…and this is a 
What is wrong with journalists?
Category: Creationism • Media
Posted on: June 23, 2008 6:29 PM, by PZ Myers
We've got a couple of appalling examples of awful journalism to scowl at today. The first is this credulous piece by Gordy Slack in The Scientist. I've been unhappy with Slack before — he sometimes seems to want to let creationist absurdity slide — and I got yelled at by some readers for my uncharitable interpretation of his review of the Creation "Museum". Well, I think I've been vindicated now.
This article tries to give credit to the Intelligent Design creationists for some discoveries or interpretations. It's wrong from top to bottom. Here's his list, with my brief rebuttal; Jeffrey Shallit has a more thorough dissection.
ID gets credit for saying there are big, open questions in science. Scientists say this. It is not news. Go ahead, ask us, and we'll give you long lists of exciting research questions. They won't be invented or falsified controversies, as the DI is fond of puking up.
The cell is more complex than Darwin imagined. Scientists say this. The complexity of the cell was not figured out by creationists of any kind — it is the outcome of hard work by cell biologists and molecular biologists. It's also not true that Darwin had a poor understanding of cellular complexity: as I've said before, the mid- to late 19th century was the period when the light microscope reached its optical limits, and there was all kinds of amazing work being done into developing new staining techniques and identifying new organelles. When do you think Camillo Golgi lived?
IDists are correct to say love is not an illusion. Scientists say this. Frankly, this is the most dumb-ass argument in a whole slop-bucket of dumbassery; that cherished, complex phenomena like love have a material basis does not in any way imply that they are not "real".
IDists are right to say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers. Scientists say this. We don't sit around thinking, "How can I get people to obey me?" The concern about improving public understanding of science is about getting people to be skeptical and ask intelligent questions. And just how can Slack give credit for noticing dogmatism among evolution supporters when ID is all about rationalizing dogmatic beliefs in a creator?
There is nothing in this mess that Gordy Slack credits to creationists that is actually something that they have done first. And then in conclusion he asks an utterly inane rhetorical question: "Should IDers be allowed to pursue their still very eccentric and outlying theory?" Has it ever even been suggested that creationists not be allowed to do research? More often, we're snarling at 'em to go get some reasonable evidence. Slack's article was just plain bad, strawmen aplenty and the gullible acceptance of ID propagandists' appropriation of basic ideas.
Here's another example of godawful stupid journalism, this time from the New York Times. Academics in Philadelphia have done a wonderful thing: they have organized a Year of Evolution to celebrate the Darwin year; I praised this before, and it really is an excellent, positive way to celebrate and inform about science. (I should also mention that I've been invited to come speak in November. This is not necessarily why it is such a good event.) This is a fantastic opportunity for people in that region to learn about the amazing progress science has made in the last century and a half.
How does the NY Times article start? "In the long-running culture war between evolution and creationism, Philadelphia is firing the latest shot."
What?
I'm wondering…when St Patrick's Cathedral opens its doors on Sunday morning, will there be journalists there covering the latest assault in the war on reason? Would they even think to phrase it that way? When scientists gather, though, and try to present their work to the community … that's fighting a war.
Now, since the NY Times is the greatest paper in America, and they have to excel in everything, when they screw up they don't just make a little boo-boo and then correct their course and try to move back towards something reasonable — that would produce a mediocre article. No, they have to compound the error. They have to make it monumental. Who would be the worst person to consult to add 'diversity' to the article, to put it into the standard boring frame with two sides and nothing in between? Can you guess?
Of course you can. Ken "Wackaloon" Ham.
Please. This is insane. I can understand getting multiple sources for a story; I can see how if a doctor has just told you some important medical news, you might want to get a second opinion. But if that second opinion was delivered by an inebriated, unwashed schizophrenic the doctor obligingly dragged out of a dumpster for you, you might be unimpressed with the quality of his search for diverse, informed perspectives. This, however, is pretty much standard operating procedure at the Times.
Jerry Coyne asked an editor publicly about this policy.
I noticed that when the Times reported on the recent discovery of the transitional fossil between fish and amphibians (the "fishapod"), they asked a creationist for comment. As an evolutionary biologist, I was dismayed by this. Creationism is simply a discredited enterprise, and asking a creationist to comment on a new fossil is like asking a faith healer to comment on a medical advance, or an astrologer to comment on a new discovery about human behavior. I respect the newspaper's desire to be objective and give opposing viewpoints, but don't see the need to do that when the "opposing viewpoint" is simply a form of quackery.
Here's her reply. It starts out well enough.
How to cover the politicization of science, intelligent design and other manifestations of what Mr. Fishkin and other readers call the war on science is a question that comes up again and again in the science department. We're well aware that giving equal time to opposing views of an issue makes no sense when one side has no solid evidence to stand on. The old FCC idea of a fairness doctrine simply shouldn't apply to science journalism.
Right. Philadelphia is planning a major event around the discoveries and evidence and ideas of evolutionary biology, and that certainly is newsworthy. Ken Ham has no solid evidence to stand on, so it makes no sense to call him up and asks for his opinion…but they did. As she said, this makes no sense.
So why do they bring in anti-intellectual reprobates and promote their ignorance to a kind of equivalence to scientific ideas?
Yet viewpoints that may strike scientifically literate people as absurd, dangerous or even evil have a way of making news that insists on being dealt with. In recent years creationism's hip cousin, intelligent design, has grown to be a divisive issue at every level of society, from school boards to the White House. So it seems to me that a serious paper is obliged to investigate the phenomenon, beginning with the question 'What is going on here?'
Wait — so now she's claiming that bringing aboard an irrational wackaloon is the mark of a "serious paper"? Wow. I guess that makes World Net Daily one of the pinnacles of serious journalism. The NY Times must be trying to catch up with them.
If the newspaper was writing an article on the serious sociological and political issues of creationism, evolution, and education, then sure — bring in many sides, explore them, and weigh them, and try to come to a conclusion. Unfortunately, there are two observations that invalidate the editor's defense.
One is that even in those instances where the topic warrants the inclusion of these multiple perspectives, journalists tend to just let them lie there, limp and unresolved. We have scientists and we have creationists, they disagree with one another, we can't resolve this issue, we can't suggest that maybe one side is the province of insanity and ignorance, we're just reporters for the NY freaking Times. There is no investigation, only the bland, blinkered recitation of each side's position.
The other problem is that in both the cases of the Philadelphia Darwin celebration and the discovery of Tiktaalik, the creationist side had nothing of substance to contribute, other than sullen, unfounded disagreement. Denial is not an argument. The newspaper does a disservice to work that has heft to it, that has a solid foundation of serious evidence behind it, when they take any event on the side of reason and reflexively pair it with some cretin who has nothing but a dogmatic denial of science and reason as his credentials.
It seems to me that that is not what a serious paper would do.
Politics
Comments
Is The Scientist a serious scientific publication at all? It has always struck me as a publication that is within shouting distance of the Rivista Biologica and other such trash.
Posted by: rimpal | June 23, 2008 6:40 PM
wait - intelligent design isn't science?
Posted by: anon | June 23, 2008 6:40 PM
It's not as though they have to totally ignore the fact that idiotic beliefs like creationism and intelligent design exist, but to allow them to compare equally to evolution is just fucking stupid. The true problem here is that just as the toxic effects of religion exist in the general population, the staff at the NY times are probably no different. Plenty of those idiots belief in omnipotent mythical beings, or other idiotic topics like artrology, alien visitation, advanced civilization predating the last ice age, etc. These bastards can't keep their own heads clear of rubbish, how can we expect them to objectively analyze topics as important and diverse as evolution? As is often the case, they have their heads so far up their religious/spiritual asses, they cannot remain objective.
Posted by: Helioprogenus | June 23, 2008 6:45 PM
I was not aware that The Scientist was a serious paper.
Posted by: thalarctos | June 23, 2008 6:50 PM
Some of the best commentary I've read on this problem in journalism is in Lauri Lebo's The Devil in Dover, which I strongly recommend to scientists and most especially to journalists.
Posted by: RBH | June 23, 2008 6:51 PM
The NY Times article seems to be written by someone who knows a little about creationism, and absolutely nothing about science. Given that the topic is actually about a science event, there is a strange lack of discussion of what the event is, or what the event celebrates; i.e. what has been achieved as a result of Darwin's works. Science is almost invisible in the article. Pathetic.
Posted by: echidna | June 23, 2008 6:51 PM
ID is "creationism's hip cousin"?
*choke*
Posted by: SC | June 23, 2008 6:52 PM
She is right that ID is a phenomenon worth investigating and reporting, but that is like saying that the Nazi skinhead movement is worth investigating and reporting. It is. But to present it as a mainstream alternative is just bad journalism.
There is no global warming. The holocaust is a lie. We never landed on the Moon. 911 was an inside job. Etc, etc.
Posted by: James Brennan | June 23, 2008 6:53 PM
Hear, hear!
Posted by: Randy | June 23, 2008 6:54 PM
On the 'big, open questions in science' topic, take a look at the 125th anniversary issue of SCIENCE, July 1, 2005 (vol.309, no.5731). In this issue a special section (pp.75-102) is devoted to a description of some of the big 'what we don't know' questions in science. It's a fascinating read, and if you don't subscribe to SCIENCE, then your local library should have it on hand.
Posted by: WRHorton | June 23, 2008 6:55 PM
I just wish those IDists would get around to enlightening the other sciences, like chemistry and physics. Otherwise, those poor physicists and chemists won't have any idea that:
- There are big, open questions in science, and thus there must not be a single graduate student studying those fields, anywhere;
- The universe is more complex than Newton imagined and the atom is more complex than Rutherford imagined, so we're stuck with those anachronistic and incomplete models;
- Gravitational and van der Waals forces are not illusions; and
- Some proponents of relativity and redox reactions are blind followers.
So please, IDiots, please bring your wisdom and insight to bear on these poor, neglected cousins of biology. To paraphrase a movie that is only a teensy more scientific than ID: "Help us Dembski-wan, you're our only hope."
Posted by: Brownian, OM | June 23, 2008 6:56 PM
Posted by: Sir Jebbington | June 23, 2008 7:00 PM
So when the next NASA mission is launched will they include a rebuttal from a flat-Earther? And why aren't they giving equal space to the Time Cube Guy?
Posted by: James Brennan | June 23, 2008 7:08 PM
"Magic man dun it." or *POOF*
that's all they have.
Somebody explain to me what god would need a fucking rest!
He got winded? Blood sugar got low? Dehydrated? Not enough sprint training in the off season? Doesn't want a cramp before he went back into the celestial waters?
I don't get it.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 23, 2008 7:10 PM
I noticed the Times article this morning, and when I blogged about it my title was "New York Times Promotes Ken Ham." Getting a quote from a creationist regarding a Darwin celebration is like getting a quote from Osama Bin Laden about your Fourth of July plans.
Posted by: PatrickHenry | June 23, 2008 7:16 PM
The NY Times ceased to be a serious newspaper long time ago. Check out "Manufacturing Consent" by N. Chomsky & E. Herman or "The Real Terror Network" (E. Herman) for examples of their 'objective' reporting. One doesn't need to subscribe to the other conclusions of these books but the fact is undeniable that there is a strong bias in their reporting.
Posted by: Futility | June 23, 2008 7:21 PM
You left out the worst part of the reply:
Laura Chang implies that Jerry Coyne just wants to "suppress" creationism. Nice going, dumbass. And why does a science editor insist that viewpoints that aren't science should get a fair hearing in the science section?
Posted by: windy | June 23, 2008 7:21 PM
Yikes! PZ him big mad. >:{
Posted by: Patricia | June 23, 2008 7:22 PM
That gets me nervous, the origin of life thing. They should've never said a word to Ham. Can't we make a rule that any attempt to get a designing/creating/inventing/magical entity into science is against the separation of church and state and must at least sway a majority of the national academy of sciences to even be considered? Something like that? Would that be too hard?
Posted by: AndrewC | June 23, 2008 7:22 PM
He rejected the possibility that Christians could believe in evolution. "If you take Genesis as literal history, then of course the two are exclusive," he said.
Well... yeah. Thanks! So are pink unicorns too.
"Christians who believe in evolution are being inconsistent."
I thought he rejected the possibility that Christians could believe in evolution.
There aren't any Christians who believe in evolution. That possibility has been rejected! Thanks.
Posted by: 386sx | June 23, 2008 7:30 PM
I do believe that Ken is using the No True Scotsman argument.
Posted by: Steve_C | June 23, 2008 7:41 PM
ID is "creationism's hip cousin"?
Of course it is. Didn't you see Ben Stein dressed up like Angus Young? Rawk on.
Posted by: Rey Fox | June 23, 2008 7:44 PM
OK. So rather than have legitimate scientists report science news, we have to listen to whacky creationists and this drivel about the culture war? Why? Because it is a better story?
Isn't there a watchdog group that monitors terrible science reporting like this? There should be.
Posted by: Aaron Boruff | June 23, 2008 7:45 PM
NYT is in a load of trouble; ad revs are dismal. It is no longer a pleasant/fruitful place in which to work--lots of staff have been let go in the last several years.
Olivia Judson is one of the few bright spots there.
Posted by: Logicel | June 23, 2008 7:47 PM
I do believe that Ken is using the No True Scotsman argument.
That and the Captain Obvious argument:
"If you take Genesis as literal history, then of course the two are exclusive," he said.
Well... yeah of course. Thanks a lot Mr. Ham!
Posted by: 386sx | June 23, 2008 7:51 PM
"IDists are correct to say love is not an illusion. "
I'm so TIRED of this kind of bullshit. Next time anyone brings "love" in a discussion about evolution or neuroscience, I'm going to kick him in the balls as an hommage to George Carlin.
Posted by: onclepsycho | June 23, 2008 7:53 PM
What's wrong with journalism? The first issue is the mistake that most people make when they think that the "product" sold is "news." The product is us. We are the ones being traded as commodities. Or more specifically our eyeballs. The newspapers make most of their revenue through advertising. The content only has the function of drawing our eyes near the ads surrounding it.
As a librarian, I have had more experience dealing with journalists than I care to think about. Most of them are the laziest researchers ever. As students their professors train them to do research in a rushed and superficial manner because "in the real world" they will have to "make deadlines." Media outlets do not like to hire journalists with masters degrees and therefore expertise in a given field because then you have to pay them more (for example, as a grad student in Russian history many years ago I recall patiently explaining the difference between the Politburo and the Central Committee to a man who had worked as a political correspondent in Moscow for a couple of years. It's a bit like someone working as a White House correspondent without knowing the difference between Congress and the Cabinet). A Journalist "acquires expertise" in a given field by writing about it. As s/he accumulates a portfolio of articles in a given field, that then confers upon them the title of "expert" regardless of what a person with a Ph.D. in that field would think of the articles.
Journalists follow a set of rules designed more for attracting readers/viewers than in providing useful information. They have a "rolodex" (now on computers, no longer literally) of people they call for comments. No time for research, must make the deadline you know. They do not bother to distinguish between when the facts lead to a given conclusion or when people are biased. Balance is just a matter of calling on all the kids in a class in a "fair and even-handed manner", even when the "kids in the class" run the range from 3rd graders to Ph.D.s - all get called on. Also, journalists love controversy of any kind. That they'll make an effort to look for and find. Voila! Enter Ken Ham and Ben Stein and the whole bestiary of wackaloons. They may be crackpots but they're good for business.
Journalism is not about providing information. It's about selling advertisements. Once you accept this, everything falls into place.
Posted by: Steven Dunlap | June 23, 2008 7:55 PM
This article tries to give credit to the Intelligent Design creationists for some discoveries or interpretations. It's wrong from top to bottom...PZ
This sounds from the top but does not go all the way to the bottom of the argument per say...
"Design is a workable explanation for organized complexity only in the short term...Dawkins"
Dawkins goes on to say...
"It is not an ultimate explanation, because designers themselves demand an explanation. Ultimately they must have evolved by gradual degrees from simpler beginnings."
I generally look for "pattern recognition" than what science doesn't know and not try to get in the mind of what a intelligent designer might ask...
Posted by: Michael | June 23, 2008 7:55 PM
Well hip fucking hooray for the NYT and their rock solid commitment to presenting both sides of the story, no matter how much they might strongly disagree with the premise of validity of one of those sides. I will look forward to seeing this impressive impartiality applied to their next story on Holocaust survivors, which will necessarily include balancing comments from David Irving and other Holocaust deniers.
Posted by: Danio | June 23, 2008 7:56 PM
"If you take Genesis as literal history, then of course the two are exclusive," he said.
He's probably written a lot of articles and given a lot of lectures saying just exactly that in enough words to fill up entire articles and lectures. Thanks a lot Mr. Ham.
Posted by: 386sx | June 23, 2008 7:58 PM
Hmm... Laura Chang reportedly only has a B.S. in communications (making it rather obvious what those initials should really stand for). Meanwhile she damns her own (mis)behaviour here:
from which claim of hers we can see that she actively chooses to misinform herself from the worst possible sources she can find and then to misrepresent those as being valid and worthy ones. She evidently fails to apply any critical thinking or high standards of selection to the process. Her bosses similarly seem to have chosen the worst possible person they could from the available pool.Posted by: SEF | June 23, 2008 8:08 PM
A link that will get you past having to register to read the new scientist article:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/print/54759/
Posted by: MRW | June 23, 2008 8:11 PM
I agree with Steven Dunlap, #27: newspapers and magazines do not exist to provide information - they exist to sell advertising. If the advertisers put pressure on them to
liemisrepresent in order to suck up to the fundy dollar then that's what they're going to do.If religionists are truly about 'teaching the controversy' then why aren't churches inviting atheists to come and speak at their services?
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 8:11 PM
I don't know, I expect and even want the "other side" to get a quote or two in. I believe that they would include a faith healer's or astrologer's nonsense in an article regarding any controversy about these "issues". To anyone knowledgeable, the pseudoscientists sound like idiots--otoh, to many naive and stupid people including them does suggest that they have something to say. So is it a wash?
I don't know if it's a wash, yet I think they do have to include the dissenters' voices. They don't have to leave it at that, however, rather they could and should point out some of the stupid things Ham has said. I mean, sure, include Ham's retort, just point out that he has no expertise in science, and that nearly everything non-trivial that he says about science is wrong.
They really do have an obligation to vet their sources, and not to treat Ham as if he were the equal of Dawkins--for the sake of those who genuinely do not know the difference.
As for Slack-ass, he should recognize that any time the IDiots are right about some "big question", they're merely derivative. They don't do any science or good thinking, mostly they're wrong in how they quote-mine honest sources, and they typically get even the innocuous and truthful claims right after having been corrected many times by the people on our side.
I'm guessing that Slack hasn't actually read anything on these matters in an actual science journal in decades. Both Science and Nature bring up the remaining questions fairly often, and they actually characterize matters reasonably well. The IDiots do not.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | June 23, 2008 8:17 PM
Another problem is a lack of critical thinking skills amongst readers. They see an article in the newspaper or magazine and think, 'oh, this person's in the news; he/she must be an expert and therefore should be taken seriously' - even when that person is a clueless hack shilling for cash or pushing a dishonest agenda.
It's described as a 'culture war' - which is accurate because in the minds of the public it's not 'science vs. anti-science'; they don't know what that means. We do, but we're in the minority.
When it's reported that a Liar-for-Jesus like Ken Ham managed to obtain $27 million for his stupid Flintstones park makes the less-perceptive think that maybe he's got a point.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 8:32 PM
So let's rewrite the NYT quoted section to put it in perspective.
"Yet viewpoints that may strike historically literate people as absurd, dangerous or even evil have a way of making news that insists on being dealt with. In recent years holocaust denial, has grown to be a divisive issue at every level of society, from school boards to the White House. So it seems to me that a serious paper is obliged to investigate the phenomenon, beginning with the question 'What is going on here?'
When was the last time NYT asked David Irving his opinion in any serious way...
Posted by: CJ Klok | June 23, 2008 8:33 PM
Of course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3HaRFBSq9k
Posted by: True Bob | June 23, 2008 8:36 PM
I'm convinced that's what they're teaching journalism majors these days. Judith Miller wasn't an aberration at the New York Times, she just stuck out a little more.
Posted by: ndt | June 23, 2008 8:38 PM
I also agree with Steve Dunlap. This isn't about trying to present useful, correct information. It's about grabbing reader's interest. In the recent flood coverage, show me one TV crew filming an empty flooded floodplain talking about a community's success in keeping development out or selectively removing it, and I'll show you a hundred crews filming poor sods swimming through their living rooms. And I'll throw in a hundred viewers flipping from the first channel to one of the other hundred.
Evolution being a settled fact among biologists is not news. A tooth-and-nail debate, whoever is trying to have it, IS news.
Posted by: rrt | June 23, 2008 8:39 PM
I don't really understand what ID people believe (I mean, genuine "ID" about managed evolution or etc., not Paul-Davies type anthropic design about reasons for laws etc., such as I find attractive.) Unlike young-Earth creationism, I take "ID" to accept: acceptance of the rough scale of geologic history, and the validity of most fossil dating. (Hence, trilobites in 550 M BP, last dinosaurs around 65 M BP, etc.)
To me, the key question is not whether a particular theoretical framework about evolution is true, but the continuity of life combined with evidence of change per se. IOW, if creatures are born (broadly) from other creatures, and species are different at different times, then there must be "evolution" of descendants over the ages regardless of the details. So, do IDers believe that members of new species just appear in a creative flash of smoke like a wizard? That would be rather tacky. It's worse actually than just having them all made in one week.
Has anyone asked? I remember a graph they had, based on "punctuated equilibrium" but showing vertical lines for different species over time, just floating there separated. I just don't get what they imagine happened during the changes of life over the various eras. Especially interesting, when would this process be expected to stop? I mean, maybe a new critter is welling up in the jungles of Bolivia right now (too bad we can't get the species back that we are driving into extinction more and more every day from development and population growth.)
Posted by: Neil B. | June 23, 2008 8:39 PM
IDists are right to say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers.
No they aren't. Accepting evolution despite not knowing the fine details yourself does not make you a follower. It means that you accept that experts in a field might know more than you do.
For example, I accept that the succession of the monarchs of England as given in history books, even though I couldn't even name all the monarchs myself (I'm not British), let alone talk in detail about the rules of succession, or even what evidence exists. I accept it because I know that any historian who was able to show, and prove, something different would receive accolades.
I believe in the integrity of the process historians follow, and that it should be able to absorb the fallibility of individuals.
Similarly with mathematics; most people accept the results of mathematics even though they may not be able to do calculus themselves. That does not make them "followers" of mathematics.
With science; it is quite reasonable to accept the results of the scientific process even if you do not understand all of the fine details yourself. We can accept modern medicine without understanding the fine detail, even as we know that the current state of knowledge is not perfect, and that better knowledge will prevail in the future.
In religion, though, the only check is the credibility of the individual speaker, and the suggestibility of the follower.
Accepting the expertise of historians, mathematicians and scientists makes you part of an educated modern community. Accepting the interpretations of Middle-ages rewrites of bronze age religious texts that have no evidence at all to back them makes you a follower.
Posted by: echidna | June 23, 2008 8:40 PM
One is that even in those instances where the topic warrants the inclusion of these multiple perspectives, journalists tend to just let them lie there, limp and unresolved. We have scientists and we have creationists, they disagree with one another, we can't resolve this issue, we can't suggest that maybe one side is the province of insanity and ignorance, we're just reporters for the NY freaking Times. There is no investigation, only the bland, blinkered recitation of each side's position.
Posted by: James Brennan | June 23, 2008 6:53 PM
...Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. Oh wait, the NY Times did report that without any investigation or analysis.
Posted by: ndt | June 23, 2008 8:41 PM
I'm feeling analogical: science is about growing new hairs to cover a head; religion is about splitting existing hairs and convincing you that a greater area is covered because there are technically more hairs than there were before.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 8:50 PM
First sentence of article sets the whole thing off on the wrong track:
"In the long-running culture war between evolution and creationism, Philadelphia is firing the latest shot."
Creationists would love to have it thought of as a culture war - which suggests an unresolvable power struggle between opposing viewpoints, each with some claim to truth - when it is anything but.
Posted by: CalGeorge | June 23, 2008 8:52 PM
I don't know if it's a wash, yet I think they do have to include the dissenters' voices. They don't have to leave it at that, however, rather they could and should point out some of the stupid things Ham has said. I mean, sure, include Ham's retort, just point out that he has no expertise in science, and that nearly everything non-trivial that he says about science is wrong.
That would definitely make for a much better article, because in the article Ham didn't say anything. It was all emptiness void and vacuum. Seriously! Go ahead and read it. He says nothing at all! Nothing but a blast of empty air. Amazing.
Posted by: 386sx | June 23, 2008 9:01 PM
Call 'em out PZ! The world needs more people who see bullshit like this and refuse to sit quietly about it. Thanks for keeping your eyes open and saying "this is completely and utterly wrong" when it needs to be said.
Posted by: Rystefn | June 23, 2008 9:03 PM
What is wrong with journalists?
They're a bunch of damned atheist liberals, that's what.
Neither Slack nor The NYT even tried to get thoughts on this weighty matter from John Freshwater or Ben Stein.
If Ham's Curiosity Shoppe is planning what amounts to an off-site protest demonstration against '09 Darwin commemorations, a token mention thereof might have some reportorial legitimacy - but failing to interview these heroically self-sacrificing battlers from the front lines, in a story purporting to cover the culture wars, is further unquestionable proof that the Liberal Media Conspiracy is alive and well among anti-American eggheads.
Considering the recent outbreaks of self-righteous flame-farting observed locally, I hasten to add:
/parody. (Got that, BH & tm?)
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | June 23, 2008 9:06 PM
I read this article in the Scientist the other day, and I couldn't believe what I was reading. It was a whole lot of words (quite a long article) about absolutely nothing by some idiot who clearly doesn't understand any of the facts of what he's talking about. It was ridiculous, and I was pretty much just waiting to see when you would post something about it here.
Posted by: LisaJ | June 23, 2008 9:10 PM
It's hindered by whether or not the pro-science side is getting noticed. It seems that the media is, for the most part, biased - and not toward science.
We need another Carl Sagan - a 'face' for science.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 9:10 PM
The NYT is pandering to their wingnut section of readers. All newspapers are in serious trouble because of the internet and are downsizing and treading water.
Most have a web presence these days. Ironically their readership has never been higher but they end up giving a lot away free to the netsters.
Posted by: raven | June 23, 2008 9:12 PM
"The Scientist'? What a freaking misnomer! We should contact Scientific American magazine and have them lodge a complaint for misappropriation of a legitimate and scientific journal. The freaking curs! I think we are beginning to realize that we are not militant enough against the insane hordes. As Carl Sagan said last night in Cosmos; "We must not capitualte to superstition". When all this insane crap surfaces, then I think that we are at the point where we won't be able to stem the demented hordes, for they are pushing a lot more than we are. And shame on the New York Times for kowtowing to the likes of that demented moron Hambone, whose skull contains exactly that item. Are we going down in a wash of insane shit from these religious pukers? Damn, let's not bolt the door after this scum has left and caused complete havoc.
Posted by: Holbach | June 23, 2008 9:21 PM
The example from the NY Times cited by Prof. Myers is an example of the deterioration of that once fine newspaper. The late Walter Sullivan, who was the science editor of the Times must turn over in his grave at what is happening in his old bailiwick.
However, an even better example of the crappy science reporting by the newspaper of record was the coverage of the Dover trial. At least in the early going, the reporting by the local York newspapers, particularly by Lauri lebo and Mike Argento was far superior to the reporting in the Times.
I don't recall if I previously recounted the following experience on this blog but it seems apropos. About 25 years ago, I was interviewed over the phone by NY Times science writer James Gleick (author of a biography of Issac Newton by the way) for an article he was writing for the NY Times Sunday magazine. About 2 or 3 weeks later, I received a call from his editor who read excerpts from Mr. Gleicks' article and asked me if I had been quoted accurately. She also read other excerpts and asked me if they were technically correct (in fact, I had been quoted accurately and Mr. Gleick had gotten the technical aspects of the article correct). I told her I was amazed at this as I could not conceive of our local paper, the Washington Post doing such a thing. I somehow doubt that I would receive such a call today.
Posted by: SLC | June 23, 2008 9:24 PM
Journalists need to understand that objective journalism isn't simply covering opposing viewpoints on the issue. It's being free from personal bias and addressing the information at hand. Everytime there is an article on the holocaust, they don't need to get the opinion of a holocaust denier. Why should it be different for science? It just feeds the already ignorant masses
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2008 9:27 PM
Somehow my browser mis-rendered Gordy Slacks article in The Scientist. I got the main logo and some boxes along left hand margin. Then a pinkish title "What Neo-Creationists Get Right," lots and lots of white space and a log in/register area.
The rendering was so very apt.
Posted by: Mike | June 23, 2008 9:41 PM
Somehow my browser mis-rendered Gordy Slacks article in The Scientist. I got the main logo and some boxes along left hand margin. Then a pinkish title "What Neo-Creationists Get Right," lots and lots of white space (until the left hand boxes ened) and a log in/register area.
The rendering was so very apt.
I was not about to register. To do so might encourage the editors to repeat their mistake.
Posted by: Mike | June 23, 2008 9:43 PM
Can we expect that the next issue of the New York Times' "Religion" section will include quotes from PZ?
Posted by: Alan R. | June 23, 2008 9:43 PM
The only thing hip about ID or creationism is that the two are joined at the hip--Siamese twins, if you wish, despite claims to the contrary from the DI. If one is present, so is the other.
Posted by: Keanus | June 23, 2008 9:48 PM
ID is creationism's "hip cousin?"
I guess, if your definition of "hip" is "wears a white belt and shoes and a bad comb-over, and drives a very large Buick."
Posted by: Epikt | June 23, 2008 9:58 PM
looking forward to seeing you in philly!
Posted by: nipsey russell | June 23, 2008 10:03 PM
ID's relationship to creationism is the perfect illustration of how you can't polish a turd - but you can roll it in glitter.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 10:06 PM
*Applauds*
PZ, you rock.
"But if that second opinion was delivered by an inebriated, unwashed schizophrenic the doctor obligingly dragged out of a dumpster for you, you might be unimpressed..."
You owe me a new keyboard. :-D
Posted by: Nicole | June 23, 2008 10:09 PM
Since we're so good at crashing online polls, why not use some of our collective energy to swamp the NYT with letters of complaint regarding this article?
Perhaps they might sit up and listen.
My neighbour is a former public editor of the NYT; perhaps I can get him involved, too.
Posted by: Ray M | June 23, 2008 10:33 PM
Where in my piece did I suggest that the few points that creationists get right are their own invention or discovery? I said no such thing. Look, I don't buy ID even in its most discounted forms, and I never have. The point I make in The Scientist essay is that hurling insults at IDers when they say things you agree with makes you look rabid, not rational. And it drives the growing number of Americans who already distrust the proponents of evolution further away. Which is a dangerous and stupid thing to do in times like these.
My essay in The Scientist does nothing to promote ID; I'm just pointing out that everything IDers say isn't wrong and that when they do say something true it would be better to keep quiet or say "good point" than to riddle them with insults. Why not save the humiliation treatment for the plenty that they say that IS wrong. It's still a full time hobby.
It surprises me that PZ is so pissed off by my efforts to understand why so many Americans reject evolution. If you ask them, and I have bothered to ask hundreds or thousands over the past two years, many will tell you that more than anything else, it's the arrogant zealotry of cocksure ideologues that turns them off to evolution. They see people calling their intuitions and worldviews retarded and corrupt, and they march the other way. That's one reason why we evolutionists have done such an abysmal promotions job even though we're armed with the most delightful and seductive and potent theory ever. If we can't sell evolution, we must be doing something wrong. Right? I'm just saying that we might start by resisting the urge to spit bile in the face of potential buyers.
I like to watch PZ turn red and stomp around like Rumpelstiltskin as much as most of you probably do. (Otherwise, what would we be doing here? We're not really learning very much here, are we?) So go ahead PZ, rant and rave about the idiocy of those who don't see the world as you do or don't write about it in a way that pleases you. It's fun to watch, even when you're ranting and raving at me. But I don't want the point of my piece to be smothered by your performance art. The conclusion of my essay was not to answer the question, Should IDers be allowed to pursue their eccentricities? (Duhh!) That was kind of obvious. On their own time, of course they should. The real questions were 1) Would I hire anyone who doubted evolution to do research or teach in my department (if--YIKES!--I had a biology department!)? And my answer was, NO WAY! And 2) Would I want ID "taught to my own teenage son as an alternative to one of the most powerful explanatory theories to illuminate the human mind (i.e. evolution)?" HELL NO! Since the majority of Americans disagree with me on these points, I thought they were worth making.
I wrote an entire book last year (The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything) saying it was a very, very bad idea to teach ID in science class. The journal Nature praised it. Niles Eldredge called it "magnificent--by far the best depiction I have seen of America's culture war." Michael Ruse called it "balanced and fair" and said "it should be on everyone's must read list." If PZ cares as much about evolution education as he says he does--and I don't doubt it--maybe he should take the time to follow professor Ruse's advice and try to understand what makes the other side tick. After all, even though they're dead wrong about evolution they're still highly-adapted products of billions of years of evolution and worth a look.
Posted by: Gordy Slack | June 23, 2008 10:47 PM
God made you out of mud...
This is considered a credible rebuttal of evolutionary theory?
Posted by: RT NZ | June 23, 2008 10:51 PM
Now this should be good...
Posted by: SC | June 23, 2008 10:54 PM
Gordy Slack wrote:
What, as opposed to the humility of the idea that a omni-powerful being created the universe
, put the earth at the centre(oops!) and everthing in it for our enterainment?Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 11:05 PM
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2008 11:11 PM
Yawn.
It may be what they say; it may be a pleasing formula to repeat. It does not have to be true. I find myself wondering how often the charge of arrogance is a convenient way of rationalizing rejection after the fact.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | June 23, 2008 11:13 PM
Somebody with the appropriate scientific credentials should contact the NY Times's "public editor" about this journalistic fiasco. The PE acts as the readers's ombudsman and does a pretty good job of investigating, evaluating, and then reporting on possible abuses by the Times reporters.
Posted by: hephaistos | June 23, 2008 11:16 PM
What Wackaloon Ham is selling is not answers but comfort ,the thousands of hillbillies that have gone thru his 1/2 ring circus don`t give a flying fuck about science,they only want assurance that somebody, somewhere loves them and that this life is not all that there is .
Well, newsflash , people this is it , god aint listening he does`nt give a rats arse about your pathetic life . If he did exist he`d want your constant whining and demands to cease.
Posted by: RT NZ | June 23, 2008 11:20 PM
It's another example of the anti-intellectual sentiment that permeates the US. It's something I first noticed when people who admitted they voted for Dubya said it was because he wasn't, you know, uppity about stuff - he's just one of the folks.
How the hell can you want a leader who isn't smarter than you? I'm reasonably intelligent; I want the person in charge to be able to blow my stupid ass out of the water on pretty much everything.
Same goes for science.
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 11:24 PM
Posted by: Kel | June 23, 2008 11:30 PM
Well, the drawback of a democracy where a disproportionate number of voters view the whole arrangement as a popularity contest at a charm school...
Posted by: Wowbagger | June 23, 2008 11:36 PM
Mr. Slack,
You say that you're "just pointing out that everything IDers say isn't wrong and that when they do say something true it would be better to keep quiet or say 'good point' than to riddle them with insults." Do you have a concrete response to any of the point-by-point criticisms of your original article made by either Myers or Shallit?
Posted by: SC | June 23, 2008 11:40 PM
Thanks for this, PZ. It made my evening.
Posted by: JStein | June 23, 2008 11:48 PM
If you ask them, and I have bothered to ask hundreds or thousands over the past two years, many will tell you that more than anything else, it's the arrogant zealotry of cocksure ideologues that turns them off to evolution.
the problem is, Slack doesn't recognize projection when he sees it.
If you ask a thousand people the same question, but refuse to even bother analyzing the answer, any conclusion made would likely boil down to little more than an argumentum ad populum.
Is Slack really that uncritical?
I agree, he's quite a poor journalist.
Posted by: Ichthyic | June 23, 2008 11:56 PM