Very, Very Bad Shit Happens.

There seems little more to say than has already been said about the dreadful events that have happened in the Northeast of Japan. The pictures speak for themselves about the immense destruction the earthquake and tsunami have wrought in that region, they look like scenes from some immense Apocalypse. It is truly a horrific reminder that the world may be a fascinating and beautiful place, it does have the power to viciously bite back at it's inhabitants.

The tsunami has naturally been a massive talking point in both every day conversation and in the online world as well, and I have been struck (though not really surprised) by the amount of pseudoscience that gets brought up when events like this occur. I'm not even talking about understandable stuff such as will the nuclear power stations (or the nuclear fuel) explode? No, as the Uranium fuel rods in a power station aren't weapons grade. The "Supermoon" theory is also utterly idiotic. That the fact that the moon is (supposedly) at its closest orbital position to the Earth (it isn't till the 19th March. A little technicality.).means its gravitational power increases the frequency of earthquakes. This is nonsense. The differences in the distances of the moon have so little influence on gravity and tidal fluctuations on the Earth. It would be like standing 100 meters away from a bonfire, and saying "I'm too warm. I'll stand 100.3 meters away instead." The moon can barely lift the oceanic tides about 6 meters. It can't shift trillions of tonnes of the Earths crust. If the moon wanted to harm humans, it would have done so already.

No, the common sentiment of some of the responses to the disaster is that it is some form of penance for the evils the human race has inflicted on the globe. That it is part of some "cosmic plan.". That hey; it's just like "2012", even though it's 2011, and that 2012 was a made up film anyway. The fact that this is the second earthquake in a rich country after the New Zealand quakes (this apocalyptic spiel doesn't seem to get spouted as much when a poor country like Haiti gets hit by a natural disaster.). Both lie in the Pacific ring of fire, where the most unstable tectonic boundaries are, so yes you will get Earthquakes there. Partly human hubris and the desire to turn random events into a conscious narrative, are to blame. It must be God or "Nature" giving mankind a cosmic bollocking, not just that we live on shifting plates over a 8000 mile wide ball of molten (well some of it) rock, and something has got to give every so often, sadly with awful consequences for those who live on top of it. That we are reaping what we sow with our pollution and stuff. Overlooking that earthquakes don't generally make concessions for tree hugging hippies. That nothing humans did can stop what happened, and that we can't stop these things from happening, only to try to ride them out with specially designed buildings and seabreaks if we can. Or perhaps most frighteningly of all, we are at the merciless; unthinking whim of the lethal arbitrariness of the rough end of nature. Whose plan we can never know, as there isn't one. Perhaps thinking there is a plan makes some people make sense of senselessness.

"Sceptic of Sceptics" James Delingpole Defends Homeopathy. Uh?

James Delingpole likes to see himself as some maverick voice, alone in the old wilderness. The only one eyed king in a kingdom of the blind, who can see the whole man made climate change thingy for the elaborate fraud that it is. He claims that this is why he is "reviled" and not because of bad methodology. So it doesn't really help his cause when he writes articles defending homeopathy, and wheels out all the straw man arguments all homeopathic apologists are presumably honour bound to wheel out. You know the "scientists have been wrong before." "It's just like a new religion." and so on.

Tom Chivers has a new post debunking the argument Delingpole makes. He makes perhaps the best counter argument to the claim that people who dismiss homeopathy (or CC deniers) are just as bad as the inquisitors persecuting heretics:

"I’m sure some people do get overly aggressive about some of these things (alas, we don’t all have James’s saintly good manners when it comes to dealing with those with whom we disagree). But the point of scepticism – true scepticism – is that it is constantly evaluating. So, I promise you, if Ben Goldacre, or James Randi, or I (to put myself in some serious company), were to be presented with solid evidence that homeopathy worked, we would alter our position. I don’t even know what “evidence” you could present a Spanish inquisitor to convince them that Jewish children shouldn’t be forcibly converted, or what evidence you could give a witchfinder to show that witches don’t actually exist. The comparison is a nonsense one.

I'll have to remember that one!

James Delingpole Makes a Grade A Tit of Himself on Horizon Pt II

As we know in part one, Climate "sceptic" James Delingpole was made to look rather silly on the Horizon documentary about "Science under attack" by the royal society president Paul Nurse. Delingpole has been quite slow to respond on his blog about the affair. It really went belly up a bit for him and I think he has been stumped a bit by how badly it backfired for him* and has put up a few articles criticising Ben Goldacre for calling him a "penis" and attacking him for being an "intellectual coward" by supporting the consensus on AGW. Which I think is out of line against a man who could have been taken to the cleaners by the notoriously litigious poo lady and by exposing the murky underworld of the big medical companies and the AIDS denial in South Africa in the "Bad Science" book. He then attacks the mathematician Simon Singh** for being a bit of a bully for tweeting about our lone crusader:


Sorry, but @JamesDelingpole deserves mockery ‘cos he has the arrogance to think he knows more of science than a Nobel Laureate


Oh bloody boohoo. Delingpole, who ironically is not averse to resorting to a bit of playground abuse (libtards) is trying to set himself up as the victim of some kind of Twitter smear campaign of abuse for his noble stance on climate change. Now let me make it clear, I don't approve if he has received threatening messages, but bloody hell he can't half give it but is incapable of taking it. He has essentially used his blog to promote the idea that climate scientists are colluding in a scam to extort trillions of dollars from a gullible Joe Public. That he somehow has somehow he has seen through the tissue of lies that some of the most qualified climatologists in the world have failed to notice. These are big claims, so you might expect to get a bit of flack for stating it. Sorry James that's how the cookie crumbles mate. As I said he has taken a metaphorical cricket bat around the chops, and as everyone knows when the debate goes tits up resort to straw man arguments. Let's take a look at some of Jameses.


"Yet in the opinion of Singh, the worldwide Climate Change industry is the one area where the robust scepticism and empiricism he professes to believe in just doesn’t apply. Apparently, the job of a journalist is just to accept the word of “the scientists” and take it as read that being as they are “scientists” their word is God and it brooks no questioning or dissent"


This shows James has little understanding of how either to critically appraise scientific research properly and what scepticism is. Possibly it is the result of those with a journalistic background being attracted to holding contrarian views from what they perceive as an aloof "elite" Delingpole appears to believe "scientists" are some monolithic cult who dictatorially decide from on high what is scientifically orthodox and what isn't. The vigorously researched evidence for AGW was simply not obtained in that manner. It is not unreasonable for a qualified scientist to take at face value the "views" of an unqualified layman who doesn't appear to know what science is.


"There’s a “consensus” on global warming. It’s immutable and correct. And anyone who disputes it is a vexatious denier informed by nothing but ignorance and who deserves nothing other than to be hounded and bullied and abused by the Guardian, the Independent, the BBC, Simon Singh’s Twitter mob, Ben Goldacre’s Twitter mob, and the shrill nest of paid-for trolls who infest the comments below this blog not to present a reasoned case but merely to disrupt and offend."


There is a consensus amongst scientists, a very rigorous one supported by shitloads of evidence to back it up. I shall repeat this again loud and clear.


SCIENTIFIC CONCENSUS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CONVENTIONAL WISDOM OR DOGMATIC ORTHODOXY. NOT AT ALL!!!


Thanks for listening!


Well you can split hairs over what you think the motives of the AGW sceptics may be, but I take the philosophy of Johann Hari. All people deserve respect, all ideas don't. Oh and don't accuse your opponents of trying to rubbish the cause; and then do just that in the same paragraph.


"Well I’m sick of it."


Blog about something else then.


"What sickens me is the hypocrisy of people who claim to be in favour of speech, claim to believe in empiricism, claim to be sceptics yet refuse to accept room for an honest, open debate on one of the most important political issues of our time."


Nurse had a debate with you my friend. Horizon asked you on to do that and you fucked it up. Want some credibility, stop relying on shitty research.


**"My case is not that I “James Delingpole have taken a long hard look at the science of global warming and discovered through careful sifting of countless peer-reviewed papers that the experts have got it all wrong.”


If you are going to accuse the folks who wrote these papers of some sort of cover up, I suggest you start swatting up a bit. Bloody hell if you want to stick your neck out, do the homework.


"What I am saying, and I say almost every day, is that the evidence is not as robust as the “consensus” scientists claim; that there are many distinguished scientists all round the world who dispute this alleged “consensus”;"


How would you know? You haven't read the bloody evidence. You just bloody admitted it!


"that true science doesn’t advance through “consensus” and never has;"


Well quite possibly. But it's a bloody good sign of an accurate theory. Newtons third law works just as well today as it did in old Isaacs time.


"that there are many vested interests out there determined and able to spend a great deal of money by making out that the case for catastrophic, man-made global warming is much stronger than it is."


Yeah because high petrol prices and and end to cheap flights have always been real vote winners. Anyway if a scientist did discover that AGW wasn't occurring it would be the find of the century. You'd be lauded, showered with cash and grants from the oil companies. There sending the Nobel Prize your way as well. Real life isn't like a Michael Chrichton novel.


"and because they are not issues which require an exclusively scientific knowledge to understand. They just require the basic journalistic skill of being able to read and analyse."


But a sciencey background sort of helps. Anyone can read a scientific paper, but an unqualified journalist can make mistakes with scientific papers. Melanie Philips for instance didn't realise that Cochrane papers were specifically designed to criticise scientific papers, so she jumped to the wrong conclusions over what was said about the quality of Andrew Wakefields detractors findings. That is why I am all for opening science up to the greater public and journalists who have to report scientific stuff to their readers, but often fail to do so very well.


"Yet despite apparently knowing nothing more about me and what I do than he has learned from a heavily politicised BBC documentary, and maybe heard from his mob of Twitter bully chums or read in the Guardian, Singh feels able to decide that Paul Nurse is right on this issue and I’m wrong. Well I don’t call that an evidence-based argument. I call that dishonest, thoughtless and – given the high ethical standards Singh claims to represent – outrageously hypocritical."


Yes, as just because you haven't actually read the peer reviewed papers on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean you can't loftily proclaim that it's all one huge con by the people who wrote them, and have people give you a round of applause for it.


"“If my cause is really so powerful and right and true, how come its response to any kind of criticism is not to engage with it through argument but merely to try to silence it with censorship, appeals to authority, crude character assassination and establishment cover ups?”


This reasoning is how; inevitably- these kinds of things can self sustain themselves. If they do take you on, they are the scary "establishment" trying to bully the heretics. If they don't take you on, they are trying to hush you up and censor you. The MMR causes autism and Intellegent Design proponents trot this very same argument out, and because it is so superficially plausible on one level, that is why pseudoscience can be so persist ant on the flimsiest of evidence to actually support it. So it is with trepidation that I quote Delingpoles closing words on the whole affair*


"This has been a bruising week for me. But in the long term, I have a strong suspicion, it is going to do far, far more damage to the BBC, to Sir Paul Nurse (and, by extension, to the integrity of the Royal Society) than ever it has done to me."


Pseudoscience, the gift that keeps on giving.

The "Teach Both Sides" Paradox on Climate Change, Darwinism Et Al, In a Nutshell

Professor Brian Cox off D-Ream highlighted the dual paradox that faces hot scientific potatoes such as climate change or evolution, where the mainstream scientific consensus of experts points extremely heavily in favour of both, but popular layman consensus can be divided and highly contentious, often flying in the face of the experts view. The problem is twofold, firstly in the interests of "balance", media orientated directors or journalists / editors will "promote" the other side either they think that showing both sides of the story is the fair and just thing to do, or plainly out of a spirit of contrarian irreverence to piss off the "establishment". This route is not a solid way to take into account that one of the sides could plainly have got the facts wrong. The second is more controversial. If say climate change proponents point out that the "deniers" don't have a leg to stand on, and have dodgy evidence, and thus have no scientific or factual basis to claim equivalence and equal air time, well they end up looking like they do have something to hide, at least to those laypersons looking at the issues. What are they so afraid about in debating the issues? Unfortunately not seeing the vigorous academic scrutiny and peer review that became the scientific consensus that gets put out. That is why we end up with public scepticism being much higher than those of qualified climate scientists. (75 percent in the UK think AGW is happening. 97% of scientists think the same, and every scientific body of international and national stature.)


This paradox is summed up superbly (but unintentionally) in a blog article by Alex Singleton, a journo from the Telegraph, not a paper to deny airspace to a AGW denier - about an e-mail circulated at Fox News about putting out "both" sides of the AGW debate

"From: Sammon, Bill Sent: Tue Dec 08 12:49:51 2009Subject:

Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data……we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies."

Ostensibly this e-mail sounds pretty reasonable, and I can see why Alex Singleton may think that this is a good approach to take in regards to climate change. However, and this was Proffessor Cox's point. Although Bills attitude towards the role of journalism may be admirable and well intentioned in regards to something like the scientific consensus of climate change, it doesn't really fit the approach to take on scientific issues that have been researched. I have no problem with them saying that some do criticise and disagree with the consensus on AGW, but they are not saying how much criticism there is, and how is a very small minority, mostly composed of laypeople and has no real standing at all in the harsh world of scientific peer review and evidence based research. That is the point Cox said, this outlook to scientific reporting may seem fair, but it is giving pseudoscience airtime that is totally unwarranted from a research sense.

Singleton then brings up a point that highlights an important gap in the often humanities based background of journalists, and the research work of science:

"wonder if the journalists writing attacks on Fox realise that these sort of advisory emails are frequently sent around the staff of Left-wing establishments, declaring that “ethnic minorities” must henceforth be called “minority ethnics” and that no one may be labeled a “gypsy”. Anyway, do take a look at the email, and you will see the absurdity of the criticism:"

There is an important distinction between this example and the climate change e-mail. The former is about appealing to sensibilities and not hurting peoples feelings. It is a subjective thing, you can't really quantify it or measure it. It is essentially a matter of opinion. The latter is about a subject that is researchable and researched, a tangible scientific phenomena, and is subject to evidence based research, almost all confirming AGW is real. I think some journalists like Singleton are so used to the opinion piece and the polemic, they seem to think that science works like their world. That they all meet up in the "Science Establishment" once a year and create a "bible of science" in their little society. He backs my suspicion up with:

"It sounds to me as if Fox News is making a conscious effort, if I may use their catchphrase, to be fair and balanced. What a pity that the Left, like fanatical fundamentalists, regard global warming as such a sacred doctrine that they cannot permit anyone anywhere to criticise it."

See he sees it as "doctrine" and "left wing". That AGW research consists of nothing much more than a bunch of Guardian readers in the North Pole or whatever. And thus why popular reporting of science is in such a dismal state. I don't want to shut AGW deniers up, or send them to prison. But I don't think they should get away without the public being told that there is almost nothing to their claims. That not all counter claims are as valid when you research them. In practice we all do this anyway, when David Icke said he was the son of God he got laughed at. Why? Because even without the benefit of objecive analysis (though you are welcome to try) we knew that the ratio of he is Jesus, to he's nuts was 0.00001 : 99.9999. Likewise for all Singleton may talk about fairness, does the Torygraph give ample credence to the claims 9/11 was an inside job. Ditto, it's barmy.

No-one is saying AGW deniers should be silenced, but they should be judged by the veracity and accuracy of their claims, which don't stand up too well. That isn't an attack on free speech.

Martin Durkin VS Brian Cox (That Science Bloke From D-Rream)

Martin Durkin isn't a happy bunny. The physicist professor Brian Cox from D -Ream did a lecture on the BBC about the role of television programmes in promoting science, and in relation to this - how television documentaries presented by both scientists and documentary makers handle contentious scientific issues. I won't summarise too much on what he says as the entire 40 minute lecture can be found on this link. (The specific bit containing the furore I mention and Durkins documentary are in the second part, but I recommend watching all of it, it is a very concise and thoughtful look at how TV and science should be handled.) Cox explains the tendency of TV and journalism to provide "balance" on contentious scientific issues, which can lead to the elevation of junk science as somehow equivalent to the rigorously scrutinised scientific consensus in the eyes of the lay public. How a polemical "maverick" can pass flat earth science as somehow fact based in evidence based research, when it is largely opinion from unsolicited sources. Cox is obviously troubled by how increased "vetting" of sources and the veracity of the material may be seen as some kind of censorship which could harm the reputation of science. It is certainly not the case that Cox is advocating himself as some latter day inquisitor ready to silence a latter day Galileo for pissing around with his heavy balls off a steeple tower as James Delingpole and Martin Durkin may have you believe, as they blow hard on their toy trumpets.

Durkin is upset because Cox showed an excerpt of his documentary as the kind of "bollocks" that he was on about. That it may be seen as a factual piece and not as a hypothetical piece of "polemical cack" that may be a more accurate moniker. (To be fair Cox doesn't directly say it is the latter) Durkin then responded with a rebuttal he christened "Big Daft Cox" which really sums up the childish and petulant name calling Durkin seems so fond of (1).

Durkin, like Dellingpole is not averse to resorting to passive aggressive abuse of someone who has the temerity of questioning the validity of the climate change deniers science, he even gets a Godwins in early as well. (which the deniers never hesitate to point out is one of the cardinal sins of the "warmists", on every fucking occasion.) Guys if you are going to put your heads above the parapet expect some "critical" feedback. No-one should be afraid of critical analysis if they are as certain as they say they are. The response uses the typical tricks of the pseudo science trade.

"This year’s BBC Huw Wheldon lecture was delivered by pop star and celebrity-physicist Brian Cox, who was telling us how science should be reported on television.

Brian looks like a rebel. One of the kids. He has long hair and wears a T-shirt under his jacket. But appearances can deceive. I’ve met countless grungy greens who are every bit as censorious and freedom-hating as the most well-ironed Nazi."

The taking stuff out of context swiftly follows.

And, as it turns out, Brian is about as rebellious as Captain Mainwaring. He says it’s the job of documentary makers to relay to the public science which has been approved by the scientific establishment.

He didn't say that. He said scientists doing these documentaries should point out that the currant body of scientific evidence backs up their claims, and that laymen polemics, or the people responsible for these documentaries should be honest in saying "look this is just my opinion", or "there is no peer reviewed evidence to support these claims." He does not say that polemic pieces don't have a place, and for that matter neither do I.

"The logic of his descent into censorship went like this (it so often does): Science is really important – just look at the need to combat global warming. Government funding is therefore vital. And television ‘has a big responsibility to get the science right’."

Combating a potentially serious threat to the climatic welfare of the human homeworld is sort of a big deal. I know that Delingpole and Durkin think they are being all rebellious and clever by defying the "madness of the crowd", but based on what? Climate change scepticism is growing, leaders seem more inclined to go with that sentiment as well. They better be right about their "campaign for truth" or their may be serious consequences for society.

"He admits that his argument ‘does sound rather authoritarian’ and asks himself blithely towards the end, ‘Have I been led to an Orwellian conclusion? … I don’t know.’"

Well no. He never says stuff like "Swindle" should be banned. Just that the viewing public have a right to know that documentaries like Durkin's was counter to the rigorously scrutinised scientific consensus (which I must emphasise is NOT the same thing as conventional wisdom) that currently exists on the subject. That his views were his own and not based on peer reviewed scientific sources. I don't see this as any less dictatorial as product manufacturing guidelines being made to publish accurate data about their product, and what in reality it is or isn't.

Durkin really starts firing on all cylinders now.

"His special worry is global warming. The problem appears to be this. Lots of people don’t believe it. Despite the fact that there is almost total acceptance of this ridiculous theory in the media, many ordinary people just don’t buy it."

Firstly it wasn't exclusively about climate change. Secondly, yes there are lots of people who don't believe it. Many ordinary people (who don't have advanced degrees in climatology I might add.) don't buy it . But nearly every scientist in the field does!! People are of course free to believe what they want. However I think people deserve the right to have the objective evidence for and against presented to them, with transparency in the veracity of varying claims on a contentious topic. I do think we have an odd situation going on here when there is such a discrepancy in the views of the lay public and the scientific observations.

"So if some scoundrel (like me) pops up and says the science behind this garbage is bunkum, the scientific establishment – Cox & Co – become furious."

Rule number three of a climate change denier. Play the "voice in the wilderness" taking on the "establishment" card. Cox wasn't ranting like a loony anyway. If you are going to espouse a view that flies in the face of decades of painstaking research, and call it bullshit, expect a "robust" response!

"And I know to my cost what it’s like when they turn on you."

Yeah they pay you lots of cash to look at big skyscrapers in Hong Kong on a boat, and look wistfully at the Angel of the North. (2)

Durkin now turns his fire on the peer review process that is designed to ensure that a paper is rigorously scrutinised before being published in a respectable scientific journal.

"Peer review happens when an article is submitted for publication to a science journal. The editor doesn’t know whether the author is talking out of his hat or not, so he sends it out to other scientists working in the same field to (anonymously) pick holes in it. If the others say it’s fine he’ll print it. If not, he doesn’t.

"Peer review is at best imperfect. At worst it’s a rather nasty form of censorship within the scientific community. Good papers are frequently rejected. Rubbish is often printed."

Oh Martin! Where to start. The editor may know about the topic for a start, at the very least they may have a background knowledge of science (does tend to help if you edit a scientific journal). Secondly anonymity helps guarantee a fairer environment for scientists to lay into a paper, and not to cause fall out by either knowing the author or each other. Thirdly the editors don't just either bin or print. They can say that the author must perhaps cite one source as conjecture, or remove a dubious source prior to publication. Or rewrite the article to a higher standard and print it at a later date.

Peer review is obviously imperfect, all systems designed by man are. But I challenge Durkin to come up with a better alternative.

The fourth canard of the climate change denier is the "It's all a conspiracy to set up a new socialist world order" argument. Hence he starts to claim:

"Their reputations have been built on certain theories (like global warming). Their grant funding depends on the wide acceptance of these theories."

"Cox and his chums in the scientific establishment love to portray themselves as simple well-meaning scientific folk. But as anyone who has experienced the wrath of the scientific establishment will attest, it’s a significant political force, bullying politicians and beating up critics."

"But science is incredibly political. Whole careers are built on, and the funding of entire institutions depend on certain ‘scientific truths’, or as they should be called, ‘funding excuses’."

"Global warming isn’t just the best funding wheeze they’ve hit upon since the Cold War."

This claim that it is all some big con dreamt up by the "establishment" (3) to tax the schmucks like us never makes much sense to me. For a start it hasn't worked. If as they say; it was all a big conspiracy - did no legally binding treaty get formed at Copenhagen by the socialist brotherhood or whoever? Shouldn't they run with it? Secondly the modern scientific method doesn't work that way, and is much more adept at spotting woo than in the past. Popular climate change studies have been around for a few decades, if the ACC theory had been as riddled with holes as the skeptics claim, it wouldn't have survived long enough to become as "orthodox" as it is. A sort of survival of the fittest of ideas occurs. Intense scrutiny would have rendered it to the wastebin of bad ideas about 25 years ago. Finally as a tool to "scare" the public into punitive taxation it is a lousy scaremongering one. Politicians have used flat earth tales to bullshit the masses, but they have two major things that allow them to be used to this effect that AGW doesn't. Number one they appeal to popular prejudice and misconceptions, and number two; they are abstract and objectively hard to prove. Methods to combat AGW far from appealing to popular sentiment are often inconvenient and unpopular such as increasing the cost of flying and petrol. And AGW can be studied and researched, it is tangible, not some abstract subjective threat.

The debate about man made climate change may seem to be a scientific spat, it is not. It is politically motivated. If you listen to a denier for long enough, the real reason they oppose the ACC theory eventually comes out:

"What’s more, the political views of scientists are inevitably, profoundly coloured by their almost complete reliance on big state funding. Predictably, most of them have the trite anti-capitalist worldview that almost always go with it."

" It’s also a repository for all the green, middle class anti-capitalist prejudices which are part and parcel of the Western intellectual worldview."

Is it unsurprising that both Durkin and Dlingpole class themselves as neo-liberal libertarians? The anti-ACC movement is highly ideologically motivated, so don't think ill of me when I consider them a tad hypocritical to sneer at the majority of scientists who do support the ACC theory as valid, as only motivated by politics and special interest. Perhaps some do actually value objective research even if it doesn't fit in with their world view.

(1). Durkin reputedly fell out with a geneticist who criticised the material in "Swindle" and called him "A big daft cock" So the title of the riposte is quite ironic.

(2). See this post on the "Trillion Pound Horror Story."

(3). "Establishment" is a conspiracy theorist buzzword. You don't have to split hairs about who is part of the nebulous "establishment", it sounds all X-Files, and it protects you from being sued for libel if you name names.

Comments on SFDebris "Prime Directive / Dear Doctor" Videos

PRIME DIRECTIVE REVIEW

DEAR DOCTOR REVIEW

SFDebris; or Chuck Sonnonberg is the Ebert and Siskel of Youtube Star Trek reviews. His insights to the series and his witty critiques of the various shows are really second to none. That odd looking lad blubbing about Britney Spears this ain't. Watch his videos now, get your friends to watch them, get your family to watch them as well, even your pets. Even if you haven't seen Star Trek watch them! They may not mean much in that context but hey. Now back to the crux of this post. SFDebris nails on the head exactly how a well intentioned and well known key philosophy of Star Trek lore went from a sound philosophical reaction to the mistakes made in our world to a hideous parody of its original self that ended up on occasions matching and suppressing the evil it was supposed to combat. That is the Prime Directive, Star Treks Federations non-interference directive. I want to see how this code that was supposed to portray an enlightened attempt to alleviate suffering actually resulted in suffering from inaction on several occasions by analysing SFDebris videos and commentary with some of my own thrown in. Intrigued? - well read on.

Anyone familiar with Chucks work will know that the Enterprise episode "Dear Doctor" is one of his most well known written reviews, and was one of the most requested Youtube reviews. Everyone has their "Yikes" moment with a Prime Directive story (well especially in the later ones) when the directive was taken to such extremes you just had to question the face value assumptions of the infallible "rightness" of the PD. I crossed the Rubicon with the TNG episode "Homeward" where some made up science caused a planet to lose it's atmosphere thus killing the pre -industrial population, (don't worry some get rescued) which under the PD would have to happen lest their culture be contaminated. Now you might have thought that these guys may have had bigger fish to fry, than someone dicking about with their culture, when - oh- THEIR FUCKING PLANETS ATMOSPHERE HAS VANISHED INTO THIN AI...., I MEAN; SPACE!" That's a level of philosophical devotion I find hard to relate to (to put it mildly). However in SFDebris case he highlights the ENT episode "Dear Doctor" as a prime example of all that went wrong with the application of the PD.

In summary "Dear Doctor" is about a bunch of pre -warp aliens called the Valakians who are dying of a genetic disease. The Enterprise crew discover a second sentient species on the planet called the Menk, they are less intelligent and are not afflicted. The ships doctor, Phlox discovers firstly that the genetic disease will render the Valakians extinct in 200 years, and in addition the Menk are on the verge of an evolutionary leap in intellectual growth.* Saving the Valakians (who are on an evolutionary path to extinction) may disrupt this leap. In the end Captain Archer and Phlox withhold the cure so nature can take its cause. Chuck objects to this episode on two fronts, the first being that for all Phlox and Archer protest about not playing god, they are doing just that! Withholding a vaccine to a people who are destined to die in some evolutionary grand plan anyway, and secondly that the episode treats evolution as something with a grand conscious plan for us all, and not just a blind process by which natural environmental processes alter gene frequencies. Let us be clear about this, Phlox has all but signed the Valakians death warrant on the basis of raw speculation about how things may turn out, and by applying pseudoscientific theories of evolutionary predestination into the bargain also! Sorry Valakians you are the weakest link. Goodbyeeee!

Like SFDebris I agree that the P D is in principle a good idea. As he said it probably arose from a mix of revulsion to the extremes of the Truman doctrine, when even the most vile of tinpot barbarians could get a load of cash and weapons if they got themselves called "anti - communist" , and how the conquest of the American continent was carried out. There are many instances where something like the PD would be both moral and enlightened a thing for explorers to heed. A non interference directive. Not unnecessarily dicking about with less advanced cultures, interfering in wars that don't concern them, not giving less advanced peoples technology they can't handle. These are sensible rules that both benefit explorer and explored. The problem with the application of the PD, which snowballed towards the VOY/ENT end of the franchise, was that it mutated from an enlightened philosophy grounded in pragmatism to theological dogma, and from that evil flows.

The latter examples of the PD gone awry are a textbook example of sensible rules being corrupted by rigidity and dogma. Like Chuck says, the PD must be enforced no matter what, no mitigating circumstances. The PD is good and just, because it is the PD, general order one! No involvement that [they] might cause harm, in any circumstances at all! This kind of mentality is why religious dogmas can be so harmful, when you apply absolutist rules to an arbitrary world. To quote SFDebris:

"this kind of thinking assumes that the Prime Directive was a divine being or something, that it has a plan, and who are mere mortals like Janeway and Paris to question it? It is, in fact, merely a rule created by human beings. Not to say that it isn't an important rule, since there is much justification for it (such as preventing exploitation of undeveloped systems). But that doesn't make it an absolute, that there's never a reason to ignore it."

We see this mentality in some religious dogmas today. I'll highlight one of them as an example. The refusal by Jehovah's Witnesses to give blood. In antiquity this aversion to "misuse" of blood was likely based on a misunderstanding of what blood was on the part of people who had no knowledge of advanced biology. Think of all the purity and hereditory metaphors associated with blood. They must have seen blood as some magic life giving fluid that when spilt from the body (a lot of violent death back then) is responsible for supping the god given life energy and death.This is wholly inaccurate but we can give them the benefit of the doubt. It was seen as wise back then not to handle blood willy nilly. However society has changed since then and this view of bloods properties is pretty inaccurate, however still JW's ignore this and insist on denying the effectiveness of blood transfusions, and worse still may allow someone to actually die than have a transfusion. This is when a law written by man is taken to such ludicrous extremes that an absolutist law is upheld even to the extent that it is based on an obsolete understanding that bares no resemblance to reality -just because it is a law, that is always virtuous, because by virtue it always is!

The second failing of the PD is summed up as:

"The biggest excuse, and the one Janeway trots out here, is that you don't know what the consequences would be. You could make things worse. Granted, going in and stopping a war could be a really sticky problem, but using this as a justification for allowing millions or billions to be incinerated alive? With that kind of logic, you should never get involved in anything. If a person is trapped under a piece of fallen masonry in an alley and calls for help, ignore them. After all, if you save them they could go on to marry and have children, and one of those children could wind up growing up and joining a group of whack-jobs and helps them plant a nuclear warhead in a major city, killing tens of millions of people. Or maybe they'll just live a long and happy life. You don't know, but under the reasoning of the Prime Directive disciples, it's better not to take that chance"

To take another real life analogy. If the Haiti earthquake had happened in the Star Trek universe and if we took the PD to the standards applied above, then there would have been no relief effort at all on the part of Starfleet. I mean what happens if this was a turning point in history? What if the poor people of Haiti, standing in the smoke and rubble of their homeland, are spurned on by adversity and the fact that an earthquake devastated them - to transform their island into a industrial powerhouse, then a global empire, then a natural disaster stopping galactic federation rapid response squad? Lest anyone anywhere ever suffers from geological disasters. Thus by helping them their destiny is screwed. In reality of course we know no-one seriously would take that point of view. How do you know any of that will happen? That is sheer speculation. Like Chuck says we would be paralysed be fear to do anything at all if we took the attitude above. We are humans who can only see the here and now, we don't have the prescience to take the stance above, and to think otherwise would be the height of hubris as Riker says. We have to be motivated by compassion and pragmatism and in reaction to current events, what else can we go by?

Chucks videos show how the PD became more zealously applied as the franchise progressed. As we see; both Kirk and Spock agree that telling the Yonadas they live on a fake looking asteroid is a lesser evil than letting them all be wiped out. Spock says it is logical to do so. It was certainly the moral thing to do. The Yonadas are a sentient people with hopes and dreams, and are irreplaceable if they are rendered extinct, being told they live on an asteroid may be upsetting, but it's better than being dead. Likewise when the original crew warned the (ostensibly) primitive Organians about the dangers of Klingon occupation, and how the Feds would help them to develop their society by providing schools and improved farming techniques, in exchange for joining an anti-Klingon alliance. It could be argued that this was chauvinistic and patronising, but it was [from their point and ours] preferable to slavery and brutal occupation under Klingon rule. Society is ephemeral and situations can change and this reflected that. Things are already going downhill when Picard and his crew have that hideous straw man argument about saving the doomed society, Riker's "height of hubris" comment is comically circular reasoning. Then we get Janeway and Archer taking the PD to its fundamentalist, absolutist conclusion. The logical end point of a law being so rigidly applied, it actually causes more harm than what it was set up to prevent. Man cannot (IMHO) proclaim to have an insight on this destiny / nature / the greater scheme of things / the cosmic plan - circle the appropriate one, indeed I'm personally doubtful there is any great plan at all (but that's just me and another topic entirely). In fact I do wonder did someone like Stalin think that "greater destiny" called for the Kulaks to disappear when he was lying awake in bed at night?

It's actually kind of ironic that such a rigorous interpretation of the Prime Directive actually goes against the spirit of exploration in Trek. If your going to seek out new civilisations on a manned ship you are going to have to interact with them at some point. I would have thought Starfleet would have taken a similar view to this as the puritanical Lady Whiteadder in Blackadder II did to parties. "Where there are people, there are people to fornicate with!" What about colonising or exploring planets? A disrupted bit of bacteria could be a civilisation in the making that has been snuffed out. If your going to take this kind of rigorous attitude, I'd really stay at home and hide!

We never learned what happened to the Valakians. I don't know if Chuck is right and they became the Breen, and the Menk the Pakleds. But I do remember Tacitus (well obviously not personally remember!) commenting on so called "civilised" people not putting their money where their mouth was, when he proclaimed that the Romans made a desert and called it peace. I wonder if a philosopher from those last remaining Valakians thought similar of Starfleet. "They let us go extinct and called it high mindedness"

Gillian McKeith Exposed By Twitter

Anyone familiar with Ben Goldacres "Bad Science" will know about his concerns about "Dr" Gillian McKeith (since 2007 she cannot use the "Dr", in advertisements for her stuff, after she "volunteered to take it off after complaints to the regulators about the validity of her doctorate.) His research into the correspondence course in the US where she got her PhD, and Goldacre got his dead cat made a professional member for 60 pounds. (non accredited college) which can't be read in the public domain like ones from credited colleges. To her propensity to threaten legal action against pretty much anyone who questions her methods and qualifications. That is not even taking into account the iffy science she uses (she was once challenged by a scientist, who has a doctorate from a college which DOESN'T make small mammals professional members - about her research methods, and would she be willing to reproduce them under scientific conditions with him. She threatened to sue him.) in her nutrition advice, some of it even dangerous; -such as putting very obese people on crash diets. (In depth analysis of her "methods" on her wikipedia article here.) And the fact that her show largely seems to consist of her prodding fat peoples turds in a lab with tweezers (why she is known as the poo lady.) and bollocking the overweight to tears by telling them, unless they submit to her regimen, they will absolutely die in two months by bursting, because that's her scientific opinion.)

Yes it seems there is a school of thought that the poo lady is nothing more than a showbiz quack, bullying the fat for entertainment. A women who claims to be a "scientist" but is totally wrong to do so. Who just uses some commonsense nutrition guides, with a huge dollop of bullshit to promote herself as an expert. And who hides behind the threat of litigation, if you point this out.

However she seems to have come unstuck on twitter as this transcript of a run in with Goldacre on that networking site shows. I won't quote any here, but just post the link. It is much better to see it all on glorious display. It is a rare display of the poo lady exposed, without that shield of lawyers. Her ridiculous straw man about her American based pretend degree, being just anti Americanism, in response to a critic. She then calls Goldacre a liar and "in the pay of big pharma" (who else of course!). These are genuinely serious claims, and Goldacre takes her up on asking her to provide evidence of this. But how can the poo lady be not seen as anything full of shit, when she pretends that she isn't really the real McKeith by starting to write in the third person, and deleting stuff (badly) that could prove that she set up the original account. This has just so spectacularly backfired on her. Worse than that X factor performance.

Hopefully it will become a bit of a twitter legend and dent the profile of a woman who has made a lot of cash riding on the coat tails of a discipline she doesn't understand, but pretended she was at the forefront of. Even if it doesn't, (there seems an unending market for this kind of bunk, in the face of a lot more sturdy evidence.) it made my day.

In Wakefields Defense Pt 1. Mel Phillips.

I was - for once; pleasantly surprised. Former doctor Andrew Wakefield being struck of by the GMC has attracted rather little media hoo haa. I at least expected a Jeremy Vine segment on the issue, it's the sort of thing he gets foisted on him - on his radio 2 talk show, with a defender there to stick up for him, but no. Not even Wakefields pal Peter Hitches had anything to say on his blog about it. Have they decided to leave him to it (and ignore their own role in the whole fiasco). Well no, Melenie Phillips has stuck by him with this small, vague on the ins and outs of the affair - blog entry. It's worth repeating in full. :

A TRAGEDY AND A TRAVESTY.

"Following the risible kangaroo court set up by the General Medical Council Andrew Wakefield, the doctor at the heart of the MMR controversy, has now been struck off the medical register while his colleagues have yet to learn their own fate. This is a tragedy and a travesty. I believe a monstrous injustice has been done here, which has crucified the one doctor who tried to alleviate and prevent the suffering of a particular group of children and which has also betrayed their parents. The full story of how this sinister travesty was accomplished and the full range of people who were complicit in it -- along with what it means for both medicine and public safety -- has yet to be revealed. Over time, I hope this will eventually be achieved."

It has to be vague on the details, because claiming Wakefield was acting on "patient welfare" is like saying Richard Nixon was "safeguarding the democratic process" when Watergate broke out. I mean come on! Safeguarding children by giving them bowel exams they didn't need? [GMC outcome] Betraying Parents, because they wouldn't tell them what they wanted to hear, despite all evidence saying that it was not so? The last sentence about the "sinister travesty" is ironically circular in regards to her point. I (for once) agree with her that the people who were complicit in the whole affair, and the ones who put children at risk because it suited their story in effect got away with it. But where she points at the GMC, I point back at her and all the others who spawned this nonsense without a shred of evidence to back the scare up, and got away with it. So yeah let these people be revealed in the role they had in the whole debacle.

TV Review. Derren Brown Investigates. The Man Who Contacts the Dead. (C4)

CLICK HERE TO WATCH DOCUMENTARY.

Derren Brown Investigates, does what it says on the tin. The mind boggling (how the hell he does what he does, I don't know. I suppose that's the point) conjurer follows a bald headed Liverpudlian psychic called Joe, in order to ascertain the validity of his claims about being able to contact the spirit world (and apparently John Lennon himself). Joe, self evidently regrets agreeing to the documentary, being chippy and evasive throughout, not being able to feign his contempt for the whole thing. We see Joe in action at a one to one reading or whatever they call it with a women. Surprisingly he gets some details right about the women's relatives who have "passed on." (more on this later.) Brown probes him on how he does it, and Joe claims its to do with energy transfers and and magnetic fields and what not. I imagine several physicists exploded in their front rooms at this point. Brown says it would be an astounding achievement if he really could contact the dead, and the concept is potentially staggering. How plausible that he can contact the dead is another matter completely.

They both try out (though Derren is reluctant to do so. He is emphatic, he has no psychic ability. He's a conjurer.) their ability on some Hollyoaks stars. On one girl; they deduce where she went on holiday, and what car she owns. Joe is irked that Derren can beat him at his own game, and is quite rudely dismissive of him (he is rather grating), claiming his readings have more factual basis. In a twist on this reading, Derrens driver claims that Joe might know she drives a Mini, as he was stood outside the car park when she pulled in! (Joe angrily denies this.)

Derren then sees Joe perform at a "Psychic Night" gig at a hotel, alongside a researcher into the practices of psychics. He explains "cold reading", whereby a person can use visual and vocal clues to fish for information about a stranger, ostensibly knowing more about them than they actually know. He analyses the use of abstracts;- random names to garner a reaction from the audience to establish a "grip." We see how the audience (who are almost all women, and credulous to his "abilities".) fill in the gaps for him, interpreting random numbers and names as related to their "spirit". How he dismisses stuff he gets wrong, and can shoehorn unrelated "hits" to form a narrative. So - called Barnum statements, general descriptives that can apply to anyone (something for everyone.). In fact one of the things I liked about this documentary was that you could see these in the other readings. Your mums happy in heaven (What else would people want to hear? She fucking hates it?) Old women suffer from joint problems. Hollyoaks girl is told her last relationship ended in heartbreak (what else was it going to end in? A merger with Tesco.) We also see him recap stuff relayed to him earlier, that he puts back out as "readings". And if all else fails, he blames any errors on "bad spirits", audience error, and bad vibes. Never the fact that he's either a shit psychic, or he isn't psychic at all. I never!

The researcher concedes that a casual observation can't prove / disprove his abilities alone. He will have to undergo some kind of test under controlled conditions. He (vigourously) refuses to take a controlled test, in which he never has face to face contact with his "customer" to rule out cold reading, - in order to give them messages from the spirit world. His rationale is lousy, he needs to see the person in order to send the celestial text message; or something. Derran accurately says this is like a bloke saying he has a UFO in his back yard, but it's invisible and intangible, so just take the blokes word for it. A pre arranged test takes place when a women who wants a reading off Joe, from a specific person (her sister) fails totally. He can't get anything right at all. He is outraged to find that she was approached beforehand (why didn't the spirits warn him.) and claims that Derren scared the spirits off. (the blame game.) He terminates the meetings after that.

Things like this are frustrating to watch sometimes. Joe is so evasive, and so full of weasel words, we end up with a one sided affair. (If you want to justify the tenacious, at least have a crack at doing so.) He can't justify the foundations of his ability, because the foundations simply don't exist in the first place. By his own admission we can't try to apply some kind of controlled conditions to evaluate his "powers" because the controls invalidate them by default. (This is a common qualm from homeopathists and alternate medicine people as well.) All we are left with is his word for it, and like the famous Carl Sagan quote "extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence", and the "that which can be ascribed without evidence, can be dismissed by evidence" leaves us with only one conclusion you don't have to be psychic about.

Some might say that if people are credulous enough to part with cash for this kind of thing, then so be it. But I always feel that this is far from victimless. There are real human emotions being trampled on by this sort of stuff. The night in the pub for instance. Liverpool has its fair share of social baggage. There was talk of drug deaths, alcohol deaths and suicides. There was something terribly intrusive about the whole thing. I don't really blame someone who lost a loved one, grasping at straws. The ability to contact the dead would bring comfort to many who felt they didn't get to say goodbye. But fake catharsis (that they've paid for.), on such tenuous evidence? Which leads us onto the conclusion of Joe's "abilities" It later transpires that the successful reading he had (the one I said I'd mention again.) was a neighbour of his sister. I'm not psychic but;-..... And if I'm honest I don't think Joe is either.

Psychic Healer didn't see prosecution coming. (What a surprise. hmmm)

There are many things in life that I find depressing and irritating, but I have resigned myself to the knowledge that they will always be around for as long as I live. Motorway congestion, stupid adverts with meerkats and pretend opera singers, astrology, tax returns, and the fact that my wireless mouse keeps conking out, about every 7 seconds, and last, but by no means least (and handily the theme of this post, the world of psychics and alternative medicine, and their bizarre level of popularity.

Most of the time my feelings toward this kind of thing is a kind of bewildered puzzlement. I admittedly feel slightly depressed that lots of folk take stock in, and actively endorse quackery that should be self evidently be classified as "bullshit some people just made up on the fly." if anyone took more time to bother analysing the lofty claims of others with a more soberly objective eye. To see these "spiritual gurus" with their TV shows (why are they given such an easy ride for the spurious claims they make?) and the ear of magazine editors, and the well paid columns that go with that. It riles me that people are often being taken for a ride, often handing over large sums of cash to; at best, "spiritual" kooks and at worst con men guilty to a form of pseudo scientific extortion. It's depressing that people are so willingly taken in by this. That they will pay handsomely for a homeopath to give them a phial of mineral water. Science education has taken a kicking in modern Britain, this sort of stuff will flourish if you have a public who have a blotted knowledge of the discipline. But there are occasions when pseudoscience stops being irritating and can actually become harmful to the point of jeopardising lives. Like when a guy says he can cure cancer by touching people, who has fallen foul of a 1939 law which prevents people from advertising unsubstantiated treatments for the disease. Self proclaimed "visionary healer, energy worker and psychic" Adrian Pengelly faces 3 months in the clink for positive testimonials, posted by his "patients" on a website he claims not to have ever seen (some fucking psychic). He cheerfully says the contributors:

"The people on my website have done it for free, out of the goodness of their hearts."

I'm sure such kindness of spirit should be reciprocated.

"13,700 waiting for his [Pengellys] services at up to £30 a session."

Or maybe not then.

He's also been subject to a negative slot on TV consumer show "Watchdog" last September.

Now I'm sure many proponents of this kind of "healing" are going to think that Pengelly is a victim of a witch hunt by the "acolytes of orthodox medicine". But I think, No! Let the case go ahead. Lets see if his treatments would stand up to general clinical analysis. Would his case studies; or indeed, the testimonies stand up to the rigour of medical cross examination? How would his treatments fare in double blind tests? If they do, Ill be the first to say this post is out of line. If alternative healers want the "respect" accorded to "real medicine" then they should play by the scientific method.

*He makes an interesting comment that needs highlighting for what it says.

"I'm just a healer. I can do things most healers only dream about."

That may be so. But if you have medical methodology behind you, healers dreams often stop being just dreams.

The only thing Intelligent Design expels is oh yeah - Science.

I write this short post with a sense of unease. Peter Hitchens has written an article on Intelligent Design on his blog page. Firstly this has made Peter Hitchens, a repeat offender which is a pretty impressive achievement for only 10 postings on quite varied topics, and I'd hate to think I was seen to be singling him out. Secondly Peter seems not to understand (or possibly he's deliberately distorting the issue to be contrarian. I don't know.) either what evolution is, and how science works, which is a bit of a bummer if you writing about both of these. So you have to give him credit for the sheer brass ballsed chutzpah of going ahead with it anyway.

The article concerns the DVD release in the UK of a 2008 documentary Expelled, a "documentary" about how proponents of Intelligent Design are being hounded out of the scientific establishment, by a shadowy cabal of the high priests of the orthodox Darwinians, and yes the Nazi's were all influenced by Darwins theories as well. It's pretty much the usual charges put out by the ID lobby against Richard Dawkins and other well known evolutionary biologists. The film has been pretty much panned across the board (a lousy 10 % positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes) as dishonest and mincing facts. There is a great story on the Pharyngula blog by PZ Myers, the author, on what happened when he went to see it. My stance on the ID lobby, is get some facts to back up your claims, and a your first ever scientifically peer reviewed paper published, before you start wanting acceptance in the greater scientific community. (Though I just cannot see how I.D can be called science at all! How (without saying God did it) do you terminate infinite regression, by explaining who designed the designer of stuff that by your own theory needed a designer to design? re-produce the designer in experimental conditions, and how can you objectively and analytically explain irreducibly complex things, if they are blooming irreducibly complex to begin with! You know the little things!)

Intelligent Design is silly and distracts from real science. (which is the primary issue I have with it.) It's simply semantic mischief, repackaging creationism, by being more coy about Gods role in the whole affair, with a fancy new name to try (it failed) and dodge the 1987 ruling in the US Supreme court that creationism violated the separation of church and state. It is primarily an American issue, which explains (not an attempt to shut off pro I.D literature as he claims) why Hitchens article complains about the lack of publicity (and published books by I.D proponents) of I.D in the UK. These local science "disputes" are nothing new, MMR scares are primarily confined to the U.K, and anti-retroviral treatment for AIDS is common in South Africa. I.D will probably largely remain on the fringes of the consciousness of most UK residents. (largely those educated in faith schools.)

I could if I wanted too, do a point to point rebuttal of what Hitchens has written in the article (there's tons of stuff on the web debunking the core arguments of I.D), but that would not be the point of what I think is my gripe about articles like this. I think this kind of article stems from a misunderstanding of how modern science operates. In common with many similar articles by journalists and layman climate change deniers, and anti-MMR supporters, they like to see themselves as brave dissenters, who are standing up to a cold an unaccountable scientific elite. A distant and orthodox agency who are willing to do whatever it takes to maintain their control over the brainwashed masses. They seem to think that "Scientific Consensus" is the same as "Conventional Wisdom" . Conventional wisdom occurs through anecdote and subjective analysis. Gut feeling and "commonsense approach". It can be right and indeed wise, but often wrong, misguided and a bad way to evaluate something. I have no complaint against those who tackle the wisdom of crowds head on, and know it doesn't always win you friends. Healthy skepticism is a great thing, and should be encouraged. But Scientific Consensus is something quite different. It is formed by peer reviewing, some of the most intense cross examination, and objective analysis there is out there. Challenging established knowledge and building on it. It also has the benefit of publishing its findings, you can be a part of it, if you want. I just don't see that happening in this article. When I read, this sort of thing:

"But it's plainly true that ID is an attempt to smuggle religion into the classroom - or at least the religious world view. Though it might more fairly be seen as an attempt to prevent the science curriculum from making metaphysical claims which it is not actually qualified to make. For the heart of this is the claim by 'science' that by explaining the operation of the universe it has explained its origin, and that there is and can be no explanation beyond the materialist one. ID casts doubt on that rather dubious claim, and so is Theistic by implication, just as modern science teaching is Atheistic by implication."

So there we are, Intelligent Design by his own admission - is to put religion back into science. I could point out the contradiction of saying science is dabbling in metaphysics, by teaching Darwinian evolution (which it isn't), and then saying science says nothing immaterial (by extension metaphysical) exists, but what would be the point? And that is what pisses me off about this stuff. This kind of thing distorts the public consciousness on science issues, when science is struggling to even get into the consciousness. This article has less to do with promoting debate, than trying to promote theology by the back door.