Search This Blog

Friday, 13 March 2015

On Darwinian apologists' doublespeak.

Evolutionary Advocacy as a Confidence Game



Climate Change Does Not Exist.
Evolution Never Happened.
The Moon Landing Was Faked.
Vaccinations Can Lead to Autism.
Genetically Modified Food Is Evil.
Now read the brief and informative Wikipedia article on confidence tricks, including the classic "stages of the con," the carefully ordered succession of interactions among con man, shill (accomplice), and mark (victim). Tell me if that doesn't ring a bell. In the context of evolution, it goes something like this:
Con: "You're pro-science, am I right?"
Mark: "Oh, sure I love science. Can't get enough of it."
Con: "So you're not anti-science, correct?"
Mark: "I don't know what that means exactly, but like I said, I love science."
Con: "Well, for example, you agree that the United States landed on the Moon, right? Because there are some loons who doubt that."
Mark: "What? You're kidding. That's ridiculous."
Con: "OK, just wondering. I mean, you said you're pro-science. So you're not one of those anti-vaxxers, right?"
Mark: "Definitely not. I mean, I have some Facebook friends who are pretty voluble about that. They think it causes autism. But we absolutely vaccinate our kids. It's the responsible thing to do."
Con: "Good, good. That's fine, because those guys are nuts. And, just curious, you're not one of those 'climate skeptic' crazies, right?"
Mark: "What do you mean, 'crazies'? I know there are some climatologists and other thoughtful people who think global warming has been hyped."
Con: "What! I thought you said you're pro-science!"
Mark: "I am."
Con: "Don't you know the scientific consensus believes in human-induced catastrophic global warming?"
Mark: "Alright, alright, you win."
Con: "Finally, evolution. You're not a 'Darwin skeptic' are you?"
Mark: "Doesn't that depend on what you mean by evolution? 'Evolution' in what sense?"
Con: "Never mind."
Mark: "Well I know from my reading that the word can mean various things. Microevolution, macroevolution, universal common descent, the sole sufficiency of the Darwinian mechanism for explaining the development of complex life forms."
Con: "I said never mind. You sound like a creationist. You said you're pro-science. So, you think the whole universe is less than 10,000 years old? You think cavemen rode around on dinosaurs?"
Mark: "No, of course not!"
Con: "Alright, then. So you're pro-science, and you believe evolution happened. Good for you."
Mark: "But aren't there are a bunch of very different questions here that you're wrapping up into one overstuffed burrito as if they were all the same? I mean, Moon landing, vaccinations, global warming, age of the universe, evolution in its several different meanings. Shouldn't separate questions be considered separately?"
Shill: "Oh hey guys, I don't mean to interrupt your conversation, but the latest issue of National Geographic just came in the mail, a very distinguished popular scientific journal with a long and storied publication history. It says here some people think 'evolution never happened.' I guess those are the same ones who think climate change doesn't exist and the Moon landing was faked."
Con: "See? I told you. Now do you believe in evolution or not?"
Shill: "Why are you asking him that? Don't tell me you're one of those Intelligent Design Creationists! I thought after centuries of study the question of whether nature gives scientific evidence of design was finally settled by a judge in Pennsylvania back in '05. I heard the judge was even appointed by President George W. Bush, so he should know. You always seemed like a smart guy. Are you one of those anti-science dummies?"
Con: "Tell me, yes or no. Do you think evolution never happened?"
Mark: "No, no, it's just... Oh forget it. Yes, I believe in 'evolution'!"
Am I exaggerating? Not by much, if at all. This morning, Casey Luskin gave a very concrete illustration of an evolution scam -- the bait-and-switch technique, deployed to cast doubt on the (accurate) contention that Darwinian theory is controversial among mainstream scientists.
Understand what I'm saying. Evolutionary biology is not a scam, but some Darwin defenders employ classic tricks from the arsenal of professional hustlers. If the science were as ironclad as we're supposed to believe, why don't they debate us on the science?

A line in the sand IX

Bombing over show about jewelry is just latest blow to free speech in India




New Delhi (CNN)Thankfully, no one was wounded after crude bombs were hurled at a Tamil news station in India on Thursday. But the loud explosions injured a vital part of the world's largest democracy: free speech.
Last week, when India's government and a British documentarian faced off over a film featuring a man imprisoned for a 2012 gang rape in South Delhi, a little-known channel hundreds of miles away in southern India was waging its own battle. Hardline Hindu groups were angry with broadcaster Puthiya Thalaimurai for filming a show about the relevance of a traditional necklace -- called mangalsutra in Hindi and thaali in Tamil -- worn by married Indian women. For them, the contents, as shown in the promos, were offensive to Hindu culture.
The station planned to release the program Sunday, International Women's Day. But it canceled the telecast after demonstrations took place outside its office. Protesters allegedly attacked one of its cameramen.
Four days later, the channel came under fire again, when four men on two motorbikes threw bombs into its compound in a predawn attack, authorities say. Six people involved in the bombing have been arrested, said S. George, the commissioner of the southern Indian city of Chennai. Their leader turned himself in separately, claiming responsibility for the attack, police said.
"The show wanted to give women a platform. We welcome all opinions and thoughts. But you cannot strangle freedom of free expression by violent means and threats," said Shyam Kumar, the CEO of New Generation Media Corp., which runs Puthiya Thalaimurai. "We condemn the attack in the strongest possible terms," he told CNN.
    But India is no stranger to censorship imposed legally or forced by rowdy protesters.
    The country's constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but not without restrictions. Communities or people claiming their religious sentiments were hurt by anyone else's opinion can file a lawsuit.
    Authorities can seek restraining orders from local courts -- as they did to ban the recent BBC documentary "India's Daughter" -- by citing potential disorder.
    Earlier last year, Penguin India withdrew "The Hindus: An Alternative History," a book by American academic Wendy Doniger, after a local advocacy group accused the writer of denigrating Hinduism.
    In December, a Bollywood movie, "PK," came under attack over similar accusations when mobs tore apart its posters in parts of India. A satire on religious rituals, "PK" became a roaring success by being one of the country's highest-grossing movies.
    But India, home to one of the world's largest film industries, has blocked several movies from screening.
    At least two films were not allowed last year. One of them featured the lives of the Sikh assassins of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, and the other centered on the violence in Sri Lanka in the closing months of its civil war.
    Hounded by protests over his novel, Perumal Murugan, a Tamil author, announced quitting writing in a dramatic post on Facebook in January.
    "Perumal Murugan, the writer is dead. As he is no God, he is not going to resurrect himself. He has no faith in rebirth. As an ordinary teacher, he will live as P Murugan. Leave him alone," he said on Facebook two months ago. Religious and caste-based organizations had slammed his novel "Madhorubhagan," which depicted a childless wife taking part in an ancient festival allowing consensual sex between strangers.
    Just last week, India blocked the BBC from airing "India's Daughter" because it included comments from one of the men convicted of raping a young student in a moving bus in New Delhi in 2012. The reason: The inmate's views could create unrest.
    "There's a growing intolerance towards different shades of opinion. It's a medieval mindset. What India needs is a concerted effort to move beyond it and embrace free expression in totality," said Kumar, the New Generation Media chief executive.