Internet Kerfuffles
The Sedalia marching band evolution T-shirt issue has become a bit of a blogosphere wave. Four of my go-to bloggers -- PZ, Orac, Steve Novella, and Phil Plait -- all talked about it, but Dr Novella's was by far the best:
In the small community of Sedalia Missouri there happens to be a substantial Krishna community. (I won’t get into the various names for specific Krishna religions, but will just refer to them as Krishna for simplicity.) Recently they took offense at the T-shirts worn by the local high school band. The theme was a trip to the moon and their shirts featured imagery from the Apollo moon landings.
The Krishnas took offense at this because, according to their Vedic scriptures, the moon landing was a hoax. Specifically it says that the moon is further away than the sun, and that in order for a human to exist on another world, they have to leave their body and adopt one made for that world. Therefore the astronauts could not have landed on the moon, and the moon landings must have been a hoax. Seriously - they really believe this.
But the issue here is that they complained about the T-shirts because they found it offensive to their religious beliefs. They argued that the school system is supposed to remain neutral with regard to religious beliefs, and that they violated this neutrality by endorsing the “controversial” Apollo moon landings.
LULZ. You're frickin' awesome, Doc.
But really, Dr. Novella highlights how remarkably interchangeable these arguments can be. Each one of them uses the exact same kind of thinking -- people hold steadfastly to their beliefs and cling on to something, anything, that keeps their belief afloat in the face of a mighty wave of evidence that contradicts them. Hardline creationists will deny evolution and bring forth the standard talking points, Krishna's will deny the moon landing and bring forth those talking points, and so on. Instead of admitting that they could be wrong and find some way to rationalize their beliefs with science, they assume that their idea is right and everyone and everything else is wrong and shut out all criticism. That works with any ideology.
As the Doc says:
If the scientific process leads us to a specific scientific conclusion - such as the well-established fact that life on earth as it exists today is the product of organic evolution, or that Apollo astronauts landed on the moon - then that is a scientific conclusion, not a religious belief. Stating that, within the system of science, the process of science leads us to this specific conclusion is not the same thing as taking a stand with regard to any particular religious belief.
The religious in this country have the freedom to believe and preach whatever they want. But that does not extend to the right to censor other people from believing or preaching what they want. Or (relevant to this case) to censor the secular process of science whenever they decide it conflicts with their religious conviction.
Put more bluntly - if their religious beliefs conflict with the conclusions of science, that’s their problem. They can deal with the cognitive dissonance any way they like, but they cannot impose it upon secular society.
*thumbs up*
In other news, BloggingHeads TV is the neat site that has two experts have an open discussion about a topic through webcams and they have a Science Saturday special episode each week. Ive watched the vids and downloaded the mp3s of several, with such illustrious science celebs like cosmologist Sean Carroll, science journalist Carl Zimmer, and everyone's favorite evo-devo atheist PZ Myers. I've enjoyed them a lot, and refer to them for research.
But BloggingHeads seems to have taken a turn for the worse. Recently they had on Science Saturday and discussion between Paul Nelson and Ron Numbers. Numbers is a historian of science and a smart guy, but Nelson is an obvious young-Earth creationist, and people like PZ decried that episode for not discussing science at all but vomiting tired apologetics and mischaracterizing atheism. I haven't seen it (but you can), and after flipping through some of his work, I really don't want to:
ID casts its shadow across the current scientific literature, very much like someone standing just outside a window, silhouetted by bright sunlight. Those who perceive themselves as safely within the house of science are carrying on a vigorous debate with the alarming figures they see as standing outside. There is no scientific controversy about design or evolution, say the inhabitants of the house - but skeptical onlookers can hear the noisy, through-the-window conversation all the same.
Because there's nothing creepier than something watching you silently through your window. Neeeugh! *shudder*
But then something worse happened. Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer tell the story in their blog posts.
Sean Carroll had a nice discussion with David Killoren, the man in charge of Science Saturday, and they seemed to come to an agreement that it was a failed experiment and it won't happen again. Until the next weekend, when linguist and sociologist John McWhorter and Michael Behe started chatting.
What the fuck? So you guys went the slightly-less crazy sounding, but no less distorting and misrepresenting evolution guy? Especially when a complete dumbshit like me can search on Google and debunk is crap in five minutes?
And all it consists of is McWhorter fawning over Behe like a puppy being scratched behind the ears. He lauds his book, The Edge of Evolution (more liek The Edge of Behe's Ignorance and Obfuscation amirite?) and says things like how he can't imagine how the skunk evolved, so therefore evolution isn't real. Obviously.
Apparently though this episode was not overseen by Killoren, despite being uploaded on Saturday, and McWhorter didn't like how it turned out and asked for it to be taken down. Then Behe histrionically compares himself to erased communists from Stalin-era Soviet Russia, and suddenly it's back up again.
Carroll and Zimmer had a chat with BloggingHeads founder and science writer himself Robert Wright and they agreed to disagree. So both Carroll and Zimmer will not be taking apart in future Science Saturdays:
Carroll: "What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they’re just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It’s not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention - but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I’m going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they’re both serious people. Likewise, if I’m going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about."
Zimmer: "My standard for taking part in any forum about science is pretty simple. All the participants must rely on peer-reviewed science that has direct bearing on the subject at hand, not specious arguments that may sound fancy but are scientifically empty. I believe standards like this one are crucial if we are to have productive discussions about the state of science and its effects on our lives.
This is not Blogginghead’s standard, at least as I understand it now. And so here we must part ways."
It's sad to see them go, but I understand. It's about science and creationism just isn't science. Evolution is. That's it. Arguments (not debates because they aren't that) between a scientist and a non-scientist have their places, but not in a forum specifically created to discuss science and science alone. It's a political debate, a social debate, a theological debate, a skeptical debate -- but not a science debate.
In the small community of Sedalia Missouri there happens to be a substantial Krishna community. (I won’t get into the various names for specific Krishna religions, but will just refer to them as Krishna for simplicity.) Recently they took offense at the T-shirts worn by the local high school band. The theme was a trip to the moon and their shirts featured imagery from the Apollo moon landings.
The Krishnas took offense at this because, according to their Vedic scriptures, the moon landing was a hoax. Specifically it says that the moon is further away than the sun, and that in order for a human to exist on another world, they have to leave their body and adopt one made for that world. Therefore the astronauts could not have landed on the moon, and the moon landings must have been a hoax. Seriously - they really believe this.
But the issue here is that they complained about the T-shirts because they found it offensive to their religious beliefs. They argued that the school system is supposed to remain neutral with regard to religious beliefs, and that they violated this neutrality by endorsing the “controversial” Apollo moon landings.
LULZ. You're frickin' awesome, Doc.
But really, Dr. Novella highlights how remarkably interchangeable these arguments can be. Each one of them uses the exact same kind of thinking -- people hold steadfastly to their beliefs and cling on to something, anything, that keeps their belief afloat in the face of a mighty wave of evidence that contradicts them. Hardline creationists will deny evolution and bring forth the standard talking points, Krishna's will deny the moon landing and bring forth those talking points, and so on. Instead of admitting that they could be wrong and find some way to rationalize their beliefs with science, they assume that their idea is right and everyone and everything else is wrong and shut out all criticism. That works with any ideology.
As the Doc says:
If the scientific process leads us to a specific scientific conclusion - such as the well-established fact that life on earth as it exists today is the product of organic evolution, or that Apollo astronauts landed on the moon - then that is a scientific conclusion, not a religious belief. Stating that, within the system of science, the process of science leads us to this specific conclusion is not the same thing as taking a stand with regard to any particular religious belief.
The religious in this country have the freedom to believe and preach whatever they want. But that does not extend to the right to censor other people from believing or preaching what they want. Or (relevant to this case) to censor the secular process of science whenever they decide it conflicts with their religious conviction.
Put more bluntly - if their religious beliefs conflict with the conclusions of science, that’s their problem. They can deal with the cognitive dissonance any way they like, but they cannot impose it upon secular society.
*thumbs up*
In other news, BloggingHeads TV is the neat site that has two experts have an open discussion about a topic through webcams and they have a Science Saturday special episode each week. Ive watched the vids and downloaded the mp3s of several, with such illustrious science celebs like cosmologist Sean Carroll, science journalist Carl Zimmer, and everyone's favorite evo-devo atheist PZ Myers. I've enjoyed them a lot, and refer to them for research.
But BloggingHeads seems to have taken a turn for the worse. Recently they had on Science Saturday and discussion between Paul Nelson and Ron Numbers. Numbers is a historian of science and a smart guy, but Nelson is an obvious young-Earth creationist, and people like PZ decried that episode for not discussing science at all but vomiting tired apologetics and mischaracterizing atheism. I haven't seen it (but you can), and after flipping through some of his work, I really don't want to:
ID casts its shadow across the current scientific literature, very much like someone standing just outside a window, silhouetted by bright sunlight. Those who perceive themselves as safely within the house of science are carrying on a vigorous debate with the alarming figures they see as standing outside. There is no scientific controversy about design or evolution, say the inhabitants of the house - but skeptical onlookers can hear the noisy, through-the-window conversation all the same.
Because there's nothing creepier than something watching you silently through your window. Neeeugh! *shudder*
But then something worse happened. Sean Carroll and Carl Zimmer tell the story in their blog posts.
Sean Carroll had a nice discussion with David Killoren, the man in charge of Science Saturday, and they seemed to come to an agreement that it was a failed experiment and it won't happen again. Until the next weekend, when linguist and sociologist John McWhorter and Michael Behe started chatting.
What the fuck? So you guys went the slightly-less crazy sounding, but no less distorting and misrepresenting evolution guy? Especially when a complete dumbshit like me can search on Google and debunk is crap in five minutes?
And all it consists of is McWhorter fawning over Behe like a puppy being scratched behind the ears. He lauds his book, The Edge of Evolution (more liek The Edge of Behe's Ignorance and Obfuscation amirite?) and says things like how he can't imagine how the skunk evolved, so therefore evolution isn't real. Obviously.
Apparently though this episode was not overseen by Killoren, despite being uploaded on Saturday, and McWhorter didn't like how it turned out and asked for it to be taken down. Then Behe histrionically compares himself to erased communists from Stalin-era Soviet Russia, and suddenly it's back up again.
Carroll and Zimmer had a chat with BloggingHeads founder and science writer himself Robert Wright and they agreed to disagree. So both Carroll and Zimmer will not be taking apart in future Science Saturdays:
Carroll: "What I objected to about the creationists was that they were not worthy opponents with whom I disagree; they’re just crackpots. Go to a biology conference, read a biology journal, spend time in a biology department; nobody is arguing about the possibility that an ill-specified supernatural “designer” is interfering at whim with the course of evolution. It’s not a serious idea. It may be out there in the public sphere as an idea that garners attention - but, as we all know, that holds true for all sorts of non-serious ideas. If I’m going to spend an hour of my life listening to two people have a discussion with each other, I want some confidence that they’re both serious people. Likewise, if I’m going to spend my own time and lend my own credibility to such an enterprise, I want to believe that serious discussions between respectable interlocutors are what the site is all about."
Zimmer: "My standard for taking part in any forum about science is pretty simple. All the participants must rely on peer-reviewed science that has direct bearing on the subject at hand, not specious arguments that may sound fancy but are scientifically empty. I believe standards like this one are crucial if we are to have productive discussions about the state of science and its effects on our lives.
This is not Blogginghead’s standard, at least as I understand it now. And so here we must part ways."
It's sad to see them go, but I understand. It's about science and creationism just isn't science. Evolution is. That's it. Arguments (not debates because they aren't that) between a scientist and a non-scientist have their places, but not in a forum specifically created to discuss science and science alone. It's a political debate, a social debate, a theological debate, a skeptical debate -- but not a science debate.