Now here's the funny bit: John West of the DI rushed to spin Luskin's comments.

Isn't that odd? When Luskin says something stupid about the law or about the DI's devious designs, the ideologues at the institute know they have to quickly police the message and make sure it's twisted to conceal their motives. When Luskin says something stupid about science, though, that's clearly less important, and silence is all that is heard from his cronies. Perhaps it's not so odd, though: DI fellows are highly unqualified to assess the scientific evidence, while they are world-class experts in lying for Jesus. Perhaps they feel a strong personal obligation to improve young Mr Luskin's expertise in obfuscation.

AAB also turns one year old today, so let's celebrate by getting more schools to send in questions.

(Via Reasonable Doubts)

But the evening at downtown's IMAX Theater, which was rented out to Mr. Stein's group for $940, was a bust, with only about 100 people attending the movie.

They paid to have people attend for free, and they still couldn't get a decent crowd.

Everything is melting during the day: there's a constant drip-drip-drip, puddles everywhere, the snow is shrinking away from all those untrammeled areas surrounding us, and during the day, the walkways are all like shallow streams. And then at night it freezes again.

Which brings me to by big complaint: I get up early in the morning, and I step outside, and the sidewalks are all these beautifully smooth sheets of ice; it's like a Zamboni has gone down the streets of Morris, polishing everything. There's this path through some trees that I take to work, and it has a very gentle downward slope that makes it like a luge track, and I just know that some March day I'm going to step on it and find myself rocketing at a 100 miles an hour down to the row of lampposts at the bottom.

I was spared that this morning, though. Instead, as I was walking down my sidewalk, I hit one of those glossy smooth ice spots at my usual barely conscious amble of about 3 miles per hour, and whooosh, I was momentarily airborne, and made a perfect landing flat on my back, knocking the breath out of me and jarring every joint in my body. Nothing was seriously damaged, but even now I can feel every muscle slowly knotting in protest at the rude treatment they received — it's going to be a painful day, I can tell.

And worst of all, my morning coffee flew out of my hands before I'd even had a sip. Do you hear me? I spilled my coffee. There is no god.

Figure from Cephalopods: A World Guide ^{(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll)}, by Mark Norman.

Expelled is hosted by the brilliant Ben Stein, actor/economist/lawyer/presidential speechwriter/science observer—a 21st-century Einsteinian figure.

Einstein? They're comparing a 3rd rate actor best known for playing the most boring high school teacher ever to Einstein? I think there must have been a few typos in that article. Here, I fixed them.

Expelled is hosted by the soporific Ben Stein, character actor/failed economist/eyewash huckster/Nixon apologist/creationist—a 21st-century Pecksniffian figure.

Read the account — that's our future if the Discovery Institute has its way.

By the way, my wife is director of institutional research at a local college, and my daughter is a computer science major. Women outnumber men in our computer science program and have parity in our biology discipline. It's amazing how they do those things and know more than I do in their fields with such inferior brains.

To make it short, a Jehovah's Witness couple are expecting twins; one of the twins has a circulation defect that prevents pulmonary circulation, meaning it would suffocate to death as soon as it was born and needed to breathe air; they refuse any surgery to correct the problem; doctor gets a court order, operates at birth against the parent's wishes, and saves the infant.

I think the doctor was way out of line. This is a case in which the parents were fully aware of the situation and knew that the fetus would die at birth, and elected (for screwy reasons, admittedly) to not pursue extraordinary measures to save its life. They had not deluded themselves into believing medical intervention was unnecessary and that magic would heal the child, they had resigned themselves to its death. And until the child has enough self-awareness to actually want to live, I think that is a decision parents have to be allowed to make. If they want that particular baby, they should be allowed to elect to have major surgery, but if they don't, they should be permitted to allow its condition to run its course, unless the outcome is likely to be survival with serious damage.

The cost of these medical interventions can be prohibitive, and it can be entirely reasonable to decide not to invest money and time into a fetus who has neither autonomy nor unique qualities, nor an individual personality to which the parents have attached their affection. Let them die. Let the parents decide, not a doctor.

The article cites a particularly horrendous case.

In 1990, for example, a woman named Karla Miller went into premature labor at 23 weeks of gestation in Houston. Because a child born that early has a 75 percent chance of death or severe disability, the husband chose not to sign a consent form that would allow resuscitation. But the neonatologist resuscitated the girl, who grew up severely retarded, legally blind, and quadriplegic. The parents sued the hospital for ignoring their wishes, but in 2000 the Texas Supreme Court ruled for the hospital. George Annas, a medical ethicist at Boston University, later attacked the decision in the New England Journal of Medicine, since "the court implies that life is always preferable to death for a newborn . . . no matter how unlikely their survival is without severe disabilities."

I wonder if that neonatologist has since taken responsibility for the round-the-clock care and various expenses and stresses of that kind of affliction?

I sure hope no one tells them that if you hit yourself on the head with a hammer real hard, you'll see swarms of angels dancing everywhere around you. Or, more likely, that if you mail all your money to a preacher, you'll get rich. But no one would be that sadistic, would they?

I'll be in Washington DC for the AFT/NEA conference the weekend of 28-30 March, so I might be available that Friday or Saturday evening.

I'll be in Eugene, Oregon the weekend of 4-6 April for an Evo-Devo conference. Of course, there'll be some major biology celebrities on hand, and I also have some old friends out there, so that might be trickier to schedule.

Then there's a midweek event in Berkeley on 28-30 May, another evo-devo-genomics meeting, and I'll be juggling TAM6 (Las Vegas) and the Evolution 2008 meetings (Minneapolis) on 19-24 June, and a MENSA conference 2-6 July in Denver, GECCO in Atlanta on 12-16 July, and Netroots Nation on 17-20 July. And then the Atheist Alliance convention somewhere in California on 25-28 September. Other events may gradually fill in my calendar, too.

See? There might be some chances to invite me to one of these events someday.

Today, several of us — Steven Salzberg, Lars Juhl Jensen, and Attila Csordas — are repeating our call for an explanation of the events that led to the leakage of such an egregiously ridiculous paper into print. Bad papers are a dime-a-dozen, and we aren't so much concerned with the detailed discussion of the flaws in this one paper as we are with seeing the integrity of the peer-review process maintained, or better, improved. The Warda/Han paper had obvious red flags that marked it as potentially problematic in the title, the abstract, and scattered throughout the body, and it's hard to imagine how any reviewer or editor could have let them simply slip by without comment, yet that is exactly what seems to have happened.

We want to know how this paper slipped through the cracks, because we want to know how large the cracks in the peer review process at Proteomics are. It's a journal with a good reputation, and we are not presuming that there was any wrong-doing or systematic failure of peer review there, but we do think that a lack of transparency is of concern: there is no assumption of a crime, but the ongoing cover-up is grounds for suspicion. Let's see some self-criticism from the journal editor, and an open discussion of steps being taken to prevent such errors from occurring again.

Alternatively, if the journal wants to outsource its quality control to a mob of bloggers, that works, too … but we tend to be less formal and much more brutally and publicly critical than an in-house process might be, and we're also going to be less well-informed than the actual principals in the review process. Better explanations are in order. Let's see representatives of the journal provide them.

See the difference? That little video makes assertions of fact that are entirely false, but really aren't at all funny. When someone accuses atheists of wearing comfortable footwear because it "encourages moral decadence," that's silly and makes us laugh. This, on the other hand, doesn't sound like the punchline to a joke:

Carbon dating and all other forms of radiometric dating are so flawed that scientists don't even want to use them any more to determine the age of fossils.

There isn't even a grain of truth to that sentence; it doesn't make me want to laugh (except, maybe, in a mean-spirited way at the peckerwood making the claim); it reflects a deep-seated ignorance about the scientific tools used for dating; and it is nothing but a rallying cry for like-minded pissants to nod their head in agreement that someone has confirmed their biases.

(Seriously, that claim is so damned stupid it's more likely to make me angry than amused. I am surrounded by geologists here at UMM, and one of them gave a presentation on radiometric dating just last month. They'd love to date everything, and the reason that they don't is that it takes a fair amount of work to prepare samples, and it isn't cheap to ship them off and get isotopes assayed. I want these creationist frauds to read Turney's Bones, Rocks, and Stars so their delusions aren't quite so idiotic.)

It helps to be familiar with actual creationist arguments. When you see something that parrots the claims they do make, unleavened with a hint of satire or a pointer to a refutation, then you've got the real thing.

That video does cut it close in one place, when it tries to propose it's positive support for Christianity over other religions, and it claims that their distinguishing feature that makes their religion the one true belief is that it values faith over works. That sounds like such a breathtakingly ridiculous claim that it approaches self-satire, but if you know that Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron in their "Way of the Master" series actually make that argument with straight faces, it stops being funny.

While I'm at it, let me mention to everyone who hasn't figured it out yet that the Objective Ministries Creation Science Fair page is a parody, just not a very good one, or perhaps too good. I still get email about it every once in a while from people who think it's true. Its problem is that it treads the line too finely; it uses arguments that are just too darned close to actual creationist arguments, which makes it more of a pain in the ass than something to amuse.

Who needs church if you can get together and reason together? First it was Boston; now other cities are joining in with gatherings of fans of skepticism and science. Here are your opportunities:

London, England: Saturday, 15 March, 7:00pm, at the Doric Ach near Euston station.

Anchorage, Alaska: Thursday, 20 March, 7:00pm, at the cafe in the Barnes and Noble on Northern Lights Blvd.

We shall take over!

Neither Hays nor his co-sponsor, Brandon Republican Sen. Ronda Storms, could name any teachers in Florida who have been disciplined for being critical of evolution in the science classroom. Better known for his ''Win Ben Stein's Money'' game show, Stein made the documentary to document how evolution critics have supposedly run afoul of mainstream science in higher academics.

''I want a balanced policy. I want students taught how to think, not what to think,'' Hays says. ``There are problems with evolution. Have you ever seen a half-monkey, half human?''

No comment.

Coo coo it's cold outside.
Coo coo it's cold outside.
Ooo coo coo.
Don't forget your mittens.
Hey Pal!
How do I get to town from here?
And he said "Well just take a right where they're going to build that new shopping mall, go straight past where they're going to put in the freeway, take a left at what's going to be the new sports center, and keep going until you hit the place where they're thinking of building that drive-in bank.
You can't miss it."
And I said "This must be the place."
Ooo coo coo.
Golden cities.
Golden towns.
Golden cities.
Golden towns.
And long cars in long lines and great big signs and they all say "Hallelujah.
Yodellayheehoo.
Every man for himself."
Ooo coo coo.
Golden cities.
Golden towns.
Thanks for the ride.
Big Science.
Hallelujah.
Big Science.
Yodellayheehoo.
You know.
I think we should put some mountains here. Otherwise, what are all the characters going to fall off of?
And what about stairs?
Yodellayheehoo.
Ooo coo coo.
Here's a man who lives a life of danger. Everywhere he goes he
stays - a stranger.
Howdy stranger.
Mind if I smoke?
And he said "Every man, every man for himself. Every man, every man for himself.
All in favor say aye."
Big Science.
Hallelujah.
Big Science.
Yodellayheehoo.
Hey Professor!
Could you turn out the lights?
Let's roll the film.
Big Science.
Hallelujah.
Every man, every man for himself.
Big Science.
Hallelujah.
Yodellayheehoo.

I hope that clears everything up.

There were nondisclosure agreements to sign that day, but Mr. Moore did not, and proceeded to write perhaps the harshest review "Expelled" has received thus far. The film will open April 18, but has been screened several times privately for religious audiences. Mr. Moore deplored what he perceived as "loaded images, loaded rhetoric, few if any facts" and accused Mr. Stein of using a "Holocaust denier's" tactics.

Which, of course, was exactly the reaction the moviemakers were hoping to avoid by keeping mainstream critics out.

Mr. Stein said in a telephone interview that he had not read Mr. Moore's review, but that "being compared with a Holocaust denier is nonsense," adding, "This guy is extremely confused." He said he decided to participate in the project because "there's just a lot of people who don't believe that big science and Darwinism should have a stranglehold on academic life, and they have been waiting for a voice."

Every time Stein opens his mouth, he's helping us. This is a movie that uses Nazi imagery to accuse science since 1859 of being the primary cause of anti-semitism — it's not denying the Holocaust, but instead is trivializing it by using it as a tool to dishonestly browbeat a group that was not responsible. In the 1930s, a political group in Germany used centuries of deeply rooted anti-Semitism to create a popular movement that culminated in the murder of six million people for their ethnicity and a war that consumed practically the entire planet; it wasn't caused by academics arguing over a theory.

And he projects his bizarre misinterpretations again. "Darwinism" doesn't have a stranglehold on academics; we've moved well beyond Darwin to new ideas, and are constantly wrestling with novel suggestions to expand on the old Darwinian core. To name one example, proponents of evo-devo think they've got a set of theories that should change the way we think about evolution. There are smart people loudly arguing on both sides, with the pro side bringing up observations and evidence that emphasize the importance of the discipline, and cons poking holes and pointing out major failings, and pushing for more and better evidence. There is no stranglehold, there are only high standards of evidence that are not met by making propaganda films and getting church leaders with no knowledge of biology to denounce one side or the other. There is hard work required to break through into academic credibility, work which is not being done by the IDists.

We also have expectations of honesty that are not being met. The makers of this film had to hide their motivations every step of the way, because they know that they can't stand the harsh light of criticism. And they just can't stop lying.

Logan Craft, executive producer of "Expelled" and chief of Premise Media, said he thought Mr. Moore had been wrong to attend the screening after being disinvited, but both he and Mr. Lauer denied any involvement in an online "media alert" that purported to be from a backer of the film. The alert accused Mr. Moore of posing as a minister to gain admission, calling his actions a "security breach." Mr. Moore said he never represented himself as other than a reporter.

Oh, come on. I've got a copy of the "media alert," and it's from promotional material put out by Motive Marketing. Look at the official movie site, and right there on the bottom right is the logo for Motive Marketing. They've been bragging about using Motive for marketing, since this is also the firm that promoted Gibson's snuff movie, The Passion of the Christ. This Lauer fellow is the founder of Motive. A reader has sent me more promotional mail from these guys, and they are peddling the movie hard. And now they're lying to the New York Times and claiming they've got nothing to do with it? It seems to be a kind of pathological reflex to deny, deny, deny even when they're caught red-handed in something relatively inocuous.

Oh, well. It's a sign of desperation that they are straining so hard to find a narrow audience that will appreciate their movie; they know that they've got a klunker that will rely on appeal to a narrow bias to succeed. Randy Olson has 'em pegged: they want to use humor to broaden the appeal to more than just the theocratic sheep, but their movie isn't funny. A movie that tries to build on clips of goose-stepping Nazis and Hitler salutes is pretty much destined to be depressing, unless you're Mel Brooks. And Ben Stein is no Mel Brooks.

The narrative goes like this:

1. The famous, brilliant scientist So-and-so hypothesized that X was true.
2. X, forever after, became dogma among scientists, simply by virtue of the brilliance and fame of Dr. So-and-so.
3. This dogmatic assent continues unchallenged until an intrepid, underdog scientist comes forward with a dramatic new theory, completely overturning X, in spite of sustained, hostile opposition by the dogmatic scientific establishment.

Michael White summarizes a common trope in the media and elsewhere; there's often a misleading attempt to shoehorn the gradual advancement of science into a more dramatic story of sudden breakthoughs — especially by that mythical underdog fighting against the wicked establishment. It's not true. Even Charles Darwin, a fellow who did advance a revolutionary story, was himself a respected member of, and working within, the scientific establishment of his time. Even the most radical new idea must incorporate and extend the existing body of evidence; good science does not spontaneously emerge out of a vacuum.

The context for this narrative in this case is the Joan Roughgarden story. She has been claiming some strange things, about her role as a transgendered outsider scientist who has identified deep flaws in Darwin's theory of sexual selection, but I'm afraid her claims are absurd. She does offer an interesting perspective, but what she is primarily opposing is a simplistic version of sexual selection that neither Darwin nor any contemporary scientists have ever accepted — she is basically cobbling up the underdog narrative, and has been getting a fair amount of attention for it.

The article does mention a comment from me on the subject that is actually the mildest thing I said: I do have a more thorough assessment of Roughgarden's hypothesis from 2004 that is much less polite.

So mainstream journalists play this game with scientists, and some scientists play it up as well; but the real masters are the creationists. It's all they've got: rhetoric that tries to put them in the role of the brave, noble, clever underdog trying to overcome the stifling influence of a stagnant scientific orthodoxy. It's even more false, but it does appeal to the media.

Can we just get something straight? Science builds on past discoveries. You don't get to cherry pick what bits you want to include in your theory — successful new theories don't throw away old evidence, they extend and strengthen and reinforce, and offer new insights. There may be new theories that follow the theory of evolution … but they will all incorporate the basic facts of earth's history — its age, common descent, the relationships between species, etc. — and will not be any more appealing to creationists than what we've got now.

With all that media coverage, it was still frustratingly hard to track down the actual study, but here it is (pdf), courtesy of the California Progress Report. Go read it for yourself.

Well, there is one part that is accurate, when she states that "We're not teaching facts and knowledge any more, we're teaching indoctrination", which is exactly right … at least in reference to her remarks.

(via Pam's House Blend)

If you too enjoy gazing at the naked female form, you don't have to go to New York to see similar works. You can find them scrawled on the walls of most public rest rooms.

I know there are lots of good artists around, but they generally don't scribble on restroom walls. Does this look like something you'd find on a bathroom stall?

Does this make you think of pornography?

Here's a gallery of art by Gustav Klimt. There's a good reason he's a famous painter — this is wonderful stuff. Ray Comfort, two-bit rednecked ignoramus that he is, sees none of it, and is so freaking dishonest that he doesn't dare show his readers any of Klimt's actual work … so instead he does his own crude rendition of "The Kiss" to illustrate his screed, and just so you don't miss his point, he crudely slathers wicked words all over it.

I think you might find Comfort's work in a seedy, filthy restroom somewhere, but not Klimt's.

Just so you don't think this battle is all about nothing but esoteric arguments over details of the interpretation of rarefied biological data, I can't imagine a clearer example of the broader field of the struggle. This is a war over all of Western culture. What do you want? Klimt or Comfort? Science or lies?

"You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour's wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos," he said.

Bishop Girotti said that mortal sins also included taking or dealing in drugs, and social injustice which caused poverty or "the excessive accumulation of wealth by a few".

He said that two mortal sins which continued to preoccupy the Vatican were abortion, which offended "the dignity and rights of women", and paedophilia, which had even infected the clergy itself and so had exposed the "human and institutional fragility of the Church".

The mass media had "blown up" the issue "to discredit the Church", but the Church itself was taking steps to deal with it.

The article also mentions using contraception is a mortal sin.

It's a strange list. There are a couple that are common practices of the Catholic church itself, the excessive accumulation of wealth and pedophilia (and isn't that just the cutest little disclaimer? The church is "taking steps to deal with it" — which usually means hushing it up and sending the offending priest off to virgin hunting grounds). Does the Vatican really haven any credibility when an old guy in silk robes encrusted with jewels declares the virtues of poverty?

The dictum against polluting the environment is a good one, but awfully vague. Is he promoting a zero-carbon footprint? Is he arguing against nuclear power? Should we stop exhaling carbon dioxide? Similarly, the prohibition against drugs isn't very specific — are all pharmacists going to hell now?

Declaring that meddling in the fate of embryos is also terribly broad, suggesting that all developmental biologists are also going to hell. This is one mean and nasty pope, I think — he has me damned on several counts!

And I'm sorry, but it is not defending the dignity and rights of women to deny them family planning. It also contradicts any sincere desire to improve the livability of the planet to argue that people are not allowed to take simple action to limit their fecundity.

But of course this is all an exercise in empty rhetoric. The pope does not have any better knowledge of the mind of any god than I do, and does not know anything about the actual fate of human souls after death. It is a bit presumptuous to be declaring that there is an immortal omnipotent being who will torture you for eternity for putting a condom on, don't you think?

The crack team of Seed technical experts are delving deep into the guts of the software as I write this, butchering gremlins as they go. No word yet on when we'll be able to post again.

• Archaeoporn
• bathtubnz
• Rev. BigDumbChimp
• Blue Collar Scientist
  
• decorabilia
• Thoughts in a Haystack
• Archy
• Jyunri Kankei
  
• Maryannaville