Creationism: Conspiracy Road Trip

Here's Jerry Coyne discussing the practicalities of fitting all the world's animals onto a boat that is too large to remain stable.

In this show, Conspiracy Road Trip, Andrew Maxwell takes conspiracists on a variety of subjects, such as 9/11 and UFOs, and challenges their beliefs. On this occasion, he took five British creationists (four Christian and one Muslim) to the States to look at some of the evidence and discuss it with experts in their fields.

There's a good quote from Jerry in discussion with Maxwell:

Evolution is unique amongst the sciences because it strikes people in the solar plexus of their faith; it strikes them in the idea that they are specially created by God, because evolution says you're not. It says that there is no special purpose for your life, because it's a naturalistic philosophy, we have no more extrinsic purpose than a squirrel or an armadillo. And it says that morality does not come from God, it's an evolved phenomenon. And those are three things that are really hard for humans to accept, particularly those brought up in a religious tradition.

There tends to be agreement on these points between creationists and atheists, although more liberal theists and accommodationist atheists would disagree with them. One of the creationists articulated this well, by saying that if the young earth belief she held was wrong then it all was. I think the acid of science can have this effect on religious belief. But folk can be very flexible, so cherry-picking is entirely consistent with theism, if the person is already happy to commit to any random possibility that happens to appeal to them.

If you think Jerry's talk didn't go down well, then you should see how well persuaded the gang were by Christian scientists explaining the evidence gently. In short, they weren't. It's difficult to avoid the conclusion from this, admittedly unscientific, experiment that persuasion depends more on the personality of the persuadee than the style of rhetoric employed. It's a truism to say that faith is an integral part of a person of faith, but it's exposed in all its humanity in this episode. You can see that each person's faith reflects their personalities, their wants and needs; changing faith is changing the person you are, and not to be taken lightly. Anyone who says your faith is wrong, whether gently or bluntly, is, in a sense, attacking and potentially killing the person you are, and re-birth is needed if the evidence is to be taken seriously.

So, in the end, it's a lot less traumatic for these persons to simply ignore the evidence. I can see how that could be, and I'm just glad I never got so hooked into a faith that I would feel so destroyed by losing it.

Read more »

Maher Snubs Shermer

What a weird article from Bill Maher. Throughout 'it's' is spelt 'its'. That's not the worst thing about it, but it's not a good sign. It's a response of sorts to this letter from Michael Shermer.

It's a textbook example of how to get an issue wrong. He says he's a reluctant (fundamentalist?) spokesperson on anti-vaccination, and others are more qualified - is he qualified *at all*? - but then ploughs on regardless. Here's the perfect recipe for scare-mongering a potentially controversial issue.

1) Find something that you know nothing about, but about which you have a vague sense of unease.
Vaccination - check

American diet - check
2) Make sure that lots of people share this sense of unease.
Anti-vax polls - check
No-one likes their 'smartie tube' punctured - check
3) Add some known provisos or grey areas.
Over-vaccination is a bad thing - check
Immune system problems make vax dangerous - check
4) Cite people with personal stories to tell as credible data.
Barbara Loe Fisher - check
5) Cherry pick 'experts' in the minority.
Dr Russell Blaylock - check
Dr Jay Gordon - check
6) Pretend you're just trying to publicise a little known problem.
"I'm just trying to represent an under-reported medical point of view in this country" - check
7) Find something dangerous sounding that can be blown out of all proportion.
Formaldehyde - check
Mercury - check
8) Insist you and your cohorts are not anti-whatever it is.
"Anyway, Ms. Fisher is someone who says she is not "anti-vaccine," but just has a lot of questions about the long term effect of using a lot of vaccines." - check
9) Exaggerate for effect.
"Is it worth it to get vaccines for every bug that goes around? Injecting something into my bloodstream? I'd like to reserve that for emergencies." - check
"If one side can say anything and its not challenged, then of course dissent becomes heresy in the minds of many." - check
"There are consequences to vaccines and antibiotics. Some people want to study that, and some, it seems, want to call off the debate." - check
"Ms. Fisher said 'If we want to create a society that is dependent on shots for immunity -- the same way we are getting dependent on prescription drugs, antibiotics, and surgery -- this is the path we should keep going down.'" - check
10) Deny there is a conspiracy, whilst implying there is one.
"In fact, when Howard Dean asked me that, my response was "I wouldn't call it a conspiracy." Any more than there's a conspiracy for the Pentagon budget to be obscenely bloated and operated largely for the corporate welfare of defense contractors." - check
"Is it conspiracy theory to believe that American medicine too much treats symptoms and not root causes of disease? " - check
11) Disingenuously spread misinformation thanks to one's high profile job.
Chat show - check
Twitter - check
Huffington Post - check

And stir. And stir again. Whatever any experts say, do *not* go back and change the ingredients. That would be too scientific, and wouldn't serve the agenda.

Two more things shock me about this article. One is how *parochial* his attitude is; he needs to get out and about and away from the particular obsessions that Americans have; no doubt there are some reasons to be paranoid in the States, and no doubt there are issues with 'big pharma' the world over. But that isn't an excuse for pretending one knows better than the scientific community, when one doesn't. The second is the suggestion that scientists want to close down any argument surrounding vaccinations. I see no evidence of that; just authorities concerned about know-nothing slebs endangering people's lives.

EDIT: See KWombles similar piece! And a useful round-up of blog criticism, here.

Read more »