…and this is a 
Hubris, gall, arrogance…inanity
Category: Creationism • Science
Posted on: June 18, 2008 12:00 PM, by PZ Myers
Would you believe that Andy Schlafly, head kook at Conservapædia, wrote a letter to Richard Lenski, demanding release of his data to Schlafly and his crack team of home-schooled children? Schlafly is a creationist and ideologue of the worst sort; he has no qualifications in biology, and only wants the data because he doesn't believe it, and would no doubt then use his vast powers of incomprehension to garble it.
That isn't noteworthy, though. We expect creationists to act like indignant idiots when the facts are shown to them. What's really cool is that Lenski wrote back.
Dear Mr. Schlafly:
I suggest you might want to read our paper itself, which is available for download at most university libraries and is also posted as publication #180 on my website. Here's a brief summary that addresses your three points.
1) "... your claims, that E. Coli bacteria had an evolutionary beneficial mutation in your study." We (my group and scientific collaborators) have already published several papers that document beneficial mutations in our long-term experiment. These papers provide exact details on the identity of the mutations, as well as genetic constructions where we have produced genotypes that differ by single mutations, then compete them, demonstrating that the mutations confer an advantage under the environmental conditions of the experiment. See papers # 122, 140, 155, 166, and 178 referenced on my website. In the latest paper, you will see that we make no claim to having identified the genetic basis of the mutations observed in this study. However, we have found a number of mutant clones that have heritable differences in behavior (growth on citrate), and which confer a clear advantage in the environment where they evolved, which contains citrate. Our future work will seek to identify the responsible mutations.
2. "Specifically, we wonder about the data supporting your claim that one of your colonies of E. Coli developed the ability to absorb citrate, something not found in wild E. Coli, at around 31,500 generations." You will find all the relevant methods and data supporting this claim in our paper. We also establish in our paper, through various phenotypic and genetic markers, that the Cit+ mutant was indeed a descendant of the original strain used in our experiments.
3. "In addition, there is skepticism that 3 new and useful proteins appeared in the colony around generation 20,000." We make no such claim anywhere in our paper, nor do I think it is correct. Proteins do not "appear out of the blue", in any case. We do show that what we call a "potentiated" genotype had evolved by generation 20,000 that had a greater propensity to produce Cit+ mutants. We also show that the dynamics of appearance of Cit+ mutants in the potentiated genotypes are highly suggestive of the requirement for two additional mutations to yield the resulting Cit+ trait. Moreover, we found that Cit+ mutants, when they first appeared, were often rather weak at using citrate. At least the main Cit+ line that we studied underwent an additional mutation (or mutations) that refined that ability and led to a large improvement in growth on citrate. All these issues and the supporting methods and data are covered in our paper.
Sincerely,
Richard Lenski
Wow. That was far more polite than they deserve, but good for Dr Lenski. Unfortunately, Schlafly will now use the reply as an opportunity to smugly regard himself as a serious player, and he will also ignore the substance to continue to deny that evolution occurred. But maybe, just maybe, someone in the collection of deprived children subjected to Schlafly's tutelage will notice that real scientists can give substantial replies to his usual ignorant nonsense.
Life Science
Politics
Comments
Arrogant fools!
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 18, 2008 12:12 PM
He demands the data? He can damn well repeat the experiment for himself if he doesn't like it.
Posted by: Randy | June 18, 2008 12:12 PM
I usually deliberately refrain from looking at anything having to do with Conservapædia, but I did look at this one due mainly to my respect for Lenski. The Talk Page on this exchange is a scream. Schlafly all but admits that:
1. he hasn't actually read any of Lenski's team's publications
2. he knows basically nothing about the matters involved in Lenski's research
3. he doesn't care about any of it, since the "real" issue is that Lenski is "withholding" information (and not, for instance, about the fact that Schafly's whole worldview has been empirically disproven)
Schlafly really is a maroon.
Posted by: Tom | June 18, 2008 12:13 PM
The positive side of this, is that Schlafly's urgency shows that some creationists at least understand the importance of this experiment as another nail in the coffin in the case against creationism. And on the flip side, it is clear that many creationists will not see this as evidence of "macro"evolution... I'm sure we will be hearing "but it's still a bacteria" more timest than we care to.
Posted by: boomer | June 18, 2008 12:15 PM
I don't think he'll be able to use this reply to show that he's a serious player, except to the already hopeless. It only demonstrates that he's unable even to properly read a scientific paper.
Typical. If he isn't asking for data that were published and that he's too dull to understand, he's asking for data to prove his own strawman (three new proteins).
Once again it appears that the creationists think that the only people who can properly challenge science are those who have avoided any knowledge of science up to this point. You know, the dialectic, where opposites meet, and what is more opposite than knowledge vs. ignorance?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 18, 2008 12:20 PM
I read a couple articles about the experiment. But I don't remember reading about why there was citrate in the culture medium. Anyone know?
Posted by: Alex | June 18, 2008 12:25 PM
You can worship your own ignorance or you can go out and learn. The Schlafly family has been worshipping its own ignorance for years. Andy just decided that wasn't enough. He chose to be an ignorant fool and tell the world how mockworthy he is. I will happily treat him with the respect he has earned.
Posted by: freelunch | June 18, 2008 12:25 PM
So Schlafly thinks that the authors claim of "three mutations" equals "three proteins", and he judges himself qualified to evaluate technical data?
What would he even do with it? Could he even hold the data right-side-up? I keep getting visions of a small herd of chimps running rampant, grabbing up large sheafs of printouts and scattering them everywhere, hooting uncomprehendingly.
Posted by: minimalist | June 18, 2008 12:27 PM
"Andy Schlafly, B.S.E., J.D."
Bovine spongiform encephalopathy? That would explain a lot.
Posted by: Schwa | June 18, 2008 12:28 PM
@#1, not everyone who is homeschooled has their parents teach them, or do it for religious reasons. I'm "homeschooled" because my dad's job makes us move like every 10 months, which sucks btw. My parents don't teach me at all and I learn way more about evolution than all of my friends in public/private schools :P
Posted by: Remy-Grace | June 18, 2008 12:29 PM
Schafly demanding data from Dr Lenski is like a 7 year old demanding his mother drive him to NASA headquarters to ask the chief commander there what kind of cheese the Moon is made of.
Posted by: Stanton | June 18, 2008 12:30 PM
Schwa (#9):
Actually it stands for "Bull S*** Enabler, Junior Dumb***"
Posted by: minimalist | June 18, 2008 12:33 PM
The Schlafly family has been worshipping its own ignorance for years.
And for this Phyllis is awarded an honorary doctorate. It's a scary world.
Posted by: SC | June 18, 2008 12:34 PM
I note Schlafly is "B.S.E."
What in the hell is that? Boy Scouts of Estonia?
Google tells me it might be "Bombay Stock Exchange." Or, perhaps, "bovine spongiform ecephalopathy." At the Komen Foundation, it's "breast self exam."
Look, I grew up in the potato and strawberry fields (next to the sagebrush -- I'm not kidding). My law degree isn't from one of those fancy Christian schools, but from a mundane, top-20 law school. Am I so sheltered to have not encountered "B.S.E." before?
In Schlafly's case, is it "Bull Shit Excelsior?"
Will someone enlighten me, please?
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 18, 2008 12:34 PM
They didn't make a monkey from e. coli therefore there was no macro evolution.
Damn, every time I read something about e. coli I get that stupid Ricola commercial in my head! RiiCOLAAA!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFaO0ALa0Hc
Eeeee Coliii!!!
Posted by: doubtingfoo | June 18, 2008 12:35 PM
I have doubts that anyone who does not know that it is E. coli rather than E. Coli would have a chance of understanding the articles.
Posted by: Chondrus | June 18, 2008 12:35 PM
Good on ya, Remy-Grace, #10. Certainly homeschooling would be a benefit to some really advanced students, for reasons that must be obvious, or others with special circumstances such as yours (which is not to say that you aren't one of those "really advanced students" as well).
Still, surely you'd admit that most kids (at least in the US) who are homeschooled are homeschooled because their parents have views that are so, um, idiosyncratic that they don't fit into any regular school curriculum.
Posted by: Tom | June 18, 2008 12:39 PM
Why do people who waste their lives on crap find pleasure in harassing the people who do REAL work?
Get a life, Andy.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Bachelor of Science in Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Education (more likely, in this case)
But I prefer Boy Scouts of Estonia :).
Posted by: SC | June 18, 2008 12:40 PM
Funny that Schlafy managed to find the PNAS submission guidelines but not the actual paper.
Posted by: windy | June 18, 2008 12:45 PM
This sounds like Walter ReMine, who demanded the source code for a simulation Leonard Nunney published in AnZF a couple of years ago. Of course, the model was perfectly well described in the paper, and ReMine wasn't claiming that the simulations were wrong, so he could simply have coded them himself (I reckon it would take me less than a day, including debugging). A colleague at ESEB last year observed that this meant ReMine was lazy as well as stupid.
Posted by: Bob O'H | June 18, 2008 12:45 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 18, 2008 12:47 PM
Jesus Camp cited the percentage of homeschoolers in the US who are Evangelical Christians. I can't remember the exact figure, but it was very high (I'm thinking around 80% or 85%, but I may be wrong).
Posted by: SC | June 18, 2008 12:51 PM
Boomer #4,
How many nails can fit into the lid of one coffin? Oh well, it doesn't matter when the friggin zombie inside the casket just disregards the existance of the lid and rises again.
Posted by: schmeer | June 18, 2008 12:53 PM
Remy-Grace (@10):
I'm sure there are good reasons for homeschooling in individual cases, and I'm glad it's working for you (as an aside, if you're not being taught by your parents, then by whom? professional tutors?). But I was, as Tom (@17) correctly intuited, referring to homeschooling as a movement (i.e., "the whole homeschooling thing"), which typically involves kids being taught by their parents (or by their parents' equally self-"trained" cohorts), usually for ideological reasons.
My daughter was tutored at home for a year while she was on chemotherapy (she's fine now, BTW), so I know full well that there are often good reasons for "homeschooling" of some sort or another. But in her case, the teacher was a professional tutor provided by the public middle school that she would've been attending had her health allowed. Not the same thing.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin | June 18, 2008 12:54 PM
Found it: 75%.
Posted by: SC | June 18, 2008 12:55 PM
Tom and SC, I've seen Jesus Camp, and the percentages they give seem about right. Most all homeschooled kids that I've met have been total fundies. One homeschooled girl I know through a debate group participates in the "god hates fags" protests on a weekly basis, and another thinks Barack Obama is the antichrist. But most of my friends go to public school, because the homeschool kids and/or their parents pretty much have a seizure once they find out that I'm an atheist and my parents are democrats.
Posted by: Remy-Grace | June 18, 2008 12:55 PM
Went to Wikipedia to see how old AndyTaylor Schafly was. If he was awarded his degree by a homeskool college (accredited in the Reagan-era)in the late 70s-early 80s it likely isn't worth the paper it was mimeographed on. For those who weren't around, Education was the hmm lackluster field of study. Many football players took this major as you could indulge in all the activities of an unpaid sports entertainer and still graduate. I personally observed a young woman become credentialed without any study or class time.
The JD is most probably from one of the Reagan-era accredited skools. Politics counts. For more than 50 years many of these whiteys-only craptastic wastes of money were unable to place students as the curricula were not even up to decent high school standards. Enter St Ronnie. Now, by fiat, these skools are the equal of anything the Ivies or land-grants produce. And you wonder why they worship at his grave. Without St Ron, most of the Liberty grads would be paralegals or clerks in retail stores.
Posted by: Mold | June 18, 2008 12:56 PM
Regarding B.S.E.:
I think it stands for "Bachelor of Scientific Euphemism."
Posted by: Andy | June 18, 2008 12:57 PM
Over at Loom, where there's been an ongoing discussion about Lenski's latest paper, I called his collaborator Zachary Blount a "rock star" for wading into the comments and giving his honest best attempt to answer the hooting, screeching creobots beginning to swarm there.
Dr. Lenski, this isn't so much "rock star" as "maestro." Bravo.
Posted by: Stephen Couchman | June 18, 2008 12:58 PM
This is one of several reasons I avoid using the term "home school" for the correspondance coursework with which I graduated high school.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 18, 2008 1:01 PM
I was homeschooled because my parents felt the school system sucked. Keep in mind this is Louisiana.
I learned a lot of stuff, read a lot of different philosophies , history, science.
What was irritating was having to send records to the state, and then somehow getting on conservative christian nutjob mailing lists....
Posted by: Mark C | June 18, 2008 1:03 PM
Scene: Schlafly opens a package.
Schlafly: What's this?
Minion: That's the data you ordered.
Schlafly: This is data?
Minion: What did you think you were going to get?
Schlafly: You know, kinda, well...
Minion: You have no idea what data is, do you?
Schlafly: You're fired!
Posted by: QrazyQat | June 18, 2008 1:08 PM
Andy Schlafly inherited his brains from his mom. Poor guy.
I have a copy of Phyllis Schlafly's pro-Goldwater book from 1964, A Choice, Not an Echo, in which Andy's mom amply demonstrates her complete ignorance of matters intellectual. She cannot understand probability and statistics at all and was a pioneer in the "everyone is lying to us" school of political analysis (which, ironically, has become demonstrably true under the Bush administration).
I quote some of Phyllis Schlafly's goofball statements about statistics and political polling in my old post A Primer on Polling, in case anyone is curious and they don't have a convenient copy of A Choice, Not an Echo lying about.
Posted by: Zeno | June 18, 2008 1:12 PM
QrazyQat (#33):
Not quite as epic as John A. Davison Orders a Pizza, but still good. :-)
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 18, 2008 1:14 PM
Lenski's response (and reference to specific papers on his web site) reminds me of a saying on talk.origins: scientists hide the evidence for evolution. In, like, books and such.
Posted by: arensb | June 18, 2008 1:14 PM
That was polite, wasn't it?
I'd have told him to get bent.
I mean, who does this Schlafly dolt think he is? He has done nothing but demonstrate time and time again that, not only does he not come anywhere close to understanding either the science or the methodology behind it, but he is perhaps one of the least qualified people to even be writing objectively about science.
The man is nothing short of a complete and total embarrassment, and perhaps the last place anyone should look for a valid, honest answer to any question.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 18, 2008 1:16 PM
Like Mark C my parents homeschooled me until high school because the school system was shitty. I doubt I'd be nearly as interested in science if I had gone to a public school.
That said, parents who homeschool their children for religious reasons do their children a disservice.
Science: It works, bitches.
Posted by: Scott D. | June 18, 2008 1:17 PM
What is fun is that now all the morons on Conservapedia are insulting each other, and the ambiance there is clearly turning dictatorial.
:-)
Posted by: Jérôme ^ | June 18, 2008 1:18 PM
We, the scientists from Dumbfuckistan, request that the missing data we don't have be provided to us by Dr. Lenski immediately, if not sooner. If this missing data that we don't have is not made available to us on our terms then ...
[crap, my fundie indignation simulator ran out of steam]
</POE>
Posted by: WRMartin | June 18, 2008 1:19 PM
Is that meaningful? Isn't that roughly the same as the percentage of Christians in the US?
Posted by: pough | June 18, 2008 1:26 PM
@22
Thanks Sven. Great link.
Posted by: Alex | June 18, 2008 1:32 PM
@25, yeah I have professional tutors. My parents are smart and everything but I really don't see how they could actually teach me chemistry or a foreign language or something of that nature... It really bugs me when parents who are a lot less bright than mine think they are qualified to provide their kids with a high school-level education.
BTW, I'm glad that you're daughter is all better. I know how hard that kind of thing can be on families, so congratulations on getting through it.
Posted by: Remy-Grace | June 18, 2008 1:34 PM
Wow. Phyllis's son, huh? Wow.
I went to Conservapedia for a look-see, and I was dumbfounded by the content. Honestly, I thought that a lot of the claims (on various atheist sites) about the god-fearing creationists were hyperbole, but this site cleared up that misconception right away.
What a load of crap!
Posted by: sjburnt | June 18, 2008 1:36 PM
I wish Richard Lenski had not replied to that moron Schlafly's request for his data. Bug off, creationist crud and ask your god for that data. I wonder if he had also bothered Carl Zimmer for his data from his book on E. coli? I have considered his wife Phyllis a slimy crud long before I knew of him. How fortunate that the moron's name contains the word "Laf"!
Posted by: Holbach | June 18, 2008 1:41 PM
You should read the Talk page on the conservapedia link, it's a vein of pure fundy gold and awesome comebacks.
One of my favorites from said page:
If Lenski doesn't release all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, it's proof that he's a fraud. If Lenski releases all of the raw data accumulated over twenty years as Mr. Schlafly requests, the sheer volume is proof that he's trying to pull a fast one, and he's a fraud.
Is that correct?
Posted by: alcari | June 18, 2008 1:41 PM
Pough, not all Christians are evangelical. Thank the FSM that the percentage of evangelical Christians in the US is nowhere near 75 %!
Posted by: Elf Eye | June 18, 2008 1:42 PM
ugh, wtf!?
What data is he requesting, exactly? I mean, if it's summarized in the paper, and the methods are, he could re-do the experiment, I suppose.
Or he could request the strain that's Cit+ and sequence it relative to the proposed strain from which it evolved?
But his request is so damn nebulous.
To what extent is a scientist like Lenski expected to comply with this bogus request, given that the research may well have been funded by public monies?
Posted by: Jason | June 18, 2008 1:47 PM
Now, now, let's not be too hard on poor Andy. He may have been neglected as a child. After all, his mother spent much of the 60's and 70's traveling about the country insisting that a woman's place was in the home.
Posted by: Lana | June 18, 2008 1:48 PM
Please post the data supporting your remarkable claims so that we can review it, and note where in the data you find justification for your conclusions.
Wow. That's, erm, an amazing little request. I think I'll fire off a request to CERN for raw data so I can "review" them.
Erm, Mr. Schlafly? You keep using that word "review". I do not think it means what you think it means...
Posted by: factician | June 18, 2008 1:51 PM
@ #28 - Believe it or not, the JD is from Harvard, not some diploma mill. As for the engineering undergrad, I forget where, but it's a legit university.
Posted by: Paul | June 18, 2008 1:54 PM
How can Andy Schlafly regard himself as a serious player when Prof. Lenski's reply boils down to "RTFM"? As in "read the manual!"
Posted by: Monado | June 18, 2008 1:58 PM
On second thought... given the intent of the PNAS guidelines, if I were Richard Lenski, I would mail Mr. Schlafly some of the strains involved in the experiment. Let him do it himself.
Ha!
Posted by: factician | June 18, 2008 2:00 PM
This could be a preview of new creationist tactics--intimidate researchers by implying fraud or deception, and make unreasonable demands for access to the data, also known as a "fishing expedition." Then--unsatisfied (quite naturally)--they run to their favorite idiot legislator to try to force an congressional investigation of the granting agency and the researcher.
What a bunch of jackasses. It just shows how threatened these Luddites are by the inexorable progress made by working scientists (those that actually do research).
The last few months have really exposed creationists and IDists for what they are--demagogues that will stop at nothing to get their way.
Posted by: hje | June 18, 2008 2:02 PM
Tell that to the evangelical Christians. They seem to think that everyone who believes in any sort of deity is an evangelical Christian and subsequently one of their own.
Posted by: Capital Dan | June 18, 2008 2:03 PM
Lana wins the thread!
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2008 2:09 PM
On reading the talk page I see someone has pointed Mr. Schlafly to a link on the msu website of a small fraction of the raw data. It is, as expeccted, a large tabulation of (to the untrained) uncomprehensible numbers.
On seeing this Schlafly waved it away demanding that the raw data be presented to him in a "clear and understandable manner".
*sigh* In other words Andy Schlafly wants to be educated enough to that he can be as much an expert as the people writing the paper, but not expert enough that he must also admit that the paper is valid. (I.e. Make me smart, but not smart enough that I'm not stupid.)
Posted by: SpotWeld | June 18, 2008 2:14 PM
My error at # 44 Phyllis is his mother, not his wife. Oh what the hell, all in the same moronic family!
Posted by: Holbach | June 18, 2008 2:16 PM
So, Andrew Schlafly is that Uncle Mary's brother, right?
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 18, 2008 2:22 PM
Lenski's response can be boiled down to four words, "Read the paper FIRST." Then Schlafly can ask questions.
Of course, this assumes a genuine desire to learn...
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 18, 2008 2:25 PM
Doesn't the moron realise what he means with "Raw data"?
I'm not a biologist, but he fails to realise the sheer ammount of data 20 years of research produce, and how useless that data is to someone who doesn't get it.
We have this awesome supercomputer here at the university (in the world top 75), and the ammount of raw data we recieve for processing in "Stella" are staggering, in the order of several dozen gigabit per second. In laymen terms, that's about a 60 meter stack of paper every second. Now, I'm sure their research doesn't produce quite as much data as the LOFAR project, It's still several trucks full of DVD's worth of data.
Posted by: Sanity | June 18, 2008 2:26 PM
Ed Darrell:
Borderline-Sentient Egomaniac.
Posted by: Epikt | June 18, 2008 2:29 PM
Schlafly is actually doing something interesting here. Look at the argument that he's NOT making:
"Lenski's results, though touted as an example of evolution-in-action, do not in fact have any bearing on the falsehood of atheism Marxism Darwinism." That'd be a perfectly acceptable line of ID argument, used to reject everything from genetic algorithms to human selection to peppered moths. Why not deploy it here?
Instead, he seems to want to say "the bacteria did not do what the paper said they did." Is this a tacit admission that Lenski's experiment, as published, would be an explicit counterexample to the ID argument-by-incredulity? That, in the absence of fraud, Schlafly would accept Lenski's data as proof of evolution? Sure sounds like it.
Well, except for the fact that Schlafly's standard seems to be "attack first and think later." Who cares if the attacks contradict one another?
Posted by: Ben M | June 18, 2008 2:29 PM
given the intent of the PNAS guidelines, if I were Richard Lenski, I would mail Mr. Schlafly some of the strains involved in the experiment.
Better yet, mail him that whole stinky tower of petri dishes they made in the lab.
Posted by: windy | June 18, 2008 2:30 PM
@#40: No. It's roughly the percentage of Christians in general, including all your run-of-the-mill Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and all the other middle-of-the-road or liberal churches that don't have a problem with evolution.
Fundamentalists are maybe 30% of the US population. So they're somewhat overrepresented among home-schoolers.
Posted by: chancelikely | June 18, 2008 2:30 PM
OH....moan....
I followed the various links above and ended up in a Conservapedia Talk page... OMG... Are these people real? I think maybe we should ask for the original data they have....I'm not going to believe in Jeebus until they provide me with the originals of each and every book in the bible.... notarized.
My brain hurts...I'm going for a walk now.
Posted by: BAllanJ | June 18, 2008 2:30 PM
hje:
There's been a similar thing going on in the global warming denialist universe. Some of them have been demanding that GISS and others make the source code for their climate models freely available (even though executables for the GISS code are available online). Apparently, refusal to do that is evidence that they have something(s) to hide.
Or just maybe, given the rampant dishonesty of the denialists, it's due to the realization that if the source code were freely available, it would be trivial to alter it, then claim that it produced wrong answers.
Posted by: Epikt | June 18, 2008 2:39 PM
I just found an infuriatingly ironic (given all the stupidity done in the name of religion) cartoon on Uncommon Descent. Thought it would be of interest here partly because it's so silly, but also because PZ gets a mention in the comments.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/humor/darwinist-behavior-in-a-nutshell/
Posted by: Sam | June 18, 2008 2:40 PM
Zeno said:
And you can still function? You have a really durable brain, man!
Alas, I have a copy of one of her other books, Strike From Space, about how them Russkis is beatin' us up on ICBMs, etc. The stupid goes, um, all the way to the stratosphere. Maybe higher.
Brain damage on a plate.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | June 18, 2008 2:42 PM
Lenski is a very very nice guy. He gets his students, techs, postdocs, and most collaborators to work incredibly hard... because no one wants to make such a very nice man sad :)
Personally, I think RTFP would be a sufficient response. (RTFP is just like RTFM, but for papers.)
Posted by: travc | June 18, 2008 2:43 PM
What's the problem, Sanity? He's probably got a licensed copy of Microsoft Access.
Hey, why are you laughing?
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 18, 2008 2:43 PM
This could be a preview of new creationist tactics--intimidate researchers by implying fraud or deception, and make unreasonable demands for access to the data, also known as a "fishing expedition."
Yeah, and when they don't get the data, they can cry foul.
Andy will complain endlessly to his students that Lenski didn't provide what was asked for, isn't playing by the rules, has something to hide, blah, blah, blah.
The global warming deniers have been using this tactic for years.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 18, 2008 2:43 PM
Funny story about this post. I work on a military base. The internet is provided by the military for free, but comes with some limits. It blocks a lot of websites for various reasons, the most common of which are humor, chat, mp3, adult content, and personal pages. The reasoning is that the internet is provided for work, and not for fun. There are so many users on the base that it's neccessary to limit the bandwidth to non-work related sites.
Now, on to the funny part. When I tried to go to the link for the letter Andy Schlafly wrote, the page was blocked. It was blocked for a reason that I haven't previously seen... Malicious Code. Lol
Posted by: Eric Jones | June 18, 2008 2:45 PM
Heh. The Talk page is quite good. One of my favs:
Posted by: Etha Williams, OM | June 18, 2008 2:45 PM
Dammit,
Why did you have to mention Conservapedia? I just wasted 30 mins reading through their inanity (I have a problem controlling my morbid curiosity).
Anyone who is up for a good laugh, read the article on Obama. Some choice snippits:
"Obama claimed to have visited 57 states while campaigning for president of the United States, which of course has only 50 states. He could never explain where the false number of 57 came from, but it has been observed that there are 57 Islamic states and Obama was educated at an Islamic grade school while he lived in an Islamic country.[3]"
"Obama has declared himself to be a Christian, yet never replaced his Muslim name with a Christian one as many do,[4], making his claim somewhat dubious. "
Posted by: Fedaykin | June 18, 2008 2:47 PM
Well, until one of those people says they don't believe X, at which point they could be their second coming and not be a "True Christian (tm)". lol
Posted by: Kagehi | June 18, 2008 2:50 PM
You know, it would be increadibly funny to gather all the data, send a few weeks printing it all out, then gather it in a few large dumptrucks and throw it all on Schlafly's lawn.
To bad it would kill several trees and cost quite a bit of money. It would be the prank of the century though, and probably shut the fool up for a while.
Posted by: Sanity | June 18, 2008 2:52 PM
Starting with conclusions and rationalizing are distinctive characteristics of apologetics. The last few hundred years provide ample evidence of the superiority of science to apologetics for understanding the natural world. One hopes that those who are unfamiliar with the enlightenment will live to experience the virtues of science, but sadly some are immune to scientific understanding.
Posted by: Les Lane | June 18, 2008 2:53 PM
I love how in the Conservapædia thread he signs his posts "Aschlafly". That's gotta be pronounced "AssFly", right?
Posted by: Taz | June 18, 2008 2:55 PM
Better yet, mail him that whole stinky tower of petri dishes they made in the lab.
Or arrange it so that whenever Schlafly orders a dish containing ground beef or spinach in a restaurant, his plate arrives with a card saying "Compliments of Dr. Lenski."
Posted by: SC | June 18, 2008 3:05 PM
I think it's "Ash Laugh Lie"
Posted by: Kseniya | June 18, 2008 3:12 PM
Has anybody found anybody actually agreeing with AssFly on the Talk page? There are several people repeatedly offering to sign his little email if he would stop being quite so much of a petulant, unprofessional little dickweed, but he's stuck in a "yer either with us or agin' us" loop and repeatedly threatening to ban them.
Posted by: dinkum | June 18, 2008 3:16 PM
Schlafly is a grade-A moron. He went on some tirade about STDs and when PalMD challendged some of his points, Schlafly immediately demanded to know PalMDs credentials. Pal informed him was an internist and then Schlafly went on to say that Internists receive no training in STDs.
OT, but as I graduated from Washington University with my PhD this May, I was in the second row with my fellow PhDs. When Phyllis "Walking embodiment of hypocrisy" Schlafly got her honorary degree, I am proud to say that I stood and turned my back on this foul woman and the WashU leadership for their actions. My rough estimate was that ~1/3 of all the graduating students did the same as did a number of professors.
Posted by: Jesse | June 18, 2008 3:21 PM
Jason #47 wrote:
It should be clear -- Schlafly wants to see the parts of the data where the numbers and figures give way to the phrase "... and then a miracle occurs!"
Creationists seem to live in a comfy, small, safe little world which has been set up for them by a loving parent to be comprehensible and easy. You don't need to read or understand scientific abstracts to disagree with them. Would the conclusion make sense to a small child? No? Then it must be wrong.
God doesn't make reality hard. It's only put there for us to find Him, and even a child can do that.
Posted by: Sastra | June 18, 2008 3:26 PM
@Bill Dauphin (#1)
Homeschooling is not necessarily related to rejecting teachers as experts. Most homeschooling parents are well aware it takes a lot of skills (and patience!) to deal with 28 youngsters at one time, point them all in the same direction, ensure they are safe and don't hurt each other, ensure they can perform on standardized tests, ect. Luckily, most homeschooling parents are not trying to do that (particularly the 28 kids at one time part!). Yet, there is a kernal of truth to your characterization... most homeschoolers do believe that in education, students are real experts at their own learning, and a caring parent observing them closely can gain great insight into how their child is doing.
To me, that doesn't sound so arrogant or foolish.
@Tom (#17) There are definitely some very weird homeschoolers out there. For the record, I'm not attempting to defend all of their ideologies (for one thing, some homeschoolers contradict other homeschoolers). Yet I am unsure who (if anyone) the negative sterotyping of homeschoolers serves.
@SC (#23/26) Is that acording to HSLDA? And how did they determine "Evanglical"?
@Azkyroth (#31) I can definitely see why. Though personally, I think the sterotypes need to change, not the label.
@Scott D. (#38) +1
@Remy-Grace (#42) Well, you could always do what I did- skip high school.
I do think that homeschoolers who don't network and get help from a variety of people to educate their kids(particularly by the high school level) are doing their kids a huge disservice. But I also think that there are some aspects where homeschoolers have an easier time than school teachers, and it's not at all arrogant to
point that out.
There, now that I've gotten my ranting out of the way:
@doubtingfoo (#15) Damn, now everytime I hear it, it will be "Eeee Coliii"
And on topic-
@SpotWeld (#56) "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing". I think you've got it dead right.
and I like windy(#63)'s suggestion. Stinky petri dishes are very appropriate.
Posted by: Becca | June 18, 2008 3:28 PM
This is really a "David and Goliath" scenario for Schlafly. He has no serious hope (or intent) to disprove any science. He is merely rallying his followers by showing that the little guy can take on "big science" and come out the "winner." It matters not to his followers that he is wrong. They are so culturally familiar with the "David and Goliath" meme that that is what is really "proven" to them.
Posted by: Paul Lamb | June 18, 2008 3:33 PM