Archive for

Beneficial Mutations in Bacteria, Wherein Conservapedia is Pwned

I don’t like to discuss Conservapedia here. But engaging in a little schadenfreude never hurt anyone. You see, a group of scientists just published a paper which roundly debunks a common creationist claim – that evolution cannot create new, beneficial information, and cannot create new, beneficial mutations. The work of Blount, Borland, and Lenski has – in a not-so-shocking turn of events – blown it out of the water.

This event wouldn’t be so exciting if it weren’t for the fact that Andy Schlafly, raving creationist, anti-feminist, homophobe, racist bag of hate that he is, seized upon the opportunity and the authors’ willingness to answer “any questions” to try to turn the paper’s release into a political grandstanding event. You see, Schlafly challenged Lenski to produce his paper, whereupon Lenski challenged Schlafly… to read it.

This short little dialogue illustrates the fundamental difference between how Schlafly views science, and how the real world views science. Schlafly thinks of science – “evolutionism”- as something that can be met and debated away with the mere invocation of a talking point. In Schlafly’s world, one need not read books, and one need not read papers: since the truth is so obvious and plain in the Bible, any documentation on science is “elitist.” Expertise need not apply. So being forced to read a complex paper on a subject, before answering in a public debate, is the equivalent of a paradigm shift for Andy Schlafly. Since he’s being forced to debate on foreign soil – within the terms of science, rather than spin – expect the “dialog” page to be deleted and locked within days.

One closing point on the way Andy Schlafly thinks. Look at how he closed the first e-mail: “Andy Schlafly, M.S.E., J.D., Conservapedia.” I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again: trading on credentials in public fora in this manner is a sure sign of insecurity, and the e-equivalent of whipping it out and measuring it. Lucky for science, degrees don’t work like talismans: you have to use the knowledge you gained in their pursuit, not their titles, to gain their benefits. And that’s something Andy Schlafly will never do.

Update: Schlafly’s response? Scientific papers don’t contain data, ergo Schlafly claims that his request for data went unanswered. Ugh. My head.

M. Night Shyamalan: Science is “Just a Theory”

Today, the summer of pseudoscience cinema continues in a surprising form: as M. Night Shyamalan’s “The Happening” premieres today, we ought to look closely at the message it purports to send about the nature of science, and its relationship with faith. I’m convinced that its message is not… entirely wholesome.

In his latest supernatural thriller, Shyamalan takes us to the end of life as we know it, which takes the form of an unknowable natural/supernatural disaster. That’s all well and good, but take a look at this trailer, and listen at 1:43 for this line:

Science will come up with some reason to put in the books, but in the end it’ll be just a theory. It will fail to acknowledge that there are forces at work beyond our understanding.

Uh oh. Syamalan through Wahlberg is parroting the creationist party line – which, listening to his interview on NPR’s “Science Friday,” he truly believes – that science, even with all its elitist “books,” is powerless to explain much of the world, since it “fail[s] to acknowledge that there are forces at work beyond our understanding.” From the interview, it seems that Shyamalan truly believes this message, puts it forth as a central tenet of his film, and hopes his viewers will walk away with it.

What Shyamalan is trying to teach his viewers is a “God of the Gaps” theory that sees gaps everywhere. Coupling this message with the familiar “it’s just a theory” canard, Shyamalan’s take-away points for his audience amount to nothing less than a complete abandonment of the scientific method. And as if that’s not bad enough, he’s putting the message in the mouth of a science teacher!

Now, I’m fine with suspending disbelief in the movies: after all, one need not believe that the Ark of the Covenant carries any secret powers to enjoy watching it sautée Nazis in “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” But where the film purports to have a message relevant beyond the four corners of the screen, I begin to worry. If you doubt Shyamalan’s message, and his intent to have the audience walk away with this addled understanding of religion and science, please listen to the interview linked above. You’ll also get to hear Shyamalan misquoting Einstein to the benefit of theism. Shyamalan comes off as a true believer, with a message to communicate, and a willing audience.

And that’s a hell of a trick ending.

Fox News: A Trifecta of Racism

There can be no doubt, now, that the general election season has begun: John McCain will have no need to break his promise to run a friendly campaign, since Fox News is doing his dirty work for him. This disreputable news network now seeks to subtly invoke ideas of difference and foreign-ness in connection with Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, hoping to tie him to terrorism and all that’s wrong with inner-city culture. Fox is playing upon the worst part of the American consciousness, appealing to our xenophobia and our unspoken racisms and biases, to tar the name of our candidate, thus glossing over the deep, deep failings of the Republican platform. After all, what do real issues matter if you can convince the public that the Democratic candidate is a terrorist, Black Panther, secret Muslim?

Now more than ever, Fox News is bad for democracy. This is an election that must be about America’s future; we are so screwed, in so many different ways, that we need as high-level, as national, and as serious a dialogue about our future as is possible in the 24-hour news network era. By pandering to emotion and base biases, Fox is doing more than undermining Barack Obama; it’s selling out America’s future, and wrecking our chances at repairing the damages of the Bush years. This must stop. And now, a recap:

First, we have a nice moment of a husband and wife connecting on the campaign trail – with a little fist pound – turned into, according to Fox News, what might be seen as a “terrorist fist jab.” Watch and learn:

Now, you may say that the Fox News reporter is just “reporting what someone else thought.” That’s the position their reporter takes in the clip below. Rather than excuse Fox’s conduct, though, in my mind it compounds the error: it shows that the name of Fox News’ game isn’t to openly advocate, but more to subversively suggest that others are saying something racist… so maybe you should too. There is a point at which reporting on others’ insane racism, without coupling the report with criticism or explanation, becomes an endorsement thereof. Fox News crossed that line, discussing and thereby “mainstreaming” a racist interpretation of an innocent gesture. Best case scenario, the remark and explication were careless, tactless, and tasteless; worst case, they were attempts to insert into the American mind the idea that mischaracterizing a simple hand gesture as a terrorist act or symbol is more mainstream than it actually is. Fox is trying to make it acceptable to be suspicious of everything a black man does. And that’s not okay.

Let’s watch the laughable apology anyways:

And last, we have Fox News referring, in caption, to Barack Obama’s wife Michelle as his “baby mama.” Background: a “baby mama” is, in street or rap lingo, the unwed mother of one’s child. The term connotes a casual relationship, devaluing the love between Barack and Michelle, and also evokes an equivalence between Barack Obama and casual sex, and the degradation of the family. But, let’s watch Fox News dig itself deeper:

Setting aside the horrifically racist undertones evoked by the usage of the term, the context of the quote is so bad as to be laughable. Fox issues its offensive innuendo just before Michelle Malkin – handmaiden to Ann Coulter – comes on camera to counsel Republicans to stick to Michelle Obama’s issues, and avoid attacking her or Obama’s family personally, lest the Republican party face “backlash.”

Oops.

But let’s talk silver lining. Malkin talks about backlash, but it’s better than that. We knew that Obama would face flak, stereotyping, and rumors, for being the first serious black candidate, but we did not know that his wife would called, essentially, a tramp. This is a chance to show disenchanted women voters – who, for God knows what reason, would apparently consider voting for McCain now that Hillary’s out – where the line is. Malkin and Fox News have proved exactly how anti-feminist the modern Republican party, and the modern conservative movement, have become, half-baked apology notwithstanding.

First, they came for Hillary Clinton. Then, they came for Michelle Obama…