The inevitable has occurred

Hey, you know that $15 million lawsuit that was filed against me by Stuart Pivar? He’s been getting hammered on the weblogs, the City Pages was preparing a story on it, the Seed lawyers were unflappable, and Peter Irons was constantly sending Pivar and his lawyer cutting dissections of their poor case. Peter was in contact with the City Pages reporter, who received a brief comment from Pivar earlier this evening.

“My attorney withdrew the suit today.”

I wonder if the article is still going to be published…?

I can’t say that I was ever really worried — the man had no case — but it’s nice to see that silly potential time-suck gone.

No good deed goes unpunished, as they say. Peter Irons, who did such good work on my behalf, is now being threatened with legal action by Stuart Pivar’s lawyer, Michael Little. The mouse squeaks at the lion; we should all close our eyes and turn our heads aside to avoid the inescapable carnage to follow. Either that, or open up a popcorn and cotton candy stand.

Expelled producer seems to be embarrassed about his sneaky tactics

I wrote to Mark Mathis about his movie, Expelled, which I was told was going to be called Crossroads. Here is the entirety of my message:

Hey, I just learned today that the actual film is now called
“Expelled”, that it features Ben Stein, and that it’s really a gung-
ho pro-creationism/anti-science film. I would have agreed to be
interviewed even if you’d been honest with me about the subject —
I’m not reticent about my opinions — so I don’t understand why you
felt you had to conceal your intent. Care to explain yourself? Was
this the movie you planned from the beginning?

Now I’ve gotten his reply!

Mr. Myers,

Thank you for your recent communication. Please know that I strongly
disagree with the insinuations and characterizations made in your e-mail
to me. Nevertheless, I want to thank you for sharing your viewpoints, and
I wish you the best in all your endeavors.

What a curiously defensive response. There was no insinuation at all in my email: he wasn’t honest with me, and he did conceal his intent. I gave him an opportunity to respond, and all he can say is that he disagrees with me on something in that email? What was it?

I think the underhanded way he obtained interviews with some of his subjects is a sore point that he’d rather not discuss. I guess I can’t blame him — if I’d had to misrepresent myself to get an interview I’d probably be a bit shamefaced, too.

It’s a rite of passage on Scienceblogs…

…that you have to take a sharp poke at the godless or godly to try and trigger a response, and now it’s Chris’s turn. He’s arguing with the usual faith/empiricism continuum, and adds a third axis to the debate, as illustrated here.

tern2.png

OK, it’s an interesting try. I don’t think it quite works, though. That “cranks” zone on the left needs to be expanded up towards the faith vertex, and actually ought to be indistinguishable from “theists”.

The other deep flaw is the position of “agnostics” (I have a suspicion that Chris would place himself in that group). I can think of several agnostics around here who ought to be classified as fanatically agnostic — they have greater zeal in arguing for their waffly and uninspiring position than any atheist, and with less cause.

tern3.png

While we’re tweaking, how about nudging my data point to somewhere south of the bottom line? I’m actively anti-faith, and I think my coordinates on that axis ought to be negative.

You can’t replace animals with petri dishes and computers

Once we’ve defeated the creationists (hah!), we’re going to have to manage the next problem: well-meaning but ill-informed animal rights activists. Nick describes a recent article that tries to claim we can reduce animal use in labs — and it even has a couple of respectable scientists signing on to that nonsense.

And it really is nonsense. We don’t understand everything that is going on inside animals, and to figure it out, we actually need to look inside them. There’s no other way. If you want to examine patterns of gene expression inside the developing mouse brain, you have to extract their brains (needless to say, a lethal process) and examine them with a host of tools. Isolated cells in a petri dish aren’t the same thing. To simulate something with a computer, you need to know the parameters of what you’re simulating.

Using our imaginations and inventing what we think might be going on rather easily leads to absurd results … and the way I recognized that they were absurd is that I’ve actually looked at the processes involved.

Not another creationist TV blitz…

Scott* has uncovered another slick media effort by creationists: the Seventh Day Adventists are putting on a four-part series called Out of Thin Air to trumpet their fundamentalist lunacy.

What I want to know is … where are the slick media people willing to put together lovely dramatic stories of the scientists — the brave minority fighting uncowed against a wealthy and ignorant majority? Come on, there’s a real story here. We do cool stuff! We’re passionate! We are probing reality! Our stage is the entire freaking universe! We don’t have money for PR, and our support organizations are underfunded! Oh … I guess that’s the answer. We aren’t going to be able to pony up as much cash as one of the many religious cults around here, and we aren’t going to be an uncritical, captive audience. That must be why so many of the science documentaries are either a series of talking heads, all science with no heart, or they’re nature vignettes, all pretty pictures and no science.

It’s a shame. The science story is so much more spectacular than the creationist foolishness, but we’re not building the media resources and the strong narratives that we need to compete with the liars for Jesus.

*Stop making excuses for the SDAs, Scott. They’re kooks, plain and simple. Maybe they’re nice people, but they’ve been brainwashed into believing idiocy.

Grow up, loons

This kind of silliness happens with tedious frequency. I get email notifications that I’ve been signed up to receive tripe from conservative or religious or creationist jerks.

You are now signed up to receive Ann Coulter’s weekly column, Newt Gingrich’s Winning the Future newsletter, and Robert Novak’s Evans-Novak Political Report. On Fridays you’ll also receive the Weekly Wrap-Up, containing the top stories of the week from HumanEvents.com.

You shouldn’t bother. Most of my email gets shunted through three layers of spam traps, and that kind of spam just gets blown away at first notice. It does mean that some legitimate communications get taken out behind the chemical sheds, too, but the spam dies swiftly and hard nowadays. You can stop wasting your time now.

Michael Behe demonstrates his incompetence again

Want to see some real science? An article in the NY Times summarizes research in the evolution of glucocorticoid receptors. This is really cool stuff, where the investigators do step-by-step changes in the protein structure to determine the likely sequence of evolutionary changes — it really does describe the path of evolutionary history for a set of proteins at the level of amino acids.

Now, if you want to see some junk science, Michael Behe flounders disgracefully to try and dismiss the work. This is a genuine embarrassment: Behe is a biochemist who has done legitimate work in protein structure, and this kind of research ought to be right up his alley, where he could make an informed analysis. Instead, it’s ugly and sad. A sensible creationist would simply admit that sure, here’s one case of the evolution of a receptor that is solidly made, but hey, look, over there — here are all these other proteins that haven’t been analyzed to the same level of detail. It would be pathetic and avoiding the issue, but Behe has a different and worse strategy: he denies the work shows anything at all. Because the researchers intentionally inserted mutations into the gene, they can’t argue that natural processes of mutation could have done the same thing. But of course we do know — point mutations happen all the time.

Behe continues his long slide into tendentious irrelevance and lunatic obsessions. Jason Rosenhouse digs into this step in Behe’s descent into unreason in much more detail.