Too many journalists do not understand evolution

The primary reason so many Americans reject the theory and fact of evolution is religion. I think that’s pretty undisputed. However, there is a lot of incorrect information out there promulgated by journalists who get in way over their heads, and that is also a contributing factor. For the most recent example, let’s turn to the obituary of Lynn Margulis:

The [endosymbiotic] hypothesis was a direct challenge to the prevailing neo-Darwinist belief that the primary evolutionary mechanism was random mutation.

Rather, Dr. Margulis argued that a more important mechanism was symbiosis; that is, evolution is a function of organisms that are mutually beneficial growing together to become one and reproducing. The theory undermined significant precepts of the study of evolution, underscoring the idea that evolution began at the level of micro-organisms long before it would be visible at the level of species.

This is just awful. Just awful.

Margulis’ theory showed that some organelles – primarily mitochondria and chloroplasts – were once bacteria before being taken up into eukaryotic cells. This did not overturn any major precepts, nor did it shake the biological world. It was a big idea, one that turned out to be correct, and it marked a major turning point in our understanding. But that turning point was more complementary than it was subtracting. That is, it added a good deal of knowledge, it explained some mysteries, and it opened up a lot of avenues of research (as correct ideas often do) while fitting into the broad model of evolution, but it did not diminish the importance of random mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, or any other aspect of the theory.

Moreover, Margulis’ theory did not show that “evolution is a function of organisms that are mutually beneficial growing together to become one and reproducing”. It showed that sometimes endosymbiosis happens. And when it does, it sometimes has huge contingent importance. For instance, without the mitochondria in our cells, the history of life on Earth is not even remotely the same. But there are other hugely important events which, while ultimately reliant upon historic events like moments of endosymbiosis, can be explained without the need to appeal to Margulis’ theory. For example, the rise of mammals. Of course we are eukaryotes and so we depend upon the endosymbiosis event that happened billions of years ago, but that would be like appealing to the formation of Earth to describe the construction of a skyscraper. It just isn’t necessary and, besides, planetary accretion doesn’t happen every time a worker pours some concrete.

Stuff like this is why I say science is so undermined by so many science journalists.

This is what I mean

When I argue that language matters (and get called racist for doing so), this is what I mean:

…style matters.

The register and dialect you use matter. Your word choices matter. Whether you use semi-colons or instead write two separate sentences matters. But it is a stylistic choice, not a grammatical one, and it should be recognized (and criticized) as such.

I like to use semi-colons to link related sentences; other people do not, and argue that this makes it difficult to follow what I’m writing. That is a solid argument. We can have a lovely debate on whether semi-colons are more elegant and more readable than dividing the sentence into two little sentences. However, this debate can only take place if both sides agree that their opinion is more of a guideline than an actual rule.

As the author, Hortensio, goes on, one’s goals (and I would argue intentions) matter as well. Do I want to persuade? Do I want to offend? Do I want to do both? Do I want to comes across as pithy? Ironic? Academic? All of these things matter, and they all require a writer to pay attention to his audience. Writing with only one’s self in mind will likely result in poor writing. Or at least writing no one wishes to read.

Ironically, I have no good way to transition into my next point, so here it is: In the comment section of the above linked post is a discussion on the use of “they”, “s/he”, “one”, and the like. It is only briefly touched upon, but I think the gist is this: do we want to be socially conscious or do we want to be undistracting? That is, neutralizing gendered terms in order to not arbitrarily favor men has been a popular trend in writing for quite some time. However, one result of this trend has been to use the grammatically abhorrent “they” or the aesthetically grotesque “he or she”. This tends to distract because it deviates from the vast majority of writings; I see it and tend to think the writer is making a point to be socially aware, leading me to assume a lack of genuineness. The other option is to consistently use “she” or consistently use “he”. This is my personal preference. I want people to read over my pronouns as if there really exists a gender neutral term in English. I can appreciate the idea behind exposing the lack of awareness everyone has over these sort of issues, but I’m not going to sacrifice the quality of my writing for it.

Now all I need to do is make another 500 posts about language and maybe people will believe me that I really do care about writing.

Brinicle ice finger of death

Well. This is neat.

Occupy Augusta

I was at Occupy Augusta with Nate and other Michael today when the protesters held a general assembly meeting. It turns out the governor (who lives across the street) has said they must obtain a permit starting Monday. It will not include the right to have more than one tent and overnight camping will not be allowed.

More updates to come as things develop.

Lynn Margulis, 73, dead

Lynn Margulis was one of those scientists that biology needed. She forged the now universally accepted endosymbiotic theory only about 44 years ago, bringing it to the mainstream 30 years ago. I have heard her work compared to that of Watson & Crick insofar as it marked a significant turning point within the field. She really did have some great ideas and it’s a shame that she died so young.

Turkey Day

Nom nom nom

I accept your apology, GelatoGuy

Apparently some guy running an ice cream shop in Missouri put up a sign saying people attending a nearby “skeptics” conference were not welcome at his Christian business. Naturally, this caused a big stink. It is illegal and stupid to refuse the business of people because of what they do or do not believe in terms of religion. The owner, now known as “GelatoGuy”, didn’t take long to backtrack. He issued an apology, even taking the time to explain his actions:

Once the store slowed down, I decided to walk down the street to learn more about the convention, fully thinking it was something involving UFOs (“skeptics”). What I saw instead was a man conducting a mock sermon, reading the bible and cursing it. Instead of saying “Amen”, the phrase was “god damn”. Being a Christian, and expecting flying saucers, I was not only totally surprised but totally offended. I took it very personally and quickly decided in the heat of the moment that I had to take matters into my own hands and let people know how I felt at that moment in time.

So, I went quickly back to my business, grabbed the first piece of paper I could find, wrote the note and taped it in my front window. This was an impulsive response, which I fully acknowledge was completely wrong and unacceptable. The sign was posted for about 10 minutes or so before I calmed down, came to my senses, and took it down. For what it’s worth, nobody was turned away. I strongly believe that everybody is entitled to their beliefs. I’m not apologizing for my beliefs, but rather for my inexcusable actions. I was wrong.

This is probably one of the better apologies I’ve ever seen. Even if he’s just looking out for his business interests, it sounds entirely genuine. And, anyway, there is zero evidence that he isn’t 100% sincere. I see no reason to reject a bit of what he said.

But in addition to the above letter, GelatoGuy went ahead and reached out to some of his most well-known critics, including PZ. This was the response he got:

Apology not accepted. What I see in you is a person who hates me for not believing in the nonsense of your religion; while you may now be in a panic because your actions were unethical and illegal, and you were caught out, and face economic consequences for them, I don’t see any sign that your attitudes have changed in the slightest.

You’ll just have to live with the fact that I won’t be buying your ice cream on the rare occasions I visit your town, while I have to live with the fact that I live in a country where my rejection of your religion makes me a pariah. There’s absolutely nothing you can do to make up for that.

And here I thought PZ was all about understanding the perspectives of others.

This isn’t that hard. GelatoGuy got emotional about an issue close to his heart. As a result of that emotion he made a mistake that lasted for about 10 minutes. What he did wrong has been fully rectified; it isn’t like he defiantly left a sign up for days on end, refusing people based upon religious reasons. I suspect if the tables were turned, PZ wouldn’t be all that hesitant to forgive an atheist shop owner.

But I also want to address another issue that is part of all this: “skepticism”. First, if you’re American and you spell it with a “C”, you’re a pretentious douchebag. I prefer British grammar and some British spelling, but only where it makes sense. Quit being a douche, you douche. Second, and much more importantly, the word “skeptic” is almost devoid of meaning. I really hate the term and I understand why GelatoGuy first associated it with UFO’s. People of all stripes use it to suit their given purposes. Atheist? Nah, bro, I’m a skeptic. Humanist? No way, guy, I’m a skeptic. Global warming denialist? Think again, dude, I’m a skeptic! What people really mean is, “I have come to a conclusion about [issue] and I would like people to hear my point of view, so I have couched my opinion in anti-dogmatic terms.”

Let’s be honest. The “skeptics” conference, Skepticon, was an atheist convention. And that’s great. If one ever comes to my area, I will be likely to attend. And yes, of course most of the people there were open-minded. They have drawn many general conclusions, but they are a group which highly values science – that is, they value changing their beliefs based upon evidence. But that doesn’t make them “skeptics”. Fuck, I have no idea what makes someone a skeptic besides a self-declaration.

PZ raises a good point, though, even if he intends it in a way entirely different from what it really means:

But oh, no, a real skeptic conference is supposed to limit itself to UFOs, and chupacabras, and bigfoot, and ESP. As if we have a gigantic problem with a Republican government diverting vast resources into the search for cryptids and mind-reading, as if our educational system is overwhelmed with demand to teach the controversy about little green men, as if religion is somehow on a completely different plane from beliefs about alternative medicine or quantum vibrations.

This isn’t about “real” skeptic conferences. It simply comes down to connotations. The term is generally associated with the things PZ listed. Any other time it is used, it’s just empty rhetoric.

I fully agree that if someone thinks UFO’s, chupacabras, Bigfoot, ESP and other BS constitute fair game for a “skeptics” convention, then so does religion. It isn’t like there ought to be something special about how we treat religious beliefs versus any other beliefs. But that’s as far as PZ’s point should go. The rest is effectively an acknowledgement that the word “skeptic” is associated with certain things that have nothing to do with the conference – he ought to understand why GelatoGuy was surprised, not to mention why the word should be abandoned: it doesn’t mean a damn thing. Besides that, the whole point here is to be unafraid to be outspoken regarding the fact that we are atheists. Let’s use that fucking word, huh? It would be clear, direct, get more attention, and most of all, be honest.

‘Flagged for review’

The American Atheists have billboards posted again. Here is this year’s:

This is better than last year’s design, but it still isn’t that great. The devil guy on the right makes the whole thing ugly, plus he is featured very close to the word “atheists”, which is printed in a similar red font. All it does is serve to associate atheism with the magic evil that Christians and other religidiots think exist. If they changed the font color and inserted an alternative myth in the final panel, I would say this is an excellent ad.

What I think is hilarious about this whole thing, though, is the CNN article I used as my source. This is what I get when I go to the page:

Under review

The following contains content that has been flagged as inappropriate, and is currently under review. Do you want to continue?

It’s actually a straight forward report. It does only cite those who support the message, but I can’t say that’s all that upsetting. After all, when Christians have some message to put out there, I don’t see the media running out to talk to any atheist organizations.

Of course, we all know why this was flagged. A handful of Christians can’t deal with the fact that some other group would dare not show them the utmost respect – “respect” being code for “shut the hell up, atheists”. It’s sad and pathetic, if anything. But who knows. Given the actions of these people, I guess I could see Jesus being an Internet troll if he was still kickin’ today. At least then a lot of his followers would be consistent with who he is for a change.

Update: The article has apparently been reviewed. And gasp! it’s appropriate.

Thought of the day

Here’s what I don’t like about the abortion debate: One side says it is about controlling women whereas the other side insists it is about murder. There is plenty of truth from the first side, but that truth is concentrated amongst a minority of Christians and Muslims in the US. The second side, of course, is entirely wrong. But regardless of whether either side is right or wrong on these claims, I still don’t like anything about it. So what if the other guy has shitty motivations? That doesn’t make him wrong.

Yeah, that is bizarre

via xkcd