For shame, New Scientist!

New Scientist is not a bad magazine. I read it regularly, despite the occasionally weirdly wanky physics story that looks as if it were published for sensational value only. But overall it is no bad, coming out strongly on the side of reason. However, I am very close to cancelling my subscription and encouraging others to do so.

Last week, the print issue carried an article by Amanda Geffer concerning creationist code-words and how to recognize them in pretend-science publications. It was an excellent, rational and thoroughly admirable article.

Apparently, someone complained to the editors about it and the article is currently removed from the online edition of NS, apparently "while they investigate".

I encourage everyone to follow the link and leave a complaint in the comment section. Demand that the editors restore the article immediately, or, at least, provide a reasonable explanation for their action (not that I think there can be one, besides intellectual cowardice).

Since the article in question is no longer available at the NS site, I reproduce the complete text of it below:

How to Spot a Religious Agenda, Amanda Gefter, New Scientist, Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:35 UTC

As a book reviews editor at New Scientist, I often come across so-called science books which after a few pages reveal themselves to be harbouring ulterior motives. I have learned to recognise clues that the author is pushing a religious agenda. As creationists in the US continue to lose court battles over attempts to have intelligent design taught as science in federally funded schools, their strategy has been forced to... well, evolve. That means ensuring that references to pseudoscientific concepts like ID are more heavily veiled. So I thought I'd share a few tips for spotting what may be religion in science's clothing.

Red flag number one: the term "scientific materialism". "Materialism" is most often used in contrast to something else - something non-material, or supernatural. Proponents of ID frequently lament the scientific claim that humans are the product of purely material forces. At the same time, they never define how non-material forces might work. I have yet to find a definition that characterises non-materialism by what it is, rather than by what it is not.

The invocation of Cartesian dualism - where the brain and mind are viewed as two distinct entities, one material and the other immaterial - is also a red flag. And if an author describes the mind, or any biological system for that matter, as "irreducibly complex", let the alarm bells ring.

Misguided interpretations of quantum physics are a classic hallmark of pseudoscience, usually of the New Age variety, but some religious groups are now appealing to aspects of quantum weirdness to account for free will. Beware: this is nonsense.

When you come across the terms "Darwinism" or "Darwinists", take heed. True scientists rarely use these terms, and instead opt for "evolution" and "biologists", respectively. When evolution is described as a "blind, random, undirected process", be warned. While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection is not. When cells are described as "astonishingly complex molecular machines", it is generally by breathless supporters of ID who take the metaphor literally and assume that such a "machine" requires an "engineer". If an author wishes for "academic freedom", it is usually ID code for "the acceptance of creationism".

Some general sentiments are also red flags. Authors with religious motives make shameless appeals to common sense, from the staid - "There is nothing we can be more certain of than the reality of our sense of self" (James Le Fanu in Why Us?) - to the silly - "Yer granny was an ape!" (creationist blogger Denyse O'Leary). If common sense were a reliable guide, we wouldn't need science in the first place.

Religiously motivated authors also have a bad habit of linking the cultural implications of a theory to the truth-value of that theory. The ID crowd, for instance, loves to draw a line from Darwin to the Holocaust, as they did in the "documentary" film Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Even if such an absurd link were justified, it would have zero relevance to the question of whether or not the theory of evolution is correct. Similarly, when Le Fanu writes that Darwin's On the Origin of Species "articulated the desire of many scientists for an exclusively materialist explanation of natural history that would liberate it from the sticky fingers of the theological inference that the beauty and wonder of the natural world was direct evidence for 'A Designer'", his statement has no bearing on the scientific merits of evolution.

It is crucial to the public's intellectual health to know when science really is science. Those with a religious agenda will continue to disguise their true views in their effort to win supporters, so please read between the lines.

slowly losing Florida part 2

Taylor county, Florida, refuses to accept the teaching of evolution in schools! The link is to a pdf of the Nov 20th meeting. They are—get this!—opposed to "teaching evolution as a fact". It probably is one of the most idiotic statements that could be made by anyone; soon they'll be voting on changing the value of pi to 3, and, I am sure, on even more idiotic measures.

Among the gems in that product of arrogant ignorance is this statement: "we are requesting that the State Board of Education direct the Florida Department of Education to revise/edit the new Sunshine State Standards for Science so that evolution is presented as one of several theories as to how the universe was formed". The morons not only have no clue about scientific method and biology, but they seem to be conflating the Big Bang theory with that of evolution. And then, people like them have the nerve to state, when speaking of atheists, "Because their arguments are really quite lightweight intellectually, they resort to nastiness.".

No, we resort to nastiness because your idiocy is so overwhelming that we are at a loss for words. Not that logic and rationality would make an impact on your tiny benighted rudimentary brains even if we regained our power of speech. Sheesh.

Should we give up on Florida?

I mean, some people thought so back in 2000, but I wasn't one of them. However, they are currently

still debating
whether to teach
evolution
in high schools.

I sort of thought that they did already; forgive me for my ignorance, but isn't it, like, 2008? Apparently, the state of Florida is only now discussing whether to stay in Dark Ages for another…what…several hundred years, and a lot of its residents SUPPORT THE IDEA. The sheer idiocy of this is overwhelming. I must say though, that the funniest bits in the above links are—naturally—in the comment sections. That's where sheer imbecility lurks…

Russia letting it slip

An absolutely horrible article pushing creationism has been published by Pravda, of all sources. The english version is rather hilarious, repeating most of the usual creationist canards. Total garbage, needless to say, and yet another indication that Pravda's editorial policies have not changed much since the halcyon Communist days: an old Soviet joke said "There is no truth ("pravda" in Russian) in Pravda; there are no news ("izvestiya" in Russian) in Izvestiya (another major Soviet paper). It was true then, it still seems to be true now.

a night at the creation museum

Thanks to Mad magazine, but why only #14?

...of unknown provenance...

..but awesomely fitting. Should the author show up, I'd be glad to acknowledge.

BEHE:
I cut down facts. I Gish and gallop.
I like to press wild fallacies.
I put on scientist's clothing
And hang around in labs.

MOUNTIES:
He cuts down facts. He Gish and gallop.
He likes to press wild fallacies.
He puts on scientist's clothing
And hangs around in labs?!

He's a creationist, and he's okay.
He lies all night and he lies all day.

Unholy Racket No 003: They have been judged

Lest this blog degenerate into seriousness, I feel like some comic relief is in order.

PBS ombudsman writes about Judgment Day, a Nova production on Kitzmiller v Dover School District trial. The article itself may be of interest to those unfamiliar with the case (huh? is that even possible?), but the true gems are the letters received by PBS regarding the show. Some of my favourites follow. Behold the flights of pure idiocy!

Towards the top of the page we have this—clearly, a product of a deep and penetrating mind:

"It doesn't take a "Rocket Scientist" to figure out that if we, as humans, evolved from monkeys . . . THEN WHY? . . . Are there STILL Monkeys??? We were "Created" by God!!! Pull up AOL now and you'll notice the Gov. of Georgia praying for rain, (No Doubt to GOD). When 9/11 happened what did every good neighbor do? PRAY. Not to monkeys . . . To our "Creator"!!! It shouldn't take tragic and desperate circumstances for people to realize this fact!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! In GOD We Trust!!!

Sonya L. Johnson, North Port, FL"

Once you've stopped chuckling, you'd do well to remember that the "monkey" argument is in fact rather pervasive; other letters refer to it, for example:

"If evolution were true and man "evolved" from apes, why do we have apes and monkeys co-existing with man? Why have the apes not all turned into humans?"

Of course, all those nonstarters show is the letter-writer's complete ignorance of evolutionary theory and possible lack of functioning grey matter. Onwards!

Another popular argument is the appeal to fairness; this comes from a viewer concerned that ID did not get a fair hearing:

"What are you people afraid of? I am concerned for the viewer who is not familiar with the major tenants of both sides of the argument. I am only a lay person, but I know enough about the issue to see that a fair hearing in your format is not tolerated."

Naturally, "both sides of the argument" exist only in the fevered imagination of IDiots and creationists and their ilk (fevered? this may be a misuse of the word; "pedestrian" and "dull" and "non-imaginative" may be better descriptors). There is no intellectually serious opposition to the modern synthesis. This does not mean that some theory may not arise in the future, overturning all that we believe now (although it is unlikely, to put it mildly, but possible). It means, however, that Intelligent Design isn't that theory. This alleged controversy only exists in the minds of—dare I say it—those without any idea of what they are talking about. Clueless idiots often are the loudest kids on the playground; so here.

The "immoral implications" of evolution follow, mixed in with a dubious claim grounding human morality in religion:

""Survival of the fittest" follows from evolutionary theory. Evolutionists, to be logical and true to their faith (it takes faith to believe in it since there is no clear, unimpeachable physical evidence for macro-evolution) should see nothing wrong with what Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc., did in the genocides of millions of people. Since the exterminated ones were "weak," in terms of evolutionary faith, evolution proponents should all just shrug off these murders as being inconsequential (which is how the ones responsible for the murders saw them). But most don't, and the reason is we know those were atrocities. We know to murder another human being is wrong. And we know this because we have consciences given to us by our Creator."

Where do I start? "no clear unimpeachable physical evidence": there is no such beast anywhere in the history and practice of science. There are degrees of certainty; evolution is highly certain, more so than, say, M-theory, or, closer to earth, our description of the many bonding agents (glues, y'know) that we use on an everyday basis. And, of course, the appeal to God as the basis of our morality is pure bullshit, undiluted, ignoring many ethical theories constructed specifically on a non-theist basis, while substituting fear-based subservient (anti-)ethics for reality.

Finally, there is a slew of letter-writers who complain about the short shrift religion in general received in that program. They should keep in mind that this particualr episode was about history: any accusations of bias may just as well be directed against court transcripts. Any accusation of a bias towards a given ideology fails. An attempt to inject some religious ideology—even moderate Godtalk—into the program would have been precisely unprofessional, sunce the subject had nothing to do with the existence of gods or the validity of any religious belief. It was all about teaching religion in a science class. That's all, and those unhappy with the direction of this episode should consider that it is not the job of PBS to present every argument in every show. There is plenty religious claptrap on the idiot-box already. Claims of "evolutionist" bias are ridiculous. Fuck off already and go sit in your Dark Age corner.

Another favourite, and one that almost needs no rebuttal is "I have a degree in journalism and could easily point out every instance of yellow journalism in this show.". Yeah, you may have a degree in journalism but you are obviously quite ignorant of either biology or the actual court case in question!

Enough! What had started as a light humorous attempt to look at the silliness of some people is turning out to be a depressing peek into the idiocy of humanity in general: the majority of letters on that page follow the same format, and it all becomes rather sad, eventually. One can only ingest so much pure ignorance, nonsequiturs, ALL CAP screaming and so many logical fallacies in one sitting. Fuck 'em.

A load of horseshit.

John Scalzi goes to the Creation Museum and is not impressed with what he sees. Priceless.

truly, the most horrifying entity in the known Universe.

For those unaware: Abbie at ERV has taken to equating Michael Behe with Lindsey Lohan (Lilo!!!) and here is a wonderful, but terrifying result:

her face was an ell broad and her teeth were about the same size

There has been a crop of beautiful books on atheism and the stupidity of ID/creationism over the last six months or so. The God Delusion, the new edition of Atheist Universe, Letter to a Christian Nation, God: The Failed Hypothesis, Why Darwin Matters, Why Intelligent Design Fails, The Counter-Creationism Handbook, and others (!)

In any case, some of these books have been constituting my reading material while I take the bus to work each bloody morning and back each exhausted evening...Finally, someone at work asked me, with a slightly offended air, if I only was ever interested in one side of the argument and whether that did not constitute an indication of a closed mind on my part. That was funny. But, honestly, of course I read the opposition. I've read Phillip Johnson and laughed. I read Duane Gish and fell out of my chair, weeping with merriment. Their kind perform a useful purpose: they lift up our spirits by showing how perfectly idiotic humans can be; they ignore science, misrepresent its conclusions, come up with their own rather strange philosophical concepts and generally spend their time standing in the corner blocking their ears with their hands and shouting "Nyaah Nyaahh I can't hear you". Very funny.

I knew that that wasn't the kind of response my questioner wanted to hear, but what the hell? OK: I've read Behe and Dembski, and they weren't even really funny, although they also committed most of the aforementioned fallacies. They just did it in a very self-importantly aggrandazing and serious way. Those two are difficult to laugh at, but, really, their suggestions have been debunked rather thoroughly: just for starters, a whole bunch of articles are here. Easy enough.

But what about "sophisticated" theology? Well, indeed. Just finished reading Haught's Deeper Than Darwin, and am now plodding through McGrath's Twilight of Atheism. But not on the bus!!! See, I want something fun on the bus, and since I do not find appeals to revelation and subjectivity convincing and informal logical fallacies of various stripes no longer even make me very angry, McGrath would just put me right to sleep (in fact, if it were less generally unpleasant, I'd be reading this kind of material before going to bed: gently relaxing one's critical faculty and helping one shut off one's brain). Haught is a bit more contentful, but even so, if that is the best that "sophisticated" theology can throw at us, we are not in any trouble (logically, anyway). Nobody but believers would be convinced by any of the arguments therein; books like that serve only as a confirmation, a support of sorts: see, somebody out there thinks like you do, you are not alone, we can make silly errors and be confused together.

Blecch. Today, however, no such fun. My bus reading will consitute papers on evolution of photosynthesis and possible detection of such in extrasolar planetary atmospheres. Hey: it may not be funny, but it will be exciting!

you must be certain of the devil

One of the most annoying (and disappointing) things that happens to me fairly regularly is this:

I'd be in a bar, chatting up some comely wench. The wench would ask-"So, what did you study in school?"

"Astrophysics", I'd tell her, uncomfortably, dreading what may come next.

"???"

"Well astronomy, you know", I'd try to explain.

"Oh, ASTROLOGY..."

At which point I would no longer want to be chatting her up but, rather, to be kicking her in the head with steel-toed boots. Another ripening romance gone to shite. I would excuse myself and flee.
Sometimes the dreaded word would pop up much later, as in "This is my friend Jorg, he is an ASTROLOGER". At least, by that point I may have had a chance to get what I wanted, but then I would feel curiously dirty.

In any case, we all know that America isn't really up there as far as the knowledge of science and, y'know, general facts of life, is concerned. What is interesting, however, is that apparently our scientific knowledge has been getting better, but, at the same time...well, here. Tell me this does not disturb you and...we'll see what and.

The Discovery Institute is at it again, as you can see in this piece. They, and...whatchamacallit...Bob Jones University (whose dress code alone is ground for some serious chuckles) would be truly hilarious underneath all the dishonesty, with the pure unadulteratedly not-really-malicious-but-maybe-just-a-little-bit-so laughter one reserves for village idiots, except for the fact that a lot of people believe that crap. Indeed, the village is in imminent danger of being taken over by the said idiots.

See, I am actually linking to the cretinous submammals, lest anyone accuse me of one-sided approach to the subject. Yeah, check them out: if you actually think that there are valid points about evolutionary theory on those sites, let me know, and I will try to explain. Cos there ain't. That is pure and simple bullshit, and calling them idiots is the kindest thing anyone can do. The alternatives are "lying scumbags", "evil power-addicted fuckwads", et al. You get the picture.