Skeptico

The Golden Woos #4

It’s the new year, and so time for the fourth annual* Golden Woo Awards for outstanding work in the promotion of Woo in the previous year. Here are the winners for 2012:

* Except for years when I didn’t publish one.

The Egnorance Prize for the scientist or academic who said or did the silliest thing to support Woo

The 2012 Egnorance prize goes to theologian Alvin Plantinga, as justified by two articles by Jerry Coyne, The sophistry of Alvin Plantinga and especially Plantinga: Why God is a necessary being. As far as I can tell, Plantinga’s “why god is necessary” is just a rehashing of the Ontological Argument which I debunked over three years ago. Or as one of Jerry’s commenters remarked, the argument is:

God is defined as that which must exist.
That which must exist exists.
Therefore, God exists!

And no, you cannot define anything else as that which must exist. You just can’t, that’s why not.

As Coyne notes, this is what passes for “sophisticated theology,” a term I believe he has trademarked. Just think, Plantinga gets paid to write this drivel.

The most useless or misleading Woo study

The award goes to The John Templeton Foundation funded $5 Million Grant to Study Immortality. Yes, $5 Million to study something that no one can know exists, and if it does, no one has ever been there (and come back). So it’s $5 Million to study what people have made up about what they think the afterlife is. It’s hard to imagine anything much more useless.

The Larry King Prize for the media outlet that reported as fact the most ridiculous Woo claim

A crowded field, as usual. Nominees included the various websites reporting that Richard Dawkins’s family fortune came from the slave trade, and especially the Newsweek’s article headlined Heaven Is Real – an absurd thing to claim you know for certain, if there ever was one. Both worthy contenders. But I have to award the Larry this year to Dr Phil for his ‘psychics are real’ show featuring John Edward and CharMargolis. It’s not just that he reported this drivel credulously as fact. Many others have done the same (Dr Oz, I’m looking at you). The award is given to Dr Phil since he is supposed to be some sort of psychologist, and yet he couldn’t spot the obvious psychological tricks employed by these cold readers, nor could he recognize the psychological need of the victims to make hits out of wrong guesses.

The Chopra Award for the most drivel containing the most logical fallacies

Named for Deepak Chopra, whose support of woo with nothing but logical fallacies, is above and beyond what can reasonably be expected of any human being.

This year’s Chopra goes to Zack Kaldveer of the “Yes on 37” campaign (the 2012 California ballot initiative to require labeling of genetically modified foods). The title of Kaldveer’s article gives you a hint of the fallacy he is mostly relying on: Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods: Whose Side Are You On? “Whose side are you on?” It’s right there in the headline, followed by 1,300 words, the majority of which were nothing but (numerous) Ad Hominem attacks – smearing opponents of the initiative instead of rebutting their arguments. Add a dose of Appeal to Popularity, and Argument by Assertion and you have it all. There may be some good reasons why GM food should be labeled, but you don’t see any of them in this article. And just to be clear, a good argument in favor of labeling GMO foods would not include an argument in the form of ‘Safeway eliminated health insurance for its workers.’

I was a little reluctant to give this award to Zack since he is a friend of mine. In fact, I only learned of the article when he emailed me the link back in July. Since he is a friend, I didn’t do my usual paragraph by paragraph rebuttal. However, looking back at the year, I can’t think of another article that is made up almost entirely of logical fallacies and no actual content. I did try to look for one, but couldn’t find one that competed. I’m sure Zack doesn’t read this site, but if someone tells you about it Zack and you find this page – congratulations, you have won the 2012 Deepak Chopra Award. I imagine that would make you quite pleased.

The Blown Irony Meter Award, for being completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of their own actions or words in defense of Woo

The award goes to Lenoir City High School for denying a student the right to publish an article in its student newspaper. What was the article about? It was about how atheists don’t have the same rights as Christians in her school. The lack of self awareness shown by the school authorities is quite outstanding, and deserving of the 2012 Irony Award. As is the subsequent Streisand Effect, as her article was published elsewhere, gaining more publicity than it ever would have if it hadn’t been refused by the school.

The most ridiculous or bigoted act using religion as its justification

Always a crowded field – the examples too numerous to mention. This year I’m giving the award to the government of India and the Roman Catholic Church. The situation is that an Indian skeptic called Sanal Edamaruku debunked a “miracle” of holy water trickling as tears from a statue of Jesus (it was just faulty plumbing). The Indian government immediately accused Edamaruku of blasphemy, and he only escaped jail by leaving the country.

The Indian government should be ashamed that it has blasphemy laws on its books. But the real reason I am giving this award is the reaction of the Roman Catholic church. According to Edamaruku:

The Catholic archbishop of Bombay, Oswald, Cardinal Gracias, has said that if I apologise for the 'offence' I have caused he will see to it that the charges are dropped.

And there you see quite clearly what religion looks like when it gets everything it wants – it demands obedience and obsequiousness or it has no compunction about sending you to jail. Remember this when people talk about moderate religion, and when they say it’s only religious extremism that is the problem. What you see very clearly here is that when they are not restricted by secular reasoning and secular laws, religions’ natural state is extremism.

Miscellaneous Idiocy

This year I’m combining the most persistent refusal to face reality and Occam awards into one general award for miscellaneous idiocy. Agreed, all of these awards are for idiocy in one way or another. This is just a category for anything that would otherwise be missed.

The 2012 award goes to Andrew Wakefield. His ‘vaccines cause autism’ has been shown to be the result of fraudulent research and he has been struck off the register of UK doctors. Having failed with the science, he now tries his hand in the courts by suing Brian Deer – the journalist who exposed Wakefield’s faulty research. Of course, the absurd suit was dismissed, but I trust that this Golden Woo will be of some consolation.

The Golden Woos #3

It’s the new year, and so time for the third annual* Golden Woo Awards for outstanding work in the promotion of Woo in the previous year. Here are the winners:

[* Except there were no awards last year, so we will include services to woo in the last two years.]

The Egnorance Prize for the scientist or academic who said or did the silliest thing to support Woo

The Woo goes to Professor John Haught, who during his debate with Jerry Coyne (Science and Religion: Are They Compatible?), informed us that “because my wife turned the gas on” is a different level of answer to the question “why is the teapot boiling.” Therefore religion is compatible with science. Which presumably means Haught believes his wife is god. Or at least, that she makes tea using supernatural powers.

The most useless or misleading Woo study

The award goes to Anna Enblom et al for this study on acupuncture. Strictly speaking the study was not useless. In fact it was quite useful for demonstrating that acupuncture is nothing more than placebo. (Although we already knew that.) What was misleading is the way Enblom et al chose to interpret the results, namely by saying that since both real and placebo acupuncture (yes I know all acupuncture is placebo acupuncture – you know what I mean) showed a benefit, acupuncture works. As Steven Novella wrote in Another Acupuncture Fail, “In the real world of scientific medicine … when a treatment works no better than the placebo control we conclude that – the treatment does not work.” For dishonest and misleading wording in both the abstract and especially in the press release, Enblom wins a well deserved Woo.

The Larry King Prize for the media outlet that reported as fact the most outrageous Woo claim

This year’s Larry goes to numerous TV stations for screening the Dr. Oz show. Examples of how steeped in Woo Oz has become are numerous, but as an example he promotes homeopathy. For some reason the video of the show doesn’t seem to play any more, but Oz calls on a Dr. Russ Greenfield who claims that there are “scientific studies” and “some data suggesting it really works.” (Although a lot more showing it doesn’t.) He talks about “essence” which is the “spirit literally of the medication,” although, confusingly, he also says that you “don’t want to use this for stuff that isn’t self limiting.” (Translation – it only works for illnesses that will get better by themselves.) For some reason this show seems to be on ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, so any one of them can claim the Larry this year.

The Chopra Award for the most drivel containing the most logical fallacies

Named for Deepak Chopra, whose support of woo with nothing but logical fallacies, is above and beyond what can reasonably be expected of any human being. I was originally going to give this year’s award to Bill “the tide comes in and it goes out” O'Reilly, for saying that since we don’t know where the Moon came from, god exists. Well worth the award, in my opinion. But I’m afraid I had to disqualify O’Reilly. You see, good (and by good, I mean bad) though his argument was, he later had Deepak Chopra on his show to support him with it. And the thing about these awards is that they need to be all your own work. Having Chopra on to help you is cheating.

So on reconsideration, this year’s Chopra goes to Michael Egnor (a previous Woo Laureate) for inventing a new fallacy. Not content with repeating at nauseam the mantra “stuff changes and survivors survive” to describe evolution, when called on this obvious straw man, he claimed it was just a colloquialism. Genius! I’m not sure what the exact name for this fallacy is. I think it’s a form of equivocation, but I’m open to ideas. In any case, I don’t remember even the fallacy grand master pulling off a stunt like that, and so Egnor is this year’s worthy winner.

The Blown Irony Meter Award, for being completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of their own actions or words in defense of Woo

The Woo goes to Barbara Loe Fisher for suing Paul Offit and Amy Wallace following their (accurate) article about anti-vaccination nuts, while simultaneously writing that she wants A Fearless Conversation About Vaccination. By fearless, she means fearless for her and her anti-vaccine friends. She’s quite happy if pro vaccine people are in fear.

Now, this incident occurred in early 2010, so (although I am covering two years here) it wouldn’t by itself have been enough to warrant an award. But Fisher is nothing if not persistent, and clearly determined to win the award this year. In November she claimed that wanting the truth to be told about vaccines (and by “the truth” I mean, “the opposite of what Fisher wanted to say) was “intimidation.” Fisher is a totally un-self aware martyr who cries “intimidation” when someone writes letters she doesn’t agree with, but is happy to get her lawyer to issue SLAPP suits while claiming to want a fearless conversation. “Oblivious” and “hypocrisy” are two words that belong in the same sentence as “Barbara Loe Fisher,” and for that she gets this year’s Woo.

The most ridiculous or bigoted act using religion as its justification

In a crowded field, the Woo goes to Michigan Republicans, for amending an anti-bullying bill to allow bullying if the bullying arises out of a sincerely held religious belief or moral convictions. This was a bill that was originally named after a teenager who killed himself after being the victim of anti-gay bullying by Christians. Now, thanks to Michigan Republicans, bullying by the religious is officially encouraged. This is outstanding bigotry and absurdity, of the sort that mostly comes from religion.

That’s it for this year. Please tell me of any I missed in the comments. And any you wish to nominate for next year.

The Golden Woos #2

It’s the first post of the new year, and so time for the second annual Golden Woo Awards for outstanding work in the promotion of Woo in the previous year. These awards have been compared to the Golden Globes, and to Randi’s Pigasus Awards.  Admittedly, I am the only one making this comparison but no matter – the comparison has been made and therefore my statement is true.  So with no further ado, I give you The Golden Woos of 2010.

The scientist or academic who said or did the silliest thing related to Woo

For the second year running the award goes to Michael Egnor.  His article last January, Materialism of the Gaps, would have been enough by itself to win this award outright.  As I explained in my post Egnor's Dualism Of The Gaps, his silly arguments for dualism included:

1. Misuse of the “god of the gaps” argument: for some reason he thinks it applies to people who see no reason to propose dualism.  (As I wrote, it is a fallacy to insist that your explanation must include some unproven entity that you just made up; it is not a fallacy to exclude made up entities)
2. Circular reasoning: the mind must be non-material, because materialism can’t explain the mind because the mind is non-material.  Seriously.
3. Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics.

As I said, enough to win the award by itself.  But then he wrote Climategate: a Word of Advice to the Scientists – in summary, some scientists (may have) lied about global warming, therefore evolution is false.  Just breathtaking in its stupidity.

If Egnor wins this award again next year I’ll have to rename it “The Egnor” in his honor.

The funding organization that supported the most useless Woo study

The award is given to the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for their $400,000 study on emergency room acupuncture.  This study is useless because it is not randomized, it has no blinding, there is no sham acupuncture and standard medical procedures will be used in addition to acupuncture.  Plus, we also know from numerous studies that have already been done, that acupuncture is nothing more than a placebo.

The media outlet that reported as fact the most outrageous Woo claim (aka the “Larry King” prize)

After some considerable thought, I’ve decided to award The Larry to the entire media for their reporting on Rom Houben, the Belgian man who allegedly was fully conscious during a 23-year long coma.  I realize “the entire media” is a bit of a cop out, but honestly I haven’t been able to find any mainstream media outlet (maybe you can find one) that reported on this rationally. 

The outrageous woo claim here was not that the man had been conscious throughout the 23 years (opinions differ about how conscious he actually was/is); the woo claim is the “facilitated communication” (FC) – where a “facilitator” moves Houben’s hands across a keyboard and types out messages supposedly from him.  See these videos of this on CNN and on MSNBC – clearly the “facilitator” is doing the typing. Her eyes are constantly on the keyboard as she moves his hand from letter to letter; Houben's eyes are staring into the distance.  The best reporting I saw on this story was by Campbell Brown of CNN, but even she just left it that there was “skepticism” or “a controversy” around the FC.  (And she really has no excuse since we know her staff had contacted Hank Schlinger of the JREF, and had the whole FC nonsense explained to her in detail.)  But there is no controversy over whether FC is genuine – it is not.  Big epic FAIL from the entire media.

The Woo responsible for the most drivel containing the most logical fallacies (aka “The Chopra”)

Named for Deepak Chopra, for his achievements supporting woo with nothing but logical fallacies, above and beyond what can reasonably be expected of any human being.  As I wrote last year, Chopra is excluded from winning this award, otherwise no one else would ever stand a chance.  (Although that didn’t stop him from trying.)

The Chopra this year goes to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach and Dinesh D’Souza for their reliance on pure assertion coupled with arguments by analogy (but zero actual evidence) in the debate on the conflict between science and religion, “La Ciudad de las Ideas 2009 Re-Evolution” Festival debate.

Now, you can click that link and watch the actual debate if you want, but it is two hours long (and loads slowly) so probably most people won’t want to bother.  It does have some good arguments put forward by Sam Harris and Chris Hitchens, so take a look if you have the time.  But for those who don’t, I’ve highlighted just one of the poor arguments (from many made) from each of these clowns.

First, we have Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (1 hour 4min in) on why morality does too come from religion:

I know that Daniel Dennett is a very moral man, I know Sam Harris is a very moral man, and I know Christopher Hitchens is a very moral man, but their morality COMES FROM RELIGION.  It comes from the ten commandments” “do not murder, do not steal, do not commit adultery”…

Stunning!  Boteach’s entire argument to support his contention that morality comes from religion, is to state in a loud voice that morality COMES FROM RELIGION.  And it must be so because Boteach says it is.  Case closed then.  Wow, I never knew that debate could be so simple – just assert what you say is true and it’s true and the other person is wrong.  Period.  If only I’d known that when I started this blog, I could have saved myself a lot of effort in constructing valid arguments, reading papers, citing studies, etc.  I could have just asserted that I was right and be done. Wow – is my face red now.

Even better (and by that, I mean even more lame) is Dinesh D’Souza (28 min in), on why agnosticism is the “dumbest position of all” to take.  Get a load of this:

[Agnosticism] is actually the dumbest position of all.  And here’s why.  Imagine if you are dating a woman and trying to consider the question of, should you ask her to marry you.  Now the fact is you could use all the reasonable knowledge at your disposal but if you say “what is life with this woman going to be like for the next 50 years,” you can never know. So you say, “OK, since I cannot know I’ll be an agnostic – I’ll wait for the data to come in.”  But the data will never be in.  If you keep waiting, she will marry someone else or you’ll both be dead.

To start with, this is just argument by analogy (the weakest form of argument), with absolutely no evidence presented (as Sam Harris pointed out at least twice).  But even by argument by analogy standards, it’s weak.  In fact, it’s not even a valid analogy because D’Souza is making a category error – comparing two things that are actually not comparable because they are in different categories.  The question “does God exist” is a truth claim – either God exists or he doesn’t.  The question “should you ask a woman to marry you” is a plan of action – you’re trying to decide what to do in the future, what plan of action to take.  D’Souza’s muddled mind is comparing a truth claim to a plan - two things that are not comparable and so obviously can’t be analogs.  What D’Souza probably meant was to compare belief in God with whether I believe the woman will say yes if I ask her to marry me.  (I could be wrong – but I’m trying my hardest to construct a coherent argument from what D’Souza actually said.)  This is so obviously a false analogy, because if I want to know if the woman will marry me, I just have to ask her and presumably she’ll tell me and then I’ll know.  But if I want to know if God exists, there is no one I can ask – well, plenty of people I can ask, but no one who actually knows the answer.  (OK, D’Souza and Boteach think they know the answer, but they don’t, any more than I do.)  So even by D’Souza’s usual standards, this is a really bad argument.  And that’s saying something.

For these and the numerous other “arguments” put forward in that debate, Shmuley Boteach and Dinesh D’Souza are worthy recipients of this year’s Chopra.

Irony Award, for being completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of their own actions or words in defense of Woo

To Bill Maher for his piece in the woo journal of choice, The Huffingtom Post, entitled Vaccination: A Conversation Worth Having.  Some snippets:

…its just that mainstream media rarely interviews doctors and scientists who present an alternative point of view. There is a movement to stop people from asking any questions about vaccines…

He’s complaining that the “alternative point of view” is not considered.

I feel its unnecessary and counterproductive to try and silence people with condescension.

Silencing with condescension is bad.

It may be the case that the vaccine should have been used anyway to finish polio off, but there are some interesting facts on the other side.

Should report “the other side.”  More in a similar vein, at the link.

So why is all this hypocritical?  Well, read what Bill had to say about the teaching of intelligent design, in his New Rules segment in August 2005:

And finally New Rule: You don't have to teach both sides of a debate, if one side is a load of crap.

[…]

…There aren't necessarily two sides to every issue. If there were, the Republicans would have an opposition party.

And an opposition party would point out that even though there's a debate, in schools, and government, about this, there is no debate among scientists.

[My Bold.]

Hey Bill Maher from 2005, go and tell that to Bill Maher in 2009 because that dude doesn’t have a clue!

Note, the award isn’t given to Maher because he doubts the value of vaccines.  It’s given because his argument is that we should consider the anti-vaccine point of view just because “the other side” should be heard.  If he gave real arguments against vaccines, his position wouldn't necessarily be hypocritical (it’d still be wrong, but not hypocritical).  But he doesn’t.  He just argues that both sides should be heard because, well, because they should. Except when they shouldn’t.

Maher shares his award with the Atheist Alliance International for awarding Maher the 2009 Richard Dawkins Award which is for (inter alia) increasing scientific knowledge.  Because what could be more ironic than presenting an award for increasing scientific knowledge to an anti-science kook like Maher?

Hitler Zombie Award (aka “The Godwin”) for appropriating Hitler to make the most outrageous Woo claim

The Godwin goes to The American “Tea Party” groups for their response to Obama’s (supposed) tax and health policies.  Examples are numerous, but I’ll choose the one below from the Huffington Post’s (yeah I know – they’re not necessarily wrong on everything) 10 Most Offensive Tea Party Signs:

Personally I don’t find it offensive, just stupid.

I’m not, in giving this award, commenting on whether I think they are right or wrong on these issues, and perhaps opposition to higher taxes / health reform isn’t technically woo.  But their repeated comparisons of Obama to Hitler in place of any valid arguments to support their case, means in my view that they are woos.  They are getting the award for their ridiculous and repeated arguing their case by making comparisons of Obama to Hitler. 

The most persistent refusal to face reality

The award goes to homeopath Thomas Sam, the who watched his daughter die of a curable disease while he repeatedly ignored what he was told by real doctors, to treat her only with magic water.

Of course, allowing his daughter to die that was was terrible, but understandable if you really believe in homeopathy, right?  We all make mistakes, yes?  Well maybe.  But Sam’s persistent refusal to face reality can be seen in his words, spoken just after he had been found guilty of his daughter’s manslaughter:

Conventional medicine would have prolonged her life ... with more misery. It's not going to cure her and that's what I strongly believe.

Yeah, because conventional medicine (you know, stuff that works) would have been even worse.  Sure.  Moron. 

The most ridiculous or bigoted act using religion as its justification

The award goes to Pope Ratzinger for arguing against condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS, as reported in Pope claims condoms could make African Aids crisis worse:

The pontiff said condoms were not the answer to the continent's fight against HIV and Aids and could make the problem worse.

[…]

The timing of his remarks outraged health agencies trying to halt the spread of HIV and Aids in sub-Saharan Africa, where an estimated 22 million people are infected.

Rebecca Hodes, of the Treatment Action Campaign in South Africa, sums up why Ratzinger deserves this award:

[Ratzinger’s] opposition to condoms conveys that religious dogma is more important to him than the lives of Africans."

… Or anything else.

Finally, a new category this year:

The Occam

For the woo responsible for the most egregious violation of Occam’s Razor.

An argument that violates Occam’s Razor is not necessarily wrong, since Occam’s Razor can’t prove something right or wrong.  But it is a principle that should not be violated without a very good reason.  If you do, it means you have invented some unnecessary entity or assumption that does not add anything to the explanation.  That is, your additional assumption does not explain anything any better, nor does it make any additional predictions, compared with the explanation that did not have the additional assumption. Consequently, your additional assumption is not useful in any way (so why make it?).

The inaugural Occam goes to (who else) Deepak Chopra, for his insistence that the brain does not create the mind.  Discussed here, also speaking at an Indian Astrology Conference Western science is frozen in the superstition of materialism: Deepak Chopra (the last link via PZ).  Chopra’s “everything that we call reality is in consciousness” (etc etc) does not add anything to our understanding of consciousness, and does not make one single additional testable prediction compared with the hypothesis that does not include a non-material mind.  We may not (yet) fully understand consciousness, but Chopra’s made up drivel doesn’t help us understand anything.

That’s it for this year.  Please link to any other woos you think deserve an honorable mention, in the comments.

January 2013 – Edited to add:

I just noticed that this post had been deleted somehow in 2012. I did have a copy saved that I was able to re-post, but unfortunately all the comments have been lost. My apologies – there is nothing I can do about that. If you want to read the comments, you can still see them via the Wayback Machine – click Golden Woos #2 with comments to see them.

The Golden Woos

As several groups are apparently giving out awards, I decided I would start some of my own – The Golden Woo Awards for outstanding work in the promotion of Woo in the previous year. It’s a bit like the Golden Globes, only for, er, Woo.

Now, some of you might notice that the award titles look similar to Randi’s Pigasus Awards, with just the words “paranormal,” “occult” etc replaced with Woo, and might think I’ve just run out of ideas for posts and purloined Randi’s idea as my own. (Cough.) Clearly that isn’t true as I have at least one extra category that Randi doesn’t have. However, if you were to view this post as my Golden Globes in advance of Randi’s Oscars... then you could. Perhaps the great man might even read this and get some ideas for April 1st?

OK so here goes – the Golden Woos for 2008. I hope you’ll find them entertaining.

The scientist or academic who said or did the silliest thing related to Woo

Michael Egnor for his tireless support of Intelligent Design Creationism, and especially his many recent assaults on materialism. For an example of the latter, see his article ‘Waiter, My Steak Isn’t Altruistic Enough!’.  A snippet:

There is no shared property yet identified by science through which brain matter can cause mental acts like altruism. Material substances have mass and energy. Ideas have purpose and judgment. There is no commonality.

As Steven Novella wrote, this is utter rubbish on many levels.

The funding organization that supported the most useless Woo study

Stanford University, for a clinical trial on Energy therapy: Where mysticism meets science. Ten years after Emily Rosa demonstrated that Therapeutic Touch practitioners can’t detect the energy field they claim to manipulate, people still want to study this nonsense.

The media outlet that reported as fact the most outrageous Woo claim (AKA the “Larry King” prize)

Joint winners – the Haunting Reality TV program and the British Sunday Express newspaper. For not only making up stories about the abduction of Madeleine McCann, the four year old English girl who disappeared in Portugal in May 2007, and pretending these were obtained “psychically.” That would have been bad enough. But these clowns also produced a drawing of the man they say abducted the child, and reproduced it on the TV show and in the pages of the newspaper, apparently not caring that their made-up picture might get some totally innocent man into trouble.

The Woo who wrote the most drivel containing the most logical fallacies

This has to go to Deepak Chopra, for whom it should really be a lifetime award for achievement above and beyond. For an example, please read Leave the Sinking Ship: An Open Invitation to the Wall Street Journal to Get on Board for Integrative Health Reform – an entire article based around six logical fallacies, one unsupported claim and no discernable content.  A snippet:

Over the last three decades, millions of Americans, and a dedicated group of physicians and practitioners have front-line, hands-on experience with integrative health care. Via concerted research and clinical practice, international scientists and practitioners, have progressively uncovered the root causes and the most effective treatments for health maintenance and restoration. This is science’s cutting edge.

Because we can all remember the “cutting edge” Woo that has found the root causes and cures for cancer, AIDS etc.  Yeah.

In future years I will rename this award the “Chopra”, in honor of this year’s honoree, who will sadly be excluded from consideration in future. (Otherwise no one else would ever stand a chance.)

Irony Award, for being completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of their own actions or words in defense of Woo

To the producers of Expelled, a movie complaining about how proponents of Intelligent Design are discriminated against and are being “Expelled” from their academic positions, who expelled PZ Myers from a theater where the movie was being shown, despite his having a valid ticket.  Apparently “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” was not just the film’s title, it was its marketing strategy.

Hitler Zombie Award (aka “The Godwin”) for appropriating Hitler to make the most outrageous Woo claim

Again to the producers of Expelled and Ben Stein, for claiming that evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

The most persistent refusal to face reality

The mercury militia, for continuing to insist autism has to be something to do with vaccines despite the mounting weight of contrary studies. This award is given for the continued heroic moving of goalposts to include numerous ambiguous “toxins” as well as the “too many too soon” mantra in the face of more and more evidence that it’s not MMR and not Thimerosal.

The most ridiculous or bigoted act using religion as its justification

A hard one to judge, since there were so many contenders. An almost infinite number, actually. But for sheer mean spiritedness I’m going to give the award to the proponents of Proposition 8 in California, who not only campaigned to remove the right to marry from gay people, but who even now are actively campaigning to have the gay marriages that were performed before the ban, retroactively disallowed. That takes a considerable amount of determined hate, of the sort that only religion can readily inspire, and for that they get the award. Numerous people were involved in this valuable work, but to keep it simple the award can be accepted by either Rick Warren or the Mormon Church.

That’s it.  Perhaps I missed someone, in which case please nominate any special people I may have missed, in the comments.