PZ Myers. 2005 Oct 07. Screw you, New York Times. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/screw_you_new_york_times/>. Accessed 2009 Jul 04.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Friday, October 07, 2005

Screw you, New York Times

This is quite possibly the worst example of incompetent "he said, she said" journalism yet: Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon. And it's in the New York Times, in the Science section! It begins and ends with the point of view of a creationist rafting trip down the Grand Canyon, and in between has snippets from another trip, by a group of scientists and informed laymen led by Eugenie Scott. Nowhere does it discuss the volume of evidence that refute the creationist view of a young earth; instead, we get repeated statements about it being just a "different view". The Christian group are humble people off to "Worship in a Glorious Cathedral", who are sincerely "interested in truth". The scientists, meanwhile, are "dismissive and at times disrespectful of religion". Even when it acknowledges that many in the NCSE group were religious, it goes out of the way to make them seem like weirdos:

Alan Gishlick, with silver-painted toenails sticking out of his Tevas and a shoulder tattoo of a Buddhist word puzzle meaning "Knowledge makes me content," said he was a "devout Christian."

He says he's a Christian, but no True Christian™ paints his toenails and wears Buddhist tattoos, you know.

Here's the message of the article:

Two groups examining the same evidence. Traveling nearly identical itineraries, snoozing under the same stars and bathing in the same chocolate-colored river. Yet, standing at opposite ends of the growing creation-evolution debate, they seemed to speak in different tongues.

It dishonestly gives equality to creationists and scientists. No, they are not examining the same evidence; the creationists are ignoring the great bulk of the geological evidence, and distorting intentionally what little they do see. The reporter, Jodi Wilgoren, is doing exactly the same thing and slanting her article to favor ignorance. This is the kind of poor reporting that should have been examined by a competent science editor, and immediately thrown out as dumb dreck pandering to the know-nothing creationists. It definitely should not have appeared in the Science section; I'd expect at least a token effort to show the geological evidence contradicting the creationist nonsense there.

I know the NY Times has run good science articles. Why are they so damn determined to ruin their reputation by running this kind of crap?

Posted by PZ Myers on 10/07 at 06:49 AM
Creationism • 3 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink
  1. Wilgoren's brief is to cover the 'debate'. Wonderful.

    I'd like to see the Gray Lady pull this tactic in the sports section.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  07:57 AM
  2. The NYT consistently runs he-said-she-said articles. Occasionally there will be a one-day respite from this tradition and everyone will remark how the NYT is changing, like with some Katrina coverage, but no, they have not changed at all. Everything is open to an opposite perspective, even science.

    Soon they will be running articles about the upcoming Fitzgerald indictments, and you can bet that they will quote admin sources calling it a "partisan witch-hunt" and then quoting "admin critics" in response, rather than just relying on the actual indictments.
    #: Posted by Bob Davis  on  10/07  at  08:36 AM
  3. As terrible as this article is (and it is terrible!), I'm most disturbed by the fact that Mr. Vail's book is available in the National Park gift store! Does this cross the church-state line? It sure seems to come awfully close. The article also stated that 'scientists' had tried to stop the bookstore from selling this book last year, I assume they failed? Anyone know anymore about this, or if this type of thing is common in National Park Service gift shops?
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  08:44 AM
  4. I read the article yesterday and had a very similiar reaction. Below is the letter I sent to the public editor ()The assistant to the editor read the letter and sent me a response saying the the public editor was very interested in this particular topic and that he would make sure that this editor saw the letter. It might be worthwhile for the public editor to get a few more letters about this particular article.

    "Seeing Creation and Evolution in Grand Canyon" by Jodi Wilgoren, published Oct. 6th 2005, is a perfect example of terrible "he said, she said" reporting. To present the interpretation that the Grand Canyon formed during a great flood 4,500 years ago as one explanation and the scientific explanation that the Grand Canyon formed millions of years ago during a very long process as another explanation is ridiculous. How can the NY Times present articles like this and hope to be taken seriously? Not all interpretations are equally supported, and it is about time that quality newspapers stop this sort of sloppy reporting and try to balance the presentation of information by the weight of the evidence. The idea that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old is laughable, and this has been known for a couple of hundred years, so how is it that the NY Times keeps reporting the issue like there is some real debate going on with regard to this issue? One reason why polls show such a strong support for creationism is obviously due to a general lack of education with regard to science, but another reason has to be that the public keeps seeing respected media organizations present these ridiculous ideas without calling them ridiculous. There is no excuse why the NY Times can't directly call such claims absolutely contrary to the evidence and then specifically state why the evidence doesn't support such a position. There is no reason why the NY Times needs to allow the young Earth creationists ample space to repeat their long since discredited claims. Newspapers should not allow themselves to be a vehicle for the spread of misinformation.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  08:48 AM
  5. WTF??? I'm glad I long ago stopped spending good money to read that rag. And to think that long ago it actually was a great newspaper...
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  09:03 AM
  6. What I love is that for every little thing that might be hard to explain (ie, would take real scientific study) the creationists pull out of their rears the same stupid explanation every time. The Flood. And everything gets explained in terms of pre- and post-flood. How about pre- and post-lobotomy?
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  09:15 AM
  7. Does Jodi Wilgoren not know the history of science and the terrible persecution that (verfiable) TRUTH seekers suffered at the hands of the Christianists who demanded on pain of death, submission to their flat earth beliefs? Does Jodi not know the story of Galileo, for example? Will Jodi and the religious extremists that she gives succor to, cast aside whacky and arrogant science in favor of Jesus' love when the avian flu hits? I doubt it very, very much.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  09:30 AM
  8. This is exactly the "Views differ on shape of Earth" stuff that Krugman talks about. I see this as symptomatic of a general cultural malaise. Unfortunately, once you slide into the abyss where 2+2=5 is just another valid point of view, I don't see how you get back to the Enlightenment.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  09:33 AM
  9. The deal is that they're friggin' cowed/bought off, PZ.

    The NYT is a corporation like any other. They like Bush's tax cuts, and they REALLY like his gutting of FCC anti-trust regulations. Plus, they fear the wingnuts and don't have the backbone to stand up to them. Hence, their decision to abandon any pretense of genuinely objective "let the chips fall where they may" reporting in favor of a false "balance" that favors the right wing since the righties not only know how to work the refs, they OWN the refs.
    #: Posted by Phoenix Woman  on  10/07  at  09:42 AM
  10. Wilgoren is by trade a political reporter. The science page editor didn't recognize that; he/she should have screened her stuff much more carefully, given this.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  11:02 AM
  11. In the true spirit of not getting mad, getting even, I will be emailing to the NYT editor and recommend that they fire Wilgoren and hire the writer from Dover, Mike Argento.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  11:39 AM
  12. Yeah, this isn't really a science piece at all. It's a sociology piece. A "look at America" type of thing that withholds judgements, to pose as non-biased, as if ignoring willful ignorance was the "fair" way to go. I'll go ahead and pass judgement - the piece was tripe.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  11:40 AM
  13. The Times is not a particularly liberal paper, but it has a very liberal reputation, so it has an annoying tendency to overcorrect for its perceived liberal bias.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  10/07  at  12:05 PM
  14. My roommate: "Hey, look at this NYT article. Isn't it interesting that two groups of people can have such different views about the same experience?"
    Me: "What, that one is right and the other one is wrong?"

    To be fair, he is an anthropologist. grin
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  12:18 PM
  15. I agree with the major sentments about the article. In its defense, and admittedly a weak one, the article was not part of the Science Tuesday Times but a front page puff-piece similar to other puff pieces that make to the front page of the NYT these days.

    Much more interesting to me was the juxtaposition, without note, with the lead article on the first page about the 1918 flu virus that evolved from birds to humans and then to human to human transmission. THIS is the evolution story they should be telling the public about. THIS is the relevance of evolution to the lives of the public that is not getting across. THIS is the story that they should be covering Who cares what the YEC's think about the Grand Canyon.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  12:24 PM
  16. Alon Levy said: "The Times is not a particularly liberal paper, but it has a very liberal reputation, so it has an annoying tendency to overcorrect for its perceived liberal bias."

    EXACTLY. These folks are starting to fear the ol' "liberal press" accusations so they bend over backwards-ass to seem "fair and balanced". Science, you know, is a tool of godless liberals.

    I wish these Right-wing Christian radicals would stop using modern medicine so they would just die off once and for all. Funny how they have no problem with science when it keeps their ignorant asses alive.
    #: Posted by Michael Koppelman  on  10/07  at  12:25 PM
  17. It's worse than you're thinking. This wasn't a Science section story, not in print: in print it appeared above the fold on the front page, and was continued after that on a full page (complete with splashy color graphics) further on in the A section. In other words, this piece had the full endorsement of the Times' news editors. It's part of a determined effort at the Times, not just to "overcorrect" for its supposed liberal bias, but to bring the news columns under a form of conservative-leaning political direction. The text to reference here is the so-called "Credibility Group" report (which I wrote about here and here), mandated by editor Bill Keller, which has made the right-wing rhetoric and program of "intellectual diversity" part of, in effect, the Times' mission statement. (Part of the "intellectual diversity" gag means treating the fundies with kid gloves.) Having Wilgoren, one of the paper's top political reporters, write a piece like this, displayed like this, is Keller's way of signaling just exactly how much intellectual capital they're investing in this--just how on board with the rightists the Times under his leadership intends to be.
    #: Posted by Michael  on  10/07  at  12:27 PM
  18. A couple weeks ago, the NY Times front page told us that highly-educated women were all gonna give up their jobs to go home and be mommies.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/20/national/20women.html?ex=1284868800&en=6a8e0c413c09c249&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

    Someone oughta do us all a favor and point Jodi to that article.
    #: Posted by tikistitch  on  10/07  at  12:31 PM
  19. Does Jodi not know the story of Galileo, for example?


    Do you?

    The Galileo Affair

    And, as others have indicated, this was not a science story, even though it is classified in the "science" section of the Times web site. It ran on the front page (with a big color photo, no less). Nor is Jodi Wilgoren a science writer. One can only point out (so many times) that the Tuesday Science Section, and any actual science pieces that run throughout the paper during the week -- i.e. articles produced by science writers -- assume evolutionary theory as a matter of course. In fact, in one instance, a science writer flat-out wrote that I.D. and creationism were baseless, which generated, not surprisingly, negative letters.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/07  at  12:39 PM
  20. Its strange that the paper with the best general science reporting flubs this issue every single time in the same way. The Washington Post barely even covers science news (they have a "health" section and a "technology" section), and yet they managed to hit that homerun a couple of weeks ago.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  12:43 PM
  21. "Why are they so damn determined to ruin their reputation by running this kind of crap?"

    Why? Because they have a long and dishonorable tradition to uphold:

    "As a method of sending a missile to the higher, and even to the highest parts of the earth's atmospheric envelope, Professor Goddard's rocket is a practicable and therefore promising device. It is when one considers the multiple-charge rocket as a traveler to the moon that one begins to doubt ... for after the rocket quits our air and really starts on its journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to re-action, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react ... Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
    — New York Times Editorial, 13 January 1920."
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  12:49 PM
  22. So we're supposed to go rah-rah for the NY Times because they run some good science articles, and be pleased that they didn't run this in that specific part of the paper, but instead only stuck it on the front page, with a big color photo under the label, "Science"?

    It's nice that they have a science ghetto where all the smart sensible articles are kept, but that doesn't excuse the stupidity on the front page.
    #: Posted by PZ Myers  on  10/07  at  12:49 PM
  23. Imagine the NYTimes doing an article about two tour group at the Pyramids in Egypt -- one led by a qualified Egyptologist, the other by someone advocating alien construction.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  12:56 PM
  24. In spite of Wilgoren's frigtarded equivocation, I came away from the article believing that the creationists had been characterized as wall-eyed wingjobs and the scientists as informed but impatient.

    True enough in both cases. However, I also know that it's chiefly my expectation bias -- or more to the point, my knowledge that creationists are wingjobs -- that has me perceiving things in this manner. I'm confident that the article will affect everyone with a pre-existing opinion -- and most people have them -- the same way, with science-happy folks seeing Vail & Co. as pathetic and creationists coming away with a sense of validation if not flaky wonder -- and even more confident that this is plainly the Times' aim: not to inform, but to agitate and further polarize.

    Basically, this newspaper is now a highbrow tabloid. Its writers politely refer to everyone as Mister this and Mizz That, but BFD. It's a tired veneer, and more than ever the Times churns out ream after ream of high-octane suck with the single-minded mission of making everyone just a little uncomfortable. The Times editor who commented here a couple months ago after PZ hit him with similar complaints essentially admitted as much.
    #: Posted by Beaming Visionary  on  10/07  at  01:13 PM
  25. Here's what I wrote Jodi:

    Scientific evidence is NOT something to be "balanced" with obscurantist
    opinions. It's bad enough when people like you do this in political
    reporting, but covering serious science like this is in and of itself
    anti-scientific.

    Evolutionary biology, paleontology, etc. are not "stories" to be "nuanced"
    or "balanced."

    Other than your high salaries, your "name" university backgrounds and your
    porn-star fluffing of political establishment figures, most people at the
    Times, the WaPost, and other "insider" newspapers are little more than
    hacks.

    I say that as someone in the media myself as well as someone with a better
    knowledge of both scientific issues and principles of logic than you have.


    And her response:

    The story was not balancing science with creationism, it was chronicling two groups' trips through the canyon. It was much more about people and their beliefs than about a scientific argument. We made plain in the story what science says about the canyon's carving.

    As for high salaries and porn-star fluffing, you must be talking about someone else.

    Thanks for writing -- and reading.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  01:44 PM
  26. They call themselves "balanced" and yet they didn't even report on my Spaghetti Canyon Tour:

    "Look at those wonderful striations in the rocks. What could mold such pattern other than a flailing noodly appendage on earthen pottery walls?"

    I hope they mention that those bigots in the "science" tour group actually made fun of us. And I'm pretty sure one of the guys had long hair.
    #: Posted by Jason Malloy  on  10/07  at  01:48 PM
  27. I think you're overreacting. Ii strikes me that the viewpoints of those in the article speak for themselves. If the members of the science expedition were in fact mostly "atheists", that's a shame, because the more I read about this controversy, the more I am heartened by the number of people of faith who are intrigued by science and remain unfazed by its challenges to our understanding of the world around us.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  01:54 PM
  28. It does seem that the article, and then this blog, both suffer the same malady: circular ad hominem. I don't think calling evolutionists or creationists or NYT writers "dummy" really does anything but poison the well. The evolutionist side has tons of evidence (avian flu evolution). The creationist side has tons of evidence (irreducible complexity theory). But regardless of who is right, calling everyone dummy just makes us look childish. And somehow I don't think the origin of the universe is nearly as important as how we treat other humans every day. Even the less evolved fight; shouldn't the more evolved give a damn about their own species? Yes. Yes we should.
    #: Posted by Galen  on  10/07  at  01:58 PM
  29. Galen, I know of no evidence for "irreducible complexity" that stands up to rigourous scientific inquiry. And please don't call it a theory, because it isn't.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:03 PM

  30. #43040: Galen — 10/07 at 01:58 PM
    The creationist side has tons of evidence (irreducible complexity theory).

    Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! That's pretty funny.

    What? You weren't joking? Do you actually consider the concept (not theory) of irreducible complexity to be anything more than the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'? Can you name a single example of IC that has held up to scrutiny?

    Your post is a perfect example of why the NY Times shouldn't pander to ignorance.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:08 PM
  31. It occurs to me that Galen actually might not know what an argument from ignorance is, so here's a link

    Here's a more general link so he can bone up on other fallacies, which crop up often in creationist arguments.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:16 PM

  32. #43039: Grover Gardner — 10/07 at 01:54 PM
    If the members of the science expedition were in fact mostly "atheists", that's a shame

    Perhaps you would care to explain that remark without making yourself sound like a bigot. Best of luck.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:22 PM
  33. I do apologize for my ignorance. I admit I didn't research irreducible complexity. I've heard it posited by creationists many times though. Regardless, I would prefer responses to my argument, and not my technical errors.
    #: Posted by Galen  on  10/07  at  02:28 PM
  34. Galen -
    Its not really about this single point but the wider ramifications: Do you want to live in a theocracy? Its a slipperly slope and its better to draw the line early rather than later. That said, I agree with you regarding name calling, one should adress the issues not the person.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:35 PM
  35. Galen--
    You don't appear to have read the responses to your first post. Your argument takes as a premise a logically fallacious argument to ignorance--the claim that the idea of irreducible complexity is an argument against the theory of evolution. Your argument, such as it is, is thus invalid.
    And young-earth creationists are dummmies.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:38 PM

  36. Even the less evolved fight; shouldn't the more evolved give a damn about their own species? Yes. Yes we should.

    OK then, this looks like the gist of your argument, and I'll address it. We are dealing with a group of people who not only are extremely, willfully ignorant about reality, they wish to impose their ignorance on students in the public schools to spawn a new generation of ignorance, in direct defiance of principles stated in our foundational law. Is it any wonder that the reaction to them is something other than kindness? If creationists were 1) honest and 2) willing to listen to evidence, they wouldn't be creationists, and situations like the current trial in Dover wouldn't happen.

    So then, you are asking for reasonable accomodation of people who are not reasonable.

    IMHO.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:40 PM
  37. Like DarthWilliam, I am revolted by the notion of the National Park Service selling unscientific literature. This is so wrong.

    A few years ago I was enjoying a weekend in Sequoia (hey language lovers--did you see/hear all five of those majestic vowels??) National Park, and the visitor center was displaying a prominent sign inviting people to a prayer circle under the trees.

    I complained loudly to the poor girl behind the desk, and of course all she could do is mumble something about free speech. George Bush has emboldened Christian evangelists to insinuate themselves everywhere into public life, and it makes my blood boil.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  02:44 PM
  38. First, to Jake: I did read the previous posts. Irreducible complexity was an argument I've heard supporting creationism recently, so I provided it as an example of their side. It's not really central to my argument, since my argument is, if we're so evolved, shouldn't we get along with each other and let less evolved creatures squabble.

    Second, to Rich and Baseyian Bouffant: I do not favor theocracy. In fact, the idea of the religious right deciding what everyone should believe pisses me off. I find it ironic that the descendents of the very same puritans who escaped to our land for the sake of religious freedom should impose morality on others who desire that same freedom.

    STILL though, if casting off a personal deity who commands that people give a damn about each other and respect each other merely because they are human -- if that results in everyone running in circles shouting "dummy", I'd rather have the deity than any form of knowledge. I love learning, but if everyone is pointing fingers and saying everyone else but them is a dummy, no progress will be achieved. I don't think knowledge is superior to respect; because if we are the smartest asses in the world, and are still lonely and unhappy, perhaps our knowledge didn't serve us well.

    Does this explain my argument better?
    #: Posted by Galen  on  10/07  at  02:56 PM

  39. Does this explain my argument better?

    Yes, but I still disagree with it. The article in question gave equal treatment to a group of people who not only believe in a deity, but deny all the available evidence for the age and origin of the Grand Canyon. It is the latter property which is currently under discussion, along with the questions about journalists who give "fair and balanced" coverage when one side is clearly wrong.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  03:05 PM
  40. Even the less evolved fight; shouldn't the more evolved give a damn about their own species? Yes. Yes we should.


    Galen, you also need to realize that there is really no such thing as more evolved or less evolved. We are only equally evolve as say, a cat, which is to say that it has been an equal amount of time since both of our species shared a common ancestor. Humans' neocortex, and the intelligence and adaptability it gives us, may have evolved after cats developed their claws and climbing ability. But that doesn't mean that cats are any less adapted to their environment than people are to theirs (which is pretty much a partial definition of evolution). It is only that neocortex, and the ego that goes with it, that insists that Homo sapiens is the peak of creation, whether "we wuz made, or just wuz!"

    We have a choice most creatures don't, which is to control our emotions and actions, and to measure the effect of our actions on others through our ability to use empathy and logic. I agree with you that we should use that ability to treat each other as we would like to be treated ourselves. Seems I have heard that somewhere before...
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  03:21 PM
  41. So we're supposed to go rah-rah for the NY Times because they run some good science articles, and be pleased that they didn't run this in that specific part of the paper, but instead only stuck it on the front page, with a big color photo under the label, "Science"?


    Could you show me where the Times, on the front page of the printed paper, labeled this article "science"? Because it didn't. The people at the Web site did put it on the Web Site's science section, though, which they shouldn't have done.

    This was not an article on science, nor was it billed as such. It was a piece of sociological reporting, taking note of an interesting and disquieting trend: that some people are flocking to the Grand Canyon in an effort to find confirmation for their preconceived dogma of young earth creationism. Now, what is it that you should really be concerned with: that the Times ran this article, or that enough people believe in this stuff to drive tours of the Grand Canyon? After all, if there weren't so many YEC's to sustain this kind of tour, there'd be nothing for the Times to write about, right?

    I also can't figure out why anyone should think that writing about YEC tours of the Grand Canyon should be seen as conferring legitimacy on YEC. Much more plausibly, such an article might awaken a lot of people to something they hadn't considered: the growing religiosity in the U.S., and its potential implications for society. Anyway, if every time a newspaper writes about something it is conferring legitimacy on that thing, then newspapers would be obliged not to write anything at all.

    Imagine the NYTimes doing an article about two tour group at the Pyramids in Egypt -- one led by a qualified Egyptologist, the other by someone advocating alien construction.


    Probably such tours don't exist, but even if they do, it's likely that they have little or nothing to say about the current state of culture. Thus such tours would have little newsworthiness, except perhaps as a light feature. But Christianity and its evangelical strains are on the rise in the U.S., and thus they have sociological significance that newspapers rightly take note of. Again, maybe you're shooting the messenger? Maybe it's the message that should be of real concern.

    It's a tired veneer, and more than ever the Times churns out ream after ream of high-octane suck with the single-minded mission of making everyone just a little uncomfortable. The Times editor who commented here a couple months ago after PZ hit him with similar complaints essentially admitted as much.


    I imagine you must be referring to a different editor, because I conceded nothing of the kind.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/07  at  03:22 PM
  42. Socratic Gadly wrote

    "Other than your high salaries, your "name" university backgrounds and your
    porn-star fluffing of political establishment figures, most people at the"

    Hahaahahahahahaah!!!

    Well done.

    At least you can rest assured that PZ Myers won't ban you from posting here for your accurate use of metaphor.

    I wrote EXACTLY the same thing on the Panda's Thumb blog about a reporter's treatment of Phil Johnson.

    Evolutionary biology's Self-proclaimed Leader, Tricky Nick Matzke, burst into tears and banned me.

    A truly pathetic display on his part and -- dare I say it -- a big part of the reason that scientists today find themselves reading garbage like the present article on the front page of the NYT.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  03:47 PM
  43. Galen, you either just don't get it or else you are being willfullly obtuse. Please tell us which, as I refer to your second post in the following comments.

    First, "irreducible complexity" is at the core of ID, not just your momma's old-school creationism. If you know that, you're being obtuse. If you didn't, you obviously haven't read a lot about new-fangled ID (the same old Hampshire hog in a new dress) or old-school creationism (that Hampshire hog wearing nothing at all).

    Second, to point out logical fallacies is an answer -- no, it's the answer -- to your original post.

    If you don't get that part of the scientific method is about logical argumentation in the construction of hypotheses, you don't get it.

    Third, as for "giving a damn about others of the species," developing logical thnking processes and proper empirical research among all people, and insisting are starting points for not only proper science, but proper intellectual activity of any sort, is in fact a key component of "giving a damn about others of the species."

    After all, it is creationists, or a subgroup of this population group, who have said in the past that we don't need to worry about oil supplies because the fact it was created sometime within the last 100,000 years or less shows it will be easy to create today; that we don't need to worry about oil supplies, or air pollution, etc., because the interventionist (Christian) creationist deus ex machina will magically save us all, etc.

    It is precisely for reasons like this that unscientific thinking in particular and illogical thinking in general must be called out. If you don't get that, there's plenty you may not get.

    Fourth, if you believe one must be a theist to love other people, to engage in altruistic actions, etc., then you're stereotyping atheists (and agnostics, Buddhists and others). I can't speak for P.Z., but as for the atheist myself, this is one of the biggest lies that the Christian right trots out -- the lack of moral, ethical and emotional grounding of nontheists.

    Read carefully before replying, please.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  04:00 PM
  44. Hey, thanks, Great White.

    I've posted in one or two Skeptics Carnivals with P.Z. and he is on my bloglist on my blog.

    It's like Democrats believing they have to "play nice" with Republicans. Why enter a fight unarmed, and even worse, self-unarmed?

    Oh, since I am an editor, please excuse my mispelling "willfully" above.

    And, an even better source for all the logical fallacies in which homo sapiens can indulge, I suggest The Skeptic's Dictionary, online at http://www.skepdic.com.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  04:03 PM
  45. It is the latter property which is currently under discussion, along with the questions about journalists who give "fair and balanced" coverage when one side is clearly wrong.


    I agree it is this which is under discussion; only I wasn't seeing much discussion, but rather a lot of name calling. Thank you disagreeing civily; I think you've proved me both right and wrong simultaneously: right in that we need to discuss with respect and wrong, by showing that people on this blog were rising above poisoning the well and discussing rationally.

    Galen, you also need to realize that there is really no such thing as more evolved or less evolved.


    justawriter: Thank you for explaining this. I was operating from the notion that humans evolved from single celled organisms, etc. This exposes my ignorance in general of this topic. I am studying philosophy and leadership, not biology. It is obvious the community here is vastly more knowledgable than I, and I do thank all of you for sharing your knowledge with me today; I have learned a lot. If I may share a bit of mine: one thing I have learned to be of absolute necessity, is vision; if we study anything or live our lives without vision, all our efforts run around in circles. I beg each of you, with your intelligence, to devote yourselves not just to learning about science, but to applying it in ways that somehow ease the suffering of humanity, in ways that feed the hungry and heal the sick. If our knowledge doesn't help us form better relationships with our world and our fellow humans, it is wasted. You have intelligence and knowledge I could only dream for; please use it not merely to enable you to point fingers, but to empower you to transform the world. If you are to be better than the religious, you must help people.

    This will be my last post for the day. Thank you for educating me and for the discussion. I've enjoyed it.
    #: Posted by Galen  on  10/07  at  04:06 PM
  46. Jodi Wilgoren seems to be particularly bad when it comes to use of the "he said/she said" type of reporting. When I saw her name in the byline, I pretty much expected what followed. It may have a place in political reporting - her specialty - but it certainly does not belong in the Science section. And in even political reporting, I think reporters need to be more aggressive when it comes to reporting true and false statements.
    #: Posted by John  on  10/07  at  04:07 PM
  47. Galen, you still, still don't get it.

    1793: Edward Jenner deliberately inoculates a person with cowpox after making scientific observations about how milkmaids so rarely get smallpox. He saves millions of lives. Ditto for Sabin and Salk on polio.

    1920s: Alexander Fleming observes lack of growth in petri dishes. He does scientific experiments, then isolates penicillin. Millions of lives are saved.

    1950s: Swiss doctors and pharmaceutical companies observe the effects a new class of drugs has on depressed patients. After further scientific testing,<b> MAOIs, then trycyclids, then SSRIs come out. Scientists save hundreds of thousands of lives, and the mental lives of millions more.

    1950s-1970s: Agricultural scientists, through <b>scientific empirical study     of hybridization, launch the "Green Revolution." The world grows more than enough food to adequately feed itself. Millions of lives are saved.

    Had enough, Galen? I don't know where you're digging up these straw men, but let me give you the realities of the other side.

    Christian Scientists (and non-cultist/sectarian Christians as well) believe their children can be cured by prayer, and that seeing medical doctors is not only a waste, it is sinful. Children die.

    New Agers believe touchless massage, Reiki, or Laetrile can cure their cancer and refuse to see oncologists. People die.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  04:18 PM
  48. John -- Jodi Wilgoren's standards are not acceptable in good political writing either, especially when the policy matters under debate have scientific underpinnings.

    But, noooo. We get "he said, she said" on global warming/climate change. On Iraq. (Not science, per se, but the matter of WMDs was subject to empirical verification). On the Endangered Species Act, now that "Dumbo" Pombo has gotten his bill past the House.

    That's exactly why I said what I said to that fluffing, self-exalted ditz.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  04:22 PM
  49. This was not an article on science, nor was it billed as such. It was a piece of sociological reporting, taking note of an interesting and disquieting trend: that some people are flocking to the Grand Canyon in an effort to find confirmation for their preconceived dogma of young earth creationism.

    It would have been nice for Wilgoren to actually report it as an "interesting and disquieting trend" rather than "Some people believe the Grand Canyon was carved by the Biblical Great Flood, while others put their faith in science."

    In other words, it IS a disquieting trend that religious conservatives are rejecting science in favor of Biblical literalism. I would have been interested to read a story about that, rather than the fluffy "human interest" piece Wilgoren actually gave us.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  04:35 PM
  50. It would have been nice for Wilgoren to actually report it as an "interesting and disquieting trend..."


    Why? It would be like writing, "In a darkening trend, the sun went down this evening."

    Also, look at this post:

    As terrible as this article is (and it is terrible!), I'm most disturbed by the fact that Mr. Vail's book is available in the National Park gift store! Does this cross the church-state line? It sure seems to come awfully close. The article also stated that 'scientists' had tried to stop the bookstore from selling this book last year, I assume they failed? Anyone know anymore about this, or if this type of thing is common in National Park Service gift shops?


    So the article was "terrible," yet the reader learned something valuable.

    We're not even talking here about ID people. We're talking about YEC's. Do you think non-YECs, as a result of reading this article, are going to suddenly start believing that Noah's flood carved the grand canyon? What's actually going to happen is that they're going to be distrubed at the implications of all this. Either that, or they'll just laugh.

    This is sociological reporting. On the same day that this appeared, the lead story in the paper -- the upper right hand corner being the lead position -- had this headline: "Experts unlock clues to spread of 1918 flu virus." The whole article is genetics, molecular biology, and more biology, biology biology. There's no he-said, she-said. The reporter didn't phone Michael Behe to talk about blood clotting and the flagellum and mouse traps. The difference is that the bird flu article was science reporting and the other piece was, as I've said, sociological reporting. Newspapers run different kinds of articles wtih different premises and objectives.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/07  at  05:04 PM
  51. SocraticGadfly,

    Just FYI, about Jenner (1793)

    <A HREF=http://www.todayinsci.com/cgi-bin/indexpage.pl?http://www.todayinsci.com/B/Boylston_Zabdiel/Boylston_Zabdiel.htm>Zabdiel Boylston</A>
    #: Posted by Arun  on  10/07  at  05:14 PM
  52. BTW, you said Wilgoren wrote: "Some people believe the Grand Canyon was carved by the Biblical Great Flood, while others put their faith in science." This particular sentence appears nowhere in the article.

    But this one does:

    Science unequivocally dates the earth's age at 4.5 billion years, and the canyon's layers at some two billion years. Even the intelligent design movement, which argues that evolution alone cannot explain life's complexity, does not challenge the long history of the earth.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/07  at  05:16 PM
  53. In my response to Wilgoren's initial response to me, I provided her the URL for this post. She has responded to me, saying she did "care" about my comments. If she really cares, she'll come here.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  05:18 PM
  54. Arun, I knew about inoculation vs. vaccination, but thought vaccination made the better argumentative talking point.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  05:22 PM
  55. Yeah, and if she does come here, I'm sure this remark of yours ...

    That's exactly why I said what I said to that fluffing, self-exalted ditz.


    ... will make for a nice, poison-free well.
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/07  at  05:31 PM
  56. BTW, you said Wilgoren wrote: "Some people believe the Grand Canyon was carved by the Biblical Great Flood, while others put their faith in science." This particular sentence appears nowhere in the article.

    Because it's a paraphrase of my own making. I should have realized a journalist would take quote marks literally. I apologize.

    You're picking single sentences to defend the article, while we're criticizing the overall effect and tone of the article, which certainly doesn't make the Young Earthers seem like part of a scary trend. It makes them seem like charming eccentrics who should be left alone to believe whatever they like without the intrusion of actual facts.

    However, Wilgoren does do a pretty good job of making the scientists look like jerks:

    "After each 'geology moment,' Dr. Scott play-acted the creationists, saying sarcastically of their evidence, 'My part of the lesson is always a lot shorter and less detailed.'"
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  05:33 PM
  57. However, Wilgoren does do a pretty good job of making the scientists look like jerks:

    Well, after the crap she wrote about John Kerry and the virtual fellating of George Bush that she was engaged in this time last year, is it really that much of a surprise?
    #: Posted by spencer  on  10/07  at  06:06 PM
  58. However, Wilgoren does do a pretty good job of making the scientists look like jerks:

    "After each 'geology moment,' Dr. Scott play-acted the creationists, saying sarcastically of their evidence, 'My part of the lesson is always a lot shorter and less detailed.'"


    That's a great quote. Any journalist would have jumped on it.

    But look, Mnemosyne, you're worried about the scientists looking like jerks? I mean, you do read this blog, right? What's the title of this thread? "Screw you, New York Times." How was the Times reporter characterized? As a "fluffing, self-exalted ditz."

    If you're worried about looking like jerks, I wouldn't dwell on the Times article.

    And yeah, those people should be left to believe what they want. You've got an alternative?
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/07  at  06:11 PM
  59. But look, Mnemosyne, you're worried about the scientists looking like jerks? I mean, you do read this blog, right? What's the title of this thread?

    Ah, yes. Here we go again.

    davidm, either an apologist or a weak creationist appeaser, has trouble distinguishing a blog written by some professor in northern Minnesota which is read by a tiny fraction of the world's population from THE FUCKING NEW YORK TIMES.

    Get your head of your uptight constipated rectum, davidm.

    I just drank a cup of fetus blood, davidm, and burned a candle for satan. Should I be worried that this event will be used to make scientists look like fetus-blood drinking satan worshippers?

    If so, it is not my behavior that is the problem.

    It is the behavior of religious fundamentalists and the journalists who empower them because the fundamentalists have a lot of this green stuff we call money.

    Wilgoren's ignorant shilling was characterized perfectly by many posters here. She knows exactly what she is doing. She is the one that has to live herself.

    When Wilgoren chooses to behave like a genuine fucking journalist and write a story -- better yet, a week long expose -- about how sleazy and disgusting and obvious the lying charlatans at the Discovery Institute are, then we'll know that Wilgoren has recovered her moral compass.

    Until then, the lady is a worthless piece of shit and I will be happy to watch her and Judy Miller earn their rightful place in the history books as examples of what journalists were like at the lowest point for journalism in America's history.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  06:48 PM
  60. And yeah, those people should be left to believe what they want. You've got an alternative?

    Sorry, I was very, very confused about journalism.

    I always thought that journalism was interested in facts. Events. Things that actually happened. I thought that journalism was in the business of revealing things to people that they didn't know.

    Now I know that the main job of journalism is to allow people to remain ignorant of the world around them. Not only to allow it, but to celebrate their ignorance with fluffy articles praising them for their persistence in refusing to acknowledge basic scientific facts.

    Thank you, David. You've now released me from ever taking the NY Times seriously ever again now that I know that, to an editor at the Times, facts don't matter.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  06:50 PM
  61. davidm

    Newspapers run different kinds of articles wtih different premises and objectives.

    No shit. Really? Wow.

    Now run along, davidm, and spew your apologist shtick on a blog where someone gives a crap.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  06:54 PM
  62. Alas, even the regular science writers at the Times aren't much better. Biologists have lived in fear of Gina Kolata for more than 20 years. She either gets the facts wrong, or invents controversies or misunderstands the controversy (trying to shoe-horn it into the standard political form) etc. In fact I have rarely seen her get a biology story right on the basics. The best on can hope for is an incoherent hash that no one will understand.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  07:55 PM
  63. I read the damn thing and got sick.
    In a nutshell
    Evolutionists were "sarcastic".
    Creationists were "devotional"
    ... and Scientists have "Faith in Science".
    It was too much.

    I have a theory... Either we are simply getting dummer, or the media is playing to the very polls cited in the article.

    a November 2004 Gallup survey found that a third of the public believes the Bible is the actual word of God that should be taken literally and that 45 percent think God created human beings "pretty much in their present form" within the last 10,000 years.

    NY Times will sell more papers if their reporters will pander dribble to the masses. Conservatives who would not give the NY Times a second thought will now buy it just for this crap.

    and in their SCIENCE section. If that doesn't warrant a barf bag, I don't know what does.
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  08:46 PM
  64. Thanks,Mnemosyne and Great White, for beating me to the punch, so to speak, on David's weak defense of Jodi.

    Obviously, he doesn't know a lot about journalism or blogs. No, I'm not at the Times, but as the editor of a suburban weekly newspaper, I would never "balance" reporting like that.

    And, though all my life has been at small weeklies or small dailies, I have had the chance. At my first newspaper, a five-day daily in a 10,000 town, the CDC arrived to investigate an outbreak of chronic diarrhea, eventually diagnosed as an outbreak of Brainerd's disease and traced with 90-plus percent probability to a particular restaurant.

    I could have "balanced" comment from the restaurant's owner with the CDC's findings. However, I would have had to compliment him on the color of his curtains to do so.

    Instead, he had his chance to comment on the CDC findings and on some bad inspections he had suffered. He did not.

    As for Jodi, David is either an overall political conservative, which, combined with his defending some sort of creationism, would make him an apparent troll on this blog, or he is totally clueless about 2004 election coverage.

    Jodi's heard it before and hasn't changed her stripes.

    David, I'll call you a fluffing male ditz. How's that?
    #: Posted by Steve Snyder  on  10/07  at  09:40 PM
  65. I'm still trying to figure out what language "Buddhist" is.

    Sanskrit? Pali? Tibetan? Korean? Chinese? Vietnamese? Japanese?
    #: Posted by  on  10/07  at  09:49 PM
  66. David, "Buddhist" is a distant cousin of the language "Wilgorenese," which is spoken by animals of the genus Media medioflumen
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  11:07 PM
  67. Oh, question for you, <b>P.Z.:<b>

    In her second e-mail to me, after I invited her to read this post, WIlgoren claimed she had "had correspondent" (sic) with you. Did she?
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/07  at  11:46 PM
  68. Kind of like giving equal respectibility to the conclusions of the blind men examining the elephant (you know the story, one feels the tail and claims that the elephant is like a snake and so on) and a group of curious and trained biologigist observers. Except in this case the blind men are willfully blind, proud of it and would gladly like to inflict their particular form of blindness on everyone else for the sake of that poor defenseless all powerful being that they worship.
    #: Posted by  on  10/08  at  02:33 AM
  69. I find it ironic that the descendents of the very same puritans who escaped to our land for the sake of religious freedom should impose morality on others who desire that same freedom.

    There's no irony here. The Puritans went to America because in Britain their right to oppress others and force them to practice Puritanism was abridged; from day one they intended to create a closed, militant, fanatical, and hierarchical society. Their descendants can't run to any new continent, so instead they focus on oppressing the people of the country they now inhabit.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  10/08  at  05:27 AM
  70. Great White Wonder,

    Just one small thing:

    blog written by some professor in northern Minnesota

    Morris ain't in Northern Minnesota...more like West-Central Minnesota. (former Minnesotan here).
    #: Posted by MAJeff  on  10/08  at  07:02 AM
  71. Speaking as a scientist: I think most of you are being way too critical of the article, and downright rude to davidm, who has said nothing really unreasonable. Stop being assholes for a second and think. This wasn't like the many articles we've all seen on the teaching of intelligent design that quote "both sides" and talk to creationists as if they are scientific experts. Those articles are misleading and dangerous. This article, on the other hand, just presents the two tour groups as they are, making no pretense that the creationists are experts in any way. Any halfway reasonable person who reads the article will see that these young-earth creationists are just loony. There's no need to spell it out in simple words. If you assume anyone will read this article and think it implies that these young-earth creationists should be taken seriously, you're being overly critical of the intelligence of others. The only people who will think that are the ones who we are already beyond hope of convincing.
    #: Posted by  on  10/08  at  08:38 AM
  72. MR: The problem is that many (perhaps a majority) of Americans these days are not "halfway reasonable persons." The results of the last two Presidential elections is clear evidence of that. If Americans were "halfway reasonable," Bush would have gotten maybe 10% of the vote.

    Articles like this, with language that clearly respects the creationists more than the scientists, in newspapers with respectable reputations (a reputation that the Times seems bent on throwing away these days), only contribute to the general cultural pollution in which Americans' minds are enveloped. A respectable news organization should be trying hard in every way it can to improve Americans' understanding of science, which is woefully inadequate, as many polls have shown, not adding its bit to the pollution.

    Yes, there are folks who we are beyond hope of convincing, but there are also a lot of people who are just ignorant of science and confused about this whole evolution thing, like the earlier poster Galen. If he had not happened by this site, he would not have gotten a bit of education about evolution that he needed. The readership of papers like the Times is much greater than the audience for this blog and other science-oriented ones. Therefore, the Times has a responsibility not to equate science and nonsense, even in its "sociological" articles.
    #: Posted by sort of buddhist  on  10/08  at  10:12 AM
  73. Well, MR:

    PZ was speaking as a scientist himself. He was himself, by your POV, wayyy too critical of the article. So, please, don't pull the "I'm a scientist" angle as though the laypeople commenting here are ignoramuses, McCarthyites,etc.

    Besides, I AM a journalist, as I've said before, and as I've also said above, Wilgoren exemplifies this same type of journalism in political coverage.

    I've said that more than once in this thread. If you look on political blogs, you'll find plenty of further examples of her and Adam Nagourney, to name the two most objectionable from the Times, perhaps, doing stuff like this.

    And your first point is the most problematic:

    "This wasn't like the many articles we've all seen on the teaching of intelligent design that quote "both sides" and talk to creationists as if they are scientific experts. Those articles are misleading and dangerous. This article, on the other hand, just presents the two tour groups as they are, making no pretense that the creationists are experts in any way."

    Without contexting the creationists, as one person said above, by saying a 10,000 year old earth is demonstrably antiscientific, Wilgoren is putting creationists on at least a semi-expert plane.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/08  at  10:15 AM
  74. MR - a couple of quotes from your article that refute the idea Wilgoren did not make creationists look like experts:

    1. "It's all theory, right?" asked Jack Aiken, 63, an Assemblies of God minister in Alaska who has a master's degree in geology. "Except what's in the Good Book."
    Makes it look like the Bible is the ultimate scientific authority

    2. Two groups examining the same evidence.
    No discussion of the scientific acumen, or lack thereof, of the different groups.

    3. Genesis recounts the great flood as God's harsh judgment on a world filled with sin.
    The scientific warrant for this not questioned
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/08  at  10:21 AM
  75. And more on Wilgoren:

    Science unequivocally dates the earth's age at 4.5 billion years, and the canyon's layers at some two billion years. Even the intelligent design movement, which argues that evolution alone cannot explain life's complexity, does not challenge the long history of the earth.

    The intelligent design movement surely does. Perhaps a little lower on the radar screen than old-fashioned creationists, but it surely does.

    On this very trip, you had people referring to a literal Noahic flood. That challenges a 4.5 BY age of earth right there.

    I'll bet Jodi doesn't even know what The Wedge Document is, either.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/08  at  10:24 AM
  76. MR sees no harm in a balanced description of two groups interpreting a natural landscape in different ways: one as created not so long ago by God, the other as the result of geological processes. You are missing the context, how this note inserts itself in the current war to get Creationism tought in science classes. It is imaginable that in the future, science teachers accompanying classes touring the Grand Canyon will have to explain both versions, so the students can decide which is right in their eyes.
    #: Posted by  on  10/08  at  11:15 AM
  77. MR:
    Read it again. Like I said before, Scientists are "sarcastic" and Creationists "devotional". A section titled, "Faith in Science". This article attempted to do more than provide an objective view of two groups. I hardly think a Creationist would be upset reading that article.

    I think articles that color people with carefully chosen descriptive words, while more subtle than treating ID as a science, is more dangerous for it's subtrafuge.
    #: Posted by  on  10/08  at  12:54 PM
  78. MR:
    Read it again. Like I said before, Scientists are "sarcastic" and Creationists "devotional". A section titled, "Faith in Science". This article attempted to do more than provide an objective view of two groups. I hardly think a Creationist would be upset reading that article.

    I think articles that color people with carefully chosen descriptive words, while more subtle than treating ID as a science, is more dangerous for it's subterfuge.
    #: Posted by  on  10/08  at  12:55 PM
  79. Speaking as a scientist: I think most of you are being way too critical of the article, and downright rude to davidm, who has said nothing really unreasonable. Stop being assholes for a second and think.


    :D

    Relax, MR. You have no idea the kind of people you're dealing with here. But I do.

    As I'll soon demonstrate.

    :D
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/08  at  06:42 PM
  80. Oooh, David, we're sooo quaking at the eye-popping smackdown you're about to administer.

    NOT.

    Go troll someplace else.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/08  at  10:29 PM
  81. He's not trolling; he's advancing a point of view you disagree with. Robert Allen was trolling. Davidm's just disagreeing with you.
    #: Posted by Alon Levy  on  10/09  at  03:56 AM
  82. Why must civility be a casualty?

    Anyway, if one of your science students did a course poorly, but insisted on getting a A grade, how would you deal with it? The NYT, IMO, is in exactly the position of that student (if mildly more influential).

    Anyway, with its Jayson Blair and Judith Miller type problems, the NYT is on a downhill stretch. It also appears the the NYT and the other media simply don't get it. With the availability on the Internet of every story and twenty times as many others that didn't actually happen, the main value added by a newspaper is the filtering out of trash, presumably by dedicated professionals. The NYT's most precious asset is credibility, which is what I pay a subscription fee for. Credibility is far more important than being on the good side of the Administration, being able to get scoops - the Internet should have made the media scoop irrelevant - or catering to some interest group or other. The newspaper can retain relevance only if it behaves more like a science journal than like a blog.
    #: Posted by Arun  on  10/09  at  09:24 AM
  83. GWW, weren't you banned from PT because you never quite understood (or cared) that PT was meant to be a resource for people trying to learn about an important topic and so your posts were usually full of words that would get PT blocked from schools and libraries? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fellatio references (though I prefer that they be literal rather than metaphorical) but if they get the site blocked, they're doing harm to the purpose of the site.

    Pharyngula, on the other hand, is a personal blog and PZ pretty obviously doesn't have the same worries.
    #: Posted by pough  on  10/09  at  11:25 AM
  84. I disagree with you, Alon. Re-read his statement, about his "demonstrating" how he's going to show "what kind of people" are posting here.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/09  at  11:39 AM
  85. On Friday, David said Wilgoren's article was "sociological" reporting.

    First, that still doesn't excuse the "he said, she said" style that pervades this and so much other reporting by Wilgoren and other Times reporters.

    For example, getting back to the political coverage of the Times, as exemplified Wilgoren and others? Remember their "he said, she said" (at best) coverage of the Swift Boat Veterans of Tall Tales? Or right now, how you have to read other newspapers to get any actual news about one of their own reporters, Judith Miller?

    But, back to that "sociological" claim. If I'm having someon report on people who believe they have been abducted by aliens, and have no physiological proof of that, even if I do cover it, I don't "balance" their claims with those of xenoastronomers who point out just how unlikely such visits are, with psychiatrists who have studies similar people and diagnosed their mental states, etc.

    David, just because a story is "sociological" doesn't require that it be "balanced." Try again.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/09  at  11:48 AM
  86. There are seven letters in the Monday NY Times commenting on this article. Several are full-bore attacks on the unscientific character of creationism.
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  12:07 AM
  87. What am I missing here? I teach, write and lecture as a biological anthropologist and spend considerable time explaining to the public why creationism/intelligent design views are wrong, why evolutionary theory isn't "just a theory" and so on. Yet I think Wilgoren's article is perfectly professional journalism; she insightfully details a split in American culture today, one that is REAL, one that we have to understand in order to deal with effectively. Her goal was to paint each camp, yes, rather what (we know to be) the truth of one. Of course we need many more high-quality articles on evolution, but does every single article need to do exactly the same thing? Do we not want to understand real events, real patterns, and real-life thinking that exists in our society today? You are asking this writer to have written a DIFFERENT article. By the way I think it's a great irony that the original post claimed the article appeared in the Science section-- not a great start for a diatribe about credibility!
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  09:38 AM
  88. By the way I think it's a great irony that the original post claimed the article appeared in the Science section-- not a great start for a diatribe about credibility!

    Could you show me where the Times, on the front page of the printed paper, labeled this article "science"? Because it didn't. The people at the Web site did put it on the Web Site's science section, though, which they shouldn't have done.

    How ironic!
    #: Posted by pough  on  10/10  at  09:51 AM
  89. I read again the NYT article: It is not "balanced", it is "ambiguous" or "equivocal". Two opposite meanings are possible, and the conclusion comes at the end. Which is against the scientific explanation of the origin of the canyon. It is unworthy of the Times.
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  11:21 AM
  90. pough

    GWW, weren't you banned from PT because you never quite understood (or cared) that PT was meant to be a resource for people trying to learn about an important topic and so your posts were usually full of words that would get PT blocked from schools and libraries?

    No, that's not why I was banned, pough.

    That was the bogus explanation provided the PT Star Chamber for banning me.

    The reason I was banned is because I disagreed with someone in the Star Chamber and they never forgot it. Tim "Call Me Mister" Sandefur perhaps?

    Or there was the time when Ed "Bury the Redneck Alive" Brayton soiled his diaper because I made a joke about Philip Johnson wandering around Berkeley drooling (I didn't know he had a stroke, but apparently if someone has a stroke and you call him a drooling idiot, libraries won't host your website, even if you apologize for it, which I did).

    I also criticized Panda's Thumb as failing to do a very good job at educating the public about creationist lies, particularly lies about scientists.

    Part of the problem at the Panda's Thumb is that they refused to seek and cultivate relationships that are beneficial and they refused to address directly the core issues of creationism: media laziness/complicity and the willful dissemination of lies.

    Perhaps you don't remember how confused PT was when it first started out and Pim van Meurs would post thermodynamic equations "proving" that creationists have their "science" wrong.

    It was sad, man.

    your posts were usually full of words

    And that's just an utter fabrication on your part.

    Please don't tell me that you are so naive as to believe that bullshit excuse about "libraries and high schools." That is 100% pure bullcrap.

    Now, go to the PT archives and read my comments. Please tell me what percentage of my comments contained "words" that would cause Pandas Thumb to be blocked from libraries or high schools. In particular, tell me what percentage of my comments contained those "words" after I was warned not to use those "words" anymore.

    Let me save you some time: 0.00%.

    The issue was not "words". The issue was style and the issue was my writing (which is not so different from PZ's writing and approach) becoming more interesting and quotable than the inarticulate nudgenudge winkwink puff pieces that are de rigeur at the Pandas Thumb.

    Thank God for Lenny Flank, is all I can say now.
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  11:59 AM
  91. Hey, I was asking. I'm not you; I didn't pay close attention because I didn't really care.

    What I said wasn't utter fabrication, it was an impression, poorly phrased. To me you've always come across as pointlessly vitriolic and I have noticed a tendency to use words and phrases that might set of indecency alarms. Or maybe I just don't come away from your posts with any momorable impression at all when they don't mention fellatio.
    #: Posted by pough  on  10/10  at  12:50 PM
  92. Barbara, the story DID appear on the Times' Science section online.

    And, given what I'd read of Wilgoren's political reporting last year, I'd take PZ's credibility over hers any time.

    Try reading some of her political coverage from last year.

    Then try again with the credibility comparisons.
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/10  at  01:37 PM
  93. To me you've always come across as pointlessly vitriolic and I have noticed a tendency to use words and phrases that might set of indecency alarms.

    One man's pointless vitriol is another man's poetry.

    And there's no such thing as pointless vitriol when one is reacting to lies being peddled by paid liars which are designed to frighten ignorant people into believing that professional scientists are paranoid idiots.

    Also, I see that you unfortunately remain hung up on this "indecency alarm" baloney.

    Tell me: does the word "sex" set off "indecency alarms" in public high schools? Can evolutionary biology be discussed without using that term or its common derivatives?

    Just something for you to think about before you cluelessly begin reciting your strange "recollections" about my writing style.

    I would like to see one example of a library or public high school that banned Panda's Thumb because of a comment that contained a so-called "swear word."

    And here's some more to ponder:

    http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000405.html

    Have the "potty mouths" Gary Hurd or that "steve" character (a person like yourself who was strangely willing to spread misinformation about me when I was unable to respond) been banned? Or was there a "point" to their gutter talk?

    We can end this discussion whenever you're ready to correct or rephrase your explanation about why I was banned. I don't expect that to ever happen, of course, but maybe you'll suprise me.
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  04:56 PM
  94. For anybody posting here still trying to support Jodi, I insist you first read PZ's follow-up, at http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/jodi_wilgoren_explains_it_all/
    #: Posted by SocraticGadfly  on  10/10  at  05:24 PM
  95. Did I say you were banned for your potty mouth or did I ask? I seem to recall asking, but your "no" is far more than a "no". It's more of a "no and stop lying about me when I can't respond and why do you say that the word sex has gotten PT filtered?" So before I correct my "explanation" about why you were banned, I'd first have to make an explanation. I have no idea why I'd want to do that, though.

    But I did find a funny site about filtering software. Thanks for giving me a reason to do some research. All I knew before was a few news stories that made the rounds on Slashdot (which was about filtering software being strangely overzealous and at times just confused). By the way, I looked up the word "might" in the dictionary and it means what I thought it means. After your last post, you had me worried that it meant something completely different!
    #: Posted by pough  on  10/10  at  06:19 PM
  96. Oooh, David, we're sooo quaking at the eye-popping smackdown you're about to administer.

    NOT.

    Go troll someplace else.


    You're so cute when you're sucking up to the person who runs this place. :D
    #: Posted by davidm  on  10/10  at  06:29 PM
  97. Wow, I thought I signed on to an intriguing discussion about evolution... This is my first day here. Is this name-calling back-and-forth nasty stuff the norm? Doesn't anyone else find it tiresome? Yeah. I know, I can just tune out... 'bye.
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  06:47 PM
  98. I'd first have to make an explanation. I have no idea why I'd want to do that, though.

    Like, why start now, right? It's so much easier to just spout off some strange recollection about "how you feel" about comments someone made months ago without providing a single fact to support those perceptions.

    Did you go to the link I provided you? In between Gary Hurd and steve's potty-mouthing I made some comments as well. How many "kiddie alarms" did my comments set off, do you think?

    I'm ready for your retraction any time, pough. Do you have the maturity to pull off such a feat? Or will you retreat into the hazy cloud of false memories implanted in your brain by the supergenius self-proclaimed "leaders of the anti-creationist movement" like Tricky Nick Matzke?

    Good luck.
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  07:05 PM
  99. Wow, I thought I signed on to an intriguing discussion about evolution... This is my first day here. Is this name-calling back-and-forth nasty stuff the norm? Doesn't anyone else find it tiresome? Yeah. I know, I can just tune out... 'bye.

    Oh no! Another potential recruit lost because the comments section wasn't "intriguing" enough!

    sniff

    I guess this shows why "evolutionists will never win."

    Right? C'mon -- someone out there is just dying to articulate that "argument." Let's hear it. Spice it up with some pointless vitriol and I might even remember that you wrote it.
    #: Posted by  on  10/10  at  07:12 PM
  100. I cheerfully retract the question.
    #: Posted by pough  on  10/10  at  08:15 PM