Lenski gives Conservapædia a lesson

Once again, Richard Lenski has replied to the goons and fools at Conservapædia, and boy, does he ever outclass them. For a quick outline of the saga, read this summary at A Candid World; basically, Andy Schlafly has been demanding every bit of data from Richard Lenski’s work on the evolution of E. coli, despite the fact that Schlafly doesn’t have the background to understand it and doesn’t have any plan for what he would do with it if he got it. Lenski has been polite and helpful in his replies; his first response is a model for how to explain difficult science to a bullying ideologue. Now his second response is available, and while he has clearly lost some patience and is unequivocal in denouncing their bad faith efforts to discredit good science, he still gives an awfully good and instructional discussion.

I’ve put the whole thing below the fold, in case you’d rather not click through to that wretched hive of pretentious villainy at Conservapædia.

[Read more…]

Gordy Slack replies

Yesterday, I ripped into Gordy Slack and the NY Times for bad articles on creationism. Now Slack has responded, and in the interest of fairness, I urge you to look at that comment and browse down to several others he has also made.

He’s still wrong, and I still find his article incredibly bad.

Slack’s article is titled “What neo-creationists get right: an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp“. I chewed him out because nothing in his list is anything that creationists got right — it’s a litany of common scientific arguments and complaints — and all he’s doing is falsely pandering to their self-esteem. He says he didn’t try to claim that the creationists came up with these common questions first; OK, he didn’t. He says he wasn’t trying to give creationists credit for being right; OK, I think he’s on shaky ground with that one, but I’ll concede the point to him. Now we’re left with a problem: what the heck was his article about, then? It’s reduced to a shallow attempt at finding coincidental similarities, with no thought put into them.

For instance, his first point of similarity is that creationists say that we haven’t answered the big questions of abiogenesis, and scientists say the same thing. Gosh, we’re in agreement! But no, we’re actually not. Creationists like to point to places where we don’t have all the answers, because they see that as a flaw, as a way to discredit evolution — they like to pretend that they have absolute, perfect knowledge in their holy book, even if all they do is fill the gaps with an unsatisfying and pathetic “god did it.” Scientists are comfortable with uncertainty and change, and they see those gaps as research opportunities — places where information is admittedly deficient, but where new work can be done. What Slack treats as a similarity is actually a fundamental philosophical difference.

And this is precisely where Slack is most unsatisfying. He claims to be trying to understand the creationist mindset, yet all he offers is credulous tripe in which he demonstrates that he hasn’t thought things through. Here, for example:

It surprises me that PZ is so pissed off by my efforts to understand why so many Americans reject evolution. If you ask them, and I have bothered to ask hundreds or thousands over the past two years, many will tell you that more than anything else, it’s the arrogant zealotry of cocksure ideologues that turns them off to evolution. They see people calling their intuitions and worldviews retarded and corrupt, and they march the other way. That’s one reason why we evolutionists have done such an abysmal promotions job even though we’re armed with the most delightful and seductive and potent theory ever. If we can’t sell evolution, we must be doing something wrong. Right? I’m just saying that we might start by resisting the urge to spit bile in the face of potential buyers.

Slack has chewed out most supporters of evolution as doing so without much depth of understanding — they don’t know about genetic drift, for instance. Yet here he is discussing a group who believe the earth is less than ten thousand years old, who are abysmally ignorant of all of evolutionary theory, including drift, who believe with the utmost certainty that Darwin is burning in hell and that all scientists will be following him, and he accuses the scientists of arrogance, on the word of the creationists.

Here’s a clue: Slack got it backwards. It is simply absurd to claim that they are turned off by “the arrogant zealotry of cocksure ideologues”, since that is a more apt description of their own than of scientists. Creationists love arrogance. Their whole schtick is about obedience to the precepts of meddling, pushy busybodies, either the phantasmal kind of their imaginary deity or the sadly real kind of the ranting big-haired zealots who lead their churches. You have to learn fundie-speak to understand what these informants are actually saying.

To them, “arrogant” means “competing authority with an intimidating amount of real-world evidence”.

And of course they resent that. They believe in irrelevant nonsense that requires them to constantly descend deeper and deeper into lunatic rationalizations to maintain that willful suspension of disbelief. And we come along with that “delightful and seductive and potent theory” that they have to close their eyes to, and which merely demands that they reject the temporal authority of their leaders, who threaten them with hellfire and the loss of their children’s love and morality if they accept the evidence. That really is a serious problem, and I know how difficult many people find it to abandon those beliefs, but to call our side “arrogant” while treating their side as humble is not helping. It is reinforcing falsehoods. It is also not going to resolve the problem, because it is a simple fact of the matter that scientists are a competing authority, and they do have an overwhelming amount of evidence that the creationists are wrong, wrong, wrong. Those are not points that we will surrender.

Slack is also unhappy that he has been vigorously criticized and insulted and shredded up one side and disemboweled down the other, all without regard for his genuine appreciation of good science. That’s all true. Comment threads here are not for the temperamentally delicate, that’s for sure, and everyone gets the rhetorical knife all the time (and that includes me: if Slack is appalled that he is being insulted, he ought to spend some time in my shoes. At least no one has threatened to shoot him over this argument yet.) Complaining about that is pointless. It’s like whining that the crucible is hot; of course it is, that’s what they’re for.

As for the complaint that we’re an angry, hostile bunch here: in a country where the enterprise of science and education are seriously threatened by the activist religiosity of ignorant creationists, where politicians defer to religious lunacy, where the craven media has abandoned the concepts of adversarial and investigative journalism, we’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore*. I propose that there is something wrong with you if you aren’t angry.

*That’s a quote. Look it up, it seems rather appropriate here.

Word salad, with math

I guess most of us missed a bizarre poster at the Evolution 2008 meetings tonight. It was basically a paper titled The Evidently Imminent Phyletic Transition of Homo sapiens into Homo militarensis (the military hominid), by Richard H. Lambertsen. It’s garbage from the first page, I’m afraid, in which the author tries to demonstrate that there must be direction and intent in the evolution of life, and that “Earth’s largest blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus)
swimming at peak velocity most precisely represents the
central tendency of evolution.” This is followed by many pages of oddball math in which the author cites Einstein, Feynman, and himself quite often.

And then it gets weird.

The science of LAMBERTSEN and HINTZ
(2004) and LAMBERTSEN (2007) holds that the
key morphological innovation enabling maximization of free will in the organic domain was a
novel craniomandibular articulation (the MMA).
The MMA trigger enables high dEk/dt events to
be accomplished with precision. Furthermore,
the cosmological constraint confirmed implies
that maximization of free will by means of trigger
action will lead to self-destruction.

Get that? A novel jaw mechanism in whales is the pinnacle of free will.

And then it gets weirder.

Noting the apparent chiral kinematical
symmetry between the MMA and the specialized
trapeziometacarpal, or “saddle” joint of the
hominid thumb, LAMBERTSEN (2007) therefore
warned…

“[In view of that apparent chiral] symmetry we now
must expect trigger actions referable to extremely
powerful individuals that do not lead to self-
destruction, but instead cause the wanton
destruction of others. This is to say that there has
been a paradigm shift in the realization of individual
power. The means to that power is different. The
direction of evolutionary change is not. It thus is to
be expected that aged individuals suffering the
effects of senescence will use the more vigorous
young to achieve their base intention… that mentally
adept if egregious individuals of age will exploit
skillfully the combined naiveté and strength of near
juveniles.”

Because there is a resemblance in the shape of hominid thumbs and whale jaw joints, people are going to do bad things. This is then confirmed by Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

This is literally insane stuff. That interpretation is confirmed by the end of the paper, which contains a series of questions addressed to George W. Bush, including a demand to know if he was the one who sent a sniper to his house at 2:00pm on 28 January, and whether he personally stole Lambertsen’s driver’s license. There was also a bizarre incident in which Lambertsen was arrested for disrupting a flight.

This is just sad. Lambertsen actually does have some scientific qualifications, and has published respectable papers on baleen whales, and you can see buried in this one a foundation of serious work on whale anatomy and physiology. He clearly needs psychiatric help now, though.

Alas, it just goes to show that having something presented at a science conference does not necessarily imply that it is scientific, or even sensible. Keep this in mind when you see the creationists striving to get a single paper published…

And please, I hope somebody gets Lambertsen the help he needs. He isn’t an evil man or a stupid man — he’s got something organically wrong with his brain, I fear, and needs psychiatric intervention.

Denver Pharyngufest

I’m never this organized, so I don’t know what’s wrong with me. I’m going to be in Denver on 3-4 July, and we’re actually getting it together to plan a meetup at the RockBottom Restaurant on 16th and Curtis in downtown Denver. I’ll be there around 5ish on Thursday, 3 July, and I’ll leave when you stop buying me beer.

We have changed the location to Wynkoop Brewing Company. Don’t get lost!

Mark your calendars!

What is wrong with journalists?

We’ve got a couple of appalling examples of awful journalism to scowl at today. The first is this credulous piece by Gordy Slack in The Scientist. I’ve been unhappy with Slack before — he sometimes seems to want to let creationist absurdity slide — and I got yelled at by some readers for my uncharitable interpretation of his review of the Creation “Museum”. Well, I think I’ve been vindicated now.

This article tries to give credit to the Intelligent Design creationists for some discoveries or interpretations. It’s wrong from top to bottom. Here’s his list, with my brief rebuttal; Jeffrey Shallit has a more thorough dissection.

  • ID gets credit for saying there are big, open questions in science. Scientists say this. It is not news. Go ahead, ask us, and we’ll give you long lists of exciting research questions. They won’t be invented or falsified controversies, as the DI is fond of puking up.

  • The cell is more complex than Darwin imagined. Scientists say this. The complexity of the cell was not figured out by creationists of any kind — it is the outcome of hard work by cell biologists and molecular biologists. It’s also not true that Darwin had a poor understanding of cellular complexity: as I’ve said before, the mid- to late 19th century was the period when the light microscope reached its optical limits, and there was all kinds of amazing work being done into developing new staining techniques and identifying new organelles. When do you think Camillo Golgi lived?

  • IDists are correct to say love is not an illusion. Scientists say this. Frankly, this is the most dumb-ass argument in a whole slop-bucket of dumbassery; that cherished, complex phenomena like love have a material basis does not in any way imply that they are not “real”.

  • IDists are right to say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers. Scientists say this. We don’t sit around thinking, “How can I get people to obey me?” The concern about improving public understanding of science is about getting people to be skeptical and ask intelligent questions. And just how can Slack give credit for noticing dogmatism among evolution supporters when ID is all about rationalizing dogmatic beliefs in a creator?

There is nothing in this mess that Gordy Slack credits to creationists that is actually something that they have done first. And then in conclusion he asks an utterly inane rhetorical question: “Should IDers be allowed to pursue their still very eccentric and outlying theory?” Has it ever even been suggested that creationists not be allowed to do research? More often, we’re snarling at ’em to go get some reasonable evidence. Slack’s article was just plain bad, strawmen aplenty and the gullible acceptance of ID propagandists’ appropriation of basic ideas.

Here’s another example of godawful stupid journalism, this time from the New York Times. Academics in Philadelphia have done a wonderful thing: they have organized a Year of Evolution to celebrate the Darwin year; I praised this before, and it really is an excellent, positive way to celebrate and inform about science. (I should also mention that I’ve been invited to come speak in November. This is not necessarily why it is such a good event.) This is a fantastic opportunity for people in that region to learn about the amazing progress science has made in the last century and a half.

How does the NY Times article start? “In the long-running culture war between evolution and creationism, Philadelphia is firing the latest shot.”

What?

I’m wondering…when St Patrick’s Cathedral opens its doors on Sunday morning, will there be journalists there covering the latest assault in the war on reason? Would they even think to phrase it that way? When scientists gather, though, and try to present their work to the community … that’s fighting a war.

Now, since the NY Times is the greatest paper in America, and they have to excel in everything, when they screw up they don’t just make a little boo-boo and then correct their course and try to move back towards something reasonable — that would produce a mediocre article. No, they have to compound the error. They have to make it monumental. Who would be the worst person to consult to add ‘diversity’ to the article, to put it into the standard boring frame with two sides and nothing in between? Can you guess?

Of course you can. Ken “Wackaloon” Ham.

Please. This is insane. I can understand getting multiple sources for a story; I can see how if a doctor has just told you some important medical news, you might want to get a second opinion. But if that second opinion was delivered by an inebriated, unwashed schizophrenic the doctor obligingly dragged out of a dumpster for you, you might be unimpressed with the quality of his search for diverse, informed perspectives. This, however, is pretty much standard operating procedure at the Times.

Jerry Coyne asked an editor publicly about this policy.

I noticed that when the Times reported on the recent discovery of the transitional fossil between fish and amphibians (the “fishapod”), they asked a creationist for comment. As an evolutionary biologist, I was dismayed by this. Creationism is simply a discredited enterprise, and asking a creationist to comment on a new fossil is like asking a faith healer to comment on a medical advance, or an astrologer to comment on a new discovery about human behavior. I respect the newspaper’s desire to be objective and give opposing viewpoints, but don’t see the need to do that when the “opposing viewpoint” is simply a form of quackery.

Here’s her reply. It starts out well enough.

How to cover the politicization of science, intelligent design and other manifestations of what Mr. Fishkin and other readers call the war on science is a question that comes up again and again in the science department. We’re well aware that giving equal time to opposing views of an issue makes no sense when one side has no solid evidence to stand on. The old FCC idea of a fairness doctrine simply shouldn’t apply to science journalism.

Right. Philadelphia is planning a major event around the discoveries and evidence and ideas of evolutionary biology, and that certainly is newsworthy. Ken Ham has no solid evidence to stand on, so it makes no sense to call him up and asks for his opinion…but they did. As she said, this makes no sense.

So why do they bring in anti-intellectual reprobates and promote their ignorance to a kind of equivalence to scientific ideas?

Yet viewpoints that may strike scientifically literate people as absurd, dangerous or even evil have a way of making news that insists on being dealt with. In recent years creationism’s hip cousin, intelligent design, has grown to be a divisive issue at every level of society, from school boards to the White House. So it seems to me that a serious paper is obliged to investigate the phenomenon, beginning with the question ‘What is going on here?’

Wait — so now she’s claiming that bringing aboard an irrational wackaloon is the mark of a “serious paper”? Wow. I guess that makes World Net Daily one of the pinnacles of serious journalism. The NY Times must be trying to catch up with them.

If the newspaper was writing an article on the serious sociological and political issues of creationism, evolution, and education, then sure — bring in many sides, explore them, and weigh them, and try to come to a conclusion. Unfortunately, there are two observations that invalidate the editor’s defense.

One is that even in those instances where the topic warrants the inclusion of these multiple perspectives, journalists tend to just let them lie there, limp and unresolved. We have scientists and we have creationists, they disagree with one another, we can’t resolve this issue, we can’t suggest that maybe one side is the province of insanity and ignorance, we’re just reporters for the NY freaking Times. There is no investigation, only the bland, blinkered recitation of each side’s position.

The other problem is that in both the cases of the Philadelphia Darwin celebration and the discovery of Tiktaalik, the creationist side had nothing of substance to contribute, other than sullen, unfounded disagreement. Denial is not an argument. The newspaper does a disservice to work that has heft to it, that has a solid foundation of serious evidence behind it, when they take any event on the side of reason and reflexively pair it with some cretin who has nothing but a dogmatic denial of science and reason as his credentials.

It seems to me that that is not what a serious paper would do.