Though much of the attention to and reports of intelligent design/creationist shenanigans come from the United States, we're certainly not the only ones inundated with deniers of evolution and other sciences. A self-described UK evolution "sceptic" is journalist Melanie Phillips, who writes for The Daily Mail. She's annoyed many scientists in the country due to her views not only on evolution, but also on vaccination (such as this article from earlier this year), drawing the ire of many who point out that she doesn't understand the underlying science.
She's proven her critics correct again, with a recent article touching on everything from the Da Vinci Code, to religion/lack thereof, and to, of course, evolution. (Discussed below...)
After an extended rant about the appeal of the Da Vinci Code in a secular world ("The fact is that there is a profound spiritual hunger in the western world which, for a variety of reasons, its church is no longer able to assuage"), she moves into the opinion of the "militant atheist" on the book ("...far from assuming -- as militant atheists would have us believe -- that the Bible is no different from the product of Dan Brown's imagination, people are still mesmerised by the question of whether it is true"). Since one can clearly equate "militant atheism" with acceptance of evolution, this is, of course, the point where she segues to a total, and sadly predictable, strawman regarding just why people appear to be so "mesmerised" by this:
The reason is the inadequacy of scientific evolutionary theory to meet the extravagant claims by secularists that it explains the origins of life itself.
Ah, conflating evolutionary theory with abiogenesis...that's soooo 2004.
This inadequacy - and the increasing number of scientists who are acknowledging it - has created growing pressure from evangelical Christians to include 'creationism' or its more sophisticated variant, intelligent design, in the school science syllabus, downgrading evolution from the way it is currently taught as unchallengeable fact to a mere theory alongside religious belief.
I bet this quote is one the DI loves: "its more sophisticated variant." Obviously she, too, hasn't been getting The Discovery Institute's memos. Priceless.
Continuing with the inevitable claim that "more and more scientists" are abandoning evolution:
This movement is growing so fast that the more prominent atheists are becoming ever shriller in their denunciations. Last weekend Professor Colin Blakemore, head of the Medical Research Council, even used the arrival of bird flu on British shores to beat the drum for Darwin and claim that there was no intelligent design in a virus, only the mindless force of natural selection.
The outrage! How dare biologists use infectious disease as an example of evolution!
Now the discovery in Canada of the fossilised remains of Tiktaalik Roseae, a creature that was half fish, half land animal and which lived more than 375 million years ago, is being said to prove that mankind descended from fish. One might retain a measure of scepticism about such an excitable claim, since in itself this fossil proves nothing of the sort.
So many misstatements...first, Tiktaalik isn't "half fish, half land animal," no matter how many journalists use that convenient phrase. I do, however, agree with her that the fossil "in itself" doesn't prove that humans are "descended from fish." Obviously, it's yet another fossil that alone proves little, but when viewed in context with the rest of the evidence, makes an extremely strong case for this ancestry. Of course, that sophisticated view of biology doesn't fit as nicely into little soundbites.
For many, the claim that evolution enabled life to cross the species barrier so that humans are merely the last link in the evolutionary chain remains a step too far...
Another strawman. Who says humans are "the last link in the evolutionary chain"? It ain't biologists.
... -- not least because, by the standards science itself sets, it fails the test of evidence. It is merely a theory.
Oh, man. She needs to read up on that "it's only a theory" line. Even the young earth creationists at Answers in Genesis say not to use that one.
Really, the whole thing is a bit sad. I'm sure there's a good article out there, somewhere, that lays out a good case for belief without resorting to the use of pathetic strawmen. Heck, there's probably several. But it's people like this that make those of us who aren't religious--and who understand the science of evolutionary theory--roll our eyes and shake our heads in disbelief. Sadly, I'm sure many of her fans give her an "amen, sister" after reading the article, and go on to quote her misleading statements elsewhere.
- Log in to post comments
"Tain't what you don't know that makes you ignorant. It's what you know that ain't so."
-- attributed to Mark Twain
What I like is the way the unwarrented assumptions just flow along like the weather. Like saying "he just denied he stopped beating his wife yesterday, which is a suspiciously recent change of behavior..."
So let's see, we have the "more and more scientists" (not alleged directly, of course, we're not saying this is true, we're assuming it and explaining WHY it's true), the "species barrier" (not alleged directly as usual, simply assumed), the use of keyword terminology (secularists, theory, prove, etc.), the passive voice ("said to prove"), the origin of life and origin of species again conflated (they were, after all, one and the same act of creation, inseparable), on and on.
We're not dealing with jarring falsehoods marring the real world, we're dealing with coherent and consistent interlocing aspects of a fantasy world altogether...
I have known Melanie was batty since I exchanged e-mails with her over MMR. (She does usually respond - once). But this is something else. Unfortunately she is not the only one in the UK.
http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/3481/mailonsundayhitchensmuppet9apr…
I am afraid it is over here as well - at least in Daily Mail land.
Cheers
The "species barrier"? What barrier? Evidence?
Anyway, glad to see the Royal Society is getting its game on recently, and I presume the Daily Mail will receive some nice letters in response.
Llama Camel hybrids
It's a full-scale assault on the "species barrier".
I'm a UK resident and very familar with the good ol' Daily Mail. After all, my parents read it! The Mail is possibly one of the most right-wing papers in the infamous British tabloid press (along with The Sun).
The Daily Mail is a tomb of journalistic integrity, where pseudoscience regularly gets hyped if it has shock value or gets more readers. Recently this paper got into hot water by relentlessly and sensationally hyping a scientific paper by Dr. Andrew Wakefield linking autism with the MMR vaccination. Needless to say, thousands of mothers panicked and didn't get their babies vaccinated properly. Now the UK measles vaccinations levels stand at ~82%, putting the lives of infants needlessly at risk.
Furthermore, the Mail has espoused attitudes bordering on racist, with constant sensationalist stories on immigration and asylum seekers. Rather more concerning for the typical American "Bible Belt" Christian, the Daily Mail also heavily promotes astrology and other nutty stuff like Bible Codes ;) Hardly an environment that any kind of science will be sensibly discussed in!
Andrew
What, atheists can't enjoy the DaVinci Code?
More and more people are getting fed up with such hogwash coming from the press - Right Wing or Left. Melanie Phillips only typifies my belief that journalism is not a profession.
No more journalists please! Reporters? Yes. Journalists? No.
Oxford English Dictionary entry on "theory"
The theory of religion (2) is much different than the theory of evolution (4). Evolution is not merely a theory. Sigh.
bYtes bYtes
I know the Gaurdian guy misspelled it too.
It's really (or it was originally) soundbytes. It stems from the usage of the term "byte" when it comes to data. Not a but, but a chunk of bits. Argh! Even dictionary.com has it wrong.
So maybe the new thing is to call it the wrong thing, which is sound bites.
Whatever...
Splendid demolition work Tara,
... thank you ( and to Mark who brought this to my attention I think).
Andrew wrote:
As am I, and I agree with everything Andrew wrote. I used to find it interesting to compare the paper's coverage of something like the cancer risk of mobile phones. A research paper reporting a link would get front-page coverage whereas research finding no connection - if it was reported at all - would be buried away at the bottom of an inside page. The paper is a despicable tabloid.
Jason: the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary disagrees with you. Do you have some support for what you say about "soundbytes"?
Mark Frank,
Is Peter Hitchens in any way related to the less sober commentator?
I, personally, find his impressive unibrow stronger evidence for evolution than even Tiktaalik.
Agum - who is less sober than Peter Hitchens? His bio is on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens. It says nothing about how he evolved. I fear he is in the same genus as you and I but I doubt he would have fertile offspring with anyone I know - so maybe a different species.
Jason, I really don't think that it is the proper etymology for that word. I am pretty sure that they were calling them that back when we recorded sound in analog on magnetic tape.
Here in the UK she is known as Mad Mel.
This bit is vintage Phillips:
"The assertion by some scientists that the world probably began without any beginning sounds to many as preposterous as the belief that the world was created in six days sounds to an atheist".
Of course she was getting towards the end of her article when she said that, so she had probably chewed quite a bit of carpet by then.
Mel "Scarier Spice" P is also pretty chummy with US neocons and seems to get a lot of her talking points from them - she often has articles printed on Horowitz's Frontpagemag website and links to it on her blog.
the Hitchenseseses are in fact brothers. Like Christopher H, Mel P used to be v left wing and wrote for the guardian a while back!
The Guardian often refers (very sniffily) to ID as the 'more sophisticated varian' of creationism. I love it - it means creationism + sophistry. Sounds about right.
Another Andrew from the UK..
Yes, my parents get the Daily Mail - wheras some of the scare stories indicating that every male between the ages of 12 and 30 is a violent criminal are funny in a way, the anti-vaccination and pro-junk medicine stuff is NOT. We have already had our first measels death in 14 years or so thanks to the anti-MMR hype.
Stupidity is a way of life.
-Samuel Rios III, circa 1964
"But it's people like this that make those of us who aren't religious--and who understand the science of evolutionary theory--roll our eyes and shake our heads in disbelief."
If it makes you feel any better, many of us main-stream xians who understand science and evolutionary theory also are rolling our eyes and shaking our heads. And speaking for myself, I always try to do one better than that and educate the person making said ridiculous claims.
kudos to you for giving people like me the tools we need to combat the wing-bats out there.
Kate,
That's a very good point, and I do feel for y'all as well. I know it can be tough when your voices are given so much less airplay than those of the more, err, "extreme" persuasions in your midst.
Revolting stuff. It'd be funny if she weren't trying to be serious.
The reason is the inadequacy of scientific evolutionary theory to meet the extravagant claims by secularists that it explains the origins of life itself.
I know everyone here understands this, but I can't contain myself on this one--how many times do we have to say it? EVOLUTION DOESN'T EXPLAIN THE ORIGINS OF LIFE!!!
Just like the Theory of Gravity doesn't explain the origin of matter, just what happens to matter that exists. The Big Bang is there to deal with the origins of matter.
Tiktaalik Roseae is an icon - the one on the backs of cars in the shape of a fish but with feet. Instead of saying "Darwin", it could just as well say "Tiktaalik Roseae". I'm thinking that it's a big long phrase, so a more anatomically correct shape is in order - a big long fish with feet.
What isn't cool with this idea is that the Darwin fish with feet is an icon to piss off fundamental Christians. The fundamentalist Christian isn't going to be convinced (it's a matter of faith - which means belief without evidence). The fundamentalist Christian is unimportant. Their target audience is important. The truth is not served by saying that there is a conflict. There isn't any. The serious Christian theologian finds little conflict between scientific truth an religeous truth.
I generally agree that the Daily Mail is an utterly worthless rag, and I hate to say anything in its defence. Nonetheless, I should point out that I had a student do a project on reporting of the MMR controversy in different newspapers a few years ago, and she found that the Mail wasn't particularly biased. Of the broadsheets, I'm afraid that the Guardian was probably the worst...
The Mail only got really interested in MMR when there was controversy over whether Tony Blair's son had had the vaccination. They gave a great deal of coverage to this because they really hate him (but then again, so does everyone else nowadays).
Stephen - that's fascinating. But how long ago was it? As far as I know The Mail is the only paper that is still promoting the MMR Autism link.
Cheers
The Mail vies with the Sun as Britain's top selling daily. Two more verminous rags cannot exist on this earth.
The Mail hates mainstream science - it is far too subversive of stupidity, and the Mail is stupidity personified. It uses ranting "journalism" to attack every idea which requires the ability to reason without prejudice. In other words every idea demanding genuine intelligence.
I recall one occasion when they managed to find perhaps the only qualified astronomer in Britain who supports astrology and gave him pride of place in their editorial centre pages to parade his amazing "scientific" explanation of how astrology works.
The Mail is about selling copy by appealing to mass prejudice. They appeal to the populist "what do they know" instinct. Those oh-so-clever-dicks with their degrees and fancy ideas - they are just stupid really. We ordinary sensible folk know much better than them lot with all their fancy clever talk. They don't know nothing really. They can all go jump in their own piss-pots, who gives a toss what they think!
Every bit of counter-science or pseudo-science they can find serves their purpose of making money by feeding ignorance.
One of the most striking differences between the US an the UK is how much people read her as oposed to Stateside.
I don't know how general my experience is - but in any small village in the UK you will get a choice of national and 'influential' papers very easily as a matter of course.
In my experience you are lucky to get the 'Wall Street Journal' or 'USA today' if you walk into your local shop in the US.
What newspapers say is considered very important to politicians in the the UK.
Having access to an audience the size of 'The Mail' is a privedge. I think Phillips cynically abuses it with lazy and dangerous journalism.
She should be ashamed of herself.
She's probably too busy counting her money and making her next move.
To my annoyance, the generally excellent Private Eye's contrarianness also led it to push the MMR thing long after the scientific argument was settled.
Aaaah yes, but that's the fun with the Private Eye. A satirical mag that goes for anyone and anything will always end up taking the piss out, or making an issue, of something that you actually feel strongly about in the end. The trick is to not throw your toys out the pram like Isaac Hayes did when South Park went after Scientology.
That being said, many people do get the hump. The "cancelled subscription" letters always have me chuckling!
Luckily for us, I don't think Ian Hislop is a great supporter of creationism.
Andrew