'Weeding Out' Does Not Mean Actual Weeds -- Unless You Work For the Discovery Institute

As usual, the Discovery Institute can't seem to keep their stories straight.  Check out: "On Controversial Science, Skepticism Is Now “Social Deviance,” Skeptics Are “Weeds”"  That isn't what the 'offending' article said, but it did say we need to 'weed out' people who would fill roles in the wrong way.  Here's the quote the DI used:

"Requiring [mandatory evolution training] it though would, for one, provide teachers “with more confidence to teach evolution forthrightly,” they write, “even in communities where public opinion is sympathetic to creationism”; and two, it would help weed out creationists who want to teach high school biology by either converting them or encouraging them to “pursue other careers.”"

The DI's talking head, davey 'klingy' klinghoffer, responds with:

"Look, I wouldn’t want my kids taught creationism either, but the idea of casting human beings as “weeds” has an unhappy history."

Where does the first quote cast anyone as a weed?  The phrase 'weed out' does not do that!  It's an expression, and if klingy was being honest he would recognize it as such.  Weeding out, as defined by Merriam-Webster is:

": to remove (people or things that are not wanted) from a group.  'They will review the applications to weed out the less qualified candidates.' "

I 'weed out' things all the time.

• Not too long ago it was a set of resumes, weeding out the ones who didn't have the required qualifications.  Sounds unfair, but when you have 100 resumes for 1 position, and most do not have any of the mandatory qualifications, you have to have some way of filtering through them because 100 interviews would be unwieldy.  Plus, why would you interview someone without a single qualification for a job?
• I also 'weeded out' companies several years ago when I was looking for a new job.  Does that mean the other companies who made me an offer were weeds?  No, just not the best fit for me at that time.  Now the ones who didn't make me an offer . . . oh never mind :-), just teasing.
•  In addition I 'weeded out' software application frameworks when we were looking for one for a new application.  There are plenty of frameworks, but only a few were serious contenders.  How much time were we supposed to waste on frameworks that can't possibly meet our needs?

Somehow I managed to do all that 'weeding out' without characterizing a single person, company, or product as a 'weed' -- something apparently beyond klingy's abilities.  So if I was looking for someone who could differentiate between an expression and a literal label, I guess I could weed out klingy!

Back to the example actually mentioned in the first quote and not klingy trying to drag us into the weeds of obfuscation, is the very idea of a Creationist teaching biology.  It's probably a bad idea if, and only if, the teacher would insist on teaching religion instead of actual biology.  Being a Creationist doesn't make you unable to do a job, but refusing to actually do the job certainly makes you unwilling to do the job and you should be held accountable -- as Abraham, Coppedge, and Freshwater, among others, found out.

Just because the article used the term 'weeding out' doesn't mean people who are skeptical of evolution are weeds.  The DI even had to stretch the story by a quote from 1924 to try and make their case.  As usual, they are quote-mining a dead horse.  There have been a number of 'weed' quotes attributed to Margaret Sanger, and according to Snopes.com, nearly all of them are crap.  They found that she may have used the term, but metaphorically, not literally.  I noticed he didn't complain that Sanger may have called American Youth 'flowers'?  Yes, Sanger was a controversial figure in her day, even today.  But this little maybe 'quote' is just another tactic, trying to tie actual science to someone controversial.  You might have noticed that klingy also brought in the Nazi's  . . . again.  Don't they get tired of this sort of nonsense?  Anyone else want to hazard a guess why no one takes klingy, or the Discovery Institute, seriously?  One reason might be writings like this.

But, as usual, the DI misses the point and tried to spin it into something it's not.  Skepticism and Denial-ism are two separate things.  People who are skeptical question, consider, and usually think about the subject at hand.  Deniers deny, regardless of the evidence in front of them.

A couple of year back, we discussed 'skepticism' before in "Skeptics vs Deniers, is there a difference?" in response to the NY Times article where they stopped using the term 'climate skeptic' and started using 'climate deniers' and we determined there is a difference, and it's not a subtle one.  A skeptic will be convinced when faced with the actual evidence of whatever they are skeptical about.  A denier will never be convinced, no matter what evidence is placed before them and if they have to go look for themselves, you know they will rarely make the effort.  It's easier to deny than face the possibility you are wrong.  You see it in anti-vaxxers, climate change deniers, and most certainly in evolution deniers.

For example, I was skeptical that 'sushi' will be something good to eat, until I actually tried a pretty wide variety of sushi -- Thanks Cathy -- and came to the conclusion I didn't like it.  The vinegar-tasting rice needed something to cut that taste, plus the texture of most raw seafood wasn't to my liking.  While the California Roll wasn't bad, if we go to any restaurants that offer sushi, I make sure it has a wider menu than just sushi or sashimi.  I was a skeptic, now I am simply not a fan.  Denial-ism doesn't work that way.

A denier, most likely, wouldn't have given sushi a try -- even if they had, they would come out of the place not being skeptical, but actively not wanting other people to have a chance to even try it.  A denier wants to make the decision for everyone!  Look at anti-vaxxers whose refusal to allow their kids to be vaccinated while ignoring the risk to hurting other children!  Evidence of the success of vaccinations means nothing to a vaccination denier.

Referring to a denier as a 'social deviant', especially within the context the term was used is entirely appropriate.  It takes an Intelligent Design proponent to cast such aspersions as comparing them to prostitute and other criminals.  But let's look at the whole Wikipedia quote:

"Social deviants"—prostitutes, vagrants, alcoholics, drug addicts, open dissidents, pacifists, draft resisters and common criminals—were also imprisoned in concentration camps. The common criminals frequently became Kapos, inmate guards of fellow prisoners."

Did klingy forget to mention this quote was at the very end of the Wikipedia page on Holocaust Victims?  Of course not, that wouldn't play well.  This example of 'social deviants' is not a denier of scientific consensus, but anyone the Nazi's didn't like as an afterthought more than anyone else.  Only an intelligent design proponent would try and equate this to science denial.

Look at the Discovery Institute, they have gone well past the idea of skepticism, they are active science deniers of the highest order.  Not only do they deny the evidence supporting real science, but they keep trying to pretend they are scientists and want to insert their religious beliefs into the science classroom.  Failing that, their most current tactic is to offer political protection to teachers who do manage to teach their religious beliefs instead of the actual science they are supposed to be teaching.  The DI is not just skeptical of evolution, they deny it over and over again while trying to hide their religious agenda.

Why is this important?  Simple, skepticism can be addressed by actually examining the evidence.  Once you face the evidence, further refusals put you in denial, and denial-ism is dangerous.  Not only are deniers of science seeking political protection for their own views, their views can cause actual harm.  The most common example are the anti-vaxxers.  Evidence, again, shows over and over again that failing to have your children vaccinated results in increasing cases of preventable diseases -- occurring not just in the un-vaccinated children, but the vaccinated who interact with them.  Vaccinated children are less likely to develop the disease, but vaccination is not immunity.

One of my favorite bloggers, and biology teachers, Allison Campbell, wrote up this just recently: "1896, and the consequences of refusing the smallpox vaccine".  It's a prime example of dealing with skeptics, deniers won't change their mind, even if they bother to read it.  They already have all the answers they need, regardless of the human consequences.  Like all deniers, the DI doesn't care about the human consequences, as long as their religion wins the day.

Denials of evolution impact the environment, medicines, and medical treatments -- all well supported by the science of evolution!  Climate denial has resulted in a significant delay of examining possible methods for dealing with a potentially catastrophic problem -- one supported by all the evidence, unless your research is funding by an oil company.  Tobacco deniers caused million of dollars in medical costs, not to mention deaths, due to denying the dangers of tobacco for decades.  Gasoline lead-additive deniers also cost countless dollars in medical costs and deaths, even if we didn't call them deniers over the 40 year fight to get the lead out!  Science denial kills real people, not nearly as much as religion has over the centuries, but that's another discussion the DI keeps trying to avoid.

Skepticism is a rational response to validate the information before adopting it, but once you have been presented with the information, you are no longer a skeptic if you continue to argue against it, you are a denier, and your actions end up affecting much more than yourself.  Education is the key to dealing with skeptics, I'm not sure what the best way to deal with deniers may be, but, if history is any example, eventually deniers as a group discover how wrong they have been.  Oh, there will always be a few whining that cigarettes aren't harmful and lead in gasoline doesn't hurt anyone, but, for the most part, they get relegated to the crackpot status, like flat-earthers.  One day we will be able to look back and laugh even harder at folks like klingy.  In the meantime, I'll just laugh my normal laugh when I see he's made another post trying to muddy the waters.

BTW, klingy, 'muddy the waters' is another expression, you might look it up.  I haven't actually been casting dirt in water and stirring it up.  

A Brief History Of Darwin Bashing (From Forbes)

Interesting article on Forbes "A Brief History Of Darwin Bashing".  Here is my favorite quote form that article:

"The basic pattern most of these pieces follow is simple: Ignore the science; don’t bother talking to working specialists in the field; selectively quote long-dead sources (or emeritus scholars in unrelated fields); enthusiastically cite the work of self-described revolutionaries without critically examining the scientific merit of their work; and impugn the character of the theory’s founder."

Tell me if any of that sounds familiar?  John Farrell, Forbes Contributor, just describes the tactics used by folks like the Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, and the Institute for Creation Research in a nutshell: Ignore science, quote-mine, push their own writings without a single critical thought, and denigrate Darwin!  

Farrell's article digs deeper into one specific example, Tom Wolfe's "Kingdom of Speech".  While it has a number of 5-star reviews on Amazon, mostly from folks who apparently already have issues with real science and evolution, it's the 1-star reviews that are much more entertaining.  You might read a few, but here are some of the headlines to whet your appetite: "Preening Ignorance", "His White Suit is Unsullied By Research", "Backward in Every Sense", and "Glad I Could Get a Refund From A Kindle Purchase".  It certainly looks like not everyone is buying into Wolfe's Darwin Bashing!

We seem to live in a time when expertise is less valued than opinion.  Maybe the Internet is partly responsible for at least making us aware of it, but I was always taught that opinions are like . . . armpits (yea, armpits!) everyone has one or two and they usually stink.  But nowadays people seem to think that a voiced opinion should be taken as gospel and when an expert chimes in, their 'expertise' should be distrusted.  

A historical example that I've used before, Leaded additives in gasoline.  In the 1920's it was discovered to be dangerous, but it took 40 years to get it removed and fix some of the damage it was causing.  The leading advocate for lead additives was sponsored by the company who made the additives.  The principle tactic used was to develop a feeling of mistrusting experts on the subject.  That tactic helped delay removing those additives for over 40 years!

We saw something similar with tobacco and we are also seeing it with the current arguments about climate change and vaccinations.  We are developing a culture that mistrusts expertise.  Darwin bashers are doing their best to use that mistrust in pushing their own religious agenda. That appears to be exactly what is happening here.  According to the many critics, Wolfe blatantly ignores current science, takes other things out of context, and gets support from other bashers . . . and many of the folks who wrote those glowing comments on Amazon gush how wonderful it all is . . . because the idea of relying on expertise has become foreign to them.

What I have noticed is that this disregard for expertise seems to be of the cherry-picking variety.  For example anti-vaxxers whine about science, yet use the Internet for their whines.  Vaccinations and the Internet share the same scientific methodology . . . yet one is bad and the other is useful.  People still take their cars to mechanics.  While I see holistic foolishness for people's health, I have yet to see a holistic car repair place.

I feel foolish for having to defend expertise, the most often heard argument is that experts are defending their territory because funding would dry up and they would be unemployed.  In a recent conversation with a climate-change denier I attempted to address this point, but he wasn't listening.  My point is that I find it funny is that, according to him, the whole reason climate scientists support climate-change it because of their funding.  How does he know this?  Well that's what he hears on Fox News.  So . . . as I tried to tell him . . . climate scientists, whose average annual salary is $95K a year are arguing the reality of climate change and you [he] is getting his science from a political pundit who makes millions each year . . . and it's the $95K a year scientists whose expertise is getting ignored because that's how they make a living, yet the millionaire pundit with no expertise is telling you the truth?  (source)  Really?

Experts shouldn't need to be defended, we rely on people's expertise every day.  I work on a computer using others expertise in networking.  I use still others expertise in manufacturing to help me develop the software I build.  Ask any computer programmer, you might have a ton of expertise in programming, but you need subject matter experts to develop software for any industry!  I rely on the people creating the food I eat, not only in restaurants, but what lines the aisles of the grocery store.  I have my car maintained by several car mechanics, just recently I had the windows and doors in my home replaced.  I have made more than one visit to a doctor in the past year.   I do not have the expertise to do all of these things myself, so I have to rely on the expertise of others.

Why is it so hard to accept that same sort of expertise from biologists, climatologists, and the developers of vaccines?

The Discovery Institute is 'monkeying' around with a new survey

We've discussed this penchant for surveys by the Discovery Institute (DI) before (here and here).  If you remember, my issue was how they like to poll with very innocuous sounding phrases and then spin the results and claim it shows some sort of support for one position or another.  Most often it's to denigrate science and science education and this poll is a perfect example!  "Scientists Versus the Public on Airing Scientific Dissent", by little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.

This time around, the DI presented a series of statements and asked some group of people through Survey Monkey to rate them on a 4-level scale,  'strongly agree', 'agree', 'disagree', or 'strongly disagree' with the statement.  Here are the statements from their latest poll (source):

1. Teachers and students should have the academic freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. Scientists who raise scientific criticisms of evolution should have the freedom to make their arguments without being subjected to censorship or discrimination.
3. Attempts to censor or punish scientists for holding dissenting views on issues such as evolution or climate change are not appropriate in a free society.
4. It is important for policymakers and the public to hear from scientists with differing views.
5. People can disagree about what science says on a particular topic without being ‘antiscience.’
6. Disagreeing with the current majority view in science can be an important step in the development of new insights and discoveries in science.

Now while the wording seems pretty basic, what do these phrases imply?  Here is how I see it:

1. That teachers and students do not currently have the freedom to objectively discuss both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution.
2. That scientists do not have the freedom to raise scientific criticisms of evolution.
3. That holding a dissenting view results in censorship and punishment.
4. The policymakers and the public do not hear dissenting views.
5. Anyone who holds a disagreement are labeled as 'anti-science'.
6. The since dissenting views are not allowed, there haven't been any new insights of new discoveries in science.

Now, you might think I am reading these implications into the survey; however, if that weren't true then this latest post from the DI, also by klingy, would never been written.  "Evolution's Enforcers Are Waaaaay Out of Step with Public Opinion".  Klingy is confirming that according to the DI, there is no freedom to discuss, dissent, or hold opposing views.

So the real question is not whether or not you agree with the DI's statements, but whether or not the implications of their statements reflect reality.  What do you think?

First of all students and teachers discuss scientific criticism of any scientific theory, including evolution, all the time.  The key here is scientific criticism.  Granted high school science classes might not have the time, nor resources, to spend a great deal of time on scientific criticisms, they still have the academic freedom to do so.

In fact, have you heard of a single person being censored or punished for discussing scientific criticisms?  Not at any public or secular schools!  The DI likes to trot out a list of people, like Guillermo Gonzalez, Catherine Crocker, and Richard Sternberg.  But anyone who examines those cases soon realizes that these folks weren't dealing with scientific criticisms, just run-of-the-mill religious criticisms dressed up in an ill-fitting lab coat.  Their religion either prevented them from doing their job, or interfered with them doing their job, in any event they were held accountable . . . not for their beliefs, but not doing their job!  Unlike the DI's rogues gallery, there have been quite a few cases of teachers being punished and censored from teaching real science! Chris Comer and Tom Oord's situations come to immediate mind.

Now I have another name I wanted to mention, one I have discussed on numerous occasions, William Dembski.  If you recall Dembski figured in a number of  . . . incidents  . . . centered around his support of ID and Creationism.  One of the ones I mentioned a while ago was how quickly Wild Bill changed his tune about the reality of Noah's Flood.  Here is the write-up in Wikipedia (I added the underlines):

"While serving as a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Dembski wrote The End of Christianity, which argued that a Christian can reconcile an old Earth creationist view with a literal reading of Adam and Eve in the Bible by accepting the scientific consensus of a 4.5 billion year of Earth.  He further argued that Noah's flood likely was a phenomenon limited to the Middle East.  This caused controversy and Dembski's reading of the Bible was criticized by Tom Nettles, a young Earth creationist, in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Southern Seminary's official theological journal.  In 2010, the dean of Southwestern's School of Theology, David Allen, "released a White Paper through the seminary's Center for Theological Research defending Dembski as within the bounds of orthodoxy and critiquing Nettles for misunderstanding the book. The paper included Dembski's statement admitting error regarding Noah's flood."  Southwestern Seminary president Paige Patterson, a young Earth creationist, "said that when Dembski's questionable statements came to light, he convened a meeting with Dembski and several high-ranking administrators at the seminary. At that meeting, Dembski was quick to admit that he was wrong about the flood. "'Had I had any inkling that Dr. Dembski was actually denying the absolute trustworthiness of the Bible, then that would have, of course, ended his relationship with the school,' he said." (Wikipedia: Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary flood controversy)

Now the reason I want to remind you of that is because just a couple of days ago the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) reported this: "Dembski and the Scandal of the Evangelical Mind".  In it they quote Dembski about that particular controversy:

"this entire incident left so bad a taste in my mouth that I resolved to leave teaching, leave the academy, and get into a business for myself, in which my income would not depend on political correctness or, for that matter, theological correctness."

Interesting turn of phrase, Theological Correctness.  So while we have a certain amount of imagined censorship and punishment for dissent of current science on the part of the DI, and yet when we find actual censorship and punishment we find even people who are ID supporters who have to toe a fundamentalist line or find themselves unemployed because they were not fundie enough!  So which side is actually guilty of censorship and punishment for dissenting views?  Certainly doesn't look like it's science, does it?


Back to the survey statements themselves.  It's obvious that they are designed (pun intended) to make you think such freedom to discuss, criticize, or dissent doesn't exist, but once you remember the whole purpose in life of the DI you can see why they want you to think so.  In the past, when has the DI ever been an advocate of academic freedom?  Look at the text and purpose of their so-called 'Academic Freedom' bills.  The purpose of such bills, which have been defeated is all but two states that have tried to pass one, is to weaken science education and allow their religion (Creationism/Intelligent Design (ID)) to wedge its way into the curriculum.  That's not made up . . that is their stated goal!

Barbra Forrest, you might remember her from the Dover Trial, just yesterday (July 7, 2016) had this to say about one of those bills:

" . . . the deceptively titled “Louisiana Science Education Act” was promoted exclusively by the Louisiana Family Forum, a right-wing religious lobbying group that has promoted creationism since its founding, and the Discovery Institute, an intelligent design creationist think tank in Seattle. The law is an attempt to evade the Supreme Court’s 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard ruling, which nullified a 1981 Louisiana law that required teaching creationism in public schools."("Letters: Here are the facts on La.’s Science Education Act")

Simple question, if a car mechanic refused to actually repair cars, should the garage who hired them keep them on the payroll?  Again, that's what the DI wants.  They hate the fact that people like Gonzales and Crocker were held accountable for their actions because they were failing in the job they were hired to do!  The list of all the supposed 'victims' of censorship and discrimination that the DI likes to wave around can all be traced back to their unwillingness or inability to do their job! That's not censorship or discrimination!  How much would car repairs cost of you had to help pay the salaries of people who 'worked' at the garage but who didn't perform any duties that fall under the heading of work?

I do like how they changed things after the second survey statement.  Did you notice how they dropped the word 'scientific'?  Just as an exercise, tuck it back in and see how it changes the meaning of the sentence.  Scientists who hold dissenting 'scientific' views should not be censored or punished . . . now have you noticed that at no time does the DI identify anyone who has been censored or punished for holding a dissenting scientific view?  So in their words, a dissenting view, regardless of its scientific viability, is just as important as a non-dissenting view.  So Astrology is an viable as Astronomy, Chemistry to Alchemy,  . . . you see where such a list can end.  Next thing you know we will be requiring our Math teachers to teach Numerology and Architects to cover Feng Shui.

People disagree with science all the time.  It's not the disagreement that makes someone like Jenny McCarthy 'anti-science', it's the snake oil she's peddling in its place that is anti-science.  There is no evidence that supports vaccines cause autism, none!  Jenny is anti-science!  The DI is anti-science, not because they disagree with science, but because they want to put their religion in its place.  Look at the tactics of people like McCarthy and the DI.  They don't promote their own ideas as much as they attack actual science with nothing but marketing, unsupported ideas, and lots of politicking.  Yes, they are anti-science not because they disagree, but because how what they do and say in what they are offering in its place.

For example my daughter is questioning the need for my granddaughter to receive the HPV vaccine.  She is questioning based on several specific things, like how the vaccine only protects from a small set of viruses, and not the more common ones and how HPV and the related cancers do not run in either side of my granddaughter's family tree.  What she isn't doing is raising irresponsible and outright lies about vaccines in general, but she has some specific concerns.  It doesn't make her anti-science, what it does do is make her cautious and wants to discuss it further with a actual medical professional before making a decision.  The applicable label isn't 'anti-science', but 'parent'.

The final statement of theirs is equally ridiculous, scientists criticize current scientific theories all the time.  That's where new scientific advances come from.  So again, I agree with the bare-bones statement.  But it's not the dissenting opinion that brings about new advances in science.  It's the scientists who put in the actual scientific work to support their views that end up becoming new advances in science.  Name me one scientific advance that is solely based on having a dissenting view?  There isn't one!  But this sort of statement is typical of the DI.  They are either unwilling or unable to do the real science to support their ideas . . . so they imply that no one is allowed to have a dissenting view, simply because no one takes them seriously because their dissenting view is not based on science, but on theology.

In closing this much longer than intended post, I recall something from a few years back, a quote from the International Society for Science and Religion (ISSR), in Cambridge UK, also doesn't believe ID to be science. They go even further and say it's also bad religion!

Read this article for yourself, and it contains a link to their actual statement: "Leading science and theology scholars reject 'intelligent design' " I have to quote the article here:

"The concept of intelligent design is, says the report, “neither sound science nor good theology.” The authors do not attempt to specify precisely how they believe the religious believer can speak of God’s action as creator – a question on which they may differ among themselves. They are united, however, in resisting what they call “the insistence of intelligent-design advocates that their enterprise be taken as genuine science . . ."

Andy Wakefield, still one of the most reviled doctors of his generation

You might find this hard to believe, but I do occasionally blog about things other than the DI and little kennie ham. I know it certainly does look like I spend most of my time in those areas, but I do read and post about other topics. While my excuse is that the DI and kennie are the source of so much foolishness and I do so enjoy dealing with their particular brand of idiocy. I do also derive a great deal of humor when reading the things they post. However, while they are pretty easy target, I have posted on other topics, and an area I have commented on a number of times, and one where I find no humor at all, is the prevalent anti-vaccination movement in this and other countries.

The majority of the modern anti-vaxx movement can be traced back to the unethical and criminal conduct of one Andrew Wakefield.  If you aren't familiar with Andy, he used to be a doctor until he did a pile of things that lost him that prestigious title -- all of these things revolved around his fraudulent claims that the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism.  While it did make him a hero to other anti-vaxxers, like Jenny McCarthy, it also made him responsible for the resurgence of diseases that we had pretty much eradicated through the vaccination programs.  Which, in my opinion, makes his responsible for each and every one of the children who has had to suffer from those diseases and particularly responsible for every child that has died of those diseases.

So Andy is no longer a doctor, has moved the United States, and has a new job as a crusader against vaccines.  He's also made a movie about the subject which has been savagely reviewed as  . . .  for lack of a better word . . . crap.  But Andy, being Andy, refused to just go away.  He's been trying to salvage his reputation and recently made a video post of the website of his movie: (http://vaxxedthemovie.com/dr-andrew-wakefield-deals-with-allegations/).

For some reason they still call him a Dr. on his movie site, which I am not sure is appropriate because in January 2010 the United Kingdom General Medical Council (GMC) ruled that Wakefield had failed in his duties as a responsible consultant, acted against the interests of his patients [which were children], and was dishonest and irresponsible in his research.  In May 2010 he was struck off the United Kingdom medical register.  It was the harshest sanction that the GMC is allowed to impose, and it effectively ended his career as a doctor.  (Wikipedia: Andrew Wakefield)

As far as I know, he's not licensed to practice medicine of any kind here in the US.  So I guess calling him 'Dr' is the same as when someone calls Kent Holvind 'Dr Dino', or my personal favorite carbonated beverage 'Dr. Pepper', right?

But in any event, Andy posted a video responding to the criticisms of the claims he made in his movie and I caught a link to the Skeptical Raptor that takes each and every one of his self-defensive comments and rips them apart.  The post is detailed and very, very thorough.  Hope you enjoy it: "Andrew Wakefield – dishonest attempt at self-justification".  To quote the article:

Wakefield’s claims in the Allegations video can be put into three categories:

1. there were no serious ethical violations or fraud in relation to the article he published in the Lancet;
2. he’d done nothing wrong otherwise, measles outbreaks are not his fault, the GMC decision was generally wrong, and Walker-Smith’s acquittal shows that; and
3. Brian Deer’s articles are a fraud motivated by a conspiracy.

None of these claims hold water.

I think I need to add the Skeptical Raptor to my reading list.  I do encourage you to enjoy the article and in particular the very specific dismantling of each and every claim made by Andy.  You know, Andy ought to sue . . . oh wait, didn't he try that in England and lost.  

A New York Times profile said:

"Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation, blamed directly and indirectly, depending on the accuser, for irresponsibly starting a panic with tragic repercussions: vaccination rates so low that childhood diseases once all but eradicated here—whooping cough and measles, among them—have re-emerged, endangering young lives." (Dominus, Susan (20 April 2011). "The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru". New York Times Magazine.  (Wikipedia: Andrew Wakefield) 

My final word on this subject, at least for this post is:

Vaccinate your Children!

What do Creationists and Anti-Vaxxers Have in Common?

Apparently a complete disregard for the facts.

We've written many times about how Creationists, for many reasons, disregard the factual support for evolution.  While they tend to make-up all sorts of rationalizations, the basics are that they deny that factual support.  While they often cloak their denial-ism under various guises, the fact that evolutionary theory doesn't support their deeply held philosophical (religious) beliefs, so they refuse to accept the evidence.  Michael Behe did exactly that during the Dover Trial, little kennie ham did it during his 'debate' with Bill Nye, the Science Guy.  Denial of facts is an important tactic, particularly when you cannot refute those facts.

It seems anti-vaxxers work the same way.  Recently the University of Woollongong awarded a PhD in Philosophy to Judy Wilyman who uses the same tactic, a complete disregard of the facts.  I first heard about it from PZ Myers over on Pharyngula and then I caught it on several other sites, including Alison Campbell's BioBlog.  Alison said something that rang a bell with me:

"Universities do value diversity and freedom of opinion (it would be a sad state of affairs if they did not), but that opinion should be evidence-based. Academic freedom (another phrase aired in this and similar contexts) is not the freedom to say whatever one likes, whenever one likes, without considering the quality of the opinions being expressed." (BioBlog: freedom of opinion has its place, but this phd thesis goes too far)

It's been another common tactic of the Creationists, such as the Discovery Institute.  Claiming that academic freedom requires, no, demands that alternative views to evolution be taught.  But, like this situation, it is not academic freedom when you are expressing unsupported opinion as if they were as valid as actual research.  A quote attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan says a great deal:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Not only did she [Wilyman] create her own facts, but she refused to entertain anything that conflicts with her viewpoint:

"Peter McIntyre, director of the National Centre of Immunisation Research and a WHO adviser, said he had offered to discuss the research with Ms Wilyman but found her “not willing to entertain” evidence contrary to her views." (BioBlog: freedom of opinion has its place, but this phd thesis goes too far)

One of my concerns is what will happen next with the thesis.  As Alison also said:

" But the thesis is highly likely to be held up by organisations such as the 'Australian Vaccination Network' and the 'Vaccine Resistance Movement' as evidence that vaccines are not only useless but in fact bad for us. If this then results in a drop in vaccination rates, then vaccine-preventable diseases will increase in frequency in the community: this is just what happened in the UK after the publication of the now-retracted report that linked MMR vaccination with autism."
(BioBlog: freedom of opinion has its place, but this phd thesis goes too far)

Yes, here in the States we have seen an uptick in diseases that used to be pretty much eradicated.  Most often the source can be traced back to families following the 'medical' advice of people like Jenny McCarthy and refusing to have their children vaccinated.  Andrew Wakefield, the one-time doctor who authored the now retracted report Alison mentioned, is still doing business as an anti-vaxxer activist.  ABC news reported:

"Since Dr. Andrew Wakefield's study was released in 1998, many parents have been convinced the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine could lead to autism. But that study may have done more harm than good. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in the United States, more cases of measles were reported in 2008 than any year since 1997. More than 90 percent of those infected had not been vaccinated, or their vaccination status was not known." (Jasek, Marissa (6 January 2011). "Healthwatch: Disputed autism study sparks debate about vaccines". WWAY Newschannel 3, accessed from Wikipedia: Andrew Wakefield, 18 Jan 2016)

A New York Times profile said:

"Andrew Wakefield has become one of the most reviled doctors of his generation, blamed directly and indirectly, depending on the accuser, for irresponsibly starting a panic with tragic repercussions: vaccination rates so low that childhood diseases once all but eradicated here—whooping cough and measles, among them—have re-emerged, endangering young lives." (Dominus, Susan (20 April 2011). "The Crash and Burn of an Autism Guru". New York Times Magazine, accessed from Wikipedia: Andrew Wakefield, 18 Jan 2016)

Wakefield's report was was retracted and it is still a banner anti-vaxxers wave.  The author of this thesis is poised to become a hero of the anti-vaxxer movement, the only question is how many young lives will she be responsible for ending from a preventable disease.  I doubt she will in any way feel responsible, but she should, just as Wakefield should!

Get your children vaccinated!

Humor that hits close to home

The most humorous things in the world often come way to close to the truth, that's what makes them so funny.  Case in point, "Some Fear Ebola Outbreak Could Make Nation Turn to Science" from the Borowitz Report, in humor section of the New Yorker Magazine.  Without even reading the 'report', you can get the idea of the humor and you probably also realize how close to the truth it hits.

All to often in the past when threatened people turn away from established science and run towards the nearest source of . . . OK, I'll be polite . . . damn, I can't find the words I would like to use, so I'll stick with 'pseudo-science'.  Remember Laetrile?  It was found to be clinically ineffective 3 decades ago, yet it still has it's supporters.  Even Steve McQueen gave it a try.  The question is why?

That's where I think the issue is, the 'why'.  Why do people cling to things that obviously do not work.  Why do they rush to grab something not only unproven, but potentially harmful.  I can understand it in the early 70's before any studies were done someone clinging to peach pit extract, or at least I think that's where laetrile came from.  But once the verdict is in, wouldn't most folks step away?  To me if the only place to get something is some roadside stand in Mexico, I would reconsider it's possible effectiveness.

The current anti-vaccination movement is another example.  People making spurious claims and then a celebrity or two jump on the bandwagon and suddenly you have real children dying of diseases that were once considered pretty much wiped out.  Why do people turn away from science so quickly?

One issue is that science does not have all the answers.  It may never be able to cure cancer at the snap of a finger.  When you or your loved ones are threatened and the best medical science can do for you are treatments that seem nearly as bad as the disease itself, you are willing to grasp at straws.  In all honesty, that doesn't bother me very much.  When you are under such stress and pressure, you might be willing to suspend disbelief and use it to extend the possibility of hope.  Even if it doesn't work, at least for a brief time, you had something to hope for.  A medical doctor may not be able to offer you such hope, especially when they know the prognosis is poor.  Their profession requires a certain amount of directness and honesty that the purveyors of things, like Laetrile, are never going to have.

What bothers me isn't the people who have run out of hope and are grasping at flimsy straws.  These are the people who aren't operating under those stresses and still deny science.  Maybe they are looking for someone to blame.  After all isn't it easier to blame some vaccine for your autistic child than not know the answer as to why your child is the way they are?  We do not know what causes autism, so gleaming onto a phony medical study that claimed a link between a vaccine and autism is better than not knowing the cause.  Isn't it?  I don't think so.

Imagine how worse off things would be if we mainstreamed the idea that vaccinations might cause autism.  Think of the incredible dangers that would have caused.  Polio, whooping cough, rubella, measles . . . so many diseases that would do the most damage to our children!  Not only that, but research into the actual causes would come to a grinding halt. Therein lies the danger.  The anti-science movement can impact real science, not as a viable replacement, but as an impediment.

Like I said, sometimes the humor hits way too close to home.  Science denial is an area that can have near-term and far-reaching effects.  When you hear of the preventable death of a child, the humorous aspects of the anti-vax movement pale beside the horrific.  When you see the facts that previously preventable diseases are on the rise due to a lack of vaccinations, you have to look past the humor of people getting their vaccine 'science' from Jennie McCarthy or homeopathy from Dr. Oz and recognize the need to learn about science, to understand it in order to make good decisions.  Failing to do so does a disservice to your own, and other, children!

Anti-science may also equate to Death!

Caught a link off of CNN, a talk by Michael Specter is a staff writer at The New Yorker and the author of "Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet and Threatens our Lives.". I haven't read his book, yet, but the talk was certainly interesting. It meshes well with what I have been thinking and provides grist for the mill.

I hadn't really thought about one of the reasons behind the anti-vaccination 'movement', but it really does fit all to well with one of the worst parts of human nature. It's easy to deny what isn't in your face. It sounds silly expressed that way, but it happens all the time. how often have you heard "What have you done for me lately?" I was living in Las Vegas back in the 80's. One year we had severe flooding, including the basement of one of the larger hotels on the Strip flooding. I had 6 inches of water going down the middle of my street. At the time everyone was all up in arms over flood control . . . but when the time came for devoting resources toward it -- summer had come, the ground was dry, and the immediate threat of flooding was gone. Needless to say you know what happened, little money for flood control. You have no idea how often I heard someone say "We're in the desert, it doesn't flood in the desert!" What annoyed me was some of those same folks were whining just a few months ago about the water.

Diseases like polio, measles, and rubella are nearly non-existent here in the US. So it makes it easy for people to ignore the evidence, ignore the facts, and ignore the science and believe anecdotes, fairy tales, and utter nonsense. It also explains many peoples' reluctance to understand the theory of Evolution. It's not something you can easily see and understand without considerable scholarship. It's easy to fall prey to careful marketing, appeals to authority, and lies! But it's not just a matter of personal choice, its impact goes far beyond individual opinion. One of the things I had learned years ago I had forgotten. A vaccination program is only as good as the numbers of people who receive the vaccination. If the percentage falls to low, these diseases we haven't faced in more than a generation will be back. Our medical knowledge isn't perfect, but it's certainly light years beyond where we were 50 years ago!

What annoys me more than anything is not just how easily some folks fall for the marketing, but their complete inability to realize how they are being used. Their fears are being preyed upon! That's exactly what is happening when someone tells you that it's either Science or Religion. When they tell you they 'have a theory' or that 'acceptance of science is the same thing as belief in a religion'. When you swallow Jenn McCarthy's line, or the crap flowing from the Discovery Institute, or fail to see how funny Ken Ham's pseudo-belief system is, you are not just exercising your right to think what you wish, but you are impacting the health and welfare of the people around you. When you vote pseudo-science into the classroom, you are negatively impacting the education for the future!

Well you might take a view of his presentation and read the article associated with it. I'm going to take a look at his book the next time I am in the bookstore since it's not yet available as an e-book. Fear

Anti-science equates to . . . insanity!

Since I have been touting my eye surgery as a very positive example of science and science education, how about an example of anti-science having a negative impact on folks. I heard a short story on National Public Radio . . . yes folks, I do listen to things other than country music . . . and hit the website to follow-up. "Measles Resurgence tied to Parents' Vaccination Fears" makes it pretty clear. There has been a lot of hysteria over vaccinations, but if you step back from being hysterical and get the facts you would find that the benefits FAR outweigh any potential risks. But because some people take counsel of their fears and listen to attention-grabbing, fact-deficient folks like Jenny McCarthy, they have not been getting their kids vaccinated. This is not just being irresponsible, but pretty damn foolish! Even though the 'doctor' who published the original study supposedly linking a specific vaccine to autism has been found to be an unethical fool (Andrew Wakefield), folks like McCarthy spout foolishness and too many people are listening.

My advice is to not listen to McCarthy or even to me. Do the research for yourself on the benefits vs the risks of vaccinations. It's easy to find and pretty simple to understand. Here is a 1985 article that took me all of 1 second to find. There are tons of supporting literature. Now the question is how much scientifically valid literature opposes childhood vaccinations? None . . at least nothing I can find. I find opinion pieces, lots of web sites by anti-vaccination groups. But what I do not see is any actual research into the supposed problem. Again, don't take my word for it, do the research for yourself.

Science isn't perfect, but do we want to take a step backwards in time and lose the benefits we have gained through science? I know I am very thankful for my sight and every time I look at my granddaughter I am very glad she is properly vaccinated! I really have no idea how a parent who refuses vaccination for their children will be able to live with themselves if their kids become ill from a preventable illness. It's one thing to not have a vaccination program available to you, but to have one and refuse to use it based on the word of someone like Jenny McCarthy? There is the new definition of insanity!

While writing this I was found a reference to one of my favorite bloggers, Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, who discusses Jenny also . . . and not in a very flattering light. I don't know if he would agree with my new definition for insanity, but he sure doesn't think much of Jenn and her anti-vax campaign.

Mis-representing science

While this post is not specifically about Evolution, it is about the consequences of mis-representing science.

About 10 years ago Dr. Andrew Wakefield published the results of a study that suggested there was a link between Autism and the MMR (mumps, measles, and rubella) vaccinations. It prompted an anti-vaccination movement that has had both ordinary people and celebrities on each side of the argument. The result, inoculation rates went down! However why didn't autism rates also decline? Maybe because it appears that Wakefield falsified his results? "MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism" spells it our pretty clearly. Not only has NO ONE been able to duplicate the results and not only did 10 of the 13 authors of the study retract any interpretation of the vaccinations causing autism, but the Sunday Times did an investigation and found that Wakefield lied.

So what, no big deal, right? Well how about in the United Kingdom there were 56 cases of measles in 1998 and ten years later there are 1,348 cases with two children dead. Measles are on the rise in Australia and Switzerland as well. How about in Minnesota? "Invasive Haemophilus influenzae Type B Disease in Five Young Children --- Minnesota, 2008" The largest outbreak in over 16 years. Three of the five were not vaccinated, one started the series of shots but did not continue, and the fifth, while fully vaccinated, had an immunodeficiency problem. One of the un-vaccinated children has died.

In other words the mis-representation of science has caused the deaths of children! These deaths may very well have been preventable!

And supporters of the so-called 'academic freedom' bills want to keep on encouraging those mis-representations!

OK, am I overstating things a little? I don't think so. What happens when the medical profession is taught that an Intelligent Designer is responsible for life as we know it? What happens to research programs? What happens to vaccinations? What happens to cancer research? Since Intelligent Design has offered no testable ideas and the more garden-variety of Creationism stops the whole discussion and relies on prayer -- what happens? People and kids will be dying of things that are currently treatable and preventable! That is the crime! And folks like the Discovery Institute will probably tell us it's the "Will of the Intelligent Designer"! Sound familiar? Didn't we used to be right here a couple of hundred years ago? All the medical advances we have made are going to get tossed out the window! All based on lies and mis-representation!

Let's quit all water treatments, it's based on science. Let's stop prenatal care and God-forbid we actually perform surgery! Let's just gather around the hospital bed, hold hands and pray to the so-called intelligent designer and see how effective that is!

Folks, have your kids vaccinated! If you have an objection, do the research on the effectiveness of the specific vaccine. You might object to some of the numbers on the cervical cancer vaccine, but you certainly can't object to the success of the MMR vaccine. Base your vaccination decision on the real data, not the trumped up misinformation published by Wakefield or other anti-vaccination groups! Get the facts and make the decision! Don't allow a mis-representation to push you in a dangerous -- for your kids -- direction. How would you feel today if your child died from a preventable disease, and it was your decision that contributed?