropriate mathematical tools. At the heart of conservation biology is the problem of the optimal allocation under rigid economic, sociological , and ecological constraints of scarce parcels of land, wetland, and marine environments needed to preserve extant biological communities and to provide areas for the restoration of ecosystems and reintroduction of locally extinct species. Submissions If you would like to contribute a paper or a poster, please sent title/abstract to Christine Spassione at spass...@dimacs.rutgers.edu no later than June 1, 2010, with an indication of your preference as to oral presentation or presentation as a poster. You will be notified of acceptance of your paper as soon as possible after you submit it. For more information, visit the workshop website at http://dimacs.rutgers.edu/Workshops/WSConsBio/ For questions or more information, see the website or contact Gene Fiorini, Associate Director of DIMACS and Program Coordinator (u...@dimacs.rutgers.edu). The Workshop is organized by the Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science (DIMACS) and the Mathematical Biosciences Institute (MBI), with funding provided by the US National Science Foundation. -- Sadie Jane Ryan, Postdoctoral Associate National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) University of California 735 State Street, Suite 300 Santa Barbara, CA 93101-5504 Phone: 805-892-2520 Fax: 805-892-2510 http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~sjryan/
[ECOLOG-L] responses to evolution text book query
Hi All: Thank you all for your suggestions with regard to good texts for a non-majors evolution course. The responses that I got (25 in total) confirmed my notion that there is no community consensus with regard to this subject! From the 25 responses I got more than 25 different suggestions and only a handful of suggestions were offered more than once. Below I have compiled the list of recommendations. If the book was recommended more than one time, the number of times it was recommended is listed parenthetically after the title. The book that received the greatest number of votes (and one that I had already decided to include in the course!) is Weiner's Beak of the Finch. Beyond that, it looks like I have some reading to do this summer! best, Jen Dawkins: The Selfish gene (recommended 3 times but also with two strong responses about specifically not using it!) Wilson: Diversity of Life (recommended 2 times but also with a strong response about not using it) Dawkins: The Ancestor's Tale Weiner: Beak of the Finch (4 recommendations) Palumbi: Evolution Explosion (2 recommendations) Shubin: Your Inner Fish Largent: Sourcebook on History of Evolution Dawkins: Blind Watchmaker Zimmer: The Tangled Bank (3 recommendations) Coyne: Why Evolution is True (3 recommendations) Jalonka and Lamb: Evolution in four dimensions Evolution for Dummies Gould: Hen's teeth and Horse's toes Mayr: What evolution is (2 recommendations) Futuyma: Evolution second edition Pigliucci:Denying evolution: Creationism, scientism, and the nature of science Quammen: The reluctant Mr. Darwin Kirchner and Gerhant: The plausibility of life Dawkins: the Greatest show on earth (2 recommendations, one anti-recommendation) Carrol: Making of the fittest Resnik: The Origin, then and now Darwin: Origin of species Cyril Andrews: biography of darwin Jim Costa: The annotated origin Stanley: earth systems history Dawkins: Ancestor's tale Fortey: Life Rodger: Breaking Through Stein: The evolution book (children's book)
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
[ECOLOG-L] 2010 SETAC platform session call for abstracts
2010 SETAC platform session - Call for abstracts Topic: Taking it one step farther: Population and metapopulation viability analyses Many studies that SETAC members participate in focus on toxicological effects on individual organisms. However, evolution occurs at the species and population level. Population analyses are therefore, an often neglected, critical next step in toxicological studies and a prerequisite for ecological risk assessments. Population viability analyses (PVAs) are widely used by natural resource managers, particularly those working with threatened and endangered species and are considered to be specialized quantitative risk assessments. Useful PVAs incorporate environmental and demographic stochasticity, uncertainties, and unknowns using probabilistic models and sensitivity analysis. PVAs are best used to compare various stressors, stressor levels, or management strategies on populations. Due to human economic activity, most populations have become isolated and now function as metapopulations: separate populations with limited dispersal between populations. Thus, ecologically relevant PVAs model populations at the landscape level and incorporate metapopulation dynamics. This session will (re)introduce SETAC members to population viability analyses and metapopulation dynamics. The session will focus on studies that have used PVAs to evaluate the effects of any type of stressor on populations or metapopulations. 1. All abstracts must be submitted through the SETAC online submission site. http://portland.setac.org/node/3 2. Abstract submission deadline: June 4, 2010 3. Please contact the session chair, David Richards, if you plan to submit. dricha...@ecoanalysts.com; 406-580-7816 (cell) Thanks, Kaylani Merrill EcoAnalysts, Inc. Marketing Coordinator 1420 S. Blaine St, Suite 14 Moscow, ID 83843 208.882.2588 ext. 81 kmerr...@ecoanalysts.com www.ecoanalysts.com L I F E I N W A T E R : EcoAnalysts, Inc. is committed to helping our clients make highly informed decisions regarding the condition and stewardship of our natural resources.
[ECOLOG-L] Job opportunity (Riparian plant ecology)
Biologist I Open: 05/12/08 Close: 06/15/08 At the Fort Collins Science Center (FORT), U.S. Geological Survey, ASRC Management Services, an on-site government contractor, seeks a motivated Biologist with knowledge and experience with plant ecology-related field studies, and the data management and data analysis associated with preparing reports and manuscripts to report study results. ($16.85/hr., plus benefits). In particular, we are looking for an individual with experience collecting field data, and managing, analyzing, and presenting data sets that typically include vegetation response variables and associated environmental variables. The ideal candidate will have experience using software programs for these tasks (e.g., spreadsheets, statistical software packages, graphics software, GIS software), and preferably have some experience with report and manuscript preparation. Secondary duties might include assisting with plant identification, and laboratory or greenhouse studies. Current research is directed at understanding factors controlling the establishment, dynamics, and diversity of native and invasive riparian plants along rivers in the western US. Studies are often conducted in the applied context of riparian ecosystem restoration and include examinations of the effects of dam operations, climate change, and control of invasive species. Individuals with at least a B.S. degree and one year of relevant work experience are encouraged to apply. This position is scheduled to start in early July, 2010. Interested candidates please send a letter of interest, resume, and references to: Mr. Keith Rounsaville, ASRC Management Services, 2150 Centre Ave. Bldg. C, Ft. Collins, CO 80526; FAX 970-226- 9455; email keith_rounsavi...@usgs.gov.
[ECOLOG-L] Field technician position in bird-plant interaction study in Puerto Rico
Field technician position in bird-plant interaction study in Puerto Rico The Carlo lab at the Penn State University Biology Department ( http://homes.bio.psu.edu/people/faculty/tac17/Site/Welcome.html) seeks to hire a full-time technician to conduct field ecology work in Puerto Rico starting August 1st 2010 and ending May, 2011. Applicants are required to have a bachelor’s degree in Biology, Ecology, or related Life Science field. Experience in tropical bird and plant identification and observation is required. Applicants must be able, to drive manual transmission vehicles, and to be comfortable realizing physically-demanding work. Also, applicants must be self-motivated and able to work independently. Applicants that can communicate in Spanish are preferred, although is not required. Activities include bird behavioral observations, bird censuses, fruiting plant phenology, identification of seeds and seedlings, data entry, tree planting, and soil sampling and processing. Housing will be provided by the project but the successful candidate must be able to make travel arrangements to the site in Puerto Rico. To apply send a CV, cover letter, and the names and contact information of three references to pitirreagricul...@gmail.com. Thanks, Dr. Mario Flores Mangual
[ECOLOG-L] FIELD ECOLOGISTS NEEDED
TWO FIELD ECOLOGISTS NEEDED to core trees for a climate-change study along the Little Missouri River in the Theodore Roosevelt Wilderness, ND, July 1- August 12, 2010. The job is full time, and pay is $15-$26 per hour depending upon experience. Employer will provide a vehicle, lodging, and training in coring trees. Work will include physical exertion in variable weather conditions. Applicants must be reliable and independent, and must have been a student within the last 12 months. To apply, please email letter of interest and resume with 3 references to Jonathan Friedman, (phone 303-541-3017; email friedm...@usgs.gov) by 20 May, 2010.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
[ECOLOG-L] FW: NOAA is Seeking Applications for the HSRP 2010 FACA Panel Membership Solicitation
NOAA's Hydrographic Services Review Panel (HSRP) is seeking applications for the HSRP 2010 Panel Membership Solicitation process. Details are available in the Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 76, Wednesday, April 21, 2010, page 20809. Closing date is June 30, 2010. The HSRP is a Federal Advisory Panel that provides recommendations to the NOAA Administrator on NOAA's hydrographic and navigation products and services. NOAA is encouraging applicants with expertise in navigation data, products and services; coastal management; fisheries management; coastal and marine spatial planning; geodesy; water levels; and other science-related fields as determined by the Administrator to apply for Panel membership. For further information on the HSRP FACA Panel, you can go to the following website: http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/ocs/hsrp/hsrp.htm If you have any questions, you may email Kathy Watson at hydroservices.pa...@noaa.gov. Kathy L. Watson HSRP Program Coordinator NOAA's Office of Coast Survey 1315 East West Hwy SSMC3 Rm6126 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Tel: (301) 713-2770 ext.158 Fax: (301) 713-4019 Email: kathy.wat...@noaa.gov
[ECOLOG-L] Postdoc in Agroecology at Penn State University
Postdoctoral Scientist in Agroecology The Pennsylvania State University Department of Crop and Soil Sciences and Department of Entomology Postdoctoral Research Associate in Agroecology: Join an interdisciplinary team conducting research on organic production systems. The successful candidate will direct an ongoing study to quantify the dynamics of weed populations, arthropod community, soil quality indicators, and agronomic properties in organic feed and forage production systems. The candidate will also collaborate with other investigators on the project to publish research findings in peer-reviewed journals and participate in outreach and grant-writing activities. Start date July 1, 2010, or negotiable. Requirements: A Ph.D. in weed ecology, arthropod ecology, or agroecology is required. Experience working with systems studies and application of multivariate statistical tools to complex datasets is desired but not required. The postdoctoral scientist will work directly in collaboration with Mary Barbercheck (arthropod ecology), David Mortensen (weed ecology) and a farmer advisory panel in guiding the research and outreach education associated with the project. To apply: Please send a cover letter explaining your interest and experience in agroecology, a current CV, and contact information of 3 references by June 14, 2010 to Mary Barbercheck (me...@psu.edu) and Dave Mortensen (dmorten...@psu.edu). For further information: Please contact dmorten...@psu.edu or me...@psu.edu. Richard G. Smith, Ph.D. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences 116 ASI Building The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 http://weedecology.psu.edu/
[ECOLOG-L] Avian Ecology Positions at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Washington, USA
Please do not response to me, see contact info below. Avian Ecology Positions at Mount St. Helens Volcano, Washington, USA POSITIONS: Employees needed to assist with long-term monitoring of bird populations and assemblages on lands severely disturbed by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. REQUIREMENTS: Applicants must have experience with field methods for sampling bird populations and assemblages, and have the knowledge and skills to identify birds by sight and sound (call, songs, etc.). Applicants must be physically fit and capable of hiking several miles each day through rugged, unstable terrain. Employees will be camping throughout the season at well equipped base camps and transported to study sites in government vehicles. Legible handwriting is required. Valid state driver’s license is needed. DUTIES: Employees will receive training on sampling methods and work both independently and with other crew members to obtain measurements for birds and their biophysical habitat features. Employees are required to take careful field notes, to record field data accurately on data forms, and maintain field equipment. SCHEDULE: Immediately (May 2010) through August 2010. Work week will be 40 hours, Monday through Friday. In some cases this schedule may vary in order to accomplish project goals. Begin and end dates are negotiable. PAY RATE: $ 12.00 - $13.00 per hour depending on experience. Contact: Charlie Crisafulli Mount St. Helens 42218 NE Yale Bridge Road Amboy, WA 98601 Phone: 360-449-7834 e-mail: ccrisafu...@fs.fed.us
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Perhaps a chemist or hydrodynamicist could believe in creationism, but it would require suspension of reason on their parts. Some people partition their mental constructs so that what would be irrational in one context is allowed in another. A larger fraction of engineers and physicians, and other technologists accept creationism than the fraction of practicing scientists who accept it. I have known a few university level science faculty members who professed a belief in creationism. However, like folks in other endeavors, they always resorted to misapplications of scientific method, such as claims about proof, the false dichotomy between theory and fact, and misinterpretations of particular theories like the principles of thermodynamics to buttress their positions. David McNeely William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants -- David McNeely
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I disagree with the statement 'If you've ever said I don't know why this works but I trust it does, that is faith.' In my posting I wrote 'The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation.' Adam confuses matters by using the word trust, but the key point is that scientists rely on the balance of evidence, and if the balance shifts, they may change their opinions. When it comes to faith, that tends not to change on the basis of evidence. Examples of how scientists form and then change their opinions abound, especially in the medical sciences where fraud is most common, although still rare. When a credible paper appears with promising results, other scientists often respond by redirecting their research. If further studies cast doubt on the original paper, scientific attitudes shift. When people ask me questions like Do you believe in evolution? my answer is that I don't believe in anything, but I do think that the evidence in support of evolution is overwhelming. That is not faith. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: Adam Sibley s1b...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 19:42 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer review on their work are able to catch every error. A few more examples: - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the reviewer who allowed it into the literature thought about it. As I'll be using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review process has produced a quality product. - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every step they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point to the data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written? No: nor does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error. The scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for validating scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for errors to slip through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think this, but the scientific method and peer review are not impervious to purposely falsified data, especially in studies that involve direct environmental observation. Sure, experiments are supposed to be reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes years, if ever. The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you are involved in a faith based process of discovery. If you've ever said I don't know why this works but I trust it does, that is faith. Conclusions based on non-laboratory observation of the natural world also require faith in the integrity of the research group conducting the study. Thank you, Adam Sibley From: William Silvert cien...@silvert.org To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 12:24:13 PM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I am not clear what a literal truth is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution is just a theory -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a proven scientific fact. But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not willing to surrender. But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime. I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that
[ECOLOG-L] Seasonal Botanist Position, Forested Mojave Desert
The School of Environmental and Public Affairs at the University of Nevada Las Vegas seeks a seasonal botanist for an ongoing vegetation project taking place in four national parks within the Mojave Desert. The position is an hourly position available for three or more months. The position is available immediately and is based at offices with the National Park Service in Boulder City, Nevada. Work over the next several weeks and months will involve 8-day trips (with 6 days off) to the high-elevation areas of Death Valley National Park and 8- or 4-day trips to higher areas of Mojave National Preserve. Data on full plant community composition will be collected on 0.1-ha plots. Travel time from Boulder City to the field sites is paid, but we cannot pay for commutes to Boulder City not on project time. The pay rate is highly competitive at approx. $18/hr. The botanist will work with a team of five other botanists and our current set up is three teams of two that work closely together in the same areas. Qualifications: Completed undergraduate degree in botany, ecology, or a closely related field is required. Coursework in botany is desirable. Documented fieldwork experience in plant community sampling is essential. Experience in the desert Southwest is preferred. U.S. citizenship and the ability to obtain a Nevada driver’s license are required. The ability to use a GPS, walk over uneven terrain to access sample plots, and conduct fieldwork in a desert environment is required. The ability to work with, and coordinate activities with, the university PI (Abella), other UNLV staff including other seasonal botanists, and National Park Service staff is required. To apply, please send a cover letter and resume by email only to Sharon Altman (sharon.alt...@unlv.edu). Cover letters can be addressed to: Dr. Scott Abella, School of Environmental and Public Affairs, University of Nevada Las Vegas, 4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4030. In the cover letter, please document botanical experience through coursework or fieldwork, as well as describe plant community/botany fieldwork experience. With your resume, please include the names, email addresses, and phone numbers of three references, as well as academic transcripts (unofficial copies are ok). Again, do not mail hard copies, applications will be reviewed via email only.
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.orgwrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. James writes that Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Certainly not all, and I doubt the most. And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the word beliefs) on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants -- James Crants, PhD Scientist, University of Minnesota Agronomy and Plant Genetics Cell: (734) 474-7478
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
Honorable Forum: Especially given the generally taboo nature of the subject, I am greatly impressed with the quality of the discourse. It is nourishing rather than debilitating, refreshing, not intoxicating. I still have a lot more reading and considering to do on the previous posts, but will try to use Sibley's comments as a center about which to further flesh out my own thoughts, though they are also based on reflection of other commenters. I read Annie Dillard's book shortly after it was first published, and am only vaguely aware of her discussion of meshing a creator with modern science, but I do remember her eloquence. Those who want more of this sort of thing mixed with non-teleological thinking should not miss Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues of Edward F. Ricketts by Edward F. Ricketts (Author), Katharine A. Rodger (Editor). It is a mix of science and what might be called philosophy that comes as close to reconciling the two as I have seen. Then, of course, there's literally all of Richard Feynman's writings, recordings, and biographies and other material about Feynman that are always worth the reading. Feynman put it this way: It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from A SATISFACTORY PHILOSOPHY OF IGNORANCE (capitals/italics mine), the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how DOUBT IS NOT TO BE FEARED BUT WELCOMED AND DISCUSSED (capitals/italics mine); and to DEMAND THIS FREEDOM AS OUR DUTY (capitals/italics mine) to all coming generations. This is about as close to proselytizing as Feynman ever got. The quote is from his essay, The Value of Science which can be read in Ralph Leighton's (ed.) 2006 book, Classic Feynman. The Essay that follows, Cargo Cult Science, is an essential companion. Both should be required reading for EVERY scientist of ANY kind. All science is PROVISIONAL; that is, it is considered to be true until it is disproved, such as the laws of physics. Their validity is demonstrated by their predictive value in experiment and application--this (especially) takes precedence over review (peer and otherwise), popularity, and even replication. And the job of the scientist, custom to the contrary, is to work to disprove hisher own theory. Still, the specter of GIGO hangs over all of science, and illusions of validity can be quite convincing. Sciences like ecology and geology, lacking a body of testable laws that continue to persist in spite of persistent questioning and proofs over time, must rely upon the PREPONDERANCE of the evidence, which is similarly tested and retested, refined, as it were, over generations. So, if things like formulae are relied upon in the PRACTICE of, say, methods in science education, and thought of as faith, such faith must be a provisional one, subject to continued testing and application--a continual feedback loop of actual consequences of application. Appeal to a higher authority is not absent from science, e.g., the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment was taken on faith for a considerable time, apparently with scientists being so intimidated that when they came up with numbers inconsistent with Millikan, they apparently presumed that Millikan must be right, so adjusted their data to achieve conformance (I say apparently because I provisionally accept on faith the superiority of authorities that the story and the data are true--how's that for irony?). Continental Drift was denied for about four decades until it became Plate Tectonics under new authors, and Piltdown Man was considered valid for about the same period until it was exposed as outright fraud. Millikan himself was a proponent of reconciliation of science and religion. http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Millikan/Millikan.html So what if Nature and God were one and the same? And which state of mind will bring us closer to Nature or God--an unshakable belief in a human tradition (scientific authority or scripture/self-anointed men of God) or an eternal Quest for, as Feynman once put it (essay and book), for The Pleasure of Finding Things Out? WT - Original Message - From: Adam Sibley s1b...@yahoo.com To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood by a
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational conclusions based on that evidence, independent of others. We just don't have that much time. When we learn, we rely on teachers who give us information, which we believe to be true, especially with mathematic and chemical equations, as previously mentioned. In science, however we are allowed to question our teachers and are even encouraged to do, which is not as common in (some) religions. In science we may call these things assumptions instead of beliefs. Besides, who said the universe operates in a rational way? That, in itself, is a belief. At least it is a concept that is untestable. We may able to explain how certain things happen but can we ever know why they happen? Or if there is a reason at all? Most of the things in my life, fortunately or not, are completely irrational. Many scientists choose to see the world in a rational way but the majority of people just do what they feel and it doesn't make any sense (to me anyway). I don't think it is fair to say that most scientists are not religious or spiritual either. Besides, is it really appropriate to generalize religious people any more than it is to generalize by race or ethnicity? I know many biologists and ecologists who are spiritual people and good scientists. They are not hypocrites and the two are not necessarily at odds. It just means they are thinking people. They are considerate in the strictest sense of the word. They don't blindly follow evangelists or adhere to radical ideas without good cause (i.e., evidence). There are many scholars from many different religions that are thinking people like this; not charlatans simply trying to convert as many people as quickly as possible; monks and yogis for example that may very well have understandings of the universe very different but equally as valid as that of scientists. Frank Marenghi Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 11:42:56 -0700 From: s1b...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer review on their work are able to catch every error. A few more examples: - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the reviewer who allowed it into the literature thought about it. As I'll be using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review process has produced a quality product. - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every step they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point to the data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written? No: nor does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error. The scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for validating scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for errors to slip through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think this, but the scientific method and peer review are not impervious to purposely falsified data, especially in studies that involve direct environmental observation. Sure, experiments are supposed to be reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes years, if ever. The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you are involved in a faith based process of discovery. If
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
There seems to be some misunderstanding of terminology. The word 'Theory in colloquial usage is akin to an hypothesis. For this reason many people engaged in science education have preferred to use the terminology scientific theory To be more clear it should be understood that scientific theories: 1. Are supported by a large amount of factual information (data). The huge amount of biological data that has been collected over the past 150 years continues to support and strengthen the theory of evolution. For example, when we started genetic sequencing of the multitude of organisms on this planet we could have found a much different story, but for the most part, the DNA data broadly supports the phylogenies that were developed based on morphological data. 2. Represent summaries or models of our understanding of how nature works. In the case of evolution, the theory is summarized and elaborated in a massive mathematical foundation that has developed over the last 100 years. 3. Are subject to refinement as new data are collected, but substantial theories such as the theory of gravity, evolution, or the heliocentric model of our solar system are not going to be refuted (just refined). The theory of evolution was refined once we understood genetic inheritance (the Modern Synthesis) and genomics (by elevating the importance of random drift and fully integrating Kimura's Neutral Theory of Evolution). 4. Provide constructs within which we develop and test hypotheses. Evolution is not tested directly but guides the development of questions and the design of experiments. 5. Have predictive power (e.g., a fossil such as Tiktaalik was predicted to exist long before it was discovered). At present we have a much better understanding of how evolution works than we do of how gravity works, yet nobody questions 'the law of gravity.' Perhaps it would be more clear to people if we referred to the 'law of evolution' rather than using the ambiguous word 'theory.' Mitch William Silvert wrote: I am not clear what a literal truth is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution is just a theory -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a proven scientific fact. But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not willing to surrender. But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime. I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists'
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict?
I think any disagreement I have with what you're saying is a matter of splitting semantic hairs. Wayne's original point had to do with the conflict between dogmatic religion and science, and there's definitely a conflict. You're right that religious dogma (and other non-rational beliefs) often trumps science in the minds of individuals, and I'm right that science often trumps dogma in the minds of individuals, even religious individuals. Wayne also says there is much in science that is not inconsistent with true religion. I have some idea what he means by true religion, and I've heard similar statements from many religious people who are frustrated at seeing religion hijacked by dogmatic loudmouths. One problem is that religious discussion has been so thoroughly controlled by dogmatic believers for so long that there are no longer any words to express what non-dogmatic religious people even believe. I guess my only point is that, as much as religion as practiced by most people in the West conflicts with science, there are still plenty of religious people who have no trouble with science whatsoever, and no trouble accepting scientific findings as the best model available for how reality actually works. There is no inherent conflict between science and religion, there is just inherent conflict between science and certain bits of religious dogma (to which not all religious people subscribe). On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 3:54 PM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.orgwrote: I am not clear what a literal truth is, and I cannot dispute the common argument that evolution is just a theory -- theories are all we have, there is no such thing as a proven scientific fact. But given the number of people (according to some polls, a majority of Americans) whose religious views lead them to reject the theory of evolution, I hardly think that science trumps scripture. More fundamental is the concept that man holds a special place in a universe created for him, which many religions are not willing to surrender. But I think that the issue in this lively discussion is the conflict between faith and evidence, and I think that there are many cases where faith trumps evidence, not only in religion. Think of the cases where someone makes a video tape in which he promises to kill people, then goes out and slaughters his schoolmates or other innocents in full view of cameras and witnesses, and then his mother and neighbours appear on TV to declare their belief that he is a nice boy and did not commit such an awful crime. I do think that there are fundamental questions about the role of religion in society that go well beyond being swayed by fundamentalists, but that leads us into anthropological issues that go far outside the scope of this list. Bill Silvert - Original Message - From: James Crants To: William Silvert Cc: ECOLOG-L@listserv.umd.edu Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 21:27 Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? William, please name a religion that cannot accommodate the view that science trumps scripture when it comes to literal truth. To do so, I think you would have to define a religion narrowly, selecting a particular school of thought from within a religion and labeling that branch a religion. Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism can all cope quite readily with scientific truth. Traditional Judaism is not dogmatic, so it also has no trouble working with science. Even Christianity and Islam, which we are most likely to associate with fundamentalism, have rich traditions of mysticism and other schools of religious thought that don't demand belief in things that are demonstrably false. I guess that doesn't cover most religions, but it covers the religions that most people belong to. Each of these religions may have some branches that simply won't tolerate a fact that contradicts scripture, but each also has branches that are perfectly compatible with science. I think the dim view many scientists have of religion comes mostly from believing the propaganda of fundamentalists, that they are the only true followers of their religions. We equate being religious with believing the earth is 6,000 years old and evolution doesn't happen. But you don't have to accept dogma to be religious. Regarding your more recent post, about not equating faith in other scientists' competence with belief in religious dogma, I completely agree. There is a big difference between accepting that another expert knows what they're talking about (contingently) and accepting something logic tells you is false just because it's in some old book. Jim On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 11:24 AM, William Silvert cien...@silvert.org wrote: Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or
[ECOLOG-L] Fw: Post doc opportunity in Hawaii
POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCHER IN TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC BIOGEOCHEMISTRY The successful candidate?s primary responsibility will be to investigate and understand terrestrial to aquatic (i.e., anchialine ponds) biogeochemical dynamics and linkages relating to the presence of the non-native, N-fixing tree, Prosopis pallida (a.k.a. ?Kiawe? in Hawaii) in dry coastal and lowland ecosystems of leeward Hawaii. Specifically, the researcher will investigate how Prosopis productivity is influenced by contrasting water availability, and how it alters terrestrial C and N accumulation and cycling as well as water quantity and quality of anchialine ponds and groundwater. Measurements will include Prosopis stand productivity and nutrient cycling, soil water availability and salinity, isotope values of water, plant tissue, dissolved nutrients, and soils, and a variety of climate parameters. The researcher will work in close collaboration with terrestrial and aquatic ecologists as well as geochemists, and will be expected to assist supervision of undergraduate and graduate students. This work will be a key component of an interdisciplinary research program seeking to understand the sources, sinks and biogeochemical evolution of groundwater nutrient pathways along the central Kona coast of Hawaii, with its main thrust being the differentiation and interaction between pristine, anthropogenic and invasive species nutrient flux/reservoir components. This program further seeks to characterize the economic benefits and costs of reducing nutrient loading through management of all identified drivers. The postdoctoral researcher will focus on measurement of Prosopis stand processes as they relate to terrestrial and aquatic nutrient cycling and productivity, soil hydrologic processes, and climate, as well as collaborating and coordinating with researchers at UH, USDA-Forest Service, and state agencies that are developing a cross-cutting initiative in water resources and ecohydrology in Hawaii. PRIMARY QUALIFICATIONS: EDUCATION: Ph.D from an accredited university in biology, ecology, environmental science, botany, geography, or related field. EXPERIENCE: Four to six (4-6) years in field and lab research relating to biogeochemical measurements of plants, soils, and/or water. ABIL/KNOW/SKILLS: Ability to work independently and collaboratively with a diverse team of scientists, technicians, community members, and students (graduate and undergraduate); ability to collect and analyze biogeochemical data; strong interpersonal and organizational skills; excellent writing and verbal skills; ability to work on rough terrain and in otherwise physically demanding environments. Valid driver?s license. PHYSICAL/MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS: Physically fit to be able to conduct outdoor work. SECONDARY QUALIFICATIONS: A demonstrated record of research publication; experience with isotopes and watershed-scale ecological processes. INQUIRIES: Dr. Rebecca Ostertag ( oster...@hawaii.edu) or Dr. Flint Hughes (fhug...@fs.fed.us). Please see www.rcuh.com for more details about applying through the online system (details coming soon). -- Rebecca Ostertag Associate Professor Department of Biology University of Hawaii at Hilo 200 W. Kawili Street Hilo, HI 96720, U.S.A. (808) 974-7361 (phone) (808) 974-7693 (fax) http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/uhh/faculty/ostertag/ Flint Hughes Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry USDA Forest Service 60 Nowelo Street Hilo, HI 96720 Phone: (808) 933-8121 ext. 117 FAX: (808) 933-8120 email: fhug...@fs.fed.us
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook
Science and religion are indeed compatible, providing that people do not use the ideas and methodologies of one to override or undermine the other. An open mind for a different view goes a long way, and as Aristotle said, It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it. I think the biggest boundaries between meaningful, peaceful bonds between the religious and scientific communities are the common assumptions that are made. Many people have these assumptions based upon how people dress, act, or speak, and these assumptions typically lead to false conclusions. To keep this personal anecdotal example short, as a scientist and a Jew who regularly wears his yamaka, I have received many confused looks and curious questions about why I am wearing religious garb while I normally preach (to play with words) rationalism, logic, the virtues of the scientific method and the need for empirical evidence in human endeavor. Not to take the conversation too far into the anthropological realm, as Mr. Silvert said, but the fact remains that mysticism, spirituality, and religion are nearly universal in the human condition, however they are expressed. These belief systems, as long as they do not conflict with the ideals, principles, and functioning of science, rationalism, education, and intellectual discourse, do not present problems for each other. Mutual exclusivity is not something that applies, as long as people keep an open mind and understand that faith and reason, while fundamentally different concepts, are both valid ideas and tools of the human mind. - Derek E. Pursell --- On Fri, 5/14/10, James Crants jcra...@gmail.com wrote: From: James Crants jcra...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Date: Friday, May 14, 2010, 11:14 AM On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com wrote: Science is based on fact. Religion is based on faith. They don't mix. These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. Jim Crants
