Argumentum ad googlum

I've noticed a very dangerous trend on discussion boards (especially those that discuss pseudoscience). The web is a tremendous resource for people wanting basic information on a topic. The problem is that it's easy to forget that anyone with the desire and webspace can put up a webpage. The temptation to find a quick retort means that, many times, people don't bother to check the source carefully. In still other cases, people will look for a specific phrase that may be taken out-of-context to support their argument. I call this internet-based argument searching argumentum ad googlum.
Argumentum ad googlum is not necessarily a bad thing after all isn't the 'information superhighway' supposed to make our lives easier? Are we not all to be commended for 'doing research' on a topic before arguing about it? The problem is that without a solid base of knowledge, it is equally likely that we stumble upon misinformation when looking for information. I found, much to my dismay, that any technical argument I might make can be seemingly countered by an argumentum ad googlum. In some cases, it may be that my argument was poorly made or contained some errors. In this case, a good google argument can help clear up misconceptions. In many cases, I've found that google is used to argue simply for arguments sake.
The question is whether or not we should avoid google when making an argument. I don't think so. There is a lot of good information out there and google is a superb search engine. The information can be placed at our fingertips in a matter of seconds. We must also understand that scientific research is not easily summarized on a single webpage. We cannot, for example, discuss the intricacies of plate tectonic theory on a single website. We cannot, for example, highlight the research on mantle convection using a webpage. We can find bits and pieces of these distributed around the web, but it is both dangerous and irresponsible to think that we can google away a complex discussion.
I'm as guilty as the next person when it comes to argumentum ad googlum. I've learned long ago that there is no substitute for detailed research on a topic (even those that show up on discussion boards). Just be sure that you use google wisely and always be prepared to back up your arguments!

Cheers

Joe Meert

How to spot a quack

I've been 'debating' a David from Texas on Internet Infidels board and was reminded of how easily people can fall for pseudoscientific ideas. Seems as if David encountered a series of videos and other sites on the
expanding earth. Now, before I go on about DavidfromTexas and his hard fall into quackery, it is important to recognize the expanding earth (EE) hypothesis for what it is. The expanding earth hypothesis makes the claim that the earth has increased in size (some 40-60%) in the last 200 million years or so. There have been a number of advocates, but perhaps the most famous is Sam Carey of Australia. During the plate tectonic revolution, Sam Carey and others were arguing that earth expansion was at least equal to plate tectonics (PT) in its explanatory power. As data were added, EE slowly fell off the radar screen because PT explained the earth in a more coherent fashion. As is often the case, those whose hypothesis was no longer considered worthy of investigation, began to exhibt the first of the hallmarks of quack science. Sam Carey cried persecution and bias towards his ideas. Others have followed with the 'lone genius' argument. So, what is it that separates quack science from real science? Here is my list (others have far more comprehensive lists, but Dft reminded me of several that I see in common with other quack scientists.

1. Quack scientists will always claim 'the revolution is here' when in fact their quack science is usually old and discredited.

2. Quack scientists will usually claim bias by the 'blind mainstream'. In fact, mainstream science is all about overturning bad ideas. Ideas are constantly challenged. Scientists question and are accepting of questions. Quack scientists largely whine about science.

3. Quack supporters tend to hop from quack hypothesis to quack hypothesis. Dft was most recently into accelerated radioactive decay. When that proved to be too hard to argue, he latched onto EE.

4. Quack supporters often have a hidden agenda. Despite claims to the contrary, Dft is looking to refute evolutionary biology by adopting the quack science of the week.

In short, quacks and their supporters are not really interested in scientific discovery. They have an agenda and will use/misuse anything to meet that agenda.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Are Scientists afraid of Criticism?

One of the complaints I ofter hear about scientists is that they are unwilling to face their critics. Nearly 100% of the time, those critics are advocates of religious positions such as intelligent design or young earth creationism. To be honest, few scientists pay much attention to these 'fringe' groups. Intelligent design and young earth creationism are largely invisible to mainstream science because they don't act like sciences. A real scientist is not likely to ever encounter the work of a young earth creationist or an intelligent designer because the latter two 'enterprises' eschew scientific meetings and publications. In short, neither young earth creationism or its little sister, intelligent design publish their ideas in the scientific literature. Young earth creationists make an occasional appearance at scientific meetings, but largely avoid these as well.

So, who is really avoiding criticism? Anyone who has ever been to a scientific meeting, or written a scientific paper could answer this question in a heartbeat. Scientists view meetings as a venue to present new ideas and also receive valuable criticisms of those ideas. Scientists submit their work to their peers for the same reason. Criticism is life blood of real science. Most scientists accept the criticism and use it to improve their ideas. Sadly, some scientists (even some very bright ones) cannot stand the heat and they leave scientific research.

In short, the people who are most afraid of criticism are the intelligent design and young earth creationists. The record is very clear on that matter.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Alice in Wonderland Explains the World

People are very good at reading far more into books than was ever intended. Young Earth creationists, in particular, view the bible as an authoritative book on the origin of the universe, the earth and life. They treat the bible as a scientific text in addition to viewing it as a spiritual guide. Several Christian scholars have noted that the Bible is a book about how to go to heaven and not 'how the heavens go'. I have recently seen several sites from fundamentalist muslims who are treating the Koran as a scientific text. That got me to thinking (always a bad idea), just how easy is it to read far more into a text than was intended. Now, Lewis Carroll may well have intended Alice in Wonderland to be something deep so I began to probe the text to see if it offered any insights into science. I was amazed at the revelations found in AIW. I'm thinking of starting a church of Alice because of this wondrous message:

Some examples of Scientific wisdom found in AIW


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. ALICE was beginning to get very tired of sitting by her sister on the bank and of having nothing to do: once or twice she had peeped into the book her sister was reading, but it had no pictures or conversations in it, "and what is the use of a book," thought Alice, "without pictures or conversations?'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Alice is clearly peering into the void prior to the Big bang and lamenting that it sure would be nice to have something more than her bitchy sister.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. So she was considering, in her own mind (as well as she could, for the hot day made her feel very sleepy and stupid), whether the pleasure of making a daisy-chain would be worth the trouble of getting up and picking the daisies, when suddenly a White Rabbit with pink eyes ran close by her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Alice is considering creating ex-nihilo using ?daisy-chain? polymers. This is an indication that she was thinking of atoms and molecules and their importance in her coming creation. The ?white rabbit? is a metaphor for the first light.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.There was nothing so very remarkable in that; nor did Alice think it so very much out of the way to hear the Rabbit say to itself "Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!" (when she thought it over afterwards it occurred to her that she ought to have wondered at this, but at the time it all seemed quite natural); but, when the Rabbit actually took a watch out of its waistcoat-pocket, and looked at it, and then hurried on, Alice started to her feet, for it flashed across her mind that she had never before seen a rabbit with either a waistcoat-pocket, or a watch to take out of it, and burning with curiosity, she ran across the field after it, and was just in time to see it pop down a large rabbit-hole under the hedge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Things are getting interesting. The white rabbit is indicating the start of time (coincident with what science would call the ?Big Bang?). The ?large rabbit hole? is similar to the white hole cosmology.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. In another moment down went Alice after it, never once considering how in the world she was to get out again.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. This verse captures the essence of black holes. Nothing can escape not even the God Alice who created the universe. It also presages the multiverse hypothesis.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. The rabbit-hole went straight on like a tunnel for some way, and then dipped suddenly down, so suddenly that Alice had not a moment to think about stopping herself before she found herself falling down what seemed to be a very deep well
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. This verse describes, in a very clear fashion, the notion of radioactive decay. The deep wells are energy barriers through which the particles must tunnel. Quantum mechanics is first described in Alice?s adventures.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Either the well was very deep, or she fell very slowly, for she had plenty of time as she went down to look about her, and to wonder what was going to happen next
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. This verse describes the stochastic nature of quantum tunneling.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Down, down, down. Would the fall never come to an end? "I wonder how many miles I've fallen by this time?" she said aloud. "I must be getting somewhere near the centre of the earth. Let me see: that would be four thousand miles down, I think-"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Here Alice is building the earth and going though various checkpoints to make sure that all the layers are intact and in their proper position.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. First, however, she waited for a few minutes to see if she was going to shrink any further: she felt a little nervous about this; "for it might end, you know," said Alice to herself; "in my going out altogether, like a candle. I wonder what I should be like then?" And she tried to fancy what the flame of a candle looks like after the candle is blown out, for she could not remember ever having seen such a thing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Alice explains the white dwarf phase of stellar evolution.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice (she was so much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good English); `now I'm opening out like the largest telescope that ever was
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Need I explain the inflationary phase?

10. Alice now begins to explain the evolutionary development of reptiles from fishes in the following verse:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. How doth the little crocodile
Improve his shining tail,
And pour the waters of the Nile
On every golden scale!
`How cheerfully he seems to grin,
How neatly spread his claws,
And welcome little fishes in
With gently smiling jaws!'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. and the discussion of more transitionals


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. They were indeed a queer-looking party that assembled on the bank--the birds with draggled feathers, the animals with their fur clinging close to them, and all dripping wet, cross, and uncomfortable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hopefully, this small smattering of the Gospel of Alice let?s you understand something about the most powerful of Gods.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Science and the General Public

Two recent articles appeared (yesterday and this morning) regarding scientific literacy in the United States:

Science Literacy

and

Why is the Sky Blue

Aside from stating what is obvious to most people on the front lines of the creation-evolution debate, these articles made me think. What is it that people should know about science and why? The article containing the questions compiled by 'top scientists' included some very basic questions. Yet, is it truly imperative that people know 'what are the oldest fossils on earth'? It's a good jeopardy question, but knowing the answers to any of these questions does not make someone scientifically literate. I don't mean to slam the questions or the questioners, but it seems that we are missing something more important.

I will argue that the path to scientific literacy is not through the memorization of facts, but through the application of science to real world problems. In my experience, students remember science that is applied to everyday situations. Newton's Laws of motion make more sense when taught through the eyes of a person driving a car

1. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.
If you don't apply your brakes soon enough (frictional force), then you are going to hit the car in front of you and that will act as the external force.

2.The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.
It's worse to get hit by a semi at 30 mph than a Yugo at 40 miles an hour

3. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
When you get hit by the semi, your car is going to hit back

I'm not saying that students should not go beyond the simple explanations, but its the simple explanations that will be remembered by most people who don't deal with science everyday.

Science bears part of the burden for the state of scientific literacy in the US. Many of us fail to explain our work to the general public in an understandable fashion. We are tied to jargon and the complexities of the argument are lost on the people who support our research (through taxes etc). In many ways, we can take our cues from the intelligent design and young earth creationist groups. While their science is awful, their explanations are very simple and sound compelling. It seems ludicrous that good science cannot be made more comprehensible. After all, if bad science can sound compelling, should not good science sound irrefutable?

Cheers

Joe Meert

Dance, Monkeys, Dance

Someone posted this on a website that I frequent. It is an absolutely wonderful and satirical look at humanity. Warning (strong language).

Dance Monkeys

Cheers

Joe Meert

Truth and Science: Incompatible ideas?

I am often asked, and often observe people questioning, whether or not science is to be trusted because it is always changing. In its simplest form, the question is posed by doubters as follows "Science is always changing. Once Piltdown man was thought to be a missing link and now we find out it was a fraud. How can we trust science?". Aside from the fact that Piltdown was never really considered a 'missing link', let me turn to the more important question.....Why should we trust science?

It is true that science changes when new discoveries are made. It is true that science is always tentative. It is absolutely wrong to view this as a weakness of science. The notion that science is not to be trusted because of its tentativeness is an absolute expectation of dogmatic fundamentalists who view the bible as an absolute document. How does/should science demonstrate the usefullness of science as a tentative enterprise?

First, and foremost, a dogmatic stance is always a more comfortable position. This is true for scientists (who become wed to their pet hypothesis) and also for the biblical literalist who has been told how to properly interpret the verses of the bible. It is a particularly dangerous position for the scientist, less so for the dogmatic literalist. If one thinks they have the solution, why bother listening to alternatives? Fortunately, most scientists are aware of the fact that even the best pet ideas can be improved upon (and sometimes rejected). Scientists, for the most part, develop a tought skin regarding their ideas. We all want to be right, but we must also admit that we just might be wrong.

It is here that science and dogma part ways. Wanting to be right is entirely human. Admitting that we might be wrong is a blow to the ego. Most, but certainly not all, of the scientists I have encountered have little trouble when others test their assertions. Some will fight to keep their ideas alive long past the flat line. By and large, science progresses and ideas are either adopted as reasonable explanations of nature or rejected as flawed approximations.

Creationism is unchanging. Creationists have already decided what the answer should be and all data are interpreted to support that answer. Anomalous data are rejected because there can be no anomalies to absolutes. Intelligent design is only slightly different in its philosophy. Intelligent designs response to criticism is simply to move the goalposts. If an 'intelligently designed' or 'irreducibly complex' structure is explained by science, the ID movement simply declares it was never one in the first place. Intelligent design responds like the child who loses the game and then insists that under the new set of rules, it still is victorious.

Science, on the other hand, is best viewed (in my humble opinion) as a bumpy asymptotic approach to truth. Science closes in, but never reaches, a stance that is absolute. Some ideas are closer to the asymptote than others (evolution versus 'dark matter'), but the bumpy road assures us that scientists must pay attention to the map/conditions and adjust their course in the face of new evidence. Science is not perfect nor is any purely human endeavor, but the flexible nature of science and its unwillingness to behave dogmatically is a proven commodity. Science is successful because it listens to the evidence. Creationism/ID is a failure because it creates evidence to fit an incorrect conclusion.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Bad Answers in Genesis?

The following feedback was posted at AIG (Answers in Genesis) today

Feedback


The publication defends an article by Andrew Snelling that appeared in their 'journal' Creation.

Article

I had not seen this article before, so I went and had a look. The main premise is that Snelling collected samples of amphibolite from the Grand Canyon and found (gasp) many different ages using different isotopic systems. The 'data' are shown here:



Intrigued, as always, I went to dig a little deeper into the methods used. Generally speaking, one of the best dating methods for an amphibolite metamorphic rock would be to separate out amphiboles for Ar-Ar dating. Using the argon-argon variant of K-Ar allows many cross checks for excess argon or argon loss that are invisible to standard K-Ar dating. At the very least, a better approach would be to date the rocks using individual minerals. The worst possible method would be to measure the age on an inhomogeneous whole rock sample. In the footnotes, the methods are described as follows:

'Whole rock? samples were analyzed in all cases?K-Ar at Activation Laboratories, Ancaster, Ontario, Canada; Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb at the PRISE Laboratory, Research School of Earth Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

He then goes on to say that these results (all millions of years) give evidence for accelerated decay. This is a complete non-sequiter. They give evidence of sloppy methodology on the part of Snelling. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, it gets even worse. In the introduction, Snelling makes the following statement:

Based on radiometric dating, long-age geologists say that the basalt lavas erupted 1,745 million years ago and were metamorphosed some 1,700 million years ago.

The references cited for this are the following:

1741-1750 million years (Ma) based on U-Pb (uranium-lead) ?dating? of ?original? zircon grains in metamorphosed felsic (granitic) volcanic rock layers within the Brahma and Rama Schists. See Ilg, B.R., Karlstrom, K.E., Hawkins, D.P. and Williams, M.L., Tectonic evolution of Paleoproterozoic rocks of Grand Canyon: Insights into middle-crustal processes, Geological Society of America Bulletin 108:1149?1166, 1996, and Hawkins, D.P., Bowring, S.A., Ilg, B.R., Karlstrom, K.E. and Williams, M.L., U-Pb geochronologic constraints on the Paleoproterozoic crustal evolution of the Upper Granite Gorge, Grand Canyon, Arizona, Geological Society of America Bulletin 108:1167?1181, 1996. 1690?1710 Ma based on U-Pb ?dating? of minerals (monazite, xenotime and titanite) that formed in the overlying Vishnu Schist and underlying Rama Schist during the metamorphism. See Hawkins et al., ref. 4, and Hawkins, D.P. and Bowring, S.A., U-Pb monazite, xenotime, and titanite geochronological constraints on the prograde to post-peak metamorphic thermal history of Paleoproterozoic migmatites from Grand Canyon, Arizona, Contributions to Mineralogy and Petrology 134:150?169, 1999.

Note that these authors dated individual minerals that have different closure temperatures to estimate conditions and timing of metamorphism. In fact, the ages are perfectly in line with their expected age progression (i.e. the zircons are older than the metamorphic minerals). Here we have a case of geochronology done right supplanted by geochronology done wrong (if you believe Snelling).

In fact, the abstract by Hawkins and Bowring (1999) gives a wonderful illustration of the power of geochronology (done right) in interpreting metamorphic history:

The petrology and U-Pb geochronology of pelitic migmatite and calc-silicate gneiss reveal a detailed prograde to post-peak metamorphic thermal history for a single outcrop of Paleoproterozoic supracrustal rocks in the eastern part of the Grand Canyon. Metamorphic monazite from paleosomal pelitic schist grew on the prograde path beginning at about 1708 Ma and continued to grow until about 1697 Ma. The U-Pb dates for magmatic xenotime and monazite from peraluminous granite and pegmatite leucosomes indicate that partial melting, which involved the breakdown of muscovite to sillimanite, commenced at about 1702 Ma, prior to the metamorphic peak. Partial melting continued until about 1690 Ma, the youngest U-Pb date from magmatic monazite in the leucosomes. Field and petrographic evidence, as well as inheritance patterns in monazites from the leucosomes, suggest that some of the leucosomes appear to represent in situ partial melts that did not escape the source region. Between 1702 and 1690 Ma, the migmatite package heated to peak metamorphic conditions of about 720 °C and 6 kbar, cooled to about 675 °C at a cooling rate >30 °C/million years, and decompressed to about 4 kbar. The U-Pb geochronological data for metamorphic titanite from a calc-silicate gneiss exhibit a clear relationship between grain size and the 207Pb/206Pb date indicating that the titanite crystals record cooling ages. These data, combined with the titanite Pb diffusion data of Cherniak (1993), yield a cooling rate of 5.4m0.9+1.7 °C/million years, integrated over the interval 1690 to 1676 Ma and suggest that by 1675 Ma, the cooling rate slowed to less than 2 °C/million years. The rapid decompression during the peak of metamorphism and the change in cooling rate immediately following peak metamorphism are interpreted to reflect large-scale tectonic processes associated with the accretion of juvenile crust to the margin of Laurentia. Juvenile arc crust appears to have been assembled, accreted and stabilized into Laurentian lithosphere in less than 30 million years.

In short, this is a classic example of geochronology done poorly. Snelling either deliberately chose the worst rocks and the worst methods in order to guarantee strange results or was grossly incompetent. Well, ok maybe both. I also notice that the data are not given in the creation article. If someone has a more detailed description of the results, it'd be fun to look at the individual data points more carefully. Lastly, Snelling implicitly suggests that if geochronology is not correct every single time, then it can never be trusted. I wonder if he ever gets on a airplane?

Cheers
Joe Meert

Another gap in the fossil record closed

Tommorrow' edition of Nature (one of the premier scientific journals) contains an article that describes a the filling of a gap in the fossil record. According to the YAHOO News release:

LONDON (Reuters) - An international team of scientists have discovered 4.1 million year old fossils in eastern Ethiopia that fill a missing gap in human evolution. The teeth and bones belong to a primitive species of Australopithecus known as Au. anamensis, an ape-man creature that walked on two legs. The Australopithecus genus is thought to be an ancestor of modern humans. Seven separate species have been named. Au. anamensis is the most primitive. "This new discovery closes the gap between the fully blown Australopithecines and earlier forms we call Ardipithecus," said Tim White, a leader of the team from the University of California, Berkeley. "We now know where Australopithecus came from before 4 million years ago."
Found and analyzed by scientists from the United States, Ethiopia, Japan and France, the fossils were unearthed in the Middle Awash area in the Afar desert of eastern Ethiopia. The area, about 140 miles northeast of Addis Ababa, has the most continuous record of human evolution, according to the researchers.

Creationists (and intelligent designers) are constantly lamenting their perception of a flawed fossil record. This find fills in another evolutionary gap in the road to homo sapiens. Last week, a major evolutionary link between fish and tetrapods (land walking creatures) was discovered in Greenland (tiktaalik rosea). Aside from the fact that the gaps in the fossil record are being closed on a weekly basis, both of these finds highlight an additional power of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary hypotheses led both teams of researchers to specific regions because the rocks in those areas had the potential for providing the intermediate forms.

Cheers

Joe Meert

The Intelligent Design Movement: Real Science or Political Science?

I'm constantly amazed (but rarely amused) at the number of people who argue that science is not giving intelligent design a fair hearing. At the very heart of this complaint is a major misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not fair. Science is not democratic. Let me try to explain why this is the case. Participation in scientific discovery is fair and democratic. Anyone with the desire to explore and experiment is welcome to participate in the scientific process. The key is that not every experiment works and not every scientific argument is equal. In order to have your science accepted, you must be willing to argue your case in front of other scientists. This means attending scientific meetings and presenting your data to other knowledgeable (and critical) scientists. It means preparing and carefully documenting your data and then submitting it for publication to a scientific journal. A paper, when submitted, is usually sent out to 2-3 reviewers (sometimes more) who take time to evaluate your data and your arguments. These reviewers are trying to find errors in your logic and in your arguments. It's tough to get a paper published in a scientific journal. If your paper is deemed worthy of publication, then others will read your paper with a critical eye. Some will develop methods by which they can test your hypothesis. Good ideas will be able to withstand the tests and the criticism and will gain acceptance by the scientific community. Science is a competitive enterprise and not for those with a fragile ego. If you conduct scientific research, it is likely you will be criticized far more often than you are praised!
So what about Intelligent Design/Creationism? Is it true that science is not being fair to these ideas? Yes, it is true. Science is skeptical about the claims of intelligent design and young earth creationism. Why? Science is skeptical about everything. Science is particularly skeptical about 'ideas' that circumvent critical review. The intelligent design movement (and its bigger sister, young earth creationism) are political movements. They hide behind the guise of 'science', but they don't behave like science. Intelligent design advocates write popular books. Intelligent design advocates lobby school boards. Intelligent design advocates take their fight to the courts. Intelligent design advocates take out advertisements in newspapers and purchase billboard space. Intelligent design advocates rarely attend scientific conferences to present science. Intelligent design advocates rarely publish their ideas in scientific journals. Intelligent design advocates react to real science instead of doing real science.
Good science finds its way into the classroom by surviving the critical onslaught of scientists. Einstein did not take out an advertisement in the New York times stating "We the undersigned disagree with certain aspects of Newtonian physics" (intelligent design did take out an ad stating 'we the undersigned disagree with Darwinian evolution). Einstein did not lobby local school boards to have E=mc^2 put in the textbooks ahead of scientific publication. Einstein did not lobby the court to demand equal time for relativity and Newtonian physics. Relativity earned its way into the textbooks. Einstein lobbied his fellow scientists. Einstein submitted his work to his colleagues for criticism and improvement. Einstein made predictions that were tested by other scientists. When relativity proved to be an effective scientific concept, it was adopted into textbooks and taught in mainstream physics classes.
If intelligent design/creationism wants to be heard, then it must behave like a real science. Show us where intelligent design works better than evolution. Intelligent design advocates need to get off their political lobby behinds and start doing some science. Right now, intelligent design is no more scientific than homeopathy. Intelligent design gets no respect from the scientific community because it has not earned its respect.

Cheers

Joe Meert

Bill Nye the Science Guy? Essence of Evil

Remember the Science Guy, Bill Nye? The PBS science teacher who won over the minds of millions of children (and a few closet adult science freaks)? Well, it is reported that when he was speaking at a community college, he mentioned Genesis 1:16......
God made two great lights — the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars
Nye pointed out that although the Sun really is a star (an average star at that) and that the Moon isn’t really a light but rather an object that reflects light from the Sun. .....well, some folks walked out angry, and one woman was heard to exclaim “We believe in a God!�

So? What does having belief in God to do with reading the bible as a science text?

Science, Antiscience and Geology Blog

It is my hope to blog about the rise of anti-science in the USA (and elsewhere) from the perspective of a Geologist. The biggest political challenge to modern science is being promoted by advocates of intelligent design and young earth creationism. Both argue that evolution is a poor explanation of biological diversity and that a better explanation comes by allowing for supernatural events to occur during Earth history. Young earth creationism argues that supernatural intercession occurred during the creation of the universe and again during the global flood of Noah (all within the last 6000-10000 years). Intelligent design is a bit more nebulous on the timeline of supernatural intervention, but it also argues that an 'unamed' designer tampers with biological organisms from time to time. Neither young earth creationism nor intelligent design are true scientific viewpoints, but both have strong political lobbies who seek to insert their theocratic views into the scientific curriculum. This blog will touch on newsworthy discoveries and the political actions of the ID/creationism folk as well as random musings on other pseudoscientific ideas (homeopathy, crystal healing, tarot, extra-sensory perception etc).

Cheers

Joe Meert