Pharyngula::Gallagher: distortions and dishonesty

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, March 28, 2005

Gallagher: distortions and dishonesty

PZ Myers • 17 Comments

Gallagher responds to my criticism of his editorial in The Scientist. Or does he?

No, he doesn't.

Gallagher had written a terrible opinion piece suggesting that we need to embrace the controversy and teach Intelligent Design creationism. The gist of my reply was that there is nothing to teach—I asked specifically what we are supposed to say in the classroom about it, and said that there are standard concepts we are supposed to communicate to students:

We're supposed to teach science as a process, with consideration of the evidence and logic; we aren't supposed to teach it as dogma, and even the creationists agree with me on that. But what do the ID creationists have to offer but dogma and faint protestations and negative (and largely false) criticisms? I've looked and looked at what they have to offer, and there is nothing to teach. I see this silly happy optimism by Gallagher as founded on a phony premise, that there are two sides to be taught here, and it's simply not the case.

So Gallagher links to my article, cherry-picks among the comments for one he doesn't like, suggests that I'm "(nominally) pro-evolution", and summarizes by saying,

I find it incredibly sad that scientists who support evolution so strongly would have us shield growing young minds from the "dangers" of critical thinking.

He ignored my point entirely, in which I was arguing precisely for critical thinking in the classroom and that we should not waste time on poorly formed dogma that does not rise to the standards of scientific thought, and he managed to twist everything around to imply that I'm advocating the reverse.

That's rather dishonest.

He also cites Jason Rosenhouse, but only to mention the scathing disgust he expressed in the first few sentences...and then ignores all of the substantive complaints that follow.

Maybe it's time for Mr Gallagher to formally declare that he has not received any payola from the Discovery Institute for this kind of crap. If he hasn't, he is following their sleazy playbook for free.

Trackback url: http://pharyngula.org/index/trackback/2093/BjUVV5D2/

Comments:

#20252: Wayne — 03/28 at 02:19 PM
Maybe it's time for Mr Gallagher to formally declare that he has not received any payola from the Discovery Institute for this kind of crap. If he hasn't, he is following their sleazy playbook for free.

The value of the prior remarks notwithstanding, I just learned a whole new elegant manner of retort.

#20253: — 03/28 at 02:39 PM
good grief Charlie Brown.

This guy HAS to be being payed off. If he isn't, it's even more depressing.

You asked the million dollar question: "What is there to teach other than 'some people just think god did everything". That he couldn't or wouldn't answer that makes him essentially worthless.

Why is 'the Scientist' printing this guy exactly?

#20256: PZ Myers — 03/28 at 02:45 PM
He's the editor.

PZ Myers
Division of Science and Math
University of Minnesota, Morris

#20259: Craig Carlyle Clarke — 03/28 at 02:56 PM
I was gonna make some kind of watermelon smashing joke, but I can't think of anything.

#20260: — 03/28 at 02:56 PM
oh dear.

I think my avatar provides my response better than words ever could.

#20269: — 03/28 at 03:25 PM
Sure, teach the controversy!

We have nothing to lose but our nation.

Seriously. Can you imagine somebody in 1958 saying, "Oh, well, our kids don't need good science in high school. The Russians are nice guys."

Or, in a time when the nation is faced with threats from biological weapons like anthrax and smallpox, can you imagine any flag-waving patriot suggesting it's okay not to teach our kids the best science? I mean, that's like playing right into the plans of Osama bin Laden.

Um, yeah, you're right. Unimaginable as it is, that's just what Mr. Gallagher does.

What Gallagher proposes would be unimaginable, among patriots, if they had any sense.

Teach the facts. Wave the flag. Teach ID only when the terrorists are all dead of old age (if nothing else) and we're looking back on great intellectual errors of the post-industrial ages.

#20293: Burt Humburg — 03/28 at 06:01 PM
Just from a logistical standpoint alone, if you teach intelligent design creationism, you have to teach a representative sample of everyone else's creation mythology. (Remembering how I was as an adolescent, I would have thoroughly enjoyed a review, in science class, of the Egyptian creation myth.

http://www.reptilianagenda.com/myth/m123004a.shtml

Then I think of my poor mother and having to teach this stuff. And suddenly it's not so funny anymore.

BCH

#20303: Buridan — 03/28 at 08:20 PM
Perhaps we should also consider poetry as an exercise in critical thinking in science classes. What's “incredibly sad” is that someone who should know better not only contributes to but exemplifies an intellectual pathology in this country that believes critical thinking is simply associated with anything that is opposite.

#20312: — 03/28 at 11:58 PM
As usual, he doesn't address the flat earth criticism - in what way is teaching creationism different from teaching that the planet is flat?

Just a minor quibble, Ed: there is no smallpox threat. Smallpox exists in only two locations in the world, both of which are guarded better than enough.

#20324: — 03/29 at 04:41 AM
Alon, one of the concerns of the Homeland Security bunch that led to the idea of inoculating medical care and other "first responders" is that not all of the virus out of the Soviet Union is accounted for. Reports are they had bred several new strains whose whereabouts are not known. One of the difficulties of having the Boy Who Cried Wolf as head of several federal agencies is being unable to know whether one is being jerked around unjustifiably.

The point stands, though, either way. If you knew a creationist were in charge of the nation's biological warfare defenses, would you be comfortable? If we had a CDC head who didn't know how or why HIV mutates, what do you think would be the result in STDs?

Damn, there I go -- confusing fantasy with reality again. . .

#20325: Ben — 03/29 at 04:51 AM
As usual, he doesn't address the flat earth criticism - in what way is teaching creationism different from teaching that the planet is flat?

You're kinda drawing a long bow there, Alon. Teaching astrology alongside astronomy would be a better analogy.

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.

#20327: — 03/29 at 05:15 AM
You're kinda drawing a long bow there, Alon. Teaching astrology alongside astronomy would be a better analogy.

I'm not sure you're right, Ben. Astrology doesn't make any claim about what the stars move. It makes claims about people's personalities, but that's crackpot psychology rather than crackpot astronomy. Maybe geocentrism is a better analogy to creationism, since both had ample evidential support in their respective times.

Alon, one of the concerns of the Homeland Security bunch that led to the idea of inoculating medical care and other "first responders" is that not all of the virus out of the Soviet Union is accounted for. Reports are they had bred several new strains whose whereabouts are not known.

Are the reports credible, or are they like Saddam's WMD and Bin Laden's nuclear arsenal?

#20328: Ben — 03/29 at 06:00 AM
I'm not sure you're right, Ben. Astrology doesn't make any claim about what the stars move. It makes claims about people's personalities, but that's crackpot psychology rather than crackpot astronomy. Maybe geocentrism is a better analogy to creationism, since both had ample evidential support in their respective times.

Crackpottery is crackpottery is crackpottery, regardless of whether it attempts to describe psychology, the existence of life or the existence of water sources beneath the ground. I think astronomy/astrology is the perfect example to use to make people understand the difference between science and pseudoscience. Survey random people in the street. Many would say that creationism should be taught in science classrooms, but few would also say that astrology should be as well (if they do, you can smack them in the head with the clipboard). Throw in water divining in geology. Perhaps "Eternal Souls" could be a subject covered in anatomy? You get the idea. They have to realise that creationism isn't special. It's the same old crap gullibles have been believing in and blowing money on for centuries.

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.

#20329: — 03/29 at 06:42 AM
Alright. Now, back to my original question: how are geocentrism and flat earth different from all pseudosciences you described?

#20330: Buridan — 03/29 at 07:22 AM
"you can smack them in the head with the clipboard"

Actually you reduce response bias by emplolying this technique beforehand.

Seriously, I think those inclined to think creationism ought to be taught in the classroom would object to astrology on purely religious grounds. In which case, a before and after smacking would be the prudent thing to do.

#20335: Ben — 03/29 at 08:15 AM
Now, back to my original question: how are geocentrism and flat earth different from all pseudosciences you described?

They're no different, except they're no longer popular (sure, a handful of nuts are still championing the cause, but not enough to make a creationism/geocentrism equivocation seem like anything but an exaggeration). The main driving force behind the "teach the controversy" issue is the fallacy that because it's popular, there must be something to it. Astrology is easily the most popular piece of crackpot fluff in the world. It's in newspapers, it's on the television, they even sell daily mobile phone services. It's a multi-million (-billion?) dollar industry. But society by and large DOESN'T treat it as a science. Even those who have little comprehension of scientific methodology would find the notion of having it taught in schools absurd. So yeah. While creationism, astrology, numerology, tarot, water divining, geocentrism, flat-earthism, etc etc are all physically identical as nonsense, they're all weighted differently in a social sense; astrology probably being the most similar to creationism in its current form. I think that's my point, anyway. If I'm making little sense, blame it on lack of sleep. I think I did pretty well.

<object to astrology on purely religious grounds.</i>

I'm not so sure. Didn't the Reagan administration have its own personal astrologist?

"The great trouble is that the preachers get the children from six to seven years of age and then it is almost impossible to do anything with them." --Thomas Edison.

#20339: Buridan — 03/29 at 09:05 AM
Yeah I remember reading something about that years ago, but despite Reagan's pandering to the religious right, he wasn't particularly religious himself. Like all Presidents, he played the obligatory devout leader game.

Trackback: Once again catching up Tracked on: eclexys (202.85.141.143) at 2005 04 03 11:56:27
Over at Pharyngula, there's a lot of stuff going on worth reading—if you can resist getting pulled into the comments-section debates and the religious wingnuts who love to post piles and piles of silly arguments. This guy has so many...

Page 1 of 1 pages

Next entry: We're like Huns that way

Previous entry: Just when you think they couldn't possibly get more stupid…

<< Back to main

Pharyngula has moved to http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/

Monday, March 28, 2005

Gallagher: distortions and dishonesty

Info