Evolution in primary school science lessons
News came out this weekend that the theory of evolution is to be included in primary school science lessons for the first time. As of April this wasn't the case, and the change is down to a successful campaign and a lot of hard work by the British Humanist Association - huge congrats to them for getting this through.
I left school knowing what vaguely what evolution was, but with no understanding of how it underpins all of biology. Now I don't understand how you can teach biology without it. I remember GCSE biology just being a bunch of disparate facts about animals and plants. The closest we got to evolution was having it drilled into us that a) camels have large feet, as they're adapted to the deserts, and b) polar bears have clear fur, the relevance of which is still a mystery1. These two facts were all we needed for the exam, so I duly wrote them down and paid no more attention. My science teacher obviously noticed this problem, and at the end of our final year gave a friend a copy of The Selfish Gene. Looking back, that was a pretty awesome thing to do. I didn't find that book until three years later.
Hopefully these developments will see evolution built more fundamentally into the textbooks, and not just as another thing to learn.
- and, now I look it up, a bit more complex than is perhaps necessary for an introduction to evolution [↩]
Odd reply from my MP over teaching evolution in primary schools
I recently emailed my MP to ask for his support in the campaign to include evolution in the primary school curriculum. I've emailed him a few times before, to no reply, but yesterday a somewhat curious letter arrived. It starts off pretty positive:
Let me say first of all that I support the teaching of evolution. In the modern era, the importance of science cannot be overestimated. It is critical that, from an early age, children learn the core principles of scientific thought and, more importantly, are instilled with an understanding of the way that science shapes our lives.
Great! That's the spirit. Then there's a quick dig at the government (he's a Conservative):
I have a number of concerns about the Government's proposals in general. I am concerned that the changes to the primary curriculum will lead to children learning less not more. It is also important to recognise that the move away from traditional subject areas will lead to a further erosion of standards.
Any argument with the word 'traditional' raises red flags with me, but whatever - I don't know enough about the other proposals to comment. Then, though, there's this:
It is important that children are educated to a standard where, should they wish, they can read about alternative theories and histories, thereby expanding independent thought. Given your strong views about the issue, I would recommend responding to the consultation [he gives the link]
Wait. What? 'Alternative theories and histories'? Where did that come from? What's an alternative history? What does this have to do with primary school curricula?
It's probably innocuous, but is nonetheless strange. Perhaps he's saying the education system should provide a solid grounding in fact so that children are well prepared for the 'alternative theories' when they're older? It's unclear, but it's a touch worrying to see 'alternative theories' mentioned - this kind of tricksy language is more often used by advocates of intellgent design. I strongly doubt that's the case here, and google doesn't have any other suggestion, but I'll keep an eye out.
Interestingly, he doesn't actually state any explicit support for evolution in the primary school curriculum in the letter, but there's a copy of a letter to Ed Balls in which he does. So that's cool.
The Genius of Darwin
Just a heads up for The Genius of Darwin, tomorrow at 2000 on C4. Presented by Richard Dawkins, and beginning the coverage up to Darwin's 200th anniversary next year, it should be fascinating. There's no discussion of creationism etc. until the third episode, by all accounts - until then it's just the utter rockage of Charles Darwin (we atheists worship him, you know) and his theory of evolution. Charlie Brooker has a great intro, too.
Michael Behe on Point of Inquiry
The Point of Inquiry podcast interviewed Michael Behe this week. Prof. Behe is a leading advocate of the 'intelligent design' movement, and Point of Inquiry really really isn't. It's great fun, and perfect for playing Spot the Logical Fallacy. Behe comes out with straw men, ad hominem attacks and false premises, as well as poisoning the well, saying things I believe to be demonstrably untrue and continually crying conspiracy. Interviewer D.J. Grothe doesn't pull any punches, although is of course polite throughout, and calls Behe on his evasions when necessary.
A particularly interesting moment comes when D.J. Grothe asks how ID-ers can criticise evolution for not providing a full and complete explanation, yet offer no mechanisms of their own. Behe's response is that everybody is trying to explain the appearance of design, so saying 'it looks designed' isn't something that needs to be backed up. This is slippery.
As I see it, the point of evolutionary theory isn't to explain why things look designed, it's to explain how they arose. That they appear designed is a side-effect, as it were, and related to the way our brains look at things (also interesting from an evolutionary standpoint). Books like 'The Blind Watchmaker' explain evolution from a basis of 'how come things look designed' as a) a response to creationists, who use this argument all the time, and b) it's a useful way of structuring an explanation. But evolution isn't there to explain the appearance of design any more than round-earth 'theory' is there to explain the appearance of a flat planet - that's just something that arises from the theory.
D.J. Grothe also asks him the obvious: isn't intelligent design just 'god of the gaps'? Behe denies this, saying ID uses what we know rather than what we don't know. But this misses the point: 'what we know' in this case is entirely based upon what they claim evolution can't explain - in other words, gaps. He doesn't address the question.
The final question is also particularly telling. Behe's latest book apparently claims malaria cannot have evolved and must have been designed. Why, he is asked, would a designer create something that kills so many innocent people? Unlike his scientific evasions, which sometimes took me a few minutes to unravel, the answer is obvious: god has a secret plan.
It's worth a listen, although it probably helps if you have a passing familiarity with intelligent design and its recent history - particularly the recent US court case in which ID had its ass handed to it by a conservative judge. Understanding the position of people you're arguing against is always a good idea, and it's cool that both sides agreed to the interview.
Melanie Phillips on pseudoscience and how the world is broken
I'd planned the post in my head. I was going to talk about Richard Dawkins' new Channel 4 show: The Enemies of Reason. The Telegraph describes it with:
The 66-year-old scientist has investigated a range of gurus and therapists, including faith healers, psychic mediums, angel therapists, "aura photographers", astrologers, Tarot card readers and water diviners, and concluded that Britain is gripped by "an epidemic of superstitious thinking".
I was going to predict responses to the show. I reckoned there'd be a couple of types. Comment Is Free might have a few "science is a faith and doesn't have all the answers and there's actually something to all this stuff", and the Guardian itself would have "yes of course it's all nonsense, but don't you see that it makes people happy and it's a bit mean to attack it. Also Richard Dawkins is a fundamentalist and the show would be better presented by someone else". But I wasn't quick enough: Melanie Phillips got in there first1.
I know she's usually a bit, um, extreme, but this is just nuttery of the highest order. And it starts off so well:
In a TV programme to be shown later this month, Dawkins looks at a range of ludicrous therapies and gurus, including faith healers, psychic mediums, ‘angel therapists’, ‘aura photographers’, astrologers and others. Not surprisingly, he is horrified by such widespread irrationality, not to mention an exploitative industry that fleeces people while encouraging them to run away from reality.
He is right to be alarmed. What previously belonged to the province of the quack and the charlatan has become mainstream. The NHS provides funding for shamans, while the NHS Directory for Alternative and Complementary Medicine promotes ‘dowsers’, ‘flower therapists’ and ‘crystal healers’.
She agrees! Wow. I was expecting the first type of response.
Disturbing indeed. But where Dawkins goes wrong[...]
Right, here we go.
But where Dawkins goes wrong is to assume this is all as irrational as believing in God. The truth is that it is the collapse of religious faith that has prompted the rise of such irrationality.
What? Seems like a non-sequitur, but whatever. The collapse of religious faith is to blame for the rise in irrationality? This seems immediately unlikely as much of the irrationality has been around for a long, long time. The murder of Abraham Lincoln prompted massive conspiracy theories. Astrology has been around for centuries. Alternative medicine could only really be seen for what it is once evidence-based medical science came into being, but would seem to be far more in response to that than anything religious. In Britain religious faith is down, but it's had a massive resurgence in the US, which is also a major stronghold for all types of the irrationality being discussed. So I'm not sure the timeline really works. But let's see how she backs this up...
We are living in a scientific, largely postreligious age in which faith is presented as unscientific superstition. Yet paradoxically, we have replaced such faith by belief in demonstrable nonsense. It was GK Chesterton who famously quipped that ‘when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing — they believe in anything.’ So it has proved. But how did it happen?
Proof by repeating yourself, apparently. All right then, how did it happen?
The big mistake is to see religion and reason as polar opposites. They are not. In fact, reason is intrinsic to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The Bible provides a picture of a rational Creator and an orderly universe — which, accordingly, provided the template for the exercise of reason and the development of science.
So, let's get this straight. The whole world has stopped believing in god, apparently. Everybody sees religion and reason as opposites, so they've taken up irrational things in its stead, despite having rejected religion for rational reasons. I'm not really following this. But, anyway, it's not even true because religion and reason aren't opposites. We know this because it says so in a magic book, and we should believe anything written in magic books.
Dawkins pours particular scorn on the Biblical miracles which don’t correspond to scientific reality. But religious believers have different ways of regarding those events, with many seeing them as either metaphors or as natural occurrences which were invested with a greater significance.
I wonder if she's been reading Alister McGrath - he's always going on about 'significance'. Still not sure what her point is. Magic book says things happened. Dawkins says they probably didn't. Melanie Phillips says they didn't and are of course metaphors. So? Presumably she doesn't deny all the miracles - virgin births, a child of a god, resurrection etc. etc.? If she denies it all, she has little in common with most Christians I've read. She's using the initially-persuasive idea that the Bible can be interpreted in such a way as to make logical sense. Which still doesn't mean it's true, but would be a start. Sam Harris and others would argue that the Bible is such a mess of contradictions that there's no way to interpret it without simply ignoring the parts you don't like. But I digress.
The heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition is the belief in the concept of truth, which gives rise to reason. But our postreligious age has proclaimed that there is no such thing as objective truth, only what is ‘true for me’.
Knew we'd get to relativism eventually. Note that Dawkins isn't mentioned here. Not one of the 'New Atheists'/'Fundamentalist Atheists'/whatever has any truck with relativism. Nor do the vast majority of scientists, as far as I'm aware. I never understand how people so willing to read Christian theology can be so ignorant of secular philosophy, which pretty much rejects relativism outright. I also strongly doubt that any sizeable percentage of the population think there's no such thing as objective truth (outside of postmodernism students, anyway), but then I can't really back that up.
That is because our society won’t put up with anything which gets in the way of ‘what I want’. How we feel about things has become all-important. So reason has been knocked off its perch by emotion, and thinking has been replaced by feelings.
This has meant our society can no longer distinguish between truth and lies by using evidence and logic. And this collapse of objective truth has, in turn, come to undermine science itself which is playing a role for which it is not fitted.
What? Scientists now don't believe in objective truth, so science doesn't work any more? What? I'm not a sociologist, but I'm pretty sure all her statements about society are complete nonsense.
When science first developed in the West, it thought of itself merely as a tool to explore the natural world. It did not pour scorn upon religion; indeed, scientists were overwhelmingly religious believers (as many still are).
Oh, for crying out loud. Yes, Newton was religious. With the information he had, it made sense. Before the theory of evolution came along it was pretty damned hard to see any other explanation. But now, with the evidence we have, religious belief is undoubtedly irrational. If Newton were around today, it's reasonable to think he wouldn't be religious.
In modern times, however, science has given rise to ’scientism’, the belief that science can answer all the questions of human existence. This is not so. Science cannot explain the origin of the universe. Yet it now presumes to do so and as a result it has descended into irrationality.
No it doesn't. That's just not true. There are plenty of questions on which science hands over to philosophy. There are incredibly speculative ideas as to how the universe started, sure, but nobody with scientific credibility claims to have actually explained it. I don't think it's necessarily a question outside of science, though. We just don't know. Presumably she doesn't mean 'how the universe started', she means 'why there's something rather than nothing', but the same applies.
The most conspicuous example of this is provided by Dawkins himself, who breaks the rules of scientific evidence by seeking to claim that Darwin’s theory of evolution — which sought to explain how complex organisms evolved through random natural selection — also accounts for the origin of life itself.
No he doesn't. This is also completely false. In fact he specifically says that evolution doesn't account for that. Biochemistry is investigating that particular problem. It depends what she means by 'the origin of life', of course. Does she mean consciousness? Cells? Things that evolve?
There is no evidence for this whatever and no logic to it. After all, if people say God could not have created the universe because this gives rise to the question ‘Who created God?’, it follows that if scientists say the universe started with a big bang, this prompts the further question ‘What created the bang?’ Indeed, if the origin of life were truly spontaneous, this would constitute what religious people would call a miracle. Accordingly, this claim in itself resembles not so much science as the superstition that Dawkins derides.
I'm not sure she isn't confusing the origin of the universe with the origin of life, but whatever. It might be that the origin of life is extremely unlikely - indeed, it seems that it took millions and millions of years for (presumably) one chance event to occur - but that's not 'spontaneous' any more than the weather is 'spontaneous'.
Moreover, since science essentially takes us wherever the evidence leads, the findings of more than 50 years of DNA research — which have revealed the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life — have thrown into doubt the theory that life emerged spontaneously in a random universe.
Uh oh. She's not going to...she wouldn't, would she?
These findings have given rise to a school of scientists promoting the theory of Intelligent Design, which suggests that some force embodying purpose and foresight lay behind the origin of the universe.
She did. I don't believe it.
While this theory is, of course, open to vigorous counter-argument, people such as Prof Dawkins and others have gone to great lengths to stop it being advanced at all, on the grounds that it denies scientific evidence such as the fossil record and is therefore worthless.
A bit, but not really. The problem with intelligent design is that it's not science. It makes no predictions. It has no causal mechanisms. It hinges completely on the idea that if evolution is wrong, god must have done it. It occupies the infinite space of crap-I-made-up-ness. I could say that the process of evolution is actually controlled by an intelligent and incredibly tiny bumblebee named Gordon. It's possible, but a) if evolutionary theory is wrong, it doesn't mean Gordon is real, and b) until I can provide any kind of experiment that would provide a different outcome for evolution vs. Gordon's Design, how can we know? There are an infinite number of things that could be true, and we believe what the evidence suggests and nothing more. The reason scientists and rational thinkers have tried to stop intelligent design progressing is that it has no substance.
Yet distinguished scientists have been hounded and their careers jeopardised for arguing that the fossil record has got a giant hole in it. Some 570 million years ago, in a period known as the Cambrian Explosion, most forms of complex animal life emerged seemingly without any evolutionary trail. These scientists argue that only ‘rational agents’ could have possessed the ability to design and organise such complex systems.
Oh, man. There are any number of books which explain the Cambrian explosion. It's actually really, really cool. I'm surprised she didn't bring up punctuated equilibrium, but then she has just claimed all scientists are incapable of performing science. I like how she mentions the Cambrian problem, then tries to get out of it:
Whether or not they are right (and I don’t know), their scientific argument about the absence of evidence to support the claim that life spontaneously created itself is being stifled — on the totally perverse grounds that this argument does not conform to the rules of science which require evidence to support a theory.
There is no such claim, so their argument is bogus. You don't need to be a scientist to understand this point.
As a result of such arrogance, the West — the crucible of reason — is turning the clock back to a pre-modern age of obscurantism, dogma and secular witch-hunts. Far from upholding reason, science itself has become unreasonable.
And thus, the whole of science is now 'unreasonable' because of, even from her viewpoint, a spat limited to evolutionary theory.
So when Prof Dawkins fulminates against ‘new age’ irrationality, it is the image of pots and kettles that comes irresistibly to mind.
Aha! I knew it!
So: the world went all rational and rejected religion. Religion, though, is secretly rational, and people are therefore rejecting rationality. So they now believe in all sorts of crap. This breaks science, because all scientists no longer believe in objective truth and think they can explain everything without using any kind of logic. This results in heroic evolution-deniers being silenced by conspiracies. Yes, looking at this evidence it does seem like religious belief lends itself to rational thinking. Also, Richard Dawkins is wrong about everything, and the program would better be presented by someone else.
I know it was fish in a barrel. I know I probably shouldn't pay attention to such nonsense. But it was an incredibly annoying fish.
- I wrote all the below before showing the article to my girlfriend, who said 'yeah, it's Melanie Phillips'. Which is a fair point. But as it's written I might as well publish
[↩]
If truth doesn’t exist, something can’t be true. I win.
I’m a faithful Catholic. I’ve often thought: what if Darwinism were true? I don’t mean all of the philosophical materialism that Darwinists drag along with the science. Materialism is nonsense, because if matter and energy are all that exist, then truth doesn't exist (it's neither matter nor energy). If truth doesn't exist, then materialism can't be true.
I wonder if that final sentence will ever stop being entertaining. As EvolutionBlog points out, materialism doesn't say that matter and energy are all that exist, it says 'everything that exists comes about as the result of interactions of matter and energy'. Which is different. See the original link for more fun with words.
- I'm loathe to link to the original page, so am using a takedown instead [↩]
‘The Trouble with Atheism’
The National Secular Society says:
Former Today editor Rod Liddle is set to launch a broadside against atheism in a programme for Channel 4 entitled The Trouble with Atheism – which will be broadcast on 18 December. Mr Liddle says he will demonstrate how similar atheism is to religion.
Sounds interesting. However, this is the guy who recently wrote, in the course of a Spectator interview with Richard Dawkins:
Which brings me to the difficult stuff — and Darwinism. It is a creed to which Dawkins cleaves with the fervour of the fundamentalist, the true believer. And it is the real chink in his armour. For example, because Darwin showed us that life forms progress from the simple to the complex over hundreds of thousands of years of gradual modification, it therefore follows (according to Dawkins) that there cannot have been a divine being present before the amoebae swam in those soupy oceans at Earth's toddler stage — because he would have had to be more complex than those organisms which followed him. And that doesn't fit with the theory.
What? Aside from the dubious characterisation (which is contradicted by the next paragraph anyway) I don't think anyone's ever argued that a deity couldn't have existed at the primordial soup stage because it would have been more complex than that which followed it. That's a strange argument, and there are indeed multiple problems with it. I've never heard it suggested that evolution actively disproves deities, it's more that evolution provides an explanation for probably the largest evidence for the existence of a deity, namely that the natural world looks like it's been designed. A deity becomes superfluous, so why believe in one? It's possible he's simplifying a superficially similar argument to do with the rather large question of the beginning of the universe, but that's still to do with the probability of an inherently complex deity versus a simple process, not that it wouldn't be possible due to increasing evolutionary complexity (not that evolution necessarily makes beings more complex, anyway).
Mr Liddle seems to have misunderstood the issues to the extent that he thinks the entire basis for disbelieving in a god hinges upon Darwin's theory being entirely correct:
But what if the theory, in its entirety, doesn't hold — as Dawkins concedes might be possible? Even now, a century and a half after Darwin wrote The Origin of Species, the notion of gradual, cumulative change in every case is being challenged (most recently by the evo-devo school, which believes that sudden change can occur within species within a single generation). Like all scientific theories, Darwinism will be amended — perhaps beyond recognition. Perhaps it will be discarded entirely. Either way, disavowing a divine being because it doesn't quite fit in with another here-today-gone-tomorrow theory seems a tad peremptory. The question Dawkins can never satisfactorily answer is: what if Darwin was wrong? And yet, as a scientist, he must be aware that the likelihood is that Darwin was wrong here or there. In which case, where does that leave his philosophical argument?
"[T]he notion of gradual, cumulative change in every case is being challenged"? Ok, maybe, but it's a long way from overturning current theory, and there's more to evolution than just gradual changes. I don't know all that much about the evo-devo school, but I'm pretty sure it still works on the basis of natural selection, no matter how large the generational mutations. But even if Darwin (and modern theory) somehow turned out to be wrong, it would make little difference to atheistic arguments because they're not built upon evolution in the way Mr Liddle thinks. Sure, you'd have to find another explanation for the life's complexity, but it would have to explain the vast amount of evidence showing 'evolutionary' lineages, and there's no reason to immediately turn to a deity for this.
You also can't just say that because scientific theories are continually revised - or 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' if you like - anything that follows from them (which the non-existence of god doesn't anyway) is unreliable. That's getting it backwards. The point is that predictions can be tested, and the theory is altered, supported or even discarded accordingly. By revising theories science hones in on the truth, and that's very different from the "things change therefore there's no point making predictions" attitude that Mr Liddle suggests. If all the evidence fits with a theory, it's perfectly reasonable to come to tentative conclusions based upon it.
The whole article is really quite odd. I'll watch the atheism show, but if it's anything like the above I don't hold out much hope.
Update on 19/12: I'll update this when I've actually watched the show, but anybody looking for responses could do worse than see here (and not just because somebody in the comments linked to me), here and the comment thread here.
Teaching the controversy in the UK
Some guy has managed to get onto BBC News with the standard evangelical gambit of 'teach the controversy':
He says the GCSE syllabus requires children to appreciate how science works and understand the nature of scientific controversy.
"The government wants children to be exposed to scientific debate at the age of 14 or 15.
"All the Truth in Science stuff does is put forward stuff that says here's a controversy. This is exactly the kind of thing that young people should be exposed to," Mr Cowan added.
You can't just make up scientific controversy. If I flooded schools with leaflets saying the Earth was flat, and as evidence quoted misunderstandings of round-earth-theory, this wouldn't constitute a scientific controversy. What would? Hard to say, but if scientific literature was full of discussion of the topic that'd be a start. But, it's not. Global warming is a good example of scientific controversy, but Intelligent Design is as scientifically controversial as Bigfoot. The article sums it up with:
Advocates of intelligent design say there are things that cannot be explained by evolution and so argue for the existence of a supernatural intelligence behind the creation of the universe.
Which is accurate, but not very informative. Intelligent Design does do this, but doesn't actually provide any reason to go from one to the other. The approach is "evolution is wrong, therefore god", which doesn't follow logically. And, of course, the arguments against evolution don't hold water.
He told the BBC: "Darwin has for many people become a sacred cow.
"There's a sense that if you criticise Darwin you must be some kind of religious nut case.
"We might has well have said Einstein shouldn't have said what he did because it criticised Newton."
Talk about missing the point. Einstein didn't criticise Newton, he put forward a theory that refined Newton's work and, crucially, made predictions that could be used to test the veracity of the claims. The predictions were tested, and found to be true. Intelligent Design makes no predictions and provides no evidence for an alternative to evolution. It's completely useless.
Mr Cowan is identified in the article as an ex chemistry teacher. There's no mention of his being a young-earth creationist who thinks the reason there's no evidence of dinosaurs and humans living simultaneously is that "they didn't live near each other".
Happily, it looks like the government isn't paying any attention to this kind of nonsense, at least for the general curriculum. It's possible they're turning a blind eye elsewhere, as evidenced by Tony Blair's odd recent comments (via TLH).
Stephen Colbert does The God Delusion
Bit short for any proper debate, but some good answers and Stephen Colbert's sendup of right-wing evangelicals is priceless. I love it when he says "I'm lost".
Cavemen prefer blondes
There's a fascinating Independent article today (best be quick before it becomes pay-only content) on the evolutionary causes of blonde hair. I always thought that the lighter hair colours would be something to do with uptake of sunlight, much like skin colour, but it seems that's not the case. Researchers think that sexual selection in times of food scarcity resulted in blonde-hair genes spreading due to their increased appeal to men. I'm not sure whether this appeal is attributed to the colour itself, or just being different from others.
Hair's interesting. The classic image of stereotypical male fantasy has long blonde hair. Why long? Steven Pinker, in How the Mind Works, says:
Luxuriant hair is always pleasing, possibly because it shows not only current health but a record of health in the years before. Malnutrition and disease weaken the hair as it grows from the scalp, leaving a fragile spot in the shaft. Long hair implies a long history of good health.
Explains why we all care so much about which shampoo we use
Happily, times change. I've generally always been more attracted to brunettes, and I wonder whether that's because most of my relatives have darker hair colours. It would make sense that genes that control hair colour would generally co-exist with genes that cause attraction to said colour, right? Do people from predominantly blonde families prefer blondes?
The Independent article also contains this paragraph:
Experts said that as relations between men and women have evolved, men may have become more attracted by brains, represented in their psyche by brunettes, than the more physical charms of blond hair.
Look, I didn't say it. I put that in mainly to annoy Lynsey
Hello!
Hey, thanks for coming! I'm Andrew, and this is where my headthinks come to breed. They often meander around humanism and photography, but they're flighty and you can't trust them, so anything is possible.
Do feel free to email me - I get lonely:
Your hair looks swish, by the way - have you done something new?
Recent Comments
- vicky: going up this weekend having done all the welsh peaks except 4 snowdon, cant wait
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: what, how can u live in the 21 c and say that, probably a sexist thing
on Climbing Snowdon. - vicky: da iawn laura, cant believe what im hearing, all this fuss, anyway love the site, and i agree, normal people who swear and curse clomb mountains cos we live in the...
on Climbing Snowdon. - Andrew: Did a few quick test shots to check the light levels, then balanced the camera on the arm of a bench, set it for a 20s exposure and hoped for the best
on ISS. - lynsey: Wow, how did you take that photograph?
on ISS.
