#23856: Brian S. — 05/03  at  04:20 PM
Material like NCSE's response to Wells would IMO make excellent additions to school curricula. I think PZ disagrees with me though, saying it's better not to teach the non-controversy. I'd argue that there's more discussion of evolution in the NCSE material than kids are likely to get otherwise, and it's the one chance to give them information to contradict the lies of people like Wells.

#23857: — 05/03  at  04:23 PM
Ed's suggestion of talking to the university PR office is a good one. They can distribute a nice, compelling synopsis of research that you have done. Unfortunately, most research today doesn't actually have anything to do with refuting the absurd claims of the IDers. It's like a cosmologist talking about dark matter while a bunch of idiots say that the Earth is flat.

Trackback: Stop the Free Publicity for Creationists Tracked on: Abnormal Interests (64.81.36.251) at 2005 05 03 16:38:52
Yesterday I wrote about an article in The Christian Science Monitor that told of new tactics used by creationist to disrupt biology education. I failed to mention that that article had a sidebar that was came straight from the Discovery...

#23862: PZ Myers — 05/03  at  04:54 PM
Sharon: You're right, the article itself isn't bad. I'm just really pissed off at the Discovery Institute constantly getting a free pass and having their garbage passed off to the public without any skeptical input at all.

#23864: John Wilkins — 05/03  at  05:50 PM
In my experience, decisions like this are probably made by an editor, not the journo (despite my ranking journalists slightly below used car salesmen and just above state politicians). Editors have a production mentality - they are primarily concerned with copy and visuals. So something like this is a godsend (pun intended) to them.

What we need to do is prepare a ten question list for IDevotees.

#23865: Tim — 05/03  at  05:56 PM
When the reporter gets the news releases from the "intellegent" design folks, the first thing they should ask is: "If life on earth has been 'designed', who or what is the designer?" Follow up: "Show me your evidence of his/her/its existance."

#23866: PZ Myers — 05/03  at  05:58 PM
John, I agree with you and Sharon...I shouldn't have chewed out the poor grunt writer who did a decent job with his material. It's the editors who should be lined up against the wall.

And that is an excellent suggestion. One question: why only ten?

#23868: — 05/03  at  06:06 PM
Mark, you're right -- but that's why I think people like PZ need to do it. Talking about one's research is the time to make those connections about evolution.

Louis Jacobs, an SMU paleontologist, does a lot of work around Dallas with locally found fossils. I've noted that almost every time he's quoted he mentions evolutionary connections. So two or three times a year there are stories about another local fossil find, with Jacobs' comments favoring evolution. Not once have even the creationist reporters gone to find an intelligent design advocate on the topic. Quietly making the point.

Of course, there is another world-famous dinosaur finder here in Texas who begged me not to mention his research since the smaller town his world-famous university is located in is loaded with creationists, and he doesn't want the attention.

I'd urge PZ and all other scientists to append evolution to the interview.

'Let's go to Eyewitless News reporter Sally Strumpet with a story about zebra fish sex on the Minnesota Prairie.' [cut to Strumpet at some academic-looking building in Morris, MN] 'Thank you, Charlie! I'm here with P Z Myers, who is one of the world's foremost authorities on zebra fish sex, who today in Darwin's Diary had a paper published that says zebra fish are more selective in their mates than most humans are. Tell us about your paper, Dr. Myers," [Cut to guy with Einstein hair and orange labcoat with, "Danger, Pharyngula!" on back] "Well, this is another in a long string of confirmations of Darwin's evolutionary ideas, Sally -- and while it doesn't indicate that your cousin Irving really is a fish, it suggests that we might learn more something from our finny friends besides that we need to filet them carefully after poaching . . .'

See how painless that was?

#23875: John Wilkins — 05/03  at  08:50 PM
Why only ten?

Because editors can't count past ten.

#23876: PZ Myers — 05/03  at  08:55 PM
Well, if the numeracy of editors is all that matters, we really only need four. 1, 2, 3, many.

#23877: Chris Clarke — 05/03  at  08:56 PM

Because editors can't count past ten.

I'm an editor, but I wear Tevas to work. So I can count to 22.

#23878: ZayZayEM — 05/03  at  09:01 PM
Careful PZM, you're starting to froth at the mouth.

I have no patience for ID trying to get respect from the scientific establishment, the popular media, or even snails; but I'm also a science grad with journalistic training (we do need PR!).

This article needed that sidebar. If I had read this article I would want to know exactly what sort of crap Discovery Inst. is telling children to ask science teachers. I was literally laughing out loud as I read some of the crap; I'd suspect the journalist was too (then I realised, these kids think its clever, so did he, by the tone of the article).

Sure the could have posted a link to the entire list discovery.org (and direct traffic their way!), but the reporter probably (naively) thought his audience was smart enough to realise that the questions were stupid, by reading the whole article. He could have added a rebuttal, or headlined it with Stupid/Misinformed questions that students are asking teachers -- but unlike the beast (from a few entries ago, about Tom Cruise), CBS probably isn't interested in trying to be sued by religious wingnuts.

[I think I'm going to have to trackback this to my blog later today to finish this thoughtstream].

#23880: — 05/03  at  10:19 PM
Wilkins said:

In my experience, decisions like this are probably made by an editor, not the journo (despite my ranking journalists slightly below used car salesmen and just above state politicians). Editors have a production mentality - they are primarily concerned with copy and visuals. So something like this is a godsend (pun intended) to them.

Tough room here! At least I've never been a used car salesman. (I hesitate to ask where you rank lawyers.)

#23886: John Wilkins — 05/03  at  11:39 PM

Tough room here! At least I've never been a used car salesman. (I hesitate to ask where you rank lawyers.)

I worked in newspapers and as a PR hack for an educational institution. I find that Mark Twain sums up my attitude to the media - it is a tragedy when a newspaper starts up in a decent and democratic village. He, too, had worked in the newspaper business.

But lawyers are necessary to provide the fertiliser from which used car salesmen and journalists grow...

#23888: — 05/04  at  12:08 AM
Well, I am an actual working newspaperman.

Will Rogers said, all of us are ignorant, just on different subjects.

I happen to think I know a fair amount about biology, for a newspaperman; but not so very much about how the oil industry works, which is the subject I'm supposed to be reporting this week. Except on the very biggest publications, you are always going to be talking to generalists.

If you guys care, then in each community, the biologists and their fellow travelers ought to select one or two members who are good at communicating (short, snappy quotes), who return phone calls, stuff like that; and let the local newserati know those are the good guys to call. Back up these sacrificial lambs. The best source in the world isn't any help to me if I cannot reach him on deadline.

Let your designated speakers be patient and tolerant, and make sure they have time to cultivate whichever reporters are likely to run into ID -- that's hard to predict, but education reporters are likely candidates. Professor Myers is doing a dandy job here, and it must take a lot of effort. He should divert some of that to whoever in Morris and Minneapolis is likely to be hoodwinked by ID. Get your licks in first.

Stroke reporters and editors who, even if by accident, report something correctly.

Remember that most people -- and reporters and editors are almost people -- don't give a flying crap about evolution. But they do care about kids.

Some years ago, I persuaded my editor to let me run a story, suggested by the Skeptical Inquirer folks, asking our readers their opinion about whether the paper ought to continue running its horoscope. Not one reply, pro or con. So we keep running it.

It's a lot of effort to cultivate reporters, and some of them are real dumbos (especially the TV ones), but the alternative is going extinct, isn't it?

Last (well, maybe not last, but last for now), remember that it is not so clear to Joe Sixpack, who may be a reporter or editor, that one side is all angels and the other all devils on this one.

I have to hand a little book called 'A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam,' which is basically DI in a kaffiyeh. This is handed out to reporters at large. (To read it online, go to http://www.islam-guide.com. )

But when I say things about Muslims here that are similar to what you guys say about Christian, I get savaged.

So you might consider how effective you'd be if you could wring your politics out before you start entering this controversy with reporters.

#23891: John Wilkins — 05/04  at  01:30 AM
I am shamed. You are, of course, right, and I have known some wise and even educated newspaper journalists. But they tend not to report on what they know

All industries have their exigencies and shortcuts. They have to - it is an economic enterprise, whatever it is. Journalism is no better or worse in that respect (but the industry is a loooonnnggg way from being a medium of information it seems now to be a medium for attitudes).

We should attempt to raise the bar for journalism by giving it useful, clear and above all accurate information if we wish to see science better reported. But at the same time, I think history shows us that the media are not a good way to educate. At best, they will lead to education; at worst they are a bar to it.

Please excuse my bad-temperedness. I leave that to Our Host from now on...

#23898: — 05/04  at  04:52 AM
If it were Latin (as in the word for 'field'), the plural would be 'campi'. It's second declension.

As an aside, are there any Latinate English words that have fourth declension plurals? Many people say 'stadia' or 'octopi', but I can't think of any '-us' plurals. Then again, their aren't any English fourth declension singulars that spring to mind either.

#23901: Alon Levy — 05/04  at  06:18 AM
The fourth declension plurals, -us and -ua, are not used in English. The only nonstandard plurals that are productive in English are -um/-a, -us/-i, -is/-es, -an/-a, and very rarely -a/-ae.

All that aside, since campus is a thoroughly Anglicized word, its plural is campuses. If you want to call the plural of campus campi then you should also call a campus a campum when it's a direct object, a campo when it's an indirect object, and so on.

#23904: — 05/04  at  07:33 AM
Do I hear Latin? Coitus (interruptus), census, prospectus, sinus, casus (belli), fetus (?), virgus (intactus - a mythical creature), et cetera.

#23905: — 05/04  at  07:53 AM

I have a question for any journalists who might read this, too. What was the author of that article thinking? Why would a writer think a pile of crap from some grossly biased and unqualified organization like the Discovery Institute would be a useful addition to an article?

The author of the article was thinking in precisely the right way.

First, he had nothing to do with the publication of the sidebar of questions -- but it was perfectly appropriate and even mandatory to publish that sidebar. That's because the writer alluded to the 10 questions early in the article, and the inquiring reader will want to know what those questions are. Since inserting the questions into the body of the story would have been cumbersome, the editors put them into a sidebar. Should they have published the scientific answers to the questions, or linked to the answers on the Web page? Yes. But that's not the writer's fault.

What was the writer's assignment? Was it to demonstrate that ID is BS and verify the truth of evolution, in an article of approximately 800 words? Of course not! A newspaper article is not a textbook on biology, nor could it be -- it has too few words! The writer's assignment was to report on a fact -- the fact that some teachers are uncomfortable about teaching evolution, because their students are armed with PR from the Discovery Institute (another fact). The reporter was reporting facts -- which is his job. Indeed, this kind of article is a good thing for scientists, as it brings a problem to public attention.

Rather than dump on the jounalist or even the editors (who, admittedly, should have posted or published the answers to the 10 questions), maybe you should direct your ire at those teachers who are wimping out on teaching evolution. If it weren't for them, this article never would have been published in the first place.

#23908: — 05/04  at  08:25 AM
[impression of enraged classics teacher]

Platypi!! PLATYPI!!!!! Never! The word is Greek not Latin from pus or foot. The plural is of course podes and therefore it should be platypodes. Damn you boy

etc rant rave snort indignate

[/impression of enraged classics teacher]

Sadly one of my favourite quotes is "Television. The word is half Greek, half Latin. No good shall come of this."

Can't remember who said it though.

#23909: — 05/04  at  08:42 AM
Harry, I think you are on to something. When I was a newspaper reporter, I knew there were certain people I could go to for certain things. The surrounding area had lots of farming, so I often did farming-related stories. I went to the county agent. Not the one in my county, but the one in an adjoining county, because I knew I could count on him for lots of good information and good quotes. So, if people like PZ make themselves known to reporters as someone who knows the subject and gives good quotes, the reporters will gladly go to him. I don't think most reporters intend to do a bad job, although there are lazy people everywhere. So, find the good reporters and make yourself known to them. Actually call them up if you see a story in need of your help, and tell them you can help them the next time. And call the lazy reporters, too, because they will usually take all the help anyone offers.

#23911: Orac — 05/04  at  09:02 AM
Actually, DavidM has a point. One quote was rather disheartening:

"The argument was always in the past the monkey-ancestor deal," says Mr. Williamson, who teaches at Olathe East High School. "Today there are many more arguments that kids bring to class, a whole fleet of arguments, and they're all drawn out of the efforts by different groups, like the intelligent design [proponents]."

It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom, Williamson says - one that he doesn't like. "I don't want to ever be in a confrontational mode with those kids ... I find it disheartening as a teacher."

Unfortunately, this quote seems to be implying that Williamson doesn't like it that much when his students challenge him. I understand that he may resent having his classroom discussion time hijacked by a bunch of ID zealots who ask confrontational questions, when it could be better used for other things. However, not all confrontation is bad. If he were to have ready answers to these pre-packaged anti-evolution questions, he could use those answers to them to teach why ID is not science and why evolution is. He won't convince the ID plants parrotting the Discovery Institute's line, but he may keep other students from falling for the DI's fallacious arguments.

#23914: — 05/04  at  09:37 AM
The article as journalism isn't great, but I think it has been attacked for the wrong reasons. However, stuff like this:

Even after decades of debate, Americans remain deeply ambivalent about the notion that the theory of natural selection can explain creation and its genesis.

borders on the incoherent, since evolutionary theory doesn't purport to explain "creation" in the sense that seems to be implied here.

As Harry Eagar said, if you are a scientist who is concerned about how the media represent evolution and other science subjects, make yourself available to reporters, who love short, snappy quotes. (Of course, short, snappy quotes can't always do justice to complex subjects, but newspapers have limited space.)

#23915: — 05/04  at  10:03 AM
Actually, the journalism is even less than not great. "Creation and genesis" mean the same thing in this context, and, as davidm points out, evolution has nothing to say about either. If "genesis" refers to the origin of species, maybe not, but I suspect the writer meant the genesis of the bible.