Denialism

L’affaire Lenski continues

—

by

MarkH
in

When will the stupidity end?

Really. When?

As long as Conservapedia exists, the answer will elude us. The latest feculent flow of irrational idiocy concerns the Lenski Affair.

Just to remind you, a biologist named Lenski did a very cool experiment regarding evolution in E.coli. Some creationist cult leader was displeased. Since his god has apparently refused to smite the biologist, the cult leader has looked into legal remedies in the fight against biology. Apparently, his god isn’t smart enough to have come up with evolution.

Now it appears that an open letter is being drafted to the cultists. This is way too much fun.

Comments

  1. corton7

    “his god isn’t smart enough to have come up with evolution”
    This is the biggest problem I have with creationists. I think of myself as a christian, but I don’t agree with the kinds of restrictive views that most fundies have. The entire idea of reading the bible as fact and as literal robs God of creativity, of intelligence and of anything that gives life beauty and purpose. I personally think that those who get angry at evolution belittle God and are truly saying that God wouldn’t think of something as complicated and beautifully intricate as evolution.

    Reply
  2. mark

    The position that some of the fanatics take is that if one supposes that every single word of the Bible is not literally true (and cannot be taken as an accurate scientific text), then perhaps none of it is true.

    Reply
  3. Jim Ramsey

    OK, now I’m paranoid.

    I followed the “open letter” link in the posting only to find that the entire letter has been redacted.

    ???

    Reply
  4. Kristjan Wager

    Jim, look at the talk page – someone wisely said that it was just silly, and they should drop it.

    Reply
  5. PalMD

    The letter is being re-written because the wording seemed to imply that it was somehow representing lenski, which it is not. Hopefully revised version will be up soon.

    Reply
  6. D. C. Sessions

    The position that some of the fanatics take is that if one supposes that every single word of the Bible is not literally true (and cannot be taken as an accurate scientific text), then perhaps none of it is true.

    Which would be a lot less risible coming from someone who didn’t have whole volumes of excuses for why a given passage is not to be taken literally, such as forbidding pork.

    Reply
  7. D. C. Sessions

    For those who haven’t been spectators before to American litigation pissing contests, what AS is doing is the out-of-court equivalent of “discovery abuse:” demanding that the respondent go to vast trouble and expense digging up material (as required by the FRCP) not because the requester has any intention of using it but as a way of running up the responder’s costs.

    Yes, it’s theoretically a violation of the FRCP and theoretically a sanctionable ethical violation. Would you like to discuss a real estate transaction involving a lovely bridge?

    Unfortunately, I’m not nearly so sure that AS won’t file a lawsuit precisely because that would move everything onto his home turf, where the FRCP do apply and he can demand that Lenski et al incur huge expenses while AS only spends pocket lint — and then dismisses the case without prejudice a la RIAA.

    Reply
  8. Martin

    D.C. is correct about it being discovery abuse, but it’s irrelevent – the fact is, Schlafly has no intention of going to court. Neither is this about debating the science, which is where I think people are going wrong debating him. Schlafly’s real strategy is much subtler, and we won’t know if it’s working or not for a few months yet.

    Reply
  9. daedalus2u

    It seems pretty clear to me that any lawsuit by Schlafly would clearly be a SLAPP lawsuit.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP

    Lenski has already offered him everything he could reasonably want, he just needs to show that the time and effort that Lenski would go to won’t be wasted.

    This is exactly in line with the requirements of PNAS.

    http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml

    start quote
    viii) Materials and Data Availability. To allow others to replicate and build on work published in PNAS, authors must make materials, data, and associated protocols available to readers. Authors must disclose upon submission of the manuscript any restrictions on the availability of materials or information.

    Authors must make Unique Materials (e.g., cloned DNAs; antibodies; bacterial, animal, or plant cells; viruses; and computer programs) promptly available on request by qualified researchers for their own use. Failure to comply will preclude future publication in the journal. It is reasonable for authors to charge a modest amount to cover the cost of preparing and shipping the requested material. Contact pnas@nas.edu if you have difficulty obtaining materials.
    end quote

    If Schlafly wants to invoke this, and is unsatisfied with what Lenski has proposed, Schlafly�s next step is to contact PNAS and let them apply the appropriate pressure. PNAS will see what Schlafly is trying to do and Schlafly will be pwned yet again.

    It would be appropriate for PNAS to forward in its entirety any correspondence they get from Schlafly requesting materials to Lenski.

    Reply
  10. D. C. Sessions

    Schlafly’s real strategy is much subtler, and we won’t know if it’s working or not for a few months yet.

    First off, it’s a fallacy to assume that someone has only one objective.

    A lawsuit that causes Lenski and his department to spend cubic dollars in defense at negligible cost to AS is desirable in its own sake, and has the potential for a “chilling effect” beyond its propaganda value.

    Secondly, the “con the public into mistakenly disbelieving scientists” hypothesis at least partly assumes a degree of cynicism that isn’t in evidence — although not absolutely necessary, it is most consistent with AS and his followers not believing in their own dogma. Personally, I’m not prepared to give them that much credit.

    To me they seem more likely to be caught up in an Expelled-style Manichaeanism where “Godless science” is responsible for the evils of the modern world, and thus must be reflexively opposed whenever possible. In this Hierarchy of Evil Sciences, the biological sciences are obviously at the top seeing as they are the ones that promote evolution, stem cell research, etc. (Astronomy is next but safely distant.) Since AS and gang can’t attack everyone they prioritize; solid-state physics is low enough on their list to be safe for now.

    Reply
  11. Martin

    @ D.C. Sessions: “A lawsuit that causes Lenski and his department to spend cubic dollars in defense at negligible cost to AS is desirable in its own sake”

    It’s impossible, and Schlafly knows that, which is why if a lawsuit happens I will print out PalMD’s entire written output on this blog AND WhiteCoatUnderground, eat it, and post the video on YouTube for you all to witness.

    Whether Schlafly believes the dogma he spouts or not is irrelevent (and I’m far from convinced he does – to my mind if he was secure in his beliefs he wouldn’t be so desperate in his defense of them) – he’s not a lunatic, and he knows that this lawsuit will never happen. What he can do is say “look, the scientists can’t be trusted”. And intentionally or otherwise, it’s a strategy that has been proven to work by the climate change deniers and tobacco lobbyists.

    On the plus side though, Conservapedia is such a poor and inefficient way of promoting your views, that Andy is liable to be too tied up keeping his acolytes in line to actually spread the message.

    Reply
  12. Joe

    Requesting the “raw data” of a study is, often, a pointless exercise. It can be artfully faked.

    Moreover, we perform experiments as enthusiastically as possible, and that means we don’t spend as much time describing things in our notebooks as lawyers might wish. Sometimes, I found it difficult to figure-out exactly what I did X months previously.

    In defense of the publication (in question), the experimental method is always published; and Mr. S. is free to see if a replicate procedure provides the same result.

    Reply
  13. D. C. Sessions

    It’s impossible, and Schlafly knows that

    Not saying you’re wrong, but in light of what appear to be counterexamples you’ll please forgive me for wanting more than a bald assertion. Especially for the second part 🙂

    Reply
  14. Martin

    @D.C. Sessions: “you’ll please forgive me for wanting more than a bald assertion. Especially for the second part :-)”

    The second part was just my hunch 🙂

    Schlafly knows it… well, look at his behaviour on CP. He issued this vague, big-testicled challenge about “teh data”. He is a trained lawyer, so surely he knows that for this to be any more than a publicity stunt, he’ll need to define exactly what the data is that he’s requesting. Whenever anybody has asked him to do that, he’s simply dodged the question. Either he’s utterly, utterly stupid, or else he’s simply bluffing, like he was with the FBI business a while back (See RationalWiki for an overview of that).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *