17 Aug 2009, 4:06 PM

Tangled Bankruptcy: Response to Nathaniel Jeanson

Nathaniel Jeanson, newly of the Institute for Creation Research, gave a lecture in Boston last night entitled “Evolution: Bankrupt Science, Creationism: Science You Can Bank On.” This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone familiar with how creationist arguments work, but there was absolutely nothing new about his talk. As a freshly-minted doctoral graduate from Harvard’s molecular biology program, Jeanson is the embodiment of the very bleeding edge of so-called creation science: a dull intellectual wasteland rehashing decades-old arguments long since refuted, unable to be fertilized even by graduate-level training at an Ivy league university.

I attended the lecture with the Boston Skeptics. It was was mostly one stale, nonsensical creationist talking point after another, spanning everything from geology to astronomy to biology (in case you hadn’t guessed, by “evolution” he meant “every field of secular science that challenges Young Earth Creationism”), with bits of pieces of pure absurdity sprinkled in for flavor. I had to chuckle a bit when he brought up Irreducible Complexity; and here I had though Behe had gone out of style. There was, however, one claim he made late in his talk that caught my interest as a biologist: he suggested that the variation between species in a protein called cytochrome c (“cytC”) actually refutes common descent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: biology, creationism, skepticism | 18 Comments »

6 Jul 2009, 11:16 PM

A Laughable Attack on Common Descent

I like to keep tabs on some of the more prominent creationist websites, such as the Discovery Institute’s “Evolution News & Views” page and William Dembski’s group blog “Uncommon Descent.” Cornelius Hunter, author of some cdesign proponentsist book or other, has been making regular appearances on both sites lately, cross-posting items from his own blog.

Many of his rantings have fallen into the classic fallacy of argument from incredulity: “I personally can’t imagine how X could be possible (and I’m going to ignore your attempts to explain X), therefore X is impossible.” It’s hardly worth addressing such resolute and deliberate ignorance.

But one post of his, which appeared at the Disco ‘Tute the other week, contained a particularly glaring abuse of logic. He uses a recent study, an investigation into the potential evolutionary origins of laughter, as an excuse to lash out at the evidence backing common descent:

Evolutionists group species by similarities, thinking this reveals patterns of common descent. Then they find another similarity (not surprisingly with the same pattern) and they conclude it must have evolved. After all, it fits the pattern.

Hunter goes on to call common descent “laughable.” But I’m absolutely stymied by his parenthetical note above. If he rejects common descent, why isn’t he surprised to see a new similarity fit the same pattern? I therefore pose this question to Hunter, or anyone who thinks they can suggest an answer. Please, enlighten me.

Why would otherwise completely unrelated traits exhibit common patterns of shared expression between species, unless those traits conform to an overarching pattern of inheritance via common descent?

Posted in: creationism | 3 Comments »

12 May 2009, 1:58 PM

Salient Notes on Antivax

Antivaccinationist claims are many and varied, and it would be impractical to try to address all of them thoroughly in one place. There are, however, a few recurring themes.

My mother recently asked me to give her a summary of the vaccine controversy; she knew few details, but wanted something to share with coworkers who had concerns about vaccinating their children. Therefore, I threw together this quick list of notes for her based on my memory of all that I’ve read since I started following this issue.

A more thoroughly researched resource by Todd W can be found at http://antiantivax.jottit.com/ (via BA). I may decide to go through my list here and cite sources at some point, and maybe even add a few topics I missed, but really this was just intended as an introduction to topics in the antivax manufactroversy (manufactured controversy), a launching point (if need be) for more in-depth inquiry.

My notes are below the fold:

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in: health and medicine, vaccine denial | No Comments »

11 May 2009, 9:50 PM

Undaunted by Oprah

Back in February, Orac noted that the tide seemed to be turning in the fight against antivaccinationists, and predicted that 2009 would be a banner year for the forces of reason if our efforts could be sustained. Unfortunately, the antivaxxers aren’t about to make it easy for us.

As you’ve likely already heard,  Jenny McCarthy signed a multi-year deal with Oprah Winfrey’s Harpo Productions, giving the antivax “mommy warrior” her own talk show, a blog on Oprah’s webstie, and who knows what other privileges. Skeptics throughout the blogosphere cried out in lamentation when the news broke last Monday, and with good reason. Oprah has already been largely responsible for launching Jenny’s dangerous antivax message. This new development will at the least serve to further legitimize McCarthy, if not to directly spread her medical ignorance.

Still, I remain optimistic that Orac’s prediction may yet pan out. As the antivaxxers become more vocal, so, too, do their opponents.

Clearly, it would be incredible if we could get Oprah to rescind her endorsement of McCarthy. But as satisfying as it would be to see Oprah smash Jenny into a million little pieces, I’m not holding my breath. It’s discouraging enough that she has such a long, full history of promoting magical thinkers. But more importantly, antivaccinationism (and McCarthy’s role therein) is no mystery. Unless Oprah utterly failed to vet her latest acquisition, she should have had some exposure to the facts by now, which means that she has decided either not to believe the facts, or not to care.

Oprah may in some instances be a fool, but she’s clearly not stupid, at least when it comes down to business. Her schtick is all about empowering women, and that’s precisely Jenny McCarthy’s mission. Never mind, apparently, that she’s empowering women to rebel against medicine, to spread disease and endanger children.

Meanwhile, the continued media presence of the antivax movement will give us all the more opportunities to speak against them. More and more, the fence-sitters on this issue will be prompted to choose a side, and I remain optimistic that we on the side of reason can sway them. We have the facts on our side, for one thing. Sadly, thanks to antivax efforts, we also have a growing narrative. Since the inception of the antivax movement, they have claimed the narrative of helpless children and families squaring off against a cold, faceless medical establishment. However, as the consequences of declining vaccination rates build, we’re more and more able to put a human face on our side of the struggle, faces like those of Dana McCaffery, or the daughter of James Randerson, environmental editor for The Guardian.

The antivaxxers are going to continue to get louder, and granted, Jenny McCarthy’s deal with Oprah could be pretty damn loud. But their message is bankrupt. If we remain diligent, we may yet be turning things around.

Posted in: health and medicine, vaccine denial | No Comments »

.