A reader sent me a wonderful diagram from Wellington Grey, contrasting faith and science—I see that somebody sent it to Omnibrain, too.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
A reader sent me a wonderful diagram from Wellington Grey, contrasting faith and science—I see that somebody sent it to Omnibrain, too.
I’ve mentioned before that I get lots of wacky email from creationists. I usually throw it out, but there’s this one kook who is persistent and sends me stuff like this:
Control must be taken from the people, and turned over to one individual, Satan!
Anyone with an eye towards God, and God’s word, can easily see the events of the Lord’s prophecies taking place around us today. The non-believers would have the world believe that mankind is in control of it’s own destiny without the benefit of our creator, Yeshua God. These Godless people today are preaching evolution, creation by accident, and that mankind has the answers to all of the problems we are facing today without the help or need of our creator.
It goes on and on in that vein for pages, with buckets of bible verses quoted to ‘prove’ that biblical predictions are true. Boring! Not even wacky enough to deserve a mention!
Except for one thing I happened to notice this time: the list of people it is being sent to. It’s a very short list which includes a few names I don’t know, but has a few I do. This guy thinks the best audience for his screeds contains me, Juan Cole, and … Ann Coulter.
It’s a discombobulating concatenation. I don’t think we’re exactly similar in our interests.
One of the subjects I mentioned at the Thursday Flock of Dodos discussion was that an obstacle to getting the public excited about science is the state of science writing. It’s a very formal style in which the passive voice is encouraged, caution and tentative statements are demanded, adverbs are frowned upon and adjectives are treated with suspicion, and all the passion is wrung out in favor of dry recitations of data. Now that actually has a good purpose: it makes it easy to get to the meat of the article for people who are already familiar with the subject and may not need any pizazz to get excited about nematode cell lineages or connectivity diagrams of forebrain nuclei. It makes the work impenetrable to those not already inculcated with the arcana of the discipline, however.
The City Pages illustrates the difference. On Tuesday, the Café Scientifique is going to be given by Cynthia Norton of College of St. Catherine in St. Paul, on the subject of snails. Just for comparison, I’ve put an example of a scientific abstract and the publicity copy for the talk below the fold, and you’ll see what I mean.
Our old pal Kazmer Ujvarosy of the American Chronicle has a long and boring rant against the whole system of peer review. There’s nothing really new in it; we know peer review is flawed, and practically every scientist can give you gripes about cronyism and bad reviewers and yadda yadda yadda, but at the same time, no system is ever going to be perfect, and we work within the bounds of what is effective. Ujvarosy, of course, is peeved because creationism doesn’t get any respect in the science journals. Changes to the policies of review, however, won’t change the fact that Intelligent Design creationism is baloney.
What I find interesting in his cranky essay, though, is that he reveals two things that have emerged before, but that the creationists deny.
In the final analysis if the scientific community is to remain productive intellectually, a protective system must be provided for the creative minority, however erratic or zany their ideas may seem to the incomparably zanier Darwinists. A repressive evolutionist environment, forced upon the community of scientists by a secular and aggressive Darwinist priesthood, stymies creativity and literally fossilizes thought. Science writers contribute to this unhealthy state of affairs by tending to accept wholesale anything these quacks — no matter what credentials they have — spoon-feed them in the name of science.
“a protective system must be provided for the creative minority”…what he’s asking for is a kind of special-case protectionism where non-science is given a slot in the science publication process. Like Behe admitting that one of ID’s goals is to change the very definition of science to allow the supernatural in, that’s what Ujvarosy is also asking for — special treatment. A redefinition of peer-review that will remove the normal (albeit sometimes poorly implemented) quality control. A system that allows authors to replace the usual demand for rigor with his idea of being “creative” (read: “insane”).
Here’s another, uh, revelation:
In any case the theory of creation positing that our universe has a seed origin, which seed is Jesus Christ, is so heretical in scientific circles that no editor conditioned to the doctrine of Darwinian evolution from a simple beginning would touch it.
That’s what we need! A system for evaluating scientific work that gives special privileges to Christians!
Deepak Chopra is at it again, babbling about evolutionary biology. It’s obvious at this point that he’s an idiot who has found a niche in making a fool of himself on this topic; I’m disgusted with the Huffington Post for continuing to give this fraud a platform.
I’m not going to dissect it. I’ll let Norm Doering do the job this time.
There’s also more at Liberal Values.
He’s trying to get a rise out of me, and the best he can do is mention that squid are tasty? Pathetic.
Of course they are, and I know it. How else can one fully grok the beauty?
I must demand higher standards from people trolling for links.
Ah, I’m back home again, and just in time…the snow started falling just as I crossed the Morris city limits.
Stuff to read:
So…what else is happening out there?
Warren Chisum, the Texas legislator who peddled an anti-evolution memo, has, well, ummm, finally read what he was trying to legislate.
On Tuesday, the Pampa Republican distributed a memo written by Georgia GOP Rep. Ben Bridges to Texas House members’ mailboxes. The memo advocated that schools stop teaching evolution and contained links to a Web site that warns of international Jewish conspiracies. It also directed readers to the group that created the Web site – the Atlanta-area Fair Education Foundation.
Mr. Chisum said he hadn’t looked at the Web site and didn’t realize that he was distributing that type of material. He expressed chagrin that he didn’t vet the material more carefully.
He said he believes creation and evolution should both be taught in schools, and he separated himself from what he called "goofy stuff" on the Web site.
There was "non-goofy stuff" at Fixed Earth? He can’t simultaneously separate himself from the "goofy stuff" and be advocating goofy creationism.
It adds another interesting data point to those at Dover and Kansas: the people on the political side who are pushing the various flavors of creationism on schools rarely seem to have actually read the material they say is so important for school kids to know.
