Scientists Are Not Stupid!

I thoroughly enjoyed this post: "Scientists aren’t stupid, and science deniers are arrogant". It's from the site "The Logic Of Science", which is a blog I run across frequently but now I will be adding it to my regular reading list.  The main premise can be summed up in this quote:

"I have found that not only do people with no formal training in science think that they know more than the entire scientific community, but in almost every case, they think that there is a fundamental and obvious problem that essentially all scientists have either missed or are willfully ignoring."

As I read this, nearly every conversation I have had with a denier on Evolution, Climate Change, and even Tobacco could have been an example cited in this article.  How it usually works for me is they start with some simple fact, twist it around and try and use it to discredit and entire scientific discipline, and then defend it with amazing rationalizations that simply boggle my mind.

Two examples of their use of facts:  Climate Change v. the Little Ice Age and Evolution v. the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.  Conversations usually start with a brief explanation from Google or Wikipedia, which is usually fine.  Then they add in something heard from a very conservative source -- most often funded by an industry or special interest with a bone to pick with the science.   Commonly the Oil/Gas Industry or their funded 'think tank' the Heartland Institute when it comes to Climate Change, or a religious ministry like the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis when it comes to Evolution.

Once you start poking holes in their arguments, they veer away from their pseudo-facts and start rationalizing.  My favorite is the 'rice bowl' analogy.  If you are unfamiliar with the term, what it means is when someone jealously protecting a project or program.  It's believed to be from some Chinese or Japanese slang concerning losing your job -- i.e.: your method of providing for your family with staples, like food -- hence the use of 'rice'.  I've heard it many times in the military over the years.  It's also often expressed as 'defending your turf' as well.

If goes like this:  "Scientists are too busy protecting their jobs and sources of funding, so they dismiss evidence that opposes their self-interest."  There is a simple problem with this one.  While it's true job security is an objective of most working adults, what would happen to a scientist who succeeds in disproving something like Evolution?  Can you say 'Nobel Prize'?  Here's another quote from the article:

"Disproving evolution would result in me going down in history as one of the great minds of the 21st century. So, why haven’t I or any of the thousands of other ambitious young biologists published that evidence? Because it doesn’t exist! This idea that you have to blindly go along with the “dogma” to get anywhere in science is totally backwards. You don’t get grants to confirm things that everyone already knows. "

There is the fallacy in the argument, most scientists are not highly paid, in fact I make nearly twice the average salary of a climate scientist, and I am a computer programmer with a Master's.  Of course that data depends on a lot of things, like the exact position or even what part of the country they live in.  But no matter what data set you are looking at, climate scientists are not very highly paid.  If you look at a Biologist, or worse a Biology Teacher, their remuneration gets even lower.

Now, who do you think are scientists who make higher salaries?  Not the ones toeing some imaginary party line, but the ones making breakthroughs, discovering new things, developing new medicines and medical treatments.  So this 'protecting your turf' argument fails on many levels!  Plus you have to factor in that we are not just talking about scientists at one institution or location, but world-wide.  Think of how illogical to believe in a decades-long, multinational conspiracy of silence just so current scientists can keep their positions.

However, when you look at the people arguing against science, you really can't see the rice bowl protection going on?  Look at how climate science can impact profits of the current energy companies, you know the ones funding anti-climate change marketing material?  How about religious groups who are terrified of the impact real science might have on their congregations and donations?  And you think scientists are being defensive?

Conspiracies theories might be entertaining and fodder for idiotic television and radio shows, but when you look at the logic of them, they tend to be absurd.  One last quote from Logic of Science:

"Anytime that an argument requires you to think that the entire scientific community is hopelessly stupid, ignorant, incompetent, etc. you should be extremely skeptical. Scientists aren’t stupid, and if you think you have found something simple and obvious that all of them have missed, you are almost certainly wrong. It is the epitome of arrogance to think that a few minutes or even hours on Google have endowed you with a better understanding of science than the collective scientific community gained through countless years of training and experience."

Why is it so hard for too many people to recognize that training and experience count for a hell of a lot in the real world.  I wish one of them would look up computer programming on Google and see how well they would function doing my job, let alone one in physics or biology.  Would trust a dentist with your mouth who received such an 'education'?  Here's something fun to watch.

'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.  

I Believe it is Time to Part Ways with the Republican Party

I have been a Republican my entire voting life.  I registered Republican when I was eligible and while I have never voted strictly down party lines, I have believed in much of what the Republican Party has stood for in previous years.  But now, does anyone know what the Republican Party stands for today?

You see my dilemma, and while I would love to blame this parting of the ways on Donald Trump, I have to say it's been a long time coming.

For example something happened recently that makes me question much of the existing crop of Republicans, and it's something that has happened before.  Let me explain -- anyone remember the Dixie Chicks?  They made a few comments about then-President Bush that got them in a hot water with their fans, radio stations, and record companies.

Let me be clear, I disagreed with what they said. But as this quote, often mis-identified as being from Voltaire, explains my position:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

John F. Kennedy said something similar:

"If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity."

We are supposed to have certain individual freedoms in this country, and one of those freedoms is free speech.  While I disagreed with the Dixie Chicks comment, they have the right to say it!  They were subjected to comments that threatened their citizenship, their career, their lives, and the lives of their children!  Much of the worse invective came from self-described patriots and conservatives.  I can understand not wanting to buy or listen to their music anymore, but death threats!

Apparently when it comes to 'free speech', far too many people think it means that folks are only free to speak publicly if they say something you agree with -- if not, you get to threaten their children.  That's not free speech!  Free speech doesn't not give anyone the right to threaten!  Make no mistake, death threats are an assault!  You've heard the phrase 'assault and battery'?

"In criminal and civil law, assault is an attempt to initiate harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.  It is distinct from battery, which refers to the actual achievement of such contact."(Wikipedia: Assault)

The Republican Party was founded on the ideology of 'Republicanism' which, among other things, stresses the rights of the individual.  Tell me what part of individual rights means you cannot speak out your opinion without fear of death threats for you and your children?  It is not patriotic to threaten someone with whom you disagree!  I would go as far as to say it's Un-American -- but when you consider the bombast and vitriol dripping from many self-avowed Republicans in recent years it's seems to be becoming Un-American not to threaten those you disagree with!

I would love to say this is an isolated incident, but it's happening again!  I disagree with Colin Kaepernick, one of the quarterbacks on the San Francisco 49'ers.  If you haven't heard, he refused to stand for the National Anthem and has cited several reasons why he will not stand.  Like I said, I disagree with him, but he has that right!  Like the Dixie Chicks, he's getting quite a backlash, again from self-described patriots and conservatives, including that rather ridiculous figure that gives Alaska so much negative publicity:

"America - let's sack this ungrateful punk. Kaepernick - yeah, you're really "down with the oppressed" in this nation. Enjoying your $114 million contract, your previous adoring fans, sucking up a life of luxury... GOD AND COUNTRY GAVE YOU THIS OPPORTUNITY. You can't acknowledge that? Then on behalf of every Vet I'm privileged to know: GET THE HELL OUT."(Palin's Facebook)

Agree or disagree -- fine -- but demand he leave?  He's probably cost himself millions in endorsements and it might jeopardize his position as an NFL Quarterback, but he has that right!  But no, right-wing nut jobs are threatening him and ones like Palin want to kick him out.  You know when people disagreed with Palin, they simply didn't vote for her.  Imagine the hue and whine if people treated her the way she's trying to treat Kaepernick!

I didn't want to turn this into an anti-Palin piece, but anyone else remember her defending that Duck Dynasty guy, claiming his right to free speech was violated?  Hmm, where was her defense of the Dixie Chicks, or for that matter, Colin Kaepernick?

 "Sarah Palin for one said (per CNN):

"Those 'intolerants' hatin' and taking on the Duck Dynasty patriarch for voicing his personal opinion are taking on all of us," Palin, who met the series' cast while on a book tour in Louisiana, wrote on Facebook, along with a photo of her and the cast of the A&E series." (What’s the difference between Duck Dynasty & The Dixie Chicks?)

See what I mean?  As much as I would love to put the blame on people like Palin and Trump, it goes deeper than that.  They epitomize the problem, but they are not the cause for it.  I almost had some respect for Paul Ryan, but when he kowtowed and supported Trump, it was gone!  There don't seem to be any Republicans worthy of the label 'Republican'.

What I see is a disturbing trend that is being exemplified by people all too many people who self-identify as Republicans.  For quite some time I have felt that electing a President and Congress folks has not been an exercise in selecting the best person, but all too often it has boiled down to selecting the lesser of two evils.  That was bad enough several Presidents ago, but it's gotten to the point of being a farce.

Republicans used to stand for so many things that made sense, reducing the national debt, smaller government, conservative fiscal policies, individual freedoms . . . but where has that all gone?  The best you get today is lip service from dinosaurs who are so indebted to special interests that they forget they are supposed to be representing their constituents.  Disagree?  I welcome it, unlike others.

Here's a few examples:

• The political power of the oil and gas companies and the nearly incessant denial of climate change, contrary to all of the evidence. 
• The power of the NRA to block any legislation that might stand a prayer of dealing with the issue of gun violence. You might educate yourself on the Dickey Amendment, not just the language, but the impact over the last 20 years.
• How many Republicans are pandering for the votes of the Christian Right?  It's not because they share the same beliefs, but because voicing narrow views shared by religious conservatives is a way to get them to vote for you.  Sure, tell me Donald has actually read the Bible?  Anyone believe that?
• The amount of money shelled out by pharmaceutical companies for ownership of more than a small block of politicians, emphasizes most recently by the cost of EpiPens!.  
• How about which politicians helped to tobacco and lead-additive companies get away with poisoning us for decades!

Now for more recent events, look at the collection of losers that ran for the Republican Nomination for President in 2015/16, look at them!  Religious panderers, failed business people, bombastic politicians who have never had an honest job.  You wouldn't let any of them babysit your kids and people want to give someone like Ted Cruz, Ben Carson, or Donald Trump the nuclear codes?

No, it's time for the modern day Republican Party to dissolve.  It's over.  The party of Jefferson and Lincoln no longer exists!  The party I have supported for so long and continued to want to support has disappeared!  It's time for a new party, one that represents and respects individual rights!

The Discovery Institute is annoyed because their version of Scientific Denial. . . isn't!

Little davey 'klingy' klinghoffer is up in arms that a National Review article about scientific dissent forgot to mention the Discovery Institute (DI) and Creationism/Intelligent Design (C/ID).  His post "Leaving Evolution Skeptics Out of a Discussion of Suppressing Scientific Dissent" is pretty funny.  Before looking at klingy's post, I would like to examine the original article, mainly for two reasons.  First of all, I do not trust anything quoted by a member of the Discovery Institute.  One of their favorite tactics is quote-mining, that is to deliberately take a quote out of context in order to make it sound as if it means something completely different.  The second reason the source he is quoting, the 'National Review', is not one of my favorite sources of information.  While they may not be guilty of quote-mining, they definitely like to spin things in a certain very right-wing direction.  So I would like to deal with their article before trying to makes heads or tails out of anything klingy has written.

The original post is "Who Are the Real Deniers of Science?", pulled from the National Review and written by Jonah Goldberg 20 May 2016. Just looking at the headline, you might guess how I would answer that question. But let's see what Jonah has to say:

"Masking opinions in a white smock is a brilliant, albeit infuriating and shabby, rhetorical tactic."

I agree, but I have to wonder if Jonah and I agree on who uses this tactic.  The ones that come to my mind include:

• The makers of lead additives to gasoline, who for years poisoned our environment while earning millions, if not billions of dollars.  They had a few scientists on heir payroll and successfully fought to keep poisoning us for decades;
• The tobacco industry who also obfuscated the dangers of tobacco with phony scientific claims for decades so they could keep selling poison for a profit;
• and The oil and gas industry who are currently doing to same when it comes to addressing climate change, once again for the purpose of making billions.

Ah, Jonah takes a slightly different tack and takes aim at liberal causes, which does make sense considering the far-right leaning of the National Review.  Ah, here is an old trope:

"Scientists are constantly questioning their understanding of things; that is what science does."

Yes, by itself that statement is true, but the context is misleading. Science does question itself, constantly. But that doesn't invalidate what is known to be true today. Jonah makes it sound as if science cannot be trusted because it might change its mind.

However, when you think about it . . . to use my examples from above.  

• Did science change what it knew about lead additives from the 1920's when the danger was discovered through to the 60's, 70's, and 80's when it was finally removed from gasoline?  Yes, and the more we learned the worse it got.  
• Tobacco was the same way.  We learned it was bad and the more we learned the worse it got!  
• Climate change and the relationship to fossil fuels and human activity is currently fighting that same argument.  The more we learn, the deeper the problem becomes and the more we need to take action.  But that action is seen as a threat to the industry folks who make billions off of it . . .. just like the makers of lead additives and tobacco.  

At no point in time did scientists 'change their mind', they only confirmed, re-confirmed, and refined the dangers.  Were we wrong about lead and tobacco?  Hasn't all the evidence from multinational sources of climate monitoring confirmed climate change?  The decade long fights to remove lead and force the tobacco industry to own up to its responsibilities and admit it's lies were not because of science changing its mind, but because of the political and legal activities of the industries behind them. One more quote form the article and then we'll move on to klingy's latest whine:

"Many liberals believe that “denying” climate science should be a criminal offense . . ."

That's a lie!  No one has said denying climate science, or climate change, should be a criminal offense.  What has been said was the people who deny climate change for the express purpose of profiting from it should be investigated for possible criminal activities.  Exactly like the Tobacco industry was!  Remember what they did.  They didn't just push tobacco products.  They had years and decade of research on the dangers of tobacco and they hid it and denied it.  That was criminal!  It deserved an investigation.  What if we find evidence that the fossil and gas industry was well aware of the dangers and suppressed them for the purposes of continued profits?  What if they colluded with other companies and politicians to hide the truth in order profit?  Wouldn't that deserve to be investigated?  But Jonah put a conservative spin!

Having an opinion about climate change is a matter of free speech.  But using that opinion to mislead others so you can continue to profit . . . that's a different story.  OK, enough about Jonah, let's see if klingy actually adds anything to the conversation.  Actually not much.  He's more annoyed that any conversation about science denial doesn't include those people who laugh at Creationism/Intelligent Design (C/ID).  Here's a quote:

"Except there is no mention of the subject on which censors have done the most to silence dissenters. That subject is Darwinian theory, of course. Not one word."

You know, klingy is simply repeating a common tactic of claiming Creationists and ID supporters are being censored for their views.  As you know, I disagree.  While the DI spins a different tale, anyone who looks at the situations objectively knows that Guillermo Gonzalez, Catherine Croker, Nathanial Abraham, and a few others had some negative career occurrences for failing to do their job.  Yes, the reason they failed to do their job might have had something to do with the time and energy they spent promoting Creationism, but the reason they got into some trouble was failing to do their job.  Folks like John Freshwater also got into trouble for assaulting students by burning crosses into their arms with an electrostatic device and also lying about what he was doing and what he was teaching.  David Coppedge was an ass who was held accountable when it came time to downsize a JPL program.  Of course the DI doesn't call him an ass for failing to keep his skills relevant and being known to be 'difficult' when dealing with customers and harassing co-workers on California Proposition 8 (Gay Marriage) and Intelligent Design.  But when you can't say something true, you spin things and declare Coppedge some sort of C/ID hero (Time to Re-Write History . . . Again)!

Another related whine is that the DI's stable of C/ID pets cannot get published in legitimate science journals.  I have two things to say about that.  The first is I am not aware of them actually submitting work to legitimate science journals.  That would tend to be a worthwhile statistic . . . if they are actually being turned down.  The second aren't my words, but the words of Mark Chancey, the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Southern Methodist University:

"When scholars criticize ID, they are not attacking religion. They are only asking ID proponents to be transparent in their agenda, accurate about their representations of scholarship, and willing to play by the same rules of peer review and quality control that legitimate scholars and scientists around the world follow every day." (SMU Daily Campus)

Little klingy closes with a quote from a Christian Professor who fears that coming out of the closet for Intelligent Design might get him fired. Here is the quote:

"It's not that they're being persecuted for belief in God. They're being persecuted for being associated with this movement [intelligent design]. So for example, I'm a Christian. None of my colleagues have a problem with that. But if I came out positive[ly] for intelligent design, the movement, I would probably be in danger of losing my job."

I would say the professor is more than a little paranoid.  Has Lehigh University fired Michael Behe for being an ID proponent?  Has any public university fired anyone for being a Christian, a Creationist, or an C/ID proponent?  No!  The only ones that have gotten disciplined in any way are the ones who failed in performing their job!  I bet Michael Behe hasn't let his interest in C/ID interfere with his work at Lehigh?  That's the problem!  Not being a proponent, but not doing their job!  That's what happened to Gonzalez at IU and Croker at George Mason.  Also, to be accurate, they weren't fired.  Gonzalez didn't get tenure and Croker's adjunct contract wasn't renewed, but the reason was their not doing their job!  Again, not because of ID, but because they didn't do the job they were hired to do.  Click the links and check out some of the actual facts and not klingy's spin.

As I said in other posts, I do consider the DI a nest of science deniers.  My reasoning is not that they support C/ID, but that they spend an inordinate amount of time arguing against evolution and a surprisingly little time developing their own ideas.  Look at their tactics?  How many of them are aimed at supporting ID as actual science?  Any of them?  Not that I can see.  They are all aimed at undermining science education with the intention that they can slip C/ID in without bothering to do the actual scientific work that would get them in the front door.  That makes them science deniers to me.  

As usual, klingy doesn't say much worth reading, but he does try and spin things around to draw attention to C/ID while claiming to be some sort of victim here.  It's another one of their common tactics.  They, the DI, are doing the denial of actual science while accusing the rest of the scientific community with imagined examples of censorship and suppressing scientific dissent.  You know, shouldn't Creationism/Intelligent Design actual be science before you can accuse of anyone arguing against them as science deniers?  But that would make sense, at least to me.

Quote-mining Revisited, AKA the Discovery Institute is At It Again

The Sensuous Curmudgeon, whose Blog I read on a regular basis pointed out a little quote-mining, a topic I haven't mentioned on here in a while. To refresh, Quote-Mining is a disreputable tactic of taking the words someone said and using them in context different from the intention of the source. We've talked about it many times, "DI Mouthpiece and Quote-mining", "Expelled: and Quote Mining", and "More on Quote Mining" are a few examples.

Perhaps the most famous, or infamous, quote mine is this one:

Ben Stein quoted Charles Darwin:

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

Old Bennie made it sound like Darwin was supporting and even encouraging Eugenics, but when you look at the actual quote, not just the parts Bennie quote-mined, you get an entirely different context.  To make it easy, I bolded the parts Bennie used: 

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

As you can see, the appropriate context, including the entire quote and not just the pieces you can string together to change the meaning, shows something very different than what Bennie claimed Darwin said.

Well, this next example, from SC, isn't quite as bad, or nearly as lengthy, but it does show you a good example of how Creationists like to twist things around.  In this post from SC, "Discoveroids Adopt a Ken Ham Doctrine" you can read the details for yourself.  But the bottom line is DI pseudo-historian Richard Weikart takes part of a quote from Richard Dawkins and completely misrepresents what Dawkins said!  Weikart claims that Dawkins said:

"What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."

 Dawkins did say those words, the quote-mining comes in because Weikart failed to place Dawkins words within the context of the actual discussion.  It wasn't a discussion about Hitler's atrocities, but a discussion on the shifting of moralities.  Here is Dawkins comment in context:

“What defines your morality?” [The question put to Dawkins]
There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued. “We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused — all of which is different from previous centuries.”

[Follow-up question]“As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

SC's comment here shows why this is nothing more than another quote-mine: 

"That’s all there is on the subject. Did Dawkins say that he, personally, had difficulty deciding that Hitler was wrong? No, he obviously didn’t, but that’s what Weikart wants us to believe."

One last current example, something I read today, it's also from the Discovery Institute, 'Now It's Bill Nye the "Jailing Science Skeptics as War Criminals" Guy'.  Since the conversation is about quote-mining, I bet you are guessing that the DI is misrepresenting what Bill Nye actually said.  You would be correct.

What Bill was talking about was not all climate change deniers, but those who are denying climate change for the purposes of making a profit.  The DI forgot to mention another analogy Bill said:

"Was it appropriate to jail people from the cigarette industry who insisted that this addictive product was not addictive and so on? And you think about in these cases — for me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen. So I can see where people are very concerned about this and are pursuing criminal investigations as well as engaging in discussion like this.”

[They] are leaving the world worse than they found it because they are keeping us from getting to work. They are holding us back.” (Source)

 You see what I mean.  Bill Nye isn't considering jail time for all climate change deniers, he is thinking that the possibilities exists for people who are denying climate change in order to profit by it!  At the same time, these deniers are preventing us from moving ahead and dealing with the problem! If it was criminal for the tobacco industry to deny the dangers of tobacco for decades . . . and earning millions at the same time . . . shouldn't people who are denying climate change AND profiting from it to the tune of millions and billions be held responsible?

I will repeat this again.  You cannot trust anything that comes out of the DI because while you know they are putting their own spin on everything, you cannot be sure that haven't also 'adjusted' any quotes or references in order to make other people's words mean something totally different than what was actually intended.

I Think the Spin is Finally Getting to the Discovery Institute

You know if you get on a fast spinning ride, it can upset your equilibrium.  The faster the ride, the larger the impact.  It can be enough to make some people sick.  I think the spin is finally getting to the Discovery Institute, at least that can be about the only explanation for this little ditty: "Refer Questions of Scientific Controversy to the FBI?".  It's by that less-than-thoughtful davey 'klingy' klinghoffer.  Does he really think that's what's going on here?  Probably, it's not like he puts a lot of thought into his posts.  He says this:

"Questions about global warming turn upon clashes of legitimate scientific opinion. The climate controversy is not a focus for us here, but preserving the freedom to debate unsettled science very much is."

Sure, that's what the DI is all about, preserving the freedom to debate unsettled science.  Are they sure about that?  Evolution is settled science and people are still free to debate about it . . . although when you do what the DI does and drag religion into the discussion, no one takes you seriously.  Climate Change is also settled science, just like the dangers of lead and tobacco.  In each case there are deniers, but that's not illegal, not matter how much klingy wants you to think the government is about to make it so.  That's simply not true . . . but when the truth isn't enough, the DI applies more spin until even they start getting dizzy.

OK, so what is going on?  It's simple, and we discussed it once before in "Hey Discovery Institute, there is a difference between Criminal and Unethical".  The actions of SOME climate-change deniers are coming under the heading illegal actions, like fraud, . . . but unlike klingy, I am capable of reading for comprehension.  It's not the fact they are climate change deniers that is being investigated, it's the fact they are denying climate change for the purpose of making money and is doing so may be committing illegal acts!  Much like the tobacco companies suppressed their own research and denied the dangers of tobacco for decades.  What these select deniers are doing may well cross the line into illegal activities and if so, they should be prosecuted!

Klingy. and the DI, are of course trying to spin this as to letting the legal system decide what is science and what is not.  And . . . of course . . . have to try and bring up Judge Jones and the Dover decision into it.  So, let's recap for a second.  The defense during the Dover Trial claimed that Intelligent Design is science and therefore they were well-within their rights to do the things they did.  The Judge ruled that it wasn't science and therefore they were not within their rights.  In all honesty, with the defense they put forth, the Judge had little choice but to rule on the issue.  But since it was contrary to what the DI wanted and even predicted the result of the trial would be, they have been very unhappy since.

On the one hand the DI claims the ruling had little impact, but their actions show the decision hurt them greatly and have done everything they can to vilify the Judge and misrepresent his opinion.  Later in klingy's article he says

"Referring huge questions of science to a federal judge for adjudication is bad enough."

Now, if you read even the things klingy quotes, it's easy to see that the investigation is not addressing whether or not Climate Change is science, but  . . . here, let me re-quote part of what klingy quoted:

"The similarities between the mischief of the tobacco industry pretending that the science of tobacco's dangers was unsettled and the fossil fuel industry pretending that the science of carbon emissions' dangers is unsettled has been remarked on widely, particularly by those who study the climate denial apparatus that the fossil fuel industry has erected, . . ."

The Tobacco Industry was not indicted for claiming the science behind the dangers of tobacco was controversial, but because of the FRAUD they committed in fighting against changes in the regulation of tobacco products.  The question at hand is not whether climate change is science, but whether or not climate change deniers, like the companies that profit from fossil fuel industry, are committing and abetting fraud.

Of course that makes klingy nervous, after all he's paid for doing something very similar . . . science denial.  However, the difference is the DI depends on donations for their livelihood.  That's different than the fossil fuel or tobacco industries.  If it comes to pass that their science denial starts actually hurting people . . . then they might become a target themselves.  But to date their denial has been much less effective and more entertaining than anything else.

(Source: http://starphoenixbase.com/?p=1119)

Hey Discovery Institute, there is a difference between Criminal and Unethical

Davey 'klingy' Klinghoffer is at it again, trying to make it sound like we should feel sorry for Intelligent Design (ID) proponents.  Sorry, klingy, it's not going to happen.  Here's link to his post:  "Prosecute Darwin Skeptics Under RICO Act?"  Like he has done before, he's drawing an imaginary parallel to gain some level of sympathy. Do you feel sorry for ID proponents? I certainly do not.

First the article he quotes, he does quote, but then he blows it all out of proportion, at least that's how I see it.  Look at his own quotes:

' . . . prosecute groups that "have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America's response to climate change." ' 

Look at the quote carefully.  No one was advocating prosecuting climate change deniers, but those who are using such denial as a means to forestall our responding to it.  Whether you agree with it or not, Climate Change is a potential danger, and, again whether you agree, some effort should be going into examining that danger and developing plans to deal with it.  Anyone who knowingly is taking actions to 'forstall' a response is not acting in a particularly wise fashion.

A parallel is made, in the original article, to the use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is helping to deal with the issues around tobacco and dealing with the actions the tobacco industry undertook to forestall any response on the dangers of tobacco, actions they successfully delayed any organized response for decades.  Would anyone deny that their actions were detrimental to the American public, yet it was certainly good for their profits.

Another example, leaded gasoline.  In the 1920's the dangers of lead as a gasoline additive was known, but the industry that produced the lead additives fought any changes.  They even funded a prominent scientist to stall any serious examination of the dangers of lead.  It took 50 years before the United States finally acted.  Guess who funded most of the research into the dangers of lead additives?  The lead industry, of course.  Again, their actions delayed dealing with a serious problem for decades and yet that industry profited greatly during those decades.

See a trend?  Even when something currently common is found to be a significant danger, there is a core element that continues to profit from it . . . and they fight any changes that will cut into their profits.  Sounds like the current Climate Change arguments, doesn't it.

The article is NOT planning on prosecuting just any climate change deniers, but those who deliberately take actions designed to delay a response.  Now, why would any group want to delay a response?  Guess who funds a great deal of climate change research?  The oil companies, of course.  So the real thrusts of the possibility of legal actions isn't someone who is expressing an opinion, but a coordinated group action designed to profit by America's inaction.  Remember, it was the action of the tobacco and oil companies that eventually led to their legal issues, not simply an opinion.

So now let's get to klingy's whine.  Would anyone put intelligent design proponent actions in the same category?  Not by a long shot.  The main reason is how much impact have they really had?  They are an annoyance more than a danger.  So trying to draw a parallel at this point in time would be ridiculous.  While their actions are self-serving, they haven't reach a point where their danger is more than theoretical.  Again, it's their actions that could lead to some sort of action to censure them, and to date their actions have been pretty minor league compared to the oil or tobacco companies.

Is it possible at some time in the future their actions could present a danger to the point of legal action?  I have to say yes.  Since their actions are motivated by religion, have there been examples, recent examples, where religion was used to interfere with medical services?  If you need a few examples, I posted these last month: Ian, Neil, Matthew, Austin, Amy, Robyn, Andrew, Harrison, Nancy, Dennis, Arrian, Zachery, Troy, Shauntay, and Rhett.  So until the DI's efforts start having a much greater negative effect on biology, medicine, or other sciences to the point where lives are endangered, they will keep being more a mosquito bite than a significant problem.

Climate Change deniers, specifically those funded by the oil industry, have a lot in common with those who denied the dangers of tobacco and lead while continuing to profit from them.  It was their actions and the impact of those actions that caused the various responses.  To date, the DI hasn't done anything that I think could be considered illegal.  Think it through -- when you know tobacco is dangerous and you claim otherwise so you can continue profiting from it . . . that's illegal, hence the use of the RICO Act.  In my opinion the DI's actions fall more into unethical.  For example is it ethical to change the definition of the word Theory when trying to contrast a scientific theory with just an idea?  Or to deny the religious underpinnings of ID?  How about to try and change the explanation of real scientific work, claiming it in some way supports ID?  Or claiming Evolution's imminent demise?  No, these things are not illegal.  Foolish, certainly, and I believe unethical, but not illegal.  You might by what standard of 'ethical behavior' am I using to judge.  ID is a religious proposition, and when asked 'unofficially', ID proponents like to identify the intelligent designer as the Christian God.  Well I was brought up in that particular faith and guess what one of the sins you would confess every week?  Lying, of course.  So when I look at the actions of the DI, I can only call them unethical, because it's not up to me to call what they do as a 'sin'.  I guess they are more like little kennie ham (AiG and Creation 'Museum' infamy) than they would like to admit, especially when it comes to lying for Jesus.

One last comment by klingy:

"I hesitate to even articulate this, for fear of putting an idea in someone's mind. On the other hand, Darwinists don't need me to help them cook up schemes for striking out against dissenters."

Don't worry klingy, no one outside of your little circle of science deniers pays much attention to your ideas.  The real scientists working in evolutionary biology have no problem with dissenters.  Ones who are working with actual science often lead to changes in evolutionary theory (evo-devo, punctuated equilibrium . . .).  Dissenters who push pseudo-science, like the Discovery Institute, tend to get ignored.  It's when they impact science education that they get any attention.  Why do you think they target high schools?  You would expect they to take aim at science, but for that they have to do science.

If you believe in evolution, should you worry about climate change?

A somewhat interesting point from Jeff Van Fleet in an opinion piece posted in the Daily Interlake.com site,  "If you believe in evolution, then don’t worry about climate change".

If you don't want the long answer, the short one is "Yes, you should be worried, all of us should be worried!"  The rest of this is an expanded note to what I posted on their site.

His closing paragraph confused me quite a lot:

"Evolutionary theory demands both environmental changes and species extinction. The conservation movement is contradictory to both the theory of evolution and modern science. An evolutionist who supports conservation is like being an atheist who supports their local church. It isn’t logical and it does not make any sense."

Evolutionary theory doesn't demand anything.  As changes occur, they will be explained by evolutionary theory, not driven by the theory.  Do proponents of Atomic Theory want a nuclear blast in their neighborhood?  Wouldn't that be logical?

Proponents of evolution want people to understand the process but they do not push that the process be forced along some path.  Failing to support conservation means that preventable changes will more than likely occur.  But does than mean evolution proponents are unaffected bystanders or worse ones who wishes for environmental changes, potentially on a massive scale, just to help win a cultural debate?  Sure, let's see how many 'evolutionist' would vote for mass extinction of the human race?  That's what Jeff seems to be saying.  It's illogical if that's not what they want to see happen?  Ummm, no, it would be illogical for a member of the human race to wish for extinction.

Winning the current debate over evolution doesn't validate it as a scientific theory, it's already been validated time and time again.  It is a scientific theory and winning or losing the cultural debate won't change that.  What it will change is the ability of teachers to teach real science, of students to learn more of the reality of the world around them.  It may very well impact the funding of future research within the field, a field I remind you that has directly impacted food production, medicine, and the environment for a very long time.  These are things being impacted by the debate today, not the validity of the theory, but the teaching of it and the use of it.

As someone who understands climate change, as he claimed, I would expect him not to treat it as some sort of esoteric idea.  Look at the loss potential of the debate over climate change.  We could very well be driving the extinction of the human race.  It really wouldn't take all that much, especially if the carbon-dioxide level keeps rising.  Will humans evolve to handle the new levels, or will we go the same way as 99% of all species that have existed on Earth and go extinct?  If we keep debating, the issue may well become moot as we pass a point where any action on our part will not impact the outcome.  Science might explain the results, but it's not something any evolution proponent would wish to occur.  Of course on the Creationist-side, you could just pray for your particular deity to stop the rise in CO2 level, because prayer has been such a reliable tool in the past, right? 

Let's see, if I were a member of the last group of humans on Earth would I prefer they were Creationists who meekly accept what must be the will of a capricious deity for human extinction, or be scientists who will fight tooth and nail for every last breath?  I know which group I would prefer.  Jeff here seems to think evolution proponents would be the ones rolling over and being dead.  Somehow I think he's a bit off there.

Evolution proponents are also concerned about climate change because the same sort of pseudo-scientific arguments that have been used against biology are now being used against the climate and often by the same groups.  That's another reason to be concerned!  If these groups win the debate, not only will any future activity to change the outcome be more challenging, but what's next on their personal agenda?  In Texas they've been trying to re-write the history books and make it sound like Christianity was the goal in the formation of the USA.  Imagine what such groups would do with a carte blanc license!  Evolution and climate change would just be the start!  I think Jeff need to think through his science a little more.  It's sounding more like he's forming opinions based on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, not science.

Someone once told me that in about 60,000,000 years the Earth will be a frozen ball of pretty much nothing important, and anything we do today won't make much of a difference in the long run.  Yea, there's a mantra to hang on your wall!   Sorry, words like that might be an interesting intellectual exercise, but pretty lousy ones to live by.  I prefer to be evolving as fast as I can!

Old Enemies new Battles

The Creationist crowd seems to be trying to take on other subjects. According to the NY Times "Darwin Foes add Warming to Targets". I don't think many of the supporters of anti-evolution marketing really have a clue about Climate Change, if they did they might simply ask themselves about the Northwest Passage, you know the link from the Atlantic to the Pacific by way of Northern Canada?

Well anyway, I think evolution foes are simply trying to smokescreen their issue by trying to tie in anything that smacks of controversy, sort of a 'halo effect' logical fallacy. I mean if science might be wrong about one thing, Evolution must be wrong too. right? I am not getting into whether or not Climate Change is a reality. I believe it is and I believe the evidence is incontrovertible, but the bottom line here is so what? I mean so what if we someday prove that Climate Change isn't happening or that it isn't being effected by human activities. Does that have anything to do with the validity of Evolution? No, not at all!

As for the Northwest Passage, you might take a look at this article. People have been looking for it for centuries and Climate Change has opened it up. Sure makes you think!