Journalists or heralds?

 Why Are Science Reporters So Credulous? 

David Klinghoffer

The credulousness of science journalists is remarkable. Their reporting, almost as a rule, seems more like they are crafting a press release than objectively probing the claims of their subjects, namely scientists. Although mainstream journalism as a whole has come increasingly to resemble state propaganda, there is at least, sometimes, a semblance of skepticism. What is it, then, with science reporters?

Nicholas Wade is a former science editor for the New York Times, so he might well have some insights on that. Writing for City Journal, he asks, “Journalists, or PR Agents?” The context for his comments is reporting about the origins of the COVID-19 virus. (On that, see Cornelius Hunter, “COVID-19 Meets Intelligent Design,” who also cites Wade.) But what he says applies even more so to reporting on evolution. 

“The Temple of Science” 

Wade writes, “Unlike most journalists, science writers seldom consider the motives of their sources.” That’s true. But why? 

Innocent of most journalists’ skepticism about human motives, science writers regard scientists, their authoritative sources, as too Olympian ever to be moved by trivial matters of self-interest. Their daily job is to relay claims of impressive new discoveries, such as advances toward curing cancer or making paralyzed rats walk. Most of these claims come to nothing — research is not an efficient process — but science writers and scientists alike benefit from creating a stream of pleasant illusions. The journalists get their stories, while media coverage helps researchers attract government grants.

Dulled by the advantages of this collusion, science writers pay little attention to in-house problems that seriously detract from the credibility of the scientific research enterprise, such as the astounding fact that less than half the high-profile findings in some fields can be replicated in other laboratories. Fraud and error in scientific papers are hard to detect, yet nonetheless some 32,000 papers have been retracted for various reasons. The reliability of scientific claims is a formidable problem but one of strangely little interest to many science writers.

If the Covid virus should be found to have indeed escaped from a lab in Wuhan, a tidal wave of public rage may shake the temple of science to its foundations. It’s in reflection of their sources’ interests — though political polarization is also involved — that science writers jump on any evidence favoring natural emergence and ignore everything that points toward a lab leak.

Science writers need to decide whether their duty lies to their readers or to their sources. One choice makes them real journalists, the other just unaccredited PR agents for the scientific community. 

They’ve Made Their Choice 

Most science reporters who write about evolution appear to have made their choice to be flacks and toadies for the godlike biologists, who are “too Olympian ever to be moved by trivial matters of self-interest.” That an entire field in journalism should be underlain by a such a wild misjudgment about human nature is worthy of note. 

If, or when, design should overtake blind Darwinian processes as the favored explanation for biological complexity, what Nicholas Wade calls the “temple of science” would really and truly be rocked. Regarding the origins of that complexity, protecting “their sources’ interests” explains why reporting about evolutionary biology needs such intense scrutiny. 

All that time in school paying off for fish?

 How Frogs and Fish “Count” 

Evolution News @DiscoveryCSC 

University College cognitive psychology prof Brian Butterworth, author of Can Fish Count? (Basic Books, 2022), talks about animal number sense in a recent article in Psyche.

He offers many examples of animals counting single digit numbers but then helpfully addresses the question of how they do it. We are talking here about a variety of very different types of neurological equipment — insects vs. amphibians, for example. Neuroscientists are beginning to pinpoint specific brain functions associated with counting for specific tasks: 

Female túngara frogs benefit by mating with the male that can produce six croaks in one breath, over the male that can manage only five, because this is an indicator of respiratory fitness. Naturally, the male will try to outcroak his competitor by counting the number of croaks and adding one, to the limit of his breath.

BRIAN BUTTERWORTH, “A BASIC SENSE OF NUMBERS IS SHARED BY COUNTLESS CREATURES” AT PSYCHE (OCTOBER 12, 2022) 

He then concedes that “even if we have inherited a basic number sense from distant ancestors, there are some big differences between humans and other creatures.” Most certainly. Algebra, geometry, and calculus are among them.

Read the rest at Mind Matters News, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence.

Occam's razor and the supremacy of God the Father.

 Occam's razor:a scientific and philosophical rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities." 

Thus (all otherwise being equal) in the course of any investigation the simpler/simplest of competing  explanations is to be preferred. 

This would be as true of biblical exegesis as any other type of investigation. So how do the typical contrivances put forward by trinitarian apologists as scriptural evidence for their doctrine stack up in this regard? Let's examine a few: 

John ch.1:3 KJV"All things were made by(Greek dia) him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." 

What could be plainer right? only almighty God could be the maker of all things. But is there a simpler explanation? One that even Trinitarians acknowledge when their cherished doctrine is not on the line?

John ch.1:17KJV"For the law was given by(Dia) Moses..." 

Jesus is even more direct,

John ch.7:19KJV"Did not Moses give you the law..." 

 Yet we are also told that JEHOVAH is the sole lawgiver.

James ch.4:12ESV"There is only one lawgiver and judge, ..."

Thus as I've repeatedly shown on this blog there is much more trinitarian style "proof" of Moses' Godhood than of Jesus' Godhood ,if Trinitarians were consistent with their interpretative logic that is, but here as in every other place that JEHOVAH is shown to be acting "dia"  a loyalist t(the lone exception being Jesus) Trinitarians choose to apply Occam's razor ,the Lord JEHOVAH is the ultimate legislator and his servant Moses is his instrument, his(i e Moses') status as legislator is derived from JEHOVAH the supreme legislator. 

1Corinthians 8:6 NIC"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." 

The simplest explanation therefore is that the Lord JEHOVAH is the ultimate source of the creation and the law that keeps it in order and the logos is the instrument he chose to employ in this regard. This explanation satisfies all the available evidence and spares us the needless complication of multiple coequal divine persons each of whom is both superlative and necessary. But the account says that he created ALL things? Some object, how could he himself be a creature did he create himself? The scriptures use the word 'all' with logical exceptions all( see what I did there) the time, indeed in our day to day conversation we routinely use the words 'all' and 'every' in this way. 

Genesis ch.3:20KJV"And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of ALL living." 

1Corinthians15:27KJV"For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith, ALL things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him." 

Here again Trinitarians acknowledge the simpler explanation, it is only when trawling the scriptures for "prooftexts"  for their illogical and unscriptural dogmas that this selective blindness kicks in, no one wonders aloud if eve was her own mother or if God the Father became subordinate to his Son. But simply put what does the bible really teach about the rank and nature of God the Father.  

John ch.10:29KJV" My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. "

Ephesians ch.4:6KJV"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."

God the Father is peerless, superlative i.e per the dictionary definition of those terms. 

Hebrews ch.6:13KJV"For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself," 

JEHOVAH is immutable as per the dictionary definition, not that of Christendom's theologians' . Everything that is true of him is perpetually true and everything scripture declares to be false of him is perpetually false . As is the case throughout the N.T the expression ho Theos i.e the God, as long as it is not qualified in some way e.g part of a possessive noun, always refers to God the Father.  We can satisfy ourselves that this is the case in Hebrews by simply returning to ch.1 Hebrews ch.1:1,2"1God,who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, " Thus THE God who inspired the scriptures is the God and Father of Jesus Christ. 

this God is ,according to scripture, is without peer or even approximate. Thus the supremacy of God the Father remains the best exegesis of scripture on the topic of the identity of the most high God.