Skeptico

Melanie Phillips Wrong Again

One of the most consistently stupid “journalists” writing on the subject of science and intelligent design has to be Melanie Phillips. I commented two years ago on another horrendous anti-science piece of hers: Idiot Journalist is the new enemy of reason.  Now she’s back again writing in the Spectator, with a piece entitled Creating An Insult To Intelligence – actually a highly accurate headline considering what she wrote under it.

Listening to the Today programme this morning, I was irritated once again by yet another misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as a form of Creationism. In an item on the growing popularity of Intelligent Design, John Humphrys interviewed Professor Ken Miller of Brown University in the US who spoke on the subject last evening at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. Humphrys suggested that Intelligent Design might be considered a kind of middle ground between Darwinism and Creationism. Miller agreed but went further, saying that Intelligent Design was

nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable.

But this is totally untrue. Miller referred to a landmark US court case in 2005, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, which did indeed uphold the argument that Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism in its ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the constitutional ban against teaching religion in public schools. But the court was simply wrong, doubtless because it had heard muddled testimony from the likes of Prof Miller.

The court was”simply wrong”? What, because you say so? And why was Miller’s testimony “muddled”? Because you didn’t like it? Or because you didn’t understand it? In any case, the court was not “wrong”, simply or otherwise. The court was shown evidence (actually, virtual proof) of the link between creationism and ID. The transitional version - cdesign proponentsists – was discovered.

Put simply, the ID book Of Pandas and People that was discussed at the Dover trial was originally a unashamed creation book called Creation Biology. (You know it’s a creation book because it has the word “Creation” in the title. You’re welcome.) Just after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard, the Disco Tute decided to remake the book as an ID book, rewriting large parts of it to make it all “sciencey” and not creationism at all.  No, really. But unfortunately for them, they were in such a hurry to do so that in changing the wording in one place from “creationists” to (presumably) “intelligent design proponents”, they morphed the two phrases and the book actually included the words “cdesign proponentsists”. Apparently they believe in a designer but not in a spell checker. Hilarious. Click the NCSE’s Missing Link discovered! for a detailed explanation of what they did. Also, The Panda's Thumb's Missing link: “cdesign proponentsists”.

Whatever the ramifications of the specific school textbooks under scrutiny in the Kitzmiller/Dover case, the fact is that Intelligent Design not only does not come out of Creationism but stands against it. This is because Creationism comes out of religion while Intelligent Design comes out of science.

Which is funny, because cdesign proponentsists (excuse me) intelligent design proponents don’t do any science. Instead they write long whiney articles about why ID is too science.

Creationism, whose proponents are Bible literalists, is a specific doctrine which holds that the earth was literally created in six days. Intelligent Design, whose proponents are mainly scientists, holds that the complexity of science suggests that there must have been a governing intelligence behind the origin of matter, which could not have developed spontaneously from nothing.

So how did the existence of this “governing intelligence” result in there being matter? According to IDists, the designer designed stuff. Stuff that could not have evolved. So after he had designed it, surely he must have implemented his design? But how did he do this, if the “matter […] could not have developed spontaneously from nothing” as Phillips writes? Didn’t the designer have to “create” the matter? If not, where did it come from? And if the designer did create matter, how is this not “creationism”? Obviously it’s not literal six day creationism, but who said creationism had to be literal six day creationism as in Genesis? Regardless of whether ID has its roots in religious creation or not (it does, but even if it didn’t), it’s still creationism. Clearly it’s more than just “design” (intelligent or otherwise). Somewhere along the line, the designer had to create stuff too.

The confusion arises partly out of ignorance, with people lazily confusing belief in a Creator with Creationism.

A bit like how people lazily confuse the appearance of design with belief in a designer.

But belief in a Creator is common to all people of monotheistic faith – with many scientists amongst them -- the vast majority of whom would regard Creationism as totally ludicrous. In coming to the conclusion that a governing intelligence must have been responsible for the ultimate origin of matter, Intelligent Design proponents are essentially saying there must have been a creator.

There you are - “there must have been a creator”.  Told you.

The difference between them and people of religious faith is that ID proponents do not necessarily believe in a personalised Creator, or God.

Well, yes they do, but even if they didn’t, it’s still creationism. It’s still “magic man did it”.

As a result, both Creationists and many others of religious faith disdain Intelligent Design, just as ID proponents think Creationism is totally off the wall. Yet the two continue to be conflated. And ignorance is only partly responsible for the confusion, since militant evangelical atheists deliberately conflate Intelligent Design with Creationism in order to smear and discredit ID and its adherents.

No, we conflate them because they are the same. If they want it to be science they need to do some science. Then they need to write it up and present it for publication in a science journal. Then have it peer reviewed, and stuff like that. But that’s too hard. Instead they just want to whine about how mean scientists are for calling them creationists. Boo hoo.

Qi is a Human Construct

Qi is a Human Construct.  It’s also an assumption.  That is to say, it’s just made up.  Of course, we always knew that.  But now we’ve had it confirmed by Howard Choy, a Feng Shui practitioner, and practicing Feng Shui Architect.

Howard turned up in the comments to my last Feng Shui post - Feng Shui Hooey.  (Yes I know that doesn’t really rhyme.  It rhymes the way I pronounce Feng Shui.)  Howard joined the thread at comment #11.  His defense of FS consisted of the usual fallacies (not “western” science, been around for a long time, you need to do more research before you understand it, yada yada), and didn’t get any better throughout the remainder of his 54 comments in that thread. But at least he eventually did one thing very few woos actually ever get around to doing, namely he admitted that Qi (and therefore the basis of Feng Shui) is just an assumption and a human construct. 

By all means, read the whole comment thread.  I just want to highlight the end of the discussion, where we finally managed to pin Howard down.  It started with Howard making comment # 133 and the comment after it, #134:

FS is about how to take advantage of life enhancing forces (jue sheng qi) which science is a part. So it is part science by using it.

[…]

We use things that have evidence and we use things that don't have evidence, as long as it is useful, we use them.

[…]

Some parts of FS can be tested by science, like why the Chinese preferred a courtyard house, Some parts can't, like the assumption we make that everything has qi.

I asked him (comment #135) how he knew these things.  How did he know that life enhancing forces of jue sheng qi even existed or what effect they have?  How did he know they were useful if we don’t have evidence for them as he admitted?  How did he know (as he claimed) everything has qi if (as he said), they can’t be tested?

His response in comment 135 was (with my bold):

Qi is an assumption and even science uses assumptions and in mathematics as well. An assumption is a proposition that is taken for granted, that is, as if it were known to be true. 

“As if”?! 

There are quantifiable qi like tianqi(weather) and qixi (breath), etc. The there are also unquantifiable qi like gua qi which is a human construct but we still use them because it is a useful tool by experience, like art, philosophy and religion.

So there you have it.  Qi is just pretend.  It was made up by humans.  We just act "as if" it's real.

And remember, Howard is not just any new agey woo, angry that I don’t support his favorite piece of magic.  He has studied this extensively.  He is part of a team that designs buildings using Feng Shui, he teaches seminars and workshops in Feng Shui, he has a Feng Shui blog.  In short, he is an expert in Feng Shui:

Howard has written 4 books on Feng Shui and Qigong and numerous articles for various magazines and journals worldwide. He has worked as the principal consulting Feng Shui Architect on the capital upgrading of the Chinese Garden in Darling Harbour, after having successfully completed the Feng Shui urban renewal for Sydney’s Chinatown in 2001 for the Sydney Olympic Games.

And this is the best a real expert can do?  It’s all made up, a human construct, an assumption?

And then this evening, after two weeks of silence, Howard came back and left a final "goodbye" comment #163. Apparently “Feng Shui is not working here” and it’s all our fault for not just believing in Howard’s drivel. But real science doesn't care whether you believe in it or not - it works regardless.

As an expert in Feng Shui, Howard is like the expert on fairies at the bottom of the garden - in both cases, the expertise is worthless.

Easter and God the Victim

A little perspective on Easter (which is today).

Yesterday, PZ reported on the “debate” between Christopher Hitchens and radio host Todd Friel – a labored exercise in Pascal’s Wager. Freil basically says, if we assume the Christian story is true, don’t you agree that atheists will go to hell? It goes on for over ten minutes, but there really isn’t much more to it than that. Hitchens does an excellent job of demolishing the idiot. (Click the link above – PZ has the full interview embedded.)

There was one area where I felt I had something to add to Hitchens’ rebuttal.  It was with Freil’s suggestion that Jesus’s death on the cross was an act of generosity.  As best I can recall, this is what Freil said:

If Jesus took the punishment that you deserve… wouldn’t that be the single greatest act of kindness in the history of the world?

Hitchens replied no, because he (Hitchens) hadn’t been born then and hadn’t been consulted.  Which is true, but I could think of additional reasons why this wasn’t an act of kindness.

I wanted to ask, who made this rule?  Who decided that Jesus had to die a horrible death before my sins could be forgiven? Surely this rule was made up by god? But why does he have to follow it? He’s god. He could forgive any sins he wanted. What possible difference could it make that Jesus did or did not die on the cross? And then it struck me – god is just playing victim. (“Oh boo hoo, I died on the cross for you, the least you could do is love me and praise me your whole life.”) Jesus's dying on the cross wasn’t an act of generosity. On the contrary, it was totally self serving – nothing but a piece of passive aggressive manipulative bullying. God had simply set himself up so he could play victim for the rest of eternity. What a wimp.

And it’s actually worse than that. The reward god has for us if we believe in him and praise him our whole lives, is that he won’t send us to burn in the hell that he created for us. We’re supposed to be grateful that Jesus died so that god could give himself permission not to torture us for eternity. That would be like me setting up a torture chamber in my basement and expecting people to think I was generous for agreeing not to lock them up there and torture them for the rest of their lives (as long as they worship me). That wouldn’t be considered an act of kindness. I would rightly be considered a psychopath for even setting up the torture chamber in the first place.

So to recap on god’s generosity at Easter: to save us from an eternity of torture in hell that he (god) created and had decided to send us to, based on rules he (god) made up all by himself, he (god) suffered torture (that he planned) on the cross, so that now as long as you worship him, he won’t send you to the hell that he can freely choose not to send you to anyway. And this, we are expected to believe, is act of kindness.

What a moron.

Randi's Strange Pigasus Picks

Randi published his 2008 Pigasus Awards today, and I must say, some of them had me scratching my head a bit.  Here are the awards and the winners – see what you think:

1. To the Scientist who said or did the silliest thing relating to parapsychology in the preceding twelve months.

- Dr. Colin Ross, who can shoot electromagnetic radiation from his eyes

Hum, well OK, I guess he qualifies.  What he’s claiming is very silly. I’m not sure if it’s strictly “parapsychology”, but he apparently is a scientist and seems like a nut. 

I’m afraid the rest are not so good, though.

2. To the Funding Organization that supports the most useless parapsychological study during the year.

- The Producers of the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Huh?  The movie Expelled could not any way be called a “study”.  It was a film pushing creationism.  Certainly not a study and nothing “parapsychological” about it either.  Plus, the producers of Expelled are not a “funding organization”.  It was certainly a piece of crap, but a “parapsychological study”?  No.  And yet there were several actual parapsychological studies he could have picked from 2008.  For example, this one.  So why didn’t he?

3. To the Media outlet that reported as fact the most outrageous paranormal claim.

- Late night cable TV stations

This seems a bit of a cop out to me.  If Randi wants to shame the makers of Enzyte then OK, but then he's criticizing phony advertising and not a media outlet per se.  They hardly even seem that outrageous either.  Unlike (for example) this. 

The next one makes no sense at all:

4. To the "Psychic" performer who fools the greatest number of people with the least effort in that twelve-month period.

- Jenny McCarthy; who has written books and appeared on countless TV shows promoting measles

Jenny McCarthy is certainly a bubble head anti-science moron who deserves to be shamed more than just about anyone else I can think of, but “psychic”?  When did she ever claim to be psychic?  And there are plenty of real (ie pretend) psychics out there who could have been named.  McCarthy could perhaps have been named in the next award - the most persistent refusal to face reality – that she certainly would qualify for.  But psychic?  It just makes no sense.  Couldn’t Randi think of one actual pretend psychic to shame?  Not one?  In the whole year?

5. For the most persistent refusal to face reality.

- Kevin Trudeau; who sold quack books even after the government fined him for it

Actually, I think Trudeau has a pretty good grip on reality.  He knows he’s selling crap, and he knows exactly how to keep making money at it despite numerous attempts to shut him down.  No, the people with the most persistent refusal to face reality are the ones who continue to buy Trudeau’s books and videos, despite the fact that they are complete crap.  But certainly not Trudeau himself.  Douchebag?  Yes.  Refusal to face reality?  Not really.

I hate to say this, but I think this years Pigasus’s are a fail.  The purpose if these awards, I imagine, is to ridicule these bozos and have a laugh at them ourselves.  But that only works if the things the awards are for, are for things the person actually did.  If they are about a straw man version (eg Jenny McCarthy – psychic), then they fall flat.  In fact, the recipient could easily laugh back at these rather absurd categorizations.  I’m afraid this list just looks like Randi picked five people who had done stupid things in the year, and then randomly assigned them to one of his five categories.  Which doesn’t seem to make much sense.

Read my Golden Woo awards from January – in my totally unbiased view, much better suited candidates.

April 2 - edited to add:

Well Randi edited some of the category descriptions - the main one being to remove the "psychic" label from the Jenny McCarthy award (see Phil Plait's comment below).  That's certainly an improvement.  But I still think it doesn't make any sense to call McCarthy a "performer", and I still think none of the awards (apart from #1) fit the category descriptions.  Admittedly it's not a major issue in the grand scheme of things, but if a thing's worth doing it's worth doing right.