I wrote the majority of this post a couple of years ago, when I had the intention to do a regular “creationist claim” feature, but for some reason never got around to polishing and posting it at the time.

When children wish to wind each other up in an argument, they need look no further than the chant “I know you are, you said you are, but what am I?” It’s a phrase to suit all occasions, and it sounds the death knell for the ailing argument. This week’s “creationist claim” is an example of how creationists (and other pseudoscientists) adopt this chant. The following are from WellingtonGrey.net:

Creationists do not follow the scientific method. The Answers in Genesis “Creation Museum” in Kentucky presents the visitor with a pair of paleontologists: a “creationist” and an “evolutionist”, and tell you that they accept the same data, but simply reach different conclusions based upon it. Paul Taylor of Answers in Genesis UK, in his talk at Skeptics in the Pub a few months ago, told us that the difference between creationism and evolutionism is only that the two set out with different but equally valid assumptions — the evolutionist’s is just that the universe is natural and material; the creationist’s is just that the bible is the literal and infallible word of God. Two equally valid assumptions, I’m sure you’ll agree.

But the idea that creationists are looking at the data — any data — is simply not true. Sometimes good data is discarded; sometimes data is invented; sometimes a piece of data only fits their conclusions because other facts are ignored. Most of the time, however, data is simply irrelevant: creationists are ignorant of the vast majority of the relevant science and evidence, and that doesn’t hinder them in their cause in the slightest. Creationism, it an exercise in spin; the science is irrelevant.

The theory of evolution was discovered in the mid-19th century, when Christianity still permeated to every corner of society, politics and science. Though we had begun the task of filling in those gaps in our knowledge in which God resided — with Copernicus, Newton, et al — God was still the unchallenged creator of everything, especially life, and a literal Genesis was common, even among scientists. Indeed, Darwin was middle-aged before the term “science” became widespread; he would have been more familiar with “natural philosophy” and “natural history”: defined then as the study of God’s handiwork. Men that we now call scientists saw themselves as investigating God’s creation, and many thought it was a simple case of filling in the details of a story summarised in Genesis. When scientists in the 19th century were convinced of the old earth and of evolution, it was despite their prejudices, and not because of them. Upon closing the Origin, Huxley kicked himself for not thinking of such an obvious idea himself: the power of and evidence for the theory was great even then, but the intellectual climate had prevented others from discovering it.

When creationists accuse scientists of bending observations to fit their theories, it suggests that they have an incomplete understanding of the scientific method. Creationists take the data produced by scientists (for they have produced none of their own), and see if they can use it to construct an argument that will convince non-scientists that creationism is scientific. They assume, therefore, that scientists are doing something similar: taking the data they find, shoehorning it into their own explanation of the world, and dressing it up to parade for the public and seek their acceptance.

Needless to say, this is not how science works. Observation is an important part of science, but it is not unfocused observation. It is observation guided by questions specifically designed to test the truth of theories. Scientists do not say “lets go observe the world”, but ask “if I observe this system, what would I expect to find, based on my theory?”, and “what kinds of observations would I not expect to find if my theory is true?” Upon seeking those observations, we discover something about the validity of the theory. Note also that these questions are not “what evidence should I gather to prove my theory right?”, but, “what questions should I ask whose answers could potentially prove my theory wrong?”

The creationist community is relatively homogeneous, consisting primarily of the American evangelical Christianity branch, and the Islamic branch (there are others, but they are not part of the same phenomenon). Their preconceptions are the same, based ultimately upon the same story, invented by Middle-Eastern nomadic herdsmen several thousand years ago; and their methods are the same, based upon faith, authority and revelation. The scientific community is not homogeneous: it includes liberals and conservatives, people of all nations, races and cultures, people with non-religious upbringings, and religious upbringings including Christianity and Islam, but also Hinduism, Buddhism, and many more besides; and its methods are based on questioning, skepticism, and competition to make the big new discoveries. Scientists have their prejudices, but it’s hard to believe that in such a large, diverse and inquisitive group, any particular prejudice could have such a pervasive and long-lasting effect.

Creationist argument is sham science, put on as a PR exercise. It is reminiscent of the cargo cult science of alternative medicine. It is supposed to look like science to those who do not look too closely. There are data used and numbers cited, and these put in the context of an explanation of how and why the world works. But when you look closer, you find that the data are carefully chosen, and the numbers a diversionary tactic. And in place of the scientist’s toolkit — empiricism, rationalism, skepticism, and logic — there is a creationist toolkit: faith, revelation, and spin. And they are so lacking in imagination that whenever this is exposed, they can only chant “I know you are. You said you are. But what am I?”

The main driving force for creationists is not science, but ethics. Their trump card is that “evolution is immoral”: they cite “might makes right” and eugenics, quote Darwin’s supposedly racist terminology in The Origin and Voyage, and put evolution at the centre of Nazi doctrine. Everything from school massacres to teenage pregnancy is blamed on “evolutionization”.^[1] It is not evolution that specifically bothers them; rather, evolution is a prominent representative of all things that aren’t biblically literal. In a world where the bible is not simple, straightforward and inerrant, ethics require rational thought and empirical facts. There are fuzzy lines between right and wrong, and tough choices where the lesser of two evils is difficult to determine. Creationists don’t care about the truth; rather, they are angry that evolution casts doubts on their book of simple rules.

The anti-abortion movement appears convinced that a massive international genocide is occurring. Their argument is that taking a life is murder, and life begins at conception. They are not using “life” in any scientific sense, nor expecting their argument to be taken as a scientific one. To try arguing the matter on scientific grounds is to throw your time away. Try a Socratic session of defining terms and you will be accused of dehumanising through language, in the mould of the Nazi holocaust. Arguments over when consciousness or pain detection begins to develop will persuade nobody, because they rely on the anti-abortionist admitting that life does not have solid boundaries, but has grey areas, in which difficult ethical decisions lie. The argument is not about when life begins, it is about simple rules.

G.K. Chesterton is oft quoted as saying something along the lines of “the problem with not believing in God is not that one believes in nothing, but that one will believe in anything.”^[2] I am not so pessimistic, but it does seem to be true that in the absence of God’s simple rules, people do their best to fill the vacuum. Take the organic food movement. Organic food is quickly rising in popularity in the United Kingdom because it markets itself as tastier and healthier, but most of all because it is ethical: good for the environment, and fair on the producers. Buyers of organic are making the simple rule “organic is ethical”, and delegating the difficult tasks to the producers and guardians of the organic brand. Technically, this may be classed as the fallacy of “appeal to authority”, but in practice it is reasonable, as none of us has time enough to investigate everything in depth ourselves, and so we must delegate at least some of the work to authorities. However, when delegating the task, most people assume that the producers and the guardians of the organic brand will be taking an empirical approach to deciding the most ethical growing practices, and the rules for producing the healthiest, tastiest and most environmentally friendly food. Sadly, they are not. The organic movement has written its own holy book of simple rules and superstition. The empirically determined healthiest and tastiest product is substituted with the most natural product. All chemical pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers and GM are out, while natural equivalents are in: a surrogate in place of improving biodiversity. Instead of developing sensible rules for the use of pharmaceuticals and antibiotics, which farming has traditionally grossly misused, the organic movement dispenses with them in favour of — don’t laugh, animal welfare is at stake here — homeopathy.

In last December’s leader criticising the organic and fair trade movements, The Economist miss the point. Instead of criticising those movements for judging their efficacy by surrogate outcomes and arbitrary rules, they simply list their own alternative surrogate outcomes and arbitrary rules. Both sides are merely providing just-so stories for why their farming methods are better, rather than looking at actual empirical measurements of the true results they want to achieve. Of course, The Economist is not even interested in the same results as the organic and fair trade movements: they are interested in the simple rule of a free market, no ifs and no buts.

Simple minds need simple rules; but intelligent rational people can easily find themselves seduced by them too, if they are not wary. Science has simple rules too, but of a different kind. Science has elegant equations and beautiful theories that make your heart race when their simplicity clicks. Witness Thomas Henry Huxley’s comments on closing The Origin of Species: “Why didn’t I think of that?” The most awesome aspect of evolution is that such simple rules produce the complex wonders of life. Life, when it becomes complex, no longer conforms to any one simple rule. Neither can our lives. In an episode of Father Ted, the senile old drunk Father Jack professes the least understanding, but provokes the most productive thought from others, with his mantra “that would be an ecumenical matter”. If you’re faced with difficult questions or fierce arguments, and in need of a simple rule, I offer you this: “that would be an empirical matter.” And from there, let the wonderful complexity blossom.

References

1. Tom DeLay, quoted in “Evolution Revolution”, PBS.org.
2. Though the American Chesterton Society have trouble verifying the source.

What is it with Channel 4 and the examination of excretions? During How Toxic Are Your Kids (C4, Thurs 8pm) I had to check the television guide to make sure that Armando Iannucci (The Day Today, Brass Eye) wasn’t the producer. Apparently, this is episode two of two, and I’m so disappointed that I missed the first episode. The programme opens with presenter, Sarah Beeny, telling us that “on an average day alone, I’m exposed to over a thousand chemicals.” This is episode two: we’re onto the advanced level stuff. A token ounce of sense — “… natural chemicals (some good and some bad)” — is voice-overed in at one point, but mostly, “chemical” is a synonym for “toxin” and “natural” is a synonym for “healthy”. Indeed, the disclaimer comes after telling us that “prior to the 1950s, we only used natural chemicals.” There’s no evidence for this obviously nonsensical statement, but it’s a fact.

As is standard for mid-evening television “journalism”, we meet some wonderful characters. It’s so much easier to talk to some ordinary people — who are all very willing to play along, in return for their fifteen minutes — than to do some research, or find out some facts. There is the Scottish woman whose interior decoration mimics a neoclassical museum, and who has a selection of air fresheners in every room. “Some people might think it’s a bit excessive,” she tells us. The voice-over comes in with the fact that people who use air fresheners are more likely to suffer regularly from headaches, but the science behind this fact is never explained: do the chemicals in the air fresheners cause the headaches, or are headaches another symptom of the psychoses that these people are clearly suffering from? Journalists these days are so thorough in their investigating that they conduct studies and experiments. The data point in this experiment is a teenage girl who has her make-up and shampoo taken away, in return for some “natural” products. “Everyone’s looking at me like, ‘she’s so ugly’.” No, dear, they’re looking at you like, “look at that girl being exploited by that film crew.” This is a scientific experiment, remember, and so an objective measure for results is required, and since it’s Channel 4, it has to involve analysing waste. But this crew is amateur: they stop at urine, rather going the whole Gillian McKeith. Then there’s the family that won’t eat any cooked food. “Don’t you ever just think, ‘oh, I really want some soup right now’?” Wow, yeah, soup. That’s exactly what I’d miss most if I gave up cooked food.

Pick a light-factual television programme from the archives and it should be possible to date it to within five years of its production merely by looking at the graphics. Graphics go through fashions, influenced by the latest technology. This one makes wonderful use of the virtual studio to create an amusing series of split screen scenes, for example. Either they just had so much to say and so little time that they had to resort to having two streams of information running at the same time, or it was simply the case that the presenter (left) was just so bored by what the scientist (right) was telling us that she had given up and was putting on her make-up instead. Another ubiquitous gimmick is to deliberately make the picture look bad. Bad picture quality is a way of immediately telling us “this is an informal ‘diary’ scene”: they’re the quality you’d get from cheap cameras of the variety one would use for home videos, or outside broadcasts from a cash strapped production company. Except they’re not. Cheap cameras have moved on since the early 1990s, but apparently, our expectations of picture quality haven’t kept up.

Everyone knows that alongside spectroscopic analysis of bodily productions, the way to do research is to conduct surveys. To the street! We get a montage of the people, who, after telling us that they never read the shampoo ingredients label (no shit, really?), all tell us that what they really want is more “natural”, “pure”, “essential oils” and “organic”. “It says 100% pure, therefore I know everything in there is going to be beneficial to me.” The presenter tells us: “nature is powerful stuff.” Yeah. As powerfully capable of harming us as synthetic chemicals. Still, it’s no good just telling us how bad chemicals are, clearly there is a demand for alternatives! “Although the levels of these chemicals aren’t considered dangerous, I’m going to see if I can reduce them.” And so, we get Aloe Vera for breakfast, and salt & lemon juice toothpaste. This is not science, it’s not journalism, and it’s not consumer advocacy. It’s classic infotainment. If Channel Four News is The Guardian of the television medium, the mid-evening slot is the Daily Mail. It’s not just health scares; it’s health scares with “kids” in the headline.

I’ve been catching up with about a month of blogosphere this weekend, after travelling, and other distractions. I managed to catch a discarded copy of G2 with Ben Goldacre’s homeopathy article, so I was prepared for the torrent of boilerplate defences of homeopathy which came down the RSS feeds. The replies, I correctly predicted, would mostly consist of repeating the original claims, a little louder and more desperately than before, and pretending that Goldacre had not already refuted them. I therefore had no intention of participating in the cleanup, which has been provided by several other bloggers. But having caught up with these responses and counter-responses, I find there is one additional piece of advice that I think some of the apologists for homeopathy would benefit from. In a liberal newspaper like The Guardian, comparing your situation to homophobia makes you look like an whinging arse with an oppression complex, and will not do you any favours.

Homophobia, in case you wondered, is the idea that expressions of love between particular individuals is sufficient reason to exclude them from politics, exployment, and other parts of society, attack them in the streets, and kick them in the face until they die. Imposed by states, it ranges from exclusion from state provided services, through the murder of teenagers, to genocide. Inherited from confused herdsmen of 3000 years ago, it is coupled with delusional ideas of eternal life to threaten, blackmail, and drive teenagers into academic failure, depression, homelessness and suicide. It is ordered, systemic and systematic discrimination which infects even the most enlightened of nations.

Now, dear homeopaths. It has been pointed out that impartial tests consistently fail to indicate any efficacy for your woo. It has been explained that anecdotal evidence of recovery is not evidence of efficacy. It has been explained that merely creating a hypothesis is not the same thing as “doing science”. It has been pointed out that to claim a Kuhnian revolution, one requires extraordinary evidence. You have been told that if you wish to participate in a life-and-death profession you must conform to some basic professional standards. This is criticism. It is debate. It is a request for the justification that your profession requires (and medical practices require a lot more justification than, say, sexual preference). These are pretty standard things, which we apply equally to everyone in science, medicine, and quite a few other disciplines and professions. Most of us take account of criticism, participate in debate, and meet professional standards. We understand that criticism of our ideas or examinations of our competence are not meant as personal insults, discrimination or oppression.

You are not being discriminated against. You are not being oppressed. You are not being attacked with baseball bats or hanged by a mob with the blessing of the judiciary. Not even metaphorically. Comparing yourselves to people who are, for the sake of a cheap pun, is at best lame and its worst insulting.

Continue reading at Lay Science…

Skepticism — the movement and the everyday scientific method — is about vetting the new ideas that want to take up residence in our minds. It’s a critical thinking toolkit that is there to prevent us getting fooled. It’s not cynicism or stubborn disbelief, just a cautious and questioning approach to the claims of others. It’s knowing the fallibility of the human mind; it’s the opposite of gullibility.

The gold standard that a skeptic seeks in an argument is to be able to see and evaluate and understand the original science and data and statistical analyses that supposedly support the claims of that argument’s proponents. But one doesn’t always have the time or expertise to go around making such rigorous examinations of complicated arguments. In those situations it’s common to tentatively accept the conclusions of experts in the field who you believe to have made those rigorous examinations themselves and who you trust to have got those examinations right. Accepting the consensus of the experts without having rigorously examined their evidence yourself is an argument from authority — a “trick”, if you like, but one that is not entirely unacceptable.

But for an issue as important as climate change, where we’re talking about big risks and being asked to make big sacrifices, one wants to make a more rigorous examination of the arguments and evidence and to be more confident about the science than one would for matters of less consequence. But proponents and opponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) both claim to have the science and the data and the statistics on their side — they both claim to have applied skepticism and the scientific method — and the lay person perhaps doesn’t have the dozens of hours required to learn the maths and chemistry and physics behind the arguments. All they’re left with is picking the side with the most PhDs in climate-related sciences, right?

But the AGW proponents have one other important thing going for them: even if the skeptical lay person can’t independently evaluate the claims of the proponents, they can easily see the absurdity of the claims of the opponents.

For example, on this week’s Little Atoms, Johnny Ball embarrassed himself with this series of arguments:

1. According to Ball, there is a scientific controversy because: “would you consider a qualified engineer to be a scientist? I think I would, and the majority of engineers don’t believe that we’re changing the climate.^{[citation needed]}” Well, no, engineers are not scientists. Some engineers — a small minority — happen to also be scientists, but engineering is not a science, at least, not in the sense that matters. Many engineers know much about how physics and chemistry work, and most probably know more mathematics than the average scientist. They can apply some scientific facts about the way the world works. But they are not doing science. Science is a body of facts and theories about the way the world works, but far more importantly, it is a way of studying the world. Science is a process and a tool, a method of empiricism, critical thinking and skepticism. Engineering and science share facts about the world, but they are very different processes and very different tools. The two professions think in different ways, and are rarely taught anything about each-other’s way of working.
2. Climate scientists are “cooking the books for grant money”. Yeah. It’s the scam of the century in which tens of thousands of individuals have abandoned their scientific principles to cooperate in successfully defrauding all the governments and funding agencies of the world. Also, did I mention that they are Reptilians? Dudes, have you still not realised how absurd you look making this claim?
3. Ball points out that climate scientists ignore the sun-spots — we keep shouting “sun-spots” and they keep ignoring us! Uh. Except, he forgets that somebody went and invented Google. We can all now google about sun-spots and climate change, see just how climate scientists have ignored them by, er, studying them and incorporating them into their theories and models and papers and reports, and we can read the lay summaries of climatologists and astronomers explaining why sun-spots aren’t — and can’t be — more than a minor detail in climate.
4. Finally, Ball compares climate change “sceptics” to Darwin and Faraday and Copernicus, while climate scientists are like eugenicists: when Darwin proposed evolution, the scientific consensus was against him, and it took a few decades for the rest of the scientific community to catch up. Ball seems to be proposing that, er, climate change scepticism is, uhm, a new science that the rest of the scientific community will catch up with over time. Did he somehow miss the last thirty years of climate scientists slowly convincing the scientific community into consensus?

The lay person can have some confidence that the climate scientists are right about AGW not merely by weighing PhDs and picking the authoritative argument. They just need to look at the sheer amount of money and effort poured into the argument by the denialists, and snigger at how embarrassingly piss-poor are the claims that effort buys. Zombie arguments and absurd conspiracies. The climate scientists might be giving us data and graphs and theories that we couldn’t possibly independently verify, but when the best the denialists can buy is a “rah rah rah look at the sun-spots” and a “help help, we’re being oppressed, like Copernicus”, I know which argument my skeptical mind is more persuaded by.

And this is also why Greenpeace need to shut up and let the grown-ups put the case for AGW.

I’ve heard it said several times. Usually it’s when I scold an acquaintance for being in possession of a copy. They will say something like, “I only bought it because it’s a convenient size,” or, “I just found it on the bus,” or, “it belongs to my grandmother, who supported Hitler during the war — she’ll be dead soon, so it’s OK.”

“Oh lighten up, it’s just a bit of fun,” they will sometimes say. “Of course every word of it is bullshit, but everyone knows that, so it can’t do any harm.”

Trouble is, that isn’t true. Sure everyone knows that everything in the Daily Mail is bullshit, but they don’t realise that this is because the DM has made it up. Take last week’s story, “Men who don’t find curvy women attractive ‘could father children with autism’.” (I know, I know, the DM has surpassed itself. It is beyond parody.) The readers in the comments thread are not so thoroughly witless that they can not see immediately that what they are being delivered by the DM is the purest grade ‘A’ Colombian bullshit. They are as outraged as I am — more so, as evidenced by their hurried comments, sent without time to proofread their words for spelling, flow or sanity. But to whom is the blame always assigned?

What upper poppycock! Whoever gave them a research grant to carry out such a study needs their head read…As do the researchers. However did they dream up the idea? How did they make this link? Are they saying there is something wrong with men who fancy thin women?

- Suzanne, Dorchester

Utter nonsense – and more wasted money spent on useless research. I think the university researchers just create the headlines themselves just to keep themselves in work.

- DBA, Crediton, Devon

What I want to know is who the hell thinks up these studies and who funds them and exactly what is this supposed to prove anyway?? Dont marry an athleticly framed woman as you will havel autistic children??

- Colette, Bowmanville Ontario, Canada

sigh

Cognitive dissonance: “I couldn’t have such consistently bad judgement as to subscribe to a newspaper with such a transparently and humiliatingly pisspoor excuse for journalism as this, therefore, the journalism must be good and the source of the bullshit must be the scientists.”

These people are considered qualified to vote, and their beliefs eventually influence research funding. The next step is politicians standing up to mock scientists for their interest in fruit flies.

There are differing opinions in the blogosphere over the merits of calling out bullshit. Does one feed the troll? Is it ever acceptable to sink to ad hominin attacks?

I try to stay civil, and I try to resist commenting on every bad article and news report. But I make no apologies when it comes to this:

A teenage girl in central India killed herself after being traumatised by media reports that a ‘Big Bang’ experiment in Europe could bring about the end of the world, her father said.

Oh. Well done, media.

The Daily Mail, of course, has been trolling the country since before “trolling” was even coined. The readers’ comments are performing as usual:

How devastating for this girl’s family. However, I am surprised that there has only been one reported case like this. Whoever is responsible (or should I say, irresponsible) for allowing this circus to continue should hang their heads in shame.

What a fine, democratic world we live in, where secret experiments costing billions and endangering humanity can be allowed to be devised with absolutely no consultation of the public whatsoever.

- Sara, Paris, France, 11/9/2008 9:40

Secret experiment? What kind of fucktard are you, Sara? Other than that, you make an excellent point here: the writers of the Daily Mail, and other irresponsible elements in the media, should hang their heads.

This was just the start of the trial and by no means the BIG BANG. This will come in a few weeks time when the huge explosion actually occurs–not to mention the after effects of the black hole atoms reproducing at an alarming rate which will effect us in a few years time. God bless her.

- Jane, SPAIN, 11/9/2008 9:04

Hi, Jane! If I were you, I’d be more worried about your immense density attracting celestial objects or knocking the Earth out of its orbit. Perhaps CERN’s scientists could be profitably employed investigating how it affects the curvature of space-time?

I don’t want to dwell on this. I’m repulsing myself by participating in this point-scoring match over one person’s personal tragic tale. Which is perhaps why I find this foul attempt at smearing science so outrageous.

It’s a right good science fest on Radio 4 at the moment. If you missed it, you must listen to Physics Rocks (available until 17/9). It’s Brian Cox talking to comedians about their enthusiasm for science. It’s a great antidote to some of the neurocidal drivel written by proudly illiterate twats (Brian Cox’s word, not mine) in the less reputable members of our gutter press.

They managed to get several of our favourite themes in the programme, and seemed to be channeling the spirit of Carl Sagan. In a conversation with Alan Alda, the question “what’s the point of the LHC?” was addressed—if the beauty of the universe isn’t enough for you:

We can drive a car without knowing how to take it apart and put it together again. But somebody better know how to put a car together, otherwise we’ll all be back on foot again. Every time we have figured out something basic about nature—discovering the electron, figuring out how radio waves work — we got an advance that has improved life on the planet immeasurably.

In a conversation with Eddie Izzard, the fascinating topic of multiverses came up. Cox suggested that there is a good chance that, while it may not be multiverses, the results of the LHC’s experiments will cast light on something revolutionary—of Copernican proportions. I can see the next chapter in the shrinking-pains of the God-of-the-gaps on the horizon…

In a conversation with Dara O’Brien, the topic somehow turned to CAM:

O’Brien: … cos unlike Deepak Chopra, I know what “quantum” means… it does actually mean something. It doesn’t mean like … ‘I’m not sure where my life is going’.

Cox: Ancient wisdom! It would help me build a better mobile phone!

O’Brien: Oooh. Ancient wisdom, my arse. Stop it, it’s awful… Ancient herbal medicines: we tested them! The ones that worked became just “medicine”. The rest is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri… CERN isn’t going to help that either. It’s not like you’re going to find some neat way that it [homeopathy] will — there’s no bow that goes on top of 120 particles to make it all just, you know…

There were two more quotes I just had to share:

• Cox: The LHC will be a candle in the dark, lighting the way to a new and more profound understanding of the universe.
• O’Brien: Physics does not rock. Physics does not have to rock. Physics underpins the very nature of the universe and our understanding of where we are. Just tiny bits of flotsam floating in a much bigger picture

But, really, listen to the whole thing.