Evidence for Evolution

 
Here's another one of those videos that are supposed to prove evolution. Before you watch it, let me give you the counter-argument. The amino acid glutamate is encoded by two different codons GAA and GAG. There is no bias in favor of one or the other so evolution would predict that the codons for glutamate can freely mutate from GAA to GAG or from GAG to GAA. If we examine several different species then we expect to see differences in the glutamate codons according to the neutral theory of evolution.

However, when we look at all the glutamate codons from α- and β-globin genes in humans, chimps, and monkeys we see that all the codons are identical. There has not been one single change as predicted by evolution. The chance of this happening if evolution is correct is 16 million to one. Thus, these genes must have been designed by an intelligent being who choose to use the same DNA sequence for all primates.

I don't like Intelligent Design Creationism. It's bad science. However, we aren't going to win any arguments by using silly examples that can easily be refuted by anyone with a brain. Is this is an example of the sort of framing that we're supposed to be practicing?

Relax ....

 
Shelley Batts ask why is [this] so relaxing [This Blue Whale Wants You To Relaaaaaaax]. Good question Shelly, but after watching the whale for ten minutes I'm just too mellow to care about an answer.

Violent Video Games and Crime Victims

 
I love this graph. Thanks to Koen Crolla for posting it on Rosio Pavoris.

Science Policy Forum: Framing Science

 
Many people have accused me of misrepresenting the Nisbet & Mooney article in Science magazine (Science 6 April 2007: Vol. 316: p.56). So, let's step through it and see what we can learn.

Issues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively "frame" information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message (1). However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists', and controversy would subside.

I believe that average citizens would be better off if they understood the science behind these controversial issues. As a scientist, I feel competent to explain the science. I also have opinions about things like evolution and embryonic stem cell research and I don't hesitate to proclaim those opinions. Since I'm a scientist, I tend to reason like a scientist. I don't have any great desire to learn how to reason any other way.

I do not believe that the controversy over evolution, for example, will subside when people learn the scientific truth about evolution. I don't recognize the strawman that Nisbet and Mooney have constructed. They say that "scientists must learn to actively "frame" information to make it relevant to different audiences." Let's see what they mean by that. I'm looking forward to seeing the evidence that they've done a better job than scientists of explaining scientific issues. Presumably that evidence is just coming up in the next paragraph.

In reality, citizens do not use the news media as scientists assume. Research shows that people are rarely well enough informed or motivated to weigh competing ideas and arguments. Faced with a daily torrent of news, citizens use their value predispositions (such as political or religious beliefs) as perceptual screens, selecting news outlets and Web sites whose outlooks match their own (2). Such screening reduces the choices of what to pay attention to and accept as valid (3).

I'm well aware of the fact that many citizens do not think like a scientist. I did not "assume" otherwise. I don't know very many scientists who do. In most countries scientists are well-respected and when they say that something is a scientific fact they tend to get the benefit of the doubt. In other words, in those countries the primary source of information about science is scientists, not politicians and pastors. This doesn't seem to be true in America. I wonder what Nisbet & Mooney are proposing to do about it?

Still waiting for the evidence that Nisbet & Money have done a better job by paying attention to "framing."

Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done (4, 5).

This sounds like psychobabble to me. It's a paragraph without content. It doesn't tell me a thing about what a "frame" is and how it might differ from what I've been doing all my life. It doesn't tell me what a "core value" is. It doesn't tell me why I should have to construct an argument that "resonates" with someone else's—possibly incorrect—assumptions. It also doesn't tell me why I should listen to Nisbet & Mooney.

Consider global climate change. With its successive assessment reports summarizing the scientific literature, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has steadily increased its confidence that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. So if science alone drove public responses, we would expect increasing public confidence in the validity of the science, and decreasing political gridlock.

Science alone does not drive public responses. Nobody believes that. However, it is the duty of scientists to faithfully report on the science, making sure they get it right. That's what scientists do.

It is the duty of scientists to report on the scientific consensus in a field. If there is no unanimity on an issue it is absolutely essential that a true scientist reveal the controversy as long as it's a legitimate scientific controversy. Hiding a scientific controversy for the sake of political gain is unethical. I hope that's not where they're going with this.

Despite recent media attention, however, many surveys show major partisan differences on the issue. A Pew survey conducted in January found that 23% of college-educated Republicans think global warming is attributable to human activity, compared with 75% of Democrats (6). Regardless of party affiliation, most Americans rank global warming as less important than over a dozen other issues (6). Much of this reflects the efforts of political operatives and some Republican leaders who have emphasized the frames of either "scientific uncertainty" or "unfair economic burden" (7). In a counter-strategy, environmentalists and some Democratic leaders have framed global warming as a "Pandora's box" of catastrophe; this and news images of polar bears on shrinking ice floes and hurricane devastation have evoked charges of "alarmism" and further battles.

That's an interesting bit of information on American politics. I'm not terribly interested but let's see where it's headed.

Recently, a coalition of Evangelical leaders have adopted a different strategy, framing the problem of climate change as a matter of religious morality. The business pages tout the economic opportunities from developing innovative technologies for climate change. Complaints about the Bush Administration's interference with communication of climate science have led to a "public accountability" frame that has helped move the issue away from uncertainty to political wrongdoing.

Scientists have established that global warming has occurred and much of it is probably due to human activity. The question before us is what should we do about it? The action will depend to some extent on what are the predicted consequences of global warming. Scientists can play a role here by reporting on the various climate models and how reliable they are.

Many scientists have already decided that we should do something about global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide emissions. Most of them reject the argument based on religious morality and most of them probably reject the argument based on "economic opportunities." If there's a point here, I'm not seeing it.

I assume there are some scientists who know about global warming and know that humans are contributing but who don't know whether we should do something about it. Nisbet & Mooney seem to be making an assumption about the opinion of all scientists.

BTW, I still haven't seen any evidence that these two authors have been more persuasive than the average scientist. I'm sure it's going to be mentioned very soon. It's pretty important, don't you think?

As another example, the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research community for decades. Yet as a debate over "intelligent design" was launched, antievolutionists promoted "scientific uncertainty" and "teach-the-controversy" frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses. However, much of the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead, frames of "public accountability" that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, "economic development" that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in evolution battles, and "social progress" that define evolution as a building block for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support.

American scientists did not counter with "science-intensive" responses. Instead, for the most part they countered with legal arguments for keeping Intelligent Design Creationism out of the public schools. They let the Creationists set the agenda by fighting the battle in the courts where the Creationists could win even when they lose. Scientists turned the fight over to the lawyers.

I totally reject the argument that we should focus on the economic advantages of evolution over creationism on the grounds that it's something that the public will understand. I reject it because it is probably untrue and it's a cop-out. No respectable scientist will argue that evolution should be accepted over Intelligent Design Creationism because America will be more prosperous if citizens accept evolution.

The evolution issue also highlights another point: Messages must be positive and respect diversity. As the film Flock of Dodos painfully demonstrates, many scientists not only fail to think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult others' religious beliefs (8).

Some religious beliefs deserve to be belittled and insulted. Is this just another argument for appeasement and so-called "tolerance" dressed up to look more intellectual?

Let's think strategically for a minute. The fight is between religion and science. Let's not forget that key point as we try to understand what Nisbet & Mooney are wanting us to do about it. The fight is not about whether belief in evolution offers better economic advantages. Even if that were true, the average Christian fundamentalist would not accept evolution. And if it turned out not to be true there would be very few scientists switching to Intelligent Design Creationism.

It sounds like we're getting close to learning how Nisbet & Mooney would handle this issue. I can't wait to see what they've done to advance the cause of evolution and defeat Intelligent Design Creationism. I'm sure they wouldn't be lecturing scientists on how to behave if they didn't have proof that their way is better.

On the embryonic stem cell issue, by comparison, patient advocates have delivered a focused message to the public, using "social progress" and "economic competitiveness" frames to argue that the research offers hope for millions of Americans. These messages have helped to drive up public support for funding between 2001 and 2005 (9, 10). However, opponents of increased government funding continue to frame the debate around the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are "playing God" and destroying human life. Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge (11).

I can't figure this out. There are people who oppose embryonic stem cell research because God tells them it's wrong. What are we supposed to do about that? Do we understand and appreciate what they're saying and debate the issue of religion vs. science? Or do we try and convince them that they should go against God's word because some other people might be cured by stem cell research? That'll really work, right? I don't get the point here.

Some readers may consider our proposals too Orwellian, preferring to safely stick to the facts. Yet scientists must realize that facts will be repeatedly misapplied and twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the political debate and decision-making. In short, as unnatural as it might feel, in many cases, scientists should strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science when trying to defend it.

This article is so confusing that I really don't know how to respond. I don't know any scientist who thinks that emphasizing technical details is all there is to good science education. Sometimes the authors seem to be arguing that we should use non-scientific arguments to advance our case. Other times they seem to be saying that we should avoid talking about religion—this would be like ignoring a hippo in the room. And still other times they seem to be saying that we need to improve the teaching of science.

And they do all this without ever showing me why I should even bother listening to them. I don't see one single example of an article by either Mooney or Nisbet that illustrates the superiority of their method. Come on, guys, if you're going to criticize scientists for the way they write about science then at least have the courtesy to establish your credentials.

I can tell you one thing. This article sure would have benefited from peer review.

Marcus Ross, Michael Behe, and Paul Nelson at Temple University

 
Today, Marcus Ross is speaking at Temple University on the topic of geology and the Cambrian Explosion [Marcus Ross and Peter Dodson at Temple University]. Recall that Ross is a Young Earth Creationist: he believes that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old. Appearing on the same stage as Ross is the paleontologist Peter Dodson from nearby University of Pennsylvania. Dodson will present the case for rationality.

The talks are being organized by a group of student societies under the title DECIDE FOR YOURSELF: Evolution and Intelligent Design. Tomorrow night it's the turn of Michael Behe, speaking on biology, plus someone who they've recruited to represent the side of rationality in the field of evolution. I know for a fact that several people have turned them down (including me). This is a Discovery Institute dog-and-pony show. Paul Nelson will be the final speaker, on philosophy, a week from today. Nelson is also a Young Earth Creationist. (No one has yet been selected to present the rational case for philosophy, as far as I know.)

Students have every right to sponsor such events even if it's under the false impression that there's a legitimate scientific debate over the age of the Earth. However, I seriously doubt that it will be attended by people with an open mind. If anyone goes to the lecture, please send a report.

The fact that students have a right to invite IDiots on to their campus does not mean we have to defend their decision. I think they are being very naive and uneducated. As far as I'm concerned, it speaks badly of Temple University that groups of students such as Temple University Chemistry Society, Geology Society, and the Philosophy Society would even consider listening to Young Earth Creationists. What in the world are they thinking?

Gene Genie #5

 
The next edition of Gene Genie will be hosted by Neurophilosophy. That's the neurophilosopher on the right (right) outside the Natural History Museum in Kensington, London (UK). Please send your articles to him ASAP. We have lots of genes to cover and only six decades to do it.

(The guy in the blue shirt also has a blog.)

Monday's Molecule #21

 

Name this molecule. You must be specific but we don't need the full correct scientific name. (If you know it then please post it.)

As usual, there's a connection between Monday's molecule and this Wednesday's Nobel Laureate. This one's easy once you know the molecule and make the connection. The prize (free lunch) goes to the person who correctly identifies both the molecule and the Nobel Prize.

Comments will be blocked for 24 hours.Comments are now open.

Gene Genie #4

 
Welcome to the 4th edition of Gene Genie: "A blog carnival on genes and gene-related diseases. We plan to cover the whole genome before 2082."

The first three editions are: Gene Genie #1 at Scienceroll, Gene Genie #2 at Sciencesque, and Gene Genie #3 at Genetics & Health.

Our first gene is called the hemochromatosis gene (HFE) [OMIM 235200]. Defects in this gene, located on chromosome 6 at p21.3, interfere with iron uptake and storage. Hsien Hsien Lei discusses a mutation that increases the risk of stroke [HFE Gene Associated with Three Times the Risk of Stroke]. She also discusses a new book by Sharon Moalem called Survival of the Sickest. It turns out that the first chapter covers hemochromatosis.

Steven F. Palter posts on a very sensitive topic—whether a patient wants to know if they carry a possibly lethal genetic mutation. For example, what if you are at risk for Huntington's disease and you simply do not want to know whether you will die in your 40's or not? That's fine as long as you don't have children but do you want to pass the defective gene to your children if you carry it? How can you have children without risk if you don't want to know whether you are a carrier or not? It turns out there's a way and Steven Palter explains how in Beyond Genetic & Prenatal Testing- Pre-embryo Testing - Hiding the Results From the Patient.

Tim Erickson presents Random OMIM Search Term of the Day: ?Amber? posted at Sciencesque. In case you don't know about OMIM, it stands for Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man and it's quite possibly the best scientific database site on the internet. Anything you want to know about genetic disease in humans is there.

Tim's random search takes him to the DSPP gene on chromosome 4q21.3 and a fascinating, and slightly gory, discussion about tooth decay.

My own contributions are a summary of the number of genes on each human chromosome [Summary of Genes on Human Chromosomes, RNA Polymerase Genes in the Human Genome (POLR1A, POLR2A, POLR3A, POLR1B, POLR2B, POLR3B) and Genes for Hemophilia A & B and von Willebrand disease (F8, F9, VWF).

Altogether, we've discussed 11 more genes in this edition of Gene Genie. By my reckoning, that only leaves about 23,900 to go.

Genes for Hemophilia A & B and von Willebrand disease

 
The roles of Factor VIII and Factor IX in blood clotting are described in a recent posting [Blood Clotting: Intrinsic Activity]. Defects in the gene for Factor VIII cause a bleeding disorder called hemophilia A [OMIM 306700]. The gene is called F8 and it's located on the X chromosome at q28. The fact that it's X-linked means that males are more likely to be affected than females since females would have to be homozygous for the recessive allele. Heterozygous females are unaffected.

Deficiencies in Factor IX are caused by mutations in the F9 gene, which is also located on the X chromosome (q27.1-q27.2). The disease is called hemophilia B or Christmas disease. Factor IX used to be called Christmas factor after Stephen Christmas (1947-1993), the first patient with a known defect in this clotting factor [OMIM 306900]. It took some time, and a considerable amount of effort, to determine that there were two different genes on the X chromosome and hemophilia A was a different disease than hemophilia B.

The disease nomenclature is complicated by the fact that defects in the gene for von Willebrand Factor (vWF) are sometimes called hemophilia B. The correct name is von Willebrand disease. Recall that von Willebrand Factor associates with and stabilizes Factor VIII. Deficiencies of vWF are phenotypically equivalent to deficiencies in Factor VIII [OMIM 193400]. The gene for von Willibrand Factor is VWF and it's located at 12p13.3. The fact that it's autosomal means that the disease is not sex-linked.

Several of the VWF alleles confer a dominant phenotype. This is sometimes due to an insufficiently in the amount of von Willebrand Factor in blood plasma. The genetic term is haplo-insufficiency. It means that two functional alleles, one on each chromosome, are necessary in order to supply a sufficient amount of protein.

The Ann Coulter Hoax

 
I admit it. I was fooled by Ann Coulter. I thought her latest book was one of the standard IDiot attacks on evolution. The fact that it was so stupid was something I have come to expect from the Intelligent Design Creationists.

Now it turns out that the book was a satirical jab at the lack of intelligence on the political right. Peter Olofsson of The Skeptical Inquirer exposes the hoax [The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement].

Coulter has very cleverly written a fake criticism of evolution, much like the way NYU physicist Alan Sokal in 1996 published a fake physics article in a literary journal, an affair that has become known as the “Sokal hoax.” A self-proclaimed “old unabashed leftist,” Sokal was disturbed by the sloppily antiscientific, postmodernistic mentality that had started to replace reason and rationality within the academic left and ingeniously made his point by managing to get his nonsense article published by the very people he wished to expose.

Coulter’s aim at antiscience is at the other end of the political spectrum. An equally unabashed rightist, she is apparently disturbed by how factions within the political right abandon their normally rational standards when it comes to the issue of evolution. However, whereas Sokal revealed his hoax in a separate article, Coulter challenges her readers to find out the truth for themselves. Without claiming to do justice to Coulter’s multifaceted and sometimes subtle satire, I will attempt to outline some of her most amusing and salient points.

This is amazing. I congratulate Coulter on her expose of the Intelligent Design movement. She has cleverly pointed out every single flaw.

[Hat Tip: John Wilkins]

Coturnix on Framing Science

 
I don't have the time or the energy to read everything that's been written about the upcoming Mooney & Nisbet Science article. If you want to catch up then check out the Coturnix posting [Framing Science - the Dialogue of the Deaf] for all the latest links.

However, I would like to respond to some of the things that Coturnix writes. He's a defender of framing and he believes that science writers have to improve.

Here's what he says about frames.

Very short summary: words have effects beyond their dictionary definitions. Language evokes emotional responses: 'frames' (as in 'frames of mind'). There is no such thing as emotion-free language. If you can understand a piece of text (and that includes math, not just English), you will respond emotionally. The kind of response to language results in one accepting or rejecting the message (and the messenger). The kind of response to language is dependent on one's worldview - the same sentence will elicit different responses (and thus acceptance or rejection) in different people.

No argument there. People have different worldviews. but what does that mean for science writers?

Good news: most people are biconceptual, i.e., they possess both frames in their minds. By evoking the right frame by careful use of language, you gain trust and authority with the audience and as a result they believe that what you are saying is true. In other words, just saying the truth is not enough, as it is processed through ideological glasses. By invoking the correct frame, you allow the truth to penetrate and get accepted. By dismissing framing as method and by being careless in the use of language, you are bound to "buy into" the currently dominant Rightwing frames and will thus reinforce them while at the same time preventing your audience from accepting the truth. Since conservatism, religion and pseudoscience do not have the truth on their side, their frames are deceptive and Orwellian. Since our frames are backed up by truth, in a head-to-head competition we should win, but we cannot let the opposition frame the issues in the first place.

First things first.

Coturnix, you live in North Carolina. I live in Ontario. Please don't try and enforce your "frame" on me. I don't live in a society where right wing frames dominate the discourse so your lecture about catering to them is falling on deaf ears. Mooney and Nisbet make the same mistake. They assume that every science writer is only interested in writing for people in Texas or New Jersey. The irony here is that they are "framing" science based on a society that many of us don't recognize. (Think Richard Dawkins in England.)

Second, even if you live in a society where truth is not valued does that mean you have to abandon it in order to get your point across? I hope that's not what you're saying but it sure sounds like it.

Third, you argue that "we cannot let the opposition frame the issues" but that's exactly what you're doing. The entire justification for "framing," as far as I can see, is to modify your language and style to conform to the rules set by our opponents. The real words for that are cop-out and surrender. I guess "framing" is just a more politically correct term.

Coturnix goes on to explain two different meanings of framing.

The first meaning of 'framing' is the use of language to evoke pre-existing frames in a very small, limited audience for a quick and effective "conversion" for a cause that has immediate political consequences, i.e., the next bill in congress, or the next election, etc. You do not educate them in details of science - they are not interested, do not have enough background and it does not matter if they do or don't understand the fine points. The goal is to bring them over to your side and recruit them to do whatever is politically necessary to win a particular battle over the side of pseudoscience/religion/conservatism. This is what Matt and Chris are discussing.

If this is what Chris and Matt are discussing then it's not science education and it's not science writing in the sense that I understand it. It's polemical writing that just happens to be about science.

As I explained at the January meeting in North Carolina, the top three requirements for good science writing are scientific accuracy, scientific accuracy, and scientific accuracy. As soon as you sacrifice the attempt to convey good accurate science to the general public then you're not doing science writing. You're doing something else.

If you, Chris, and Matt truly believe that you don't need to educate the public about good science in order to win a political fight about science then we don't just have different worldviews, ... we're on different planets.

The second meaning of 'framing' is the use of language to introduce new frames into the public discourse and, as a result, change the entire intellectual landscape. This is necessarily a long-term project - as in: a couple of decades at best. By placing new frames into people's minds - more science-friendly or reality-friendly frames - it makes it easier in the future to recruit greater numbers of people to the cause-du-jour. A frame that is new now, and perhaps rejected by many as silly, will in ten or twenty years be a normal part of everyone's (especially the next generation's) emotional armamentarium. You put them in there now, and evoke them later when you need them. This is what PZ and Moran are talking about.

That's only part of what I'm talking about. What I'm really saying is that I value truth and honesty. If I believe in something I'm going to tell people about it. If that turns out to be a minority opinion then that's the way the cookie crumbles. I don't lie awake at night thinking about how the people of North Carolina might interpret my words. My worldview doesn't get "framed" by others. Does yours? Do you worry about how the average Canadian will look at your articles and then make appropriate adjustments to avoid offending them?

First rule: Know your audience.

Adjust your language to the audience. One language for fellow scientists, another for educated lay-people who are inclined to agree with you, another for people who are disinclined to agree with you, etc.

I write for intelligent lay-people, period. I don't change my style from day-to-day depending on whether I think most people will agree or disagree. Quite frankly, I usually assume that most will disagree. That's what curmudgeons do!

Second rule: Truth will not let you free.

Truth is not sufficient. Dry data will not sway non-scientists. Their eyes will glaze over and they'll move on. Reserve your precision for your papers, posters and talks. You can talk like that to your fellow scientists. But as soon as you leave that narrow circle you will have to adjust your language.

Truth may not be everything but it's so far ahead of whatever's in second place that it might as well be everything. Once you abandon truth you've lost.

Now I'm sure you really didn't meant to equate "truth" with "dry data" but for a posting that supposed to be about the precision of words, that's a serious slip. What you should have said is that science writers should always tell the truth about science but they don't necessarily need to explain every detail. This has nothing to do with framing. It's just part of the common sense of science writing.

In his article, Coturnix now launches into an extended discussion of how to lie to the public without calling it a lie. He claims that doing this is not dishonest. He claims that it's okay to abandon the essential principles of science; scientific accuracy, honesty, and integrity, in order to convince the public in some scientific debate.

It totally does not matter if the targets of your framing have no comprehension of evolution as long as they believe you when you tell them it is true and then act accordingly in the voting booth. This is not a sell-out to our high-minded principles: we will still adhere to our high standards of accuracy in the classroom and in our research reports. But not in our "Natural History Magazine" articles, or on our blogs, where that is inappropriate (at least in some types of blog-posts, like this one, for instance). That is why I, contra PZ and Larry, think that this movie is an excellent tool. It gets evolution wrong, but that is not the point. It visually frames evolution in a way that an uneducated, uninterested, ADHD-riddled layperson can "grok" it in about two minutes. The movie prepares the person for your carefully crafted spiel. And if the person ends up believing that evolution is a fact, it makes no difference if his/her conception of evolution is not 100% correct (hey, Dawkins and Dawkins get it wrong, so why not some Joe Schmoe?). If one out of a thousand viewers of the movie shows more interest, there are plenty of resources you can use to teach that person finer points and make his/her understanding better.

Coturnix, I will not follow you down that path. I do not adhere to a "high standard of accuracy" in the classroom and something else in my textbooks and my blog. If that's what you truly believe we should do, then you are on the verge of losing my respect. If that's what Mooney and Nisbet are saying then they are absolutely, totally wrong about science writing.

Arguing Against God

 
John Wilkins brings up an issue that just doesn't seem to go away [Disagreeing with PZ]. He argues that there's a stupid version of religion and a smart, sophisticated version of religion. Wilkins claims that "aggressive" atheists are picking on the stupid version and not addressing the smart version. He implies that it's harder to refute the smart version.

This is what I reject about the Dawkins/Moran/PZ aggressive atheism - it takes the most stupid version of religion, argues against it, and then claims to have given reasons for not being religious. At best (and here I concur) they have given reasons not to be stupid theists. But a good argument takes on the best of the opposing view, not the worst.

John, I debate the existence of God. I have not ignored any arguments for the existence of God that I know of. If you think there are good arguments for the existence of God that I have avoided then please make them known to me. I'm not interested in any of the baggage that comes along with accepting the existence of God. As far as I'm concerned they are completely meaningless unless you can prove that God exists.

I'm aware of the fact that, C.S.Lewis, Jerry Falwell, the Jesuits, and Francis Collins have different concepts of what must follow once you accept the existence of God. Some of those concepts are "sophisticated" and some are "stupid." I don't care. I'm only interested in whether or not there is a God in the first place.

Looking forward to seeing your list of "smart" arguments for the existence of God I am,

Your Agressive Atheist.

Blogroll

 
I'm new to blogging so please help me out with the controversy about blogrolling. Apparently there are some bloggers who amass a huge list of blogs in their "blogroll." There almost seems to be a contest to see who can list the most blogs. Coturnix is an example that comes to mind.

Meanwhile, there are some bloggers who want to clean up their list to include only active blogs or, perhaps, only the best blogs. This has prompted some debate. The latest entry is from Janet Stemwedel [Hierarchy, meritocracy, the blogosphere, and the real world]. It's all very confusing to this novice. Janet seems to think there's some powerful meaning behind whether someone is on your list of blogs or not. She seems to be implying that the "big" bloggers have a duty to list smaller bloogers.

I don't get it. My list is simply a list of blogs that I like to read. Nothing more, nothing less. Janet's blog Adventures in Ethics and Science is on my list. Sandwalk is not on her list. Should I be upset?

How to Communicate Science

 
EurekAlert has posted a short press release from an unknown source concerning an upcoming article that's about to be published in Science magazine [Scientists must improve communication tactics, Science article proclaims].

The article is by Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet and it concerns science communication. Here's what the press release says about the authors.

Mooney is a regular columnist for Seed, covering the intersection of science and politics. His blog, “The Intersection”, is a part of the ScienceBlogs network, a Seed Media Group venture. He is the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming (Harcourt, July 2007).

Dr. Nisbet contributes the “Framing Science” blog to the ScienceBlogs network. He is a professor in the School of Communication at American University. His research focuses on the intersections between science, media and politics, and he is the author or co-author of more than a dozen peer-reviewed studies in the area.

Seed Media Group is a leading science media and communications company. Headquartered in New York, with correspondents across the globe, Seed Media Group’s brands include the critically acclaimed science magazine Seed, and ScienceBlogs, the leading digital community dedicated to science. For more information, please visit www.seedmediagroup.com.

I enjoy reading Chris' blog and I think he does a good job of explaining some aspects of science. However, I must admit to being a little bit nervous when non-scientists tell me how to write about science. I don't see overwhelming evidence that non-scientists are doing a good job ... with some notable exceptions.

I'm also disturbed about the emphasis on Seed Media Group. I'll wait until I see the actual article—it isn't available yet—but I'll be surprised if Mooney and Nisbet list their affiliation as "Seed Media Group." What do the ScienceBlog bloggers say about this? Do you see yourselves as employees or representatives of Seed Media Group?

Here's what the press release says about their article.

“In writing this article together, we argue that scientists shouldn’t exclusively blame politicians and journalists for gridlock on issues like climate change,” says Mooney. “Part of the problem is that scientists carry with them the wrong assumptions about what makes for effective communication.”

The authors point out that when scientists discuss science-related policy questions in technical language, many members of the public tune it out. Moreover, even while continuing to employ traditional modes of communication, scientists themselves have come under increasing attack for being too atheistic, too self-interested and/or too liberal. Scientists can improve their communication skills by applying research on “framing” and other work in the social sciences. As the article puts it, “Frames organize central ideas in a debate, defining a controversy so that it will resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis than others. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible and what should be done.”

“Our suggestions should not be confused with spin; rather, we are advocating the conscious adoption of more effective (and thus, more informative) communication techniques,” said Dr. Nisbet. “Already, influential sectors of the scientific community are beginning to realize that new public engagement strategies are desperately needed.”

That's one way of looking at it. However, I prefer not to hide my atheism and my liberal viewpoint under a bushel. I don't know what "framing" is—and reading the blog isn't much help—but it sounds an awful lot like spin to me.

I think I'll try and emulate Isaac Asimov, Dick Lewontin, Carl Sagan, Francis Crick, Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Peter Medawar, Niles Eldredge, and Stephen Jay Gould. They're scientists who, in my opinion, communicate pretty effectively and they attracted lots of readers. They didn't have to disguise their atheism or their liberalism in order to get a point across. I don't think they took lessons on "framing."

Chris Mooney [I Have a Paper in Science] and Matt Nisbet [At the journal Science] have already blogged about the upcoming article. Let the debate begin!

100,000 Visits

 
I forgot to mention that the 100,000th visit to Sandwalk happened a few days ago. I appreciate eveyone who has paid me a visit over the past five months. Please keep coming. I promise not to try anything as complicated as blood clotting for at least another year!