I get email

Nathan Moran wrote to chastise me. I feel bad for him…I get these things all the time and the stream-of-consciousness reaction I have to them is never flattering to my correspondents. Maybe they should stop.

Kent Hovind & Your Point of View/Opinion

I would extremely promote you to debate Dr. Kent Hovind, when he is accessible [When he gets out of prison?]. I guarantee you, afterwards you won’t look very smart [Yeah, what would I be thinking, debating a lunatic ex-con with a mail-order degree?] PROFESSOR [Is there a salary raise with my promotion to ALL-CAPS PROFESSOR?] PZ Myers [He spelled my name correctly! I am stunned.]. Secondyly [What happened to firstyly? And can you at least give me a thirdyly?], if “there is no sign of a loving, personal god, but only billions of years of pitiless winnowing without any direction other than short-term survival and reproduction“, then who decides the rules and regulations of man [Woman. Definitely woman.]. Man alone cannot go 24 hours without doing something unexpected or unwanted [You’ve been watching The Simpsons too much.]. The fact is that man is far from flawless [Yes? Has someone been arguing otherwise?]. We are prone to fail [Says the fellow touting Kent Hovind. I know.] PROFESSOR [Emphasize it some more, non-professor.]. If you cannot agree with that [Huh? What? When? Where?], then the college or university that you graduated from should be condemned or demolished [The universities of Washington, Oregon, and Utah will be greatly relieved to learn that Nathan has no reason to demolish their facilities. Think of all the homeless PROFESSORS, wandering the streets of Seattle, Eugene, and Salt Lake City.]. By the way, if you honestly believe in the evolutionist view [Uh-oh. I actually do. What will Nathan demolish now?] intruding in our universities and destroying the faith of many young adults [I keep saying it does, thank you for your support.], then you should know that there is no reason to live [What about sex? How about brook trout almondine with wild rice and a fine glass of wine on the side? How about a stormy day on a wild and rocky shore? How about taking a nice deep breath and just feeling your heart beat and your blood sing? Nathan, Nathan, Nathan…there’s so much to live for, don’t do it!] since we came from nothing [Well, Nathan, you personally came from a spurty little dribble squirted from your father’s penis to slather over a tiny scrap that erupted bloodily from your mother’s ovary, but really, we shouldn’t hold anyone’s humble beginnings against them. Why, the fact that I worked my way from nothing to this sumptuously fleshy instantiation containing the complex residue of exploding stars is something I regard as a mark of considerable well-deserved pride.]. That is the underlying statement that evolution eventually leads to [“from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” Yes. Lovely, isn’t it?], causing citizens to commit suicide [What? Where? We should be swimming in the decaying corpses of dead biology PROFESSORS, then. This doesn’t seem to happen, you know.]. So save your pitiful blogs [I’ve only got the one.] about non-intellectual information [You’re reaching, Nathan. What is intellectual information? Does it wear tweed and pontificate sagely?] that could be taught by the “average joe” [Somehow, I’m not surprised that someone touting Kent Hovind believes just anyone can teach biology.] or Charles Darwin [Oh, bad news there! Charles Darwin didn’t know any genetics or molecular biology…he’d need a lot of remedial work before he could teach biology.].

Wait…no closing line? No “Regards, Nathan” or “Love, Nathan” or “In Jesus’ Name, Nathan”? I guess he really must be angry with me.

Michael Behe’s son has a surprise

He’s come out: Behe’s son has abandoned Catholicism and is an atheist.

It’s actually a bit sad: he comes right out and says that he’s an anti-theist, but that he’s never told his parents (I guess the news is out now!). It also sounds like he’s a bit estranged from his father, saying “I really dislike my father”. He’s still living with them, but is “quarantined” in the basement so he doesn’t contaminate his brothers and sisters with his weird godless ideas.

It’s a very interesting discussion, but I just have to say that seeing fathers and sons unreconciled, even if the father is a bit squirrely, is rather depressing to me. I simultaneously want to praise the younger Behe for being smart and articulate, and also urge him to make peace with his family while he can.

Illinois governor race simplified

Now you know who not to vote for: Bill Brady. Brady favors teaching creationism in the schools.

It’s always helpful when the ninnies declare themselves like that. Although, it’s also true that he declares himself a Republican, which nowadays is also grounds for voting against him.

However, I also take exception to the newspaper article. This is not right:

“My knowledge and my faith leads me to believe in both evolution and creationism,” he said. “I believe God created the earth, and it evolved.”

Creationism generally teaches that the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate, and the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

There are many flavors of creationism, and they don’t all teach that the earth is that young; this young earth nonsense has only relatively recently (since the 1960s) come to dominate the discussion. All this kind of misinformation does is give the guilty ones an out — Brady is probably an old earth creationist from the quotes I read, and now he can protest that he isn’t a creationist, as defined by the Chicago Sun Times.

Catching up with old news

Some people are in the news that I’ve covered before. Let’s do a quick update.

The science media make my head hurt

First, read this parody of science journalism. It’s the template for just about every science story you’ll find in a newspaper, and it’s so depressing.

Second, imagine something even worse. Hint: it’s the media’s coverage of every scientific “controversy” you might think of. It takes a few of the tropes mentioned in the parody, like “shift responsibility for establishing the likely truth or accuracy of the research findings on to absolutely anybody else but me, the journalist” and “quotes from some fringe special interest group of people who, though having no apparent understanding of the subject, help to give the impression that genuine public ‘controversy’ exists.” and “Special interest group linked to for balance” and expand those to fill the allotted space. There is no possibility that a journalist will actually examine the evidence and show which side is clearly bonkers.

For an example of this phenomenon in action, examine this article about a teacher in Modesto, Mark Ferrante, declaring that he will teach intelligent design in biology classes. It’s a moist sopping wallow in the so-called middle ground, getting quotes from teachers on both sides of the issue, and making special care to include a theist teacher mumbling platitudes about “Let science tell us what and how. Let religion tell us who and why.”

And of course, they go to the Discovery Institute for their story about ID, and set them against the NCSE, as if these two groups have an equal investment in the scientific truth. They do not. Intelligent Design has no credibility, no empirical support, and no reasonable proposals for scientific investigation. When will the media wake up and realize that their constant pushing of a false equivalency is a major factor in feeding this pseudo-controversy?

To top it all off, then they do something quite common that the media parody forgot to include: they included a poll. Of course they did, because that’s how you settle an issue in modern journalism…whatever view the majority holds must be true.

Should “intelligent design” be taught in public schools?

Yes, it should be taught in science classes 37%
Yes, but only in religion or culture classes, not in science 18%
No 44%

The school district is taking the correct route and has declared that ID will not be taught. Why can’t the local newspapers recognize reality?

California’s creation museum

A few people took advantage of the Creation Research Society’s open house to take a peek inside the asylum, and sent back pictures.

Eric Youngstrom found signs of their evidence-based reasoning.

i-62094e9f35db8e6e9d63214a1ea08749-ark.jpeg

Ooooh, numbers! It must be real then. Just like the 64.8 meter long giant squid I keep in the 4.3 million cubic meter tank in my basement.

i-97a74af9e1149b5c90f29cc594da38aa-hitler.jpeg

Because, as we all know, all you have to do is refer to Hitler’s evil using sciencey sounding phrases like “Darwinian” and “natural selection” — phrases he didn’t use or didn’t like — to make Darwin guilty of Hitler.

Jason Frye…well, I don’t know what he found. These are genuine WTF? displays from the ‘museum’.

i-53d88526c4cf57794c423faa80b8695c-tri_uni_text.jpeg
i-2cc31ea2d840602299162758927033c7-tri_uni.jpeg

I think they’re trying to make a case for trinitarianism using made-up diagrams, but I’m not sure. These could be Martian anatomy diagrams from someone who watched George Pal’s War of the Worlds.

A video of the place!

The joke of O’Donnell has got to be wearing thin soon, right?

It’s one of the oldest, most ridiculous canards creationists use: “Why aren’t monkeys still evolving into humans?” And here’s Christine O’Donnell thinking it’s a valid argument.

I think she was also about to claim that Darwin retracted his theory, before she got cut off…and that’s another creationist lie.

Maher also misses the point in his answer. This isn’t an issue of evolution being too slow at all; it’s a creationist misconception that evolution is directed towards a goal, and that that goal is humanity. Monkeys are evolving into monkeys, not people.

Maher is also astonished that someone like this could be a viable candidate for the senate. What’s the matter with him? Hasn’t he looked at the Republican senatorial roster lately? She’ll fit right in!

(via Climate Progress)

Texas Board of Education: Hey, that’s an awfully big beam in your eye

I don’t know how they do it. The Texas BOE has a new ‘controversy’ to fret over:

At a three-day meeting that started Wednesday, the board is scheduled to consider a resolution that would require it to reject textbooks that it determines are tainted with teaching “pro-Islamic, anti-Christian half-truths and selective disinformation,” a bias that it argues is reflected in current schoolbooks.

I really missed the public school education in Islam — we never learned much of anything about anything outside the borders of the US, I’m afraid. And I rather doubt that in the current political climate that Islam is suddenly getting a lot of positive press in school textbooks. This is just another stunt by the kooks running the educational system in Texas, who would regard a statement mentioning that Muslims exist and they also happen to be human beings as a disgusting slam against True ‘Murcans™.

They should worry more about the pro-Christian, anti-science half-truths and selective disinformation that are promoted by the fundamentalist/evangelical movement.

But of course, if you want the actual story, ignore the idiots at the BOE: the Texas Freedom Network has documented the falsehoods in their claims, and is following the hearings.

Inventing excuses for a Bible story, and getting them published in a science journal?

I sometimes teach a course in scientific writing, in which we instruct students in the basics of writing a paper: citing the literature, the conventions of the standard science paper (introduction, methods, results, discussion), all that sort of thing. We also discuss research topics and coming up with a reasonable rationale for doing the work, and “the instructor told me to do it” or “I like turtles” isn’t adequate — that one of the results of researching a topic should be the discovery of genuine problems that warrant deeper analysis. A science paper is a story, and it always begins with a good question.

I think I’m going to need to add another bad rationale to my list: “I like the Bible” isn’t justification for research. Although, I notice, there are a lot of people in the bureaucracy of science who don’t see it as an obstacle to funding or publishing research built on that premise.

A bad paper has been published in PLoS One. It’s competently executed within its narrow scope, as near as I can tell, but its premise is simply to reach for more pretense of a scientific basis for biblical fairy tales by an old earth creationist. It should have been rejected for asking an imaginary question and answering it with a fantasy scenario.

One summary catches the gist of the ‘research’.

The study is intended to present a possible scenario of events that are said to have taken place more than 3,000 years ago, although experts are uncertain whether they actually occurred.

Yeah, it’s a Christian using a computer simulation to try and justify the story of the parting of the Red Sea by Moses. And it’s pointless. If you read the paper, you’ll learn that under certain very specific conditions involving making up a bit of Middle Eastern topography, a strong wind can push shallow bodies of water sufficiently to temporarily exposed the floor. Woo hoo, I say, unenthusiastically. This is an utterly trivial result, and the paper doesn’t seem to have anything of general use to say.

The paper itself is a weird combination of transparency and disingenuousness. The title and the introduction are all about the dynamics of wind setdown, this phenomenon in which wind pressure can cause a drop in water level, but then throughout, the author describes the work exclusively in terms of explaining “a possible hydrodynamic explanation for Moses crossing the Red Sea”. And the author is also very open about declaring his interests:

Competing interests: The lead author has a web site, theistic-evolution.com, that addresses Christian faith and biological evolution. The Red Sea crossing is mentioned there briefly. The present study treats the Exodus 14 narrative as an interesting and ancient story of uncertain origin.

It’s a simple exercise in post-hoc rationalization of an unfounded event in a myth, gussied up as if it were science. It isn’t. It’s an invention of no utility, the kind of fantasy world-building that looks goofy even in fiction; and it’s going to be abused by religious nuts to argue that their superstitions are genuine.

It doesn’t even make sense from the perspective of a believer. So one of the great miracles of the Bible is being reduced to a meteorological fluke with an entirely natural explanation? It makes bible stories compatible with science by making the supernatural elements of the story completely irrelevant, which is nice if you’re an atheist, but only if you’re an atheist who is very gullible and willing to accept other elaborate prior premises.

It’s also troubling that this work actually got funded by NCAR and the Office of Naval Research. Why? I suspect that sympathetic Christians somewhere in the administration gave bad Christian research a pass that they wouldn’t have if, for instance, someone proposed doing simulations to determine the meteorological conditions that could loft a horse and Mohammed into the air, or exactly what confluence of geology and atmospheric effects could lead to the illusion of Thor tossing thunderbolts from a cloud.

And how is this garbage getting published in PLoS One? If a paper like this were plopped on my desk for review, I’d be calling the editor to ask if it was a joke. If it wasn’t, I’d laugh and reject it — there is no scientific question of any significance being addressed anywhere in the work. Is this representative of the direction PLoS is going to be taking, with low standards for acceptance and what had to have been nonexistent review?

A suggestion for Mr Drews, the author, who sounds like he is a software developer affiliated with a research institution: you aren’t a scientist, stop pretending to be one. I’ll also say the same thing I tell every creationist pseudoscientist who tries to resolve their mythical stories with unconvincing handwaving about science: it doesn’t work. We see right through you. Bad, overstretched technical justifications for miraculous events are even less persuasive than simply declaring “My omnipotent god did it with magic”.