I was more than a little disappointed when Forbes magazine published the screeds of those ignorant doofii, Ham, Wells, Flannery, West, and Egnor. Now, though, they’ve also published a broadside from Jerry Coyne that demolishes the five creationists. His primary focus is on Egnor (but just as much could be said against any of them), and he doesn’t hold back.
Why does he so readily dismiss a theory that has been universally accepted by scientists for over a century?
Apparently because a rather old book, Michael Denton’s Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, first published in 1985, convinced him that evolutionary theory was underlain by very weak evidence. If Egnor had bothered to look just a little into Denton’s book and its current standing, he would have learned that the arguments in it have long since been firmly refuted by scientists. Indeed, they were recanted by Denton himself in a later book more than 10 years ago.
Since Egnor is decades out of date and shows no sign of knowing anything at all about evolutionary biology in the 21st century, one wonders what could have inspired his declaration at this time.
There’s more, much more. Read it all if you enjoy watching an intellectual mauling.
Also, Coyne did not hold back in criticizing the magazine, either — and Forbes published it all without edits. That’s to their credit, but I can’t help but feel that there’s a callous calculation here, that even arguments against the quality of their publication are seen as a way to boost circulation.
The only “controversy” is social and political: Will Americans, in violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, be allowed to impose a false, religiously based view of biology in the public schools? This “teach the controversy” approach, so popular among fundamentalists, ill suits a publication with the gravitas of Forbes.
Can we expect that it will balance stories on medicine with the competing views of shamans, Christian Scientists and spiritual healers? Will articles on the Holocaust be rebutted by the many Holocaust deniers? When the 40th anniversary of the first moon landing rolls around this July, will Forbes give a say to paranoids who think the landing was a fraud, staged on a movie lot?
This, in effect, is what Forbes has done by giving equal time to evolution-deniers. Journalists have an obligation to be fair, but this doesn’t mean that they must give charlatans a prestigious platform from which to broadcast their lies. By doing so, Forbes has debased both journalism and science.
Exactly. Why would anyone go to that gang of charlatans at the Discovery Institute for articles on evolution? Because idiocy sells?
Hey can theists comment on here? cuz I am one.
I just love the phrase “evolution-denier.” It neatly puts the creoturds where they belong: with the Holocaust-deniers.
Sounds to me like a cry for help. We can lend you a hand with that battle, just hang around a while. You can break those chains!
Is anyone else having trouble accessing the article?
OH NOES! Someone has gotten past the Theist Detector software and left a comment!
Just don’t be boring.
Nice. I wonder if they’ll publish a rebuttal to Coyne now as well.
Yes you can.
Hi.
If we allow theists to infiltrate, what will happen to the women and children?
Wait. If theists exist, why is there still pond scum?
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” -Henry L. Mencken
I wonder if the contemporary over-exalted position of FauxNews and the like are tied to Gresham’s Law?
If newspapers want to be fair, then to consider creationism and evolutionary theory to be equal is unfair to evolutionary theory.
Uh oh, the Forbes editorial staff is probably taking notes.
absolute demolition… well done.
Chris @1> Yes, of course. Welcome. I do suggest you check out the Dungeon just so you have an idea of the rules… (simple things, like don’t post verses from whatever book you happen to follow and assume they’ll be considered valid evidence).
Nicely done, Mr. Coyne! I posted some rebuttal comments; but nothing as complete or as devastating as this.
And the whining comments from the creationists! Wow!
Here are some of my favorites:
“asserting something isn’t evidence!” [From someone who’s evidence consists of their personal incredulity!]
“The ‘science’ of abiogenesis will always be a bunch of just so stories, attributing unproven and magical powers to chemistry.”
[Very interesting (though false) critique of a scientific hypothesis — FROM A PERSON THAT ASSERTS THAT THE BIBLE STORIES EXPLAIN THE UNIVERSE AND LIFE.]
Another disappointing instance of a mainstream source giving a platform to an IDiot: yesterday on Darwin Day, US News & World Report put an essay on their website by (as PZ calls him) the “Attack Mouse of the ID Movement” Casey Luskin. See http://www.usnews.com/blogs/room-for-debate/2009/2/12/darwin-believers-hide-fears-of-intelligent-design-behind-a-wall-of-denial-and-ridicule.html
Do mathematicians at Forbes also use three for the value of pi? If their math is as fuzzy as their science, that may explain why economist are so prone to error.
arrgh…economists.
Damn check out the comments at the casey luskin article
Casey Luskin says
SQQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Enter scene left: Benjamin Carson. Another neurotard.
Forbes, hah, that fount of economic wisdom! After informing the world about the economic crisis that hit us all, now I guess they have editorial time to dabble with the sciences. What next? Perhaps how Columbus was wrong in thinking the world was not flat, you know, he didn’t really reach India. LOL.
Theist Chris; We love a good laugh. Go ahead.
Well said Jerry Coyne! That was refreshing. Evolution deniers may be the perfect turn of phrase, and the war on ignorance continues.
The comments section, with one exception, is a pool of ignorance… lovely.
Damn. Jerry Coyne is made of awesome!
I guess “controversy” sells magazines. It is extraoedianry though that they should have put together an article in the first place which allowed those four religion driven morons to spout their nonsense. It wasn’t even as if they were all commenting on a new scientific discovery that showed common descent in doubt, or even one where the legacy of Dawin were disputed. I suspect Forbes has a creo-journalist and a very slack editor. Perhaps they’re still smarting from the evaporation of the belief that money was best regulated by the rich.
But I do think that you do need to institute some sort of filtering on here. We already have a Mocking Protocol which, somewhat imperfectly, screens out religious nutcases, but it may be time for a loyalty oath such as on AiG, dictating a set of beliefs which are true (despite their falsehood). I suggest some which may be appropriate here.
I reject god-given kmowledge, on its own, as false and silly.
I will not argue from my own authority.
I will not argue from the perceived ignorance of others.
I will turn away from conspiracy theories even when the government and big business is behind them.
I will leave my hobby horses in my toybox.
I will not turn every argument into an implicit plea for personal abuse,
I will accept such personal abuse when it is deserved and.
when asked, repeatedly, to shut-the-fuck-up, I shall do so.
I will accept that wanking is a personal, private activity.
I think these should clear up many of the present problems with Pharygula; any more?
Sure that’s good, but there’s still no point–by-point refutation of every last lie of those consummate liars. To the naive and the committedly stupid, Coyne is just another establishment scientist trying to choke the life out of a science that would flourish if it were just allowed to its proper place.
Sadly, if Forbes did publish a point-by-point refutation, most people wouldn’t have the stamina or the knowledge to understand it anyway. Which means that the DI bigots win, as they command the attention of Jerry Coyne, and the DI’s marks are not given the information to show that the IDiots were just lying through their teeth, as usual.
The whole matter is thus a fiasco, only slightly helped by Forbes publishing Coyne’s letter. The only good thing is that Forbes doesn’t have a huge circulation (not compared with, say, Time), and most of its readers are only marginally interested in those issues.
If Time and Newsweek cover Darwin and evolution decently, along with all of the pro-science magazines, the whole anniversary celebration should be helpful to science, despite Forbes’ idiocy.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/6mb592
wonders how long until this thread goes….
nevermind
Yeah I think that it’s good that Coyne at least drew attention to this near the end. It will be lost on those that want to believe but hopefully will get through to some.
“Also, Coyne did not hold back in criticizing the magazine, either — and Forbes published it all without edits. That’s to their credit, but I can’t help but feel that there’s a callous calculation here, that even arguments against the quality of their publication are seen as a way to boost circulation.”
There is most definitely, as with the rest of the print and television media. The false “the truth lies in the middle” analogy, plus the falsely-balanced coverage of each “side” of any debate.
Slightly off topic, but a request for help:
Somewhere (Dawkins? Dennett?) I saw a copy of a creationist calling card with two questions:
1. Have you ever seen a house that wasn’t designed? Y/N
2. Have you ever seen a car that wasn’t designed? Y/N
… or something similar.
Can anyone point me to the source? Or better yet an image of the (possibly apocryphal) card itself?
Thanks!
The rules are simple: Be relevant and have a thick skin. Just like the rest of us.
OK, now, in fairness, is creationism really any crazier than a flat tax? And hell, they’re serious about that one!
RevBDC @ #9:
I think you have the evolutionary link backward.
“If pond scum exists, why are there still (fundamentalist) theists?”
Hey, where did Chris go?
I was just about to make some popcorn.
Ray Ladbury #31
Not to derail the thread, but what’s wrong with the flat tax idea? I don’t know much about it but since the Greed and Oppression Party is for it, there’s probably something seriously wrong with it.
Alverant #34
No, let’s no derail the thread. We should let it rest.
Per bad journalism and the discovery institute, check out this article written by the Oklahoma Daily:
http://diagenesis.blogspot.com/2009/02/oklahoma-science-journalism-at-its.html
#31
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT
I’m all for fairness; I think most of us are. But journalists have absolutely no obligation to be fair. Read the First Amendment.
And I’m damn sick of the cliche “You’re just printing this to sell magazines (or newspapers).”
Damn right. Does anyone criticize GM for “just trying to sell cars”?
What do you think we’re doing?
Why would anyone go to that gang of charlatans at the Discovery Institute for articles on evolution? Because idiocy sells?
Because this guy is the editor-in-chief.
gman #29,
Have you ever seen a design that wasn’t designed?
They’ve got us there!
#31 – should be a stoning offense. Don’t even start that shit.
Just as I’d expect my car to not explode once I get it off the lot, so also do I expect a news story to be near-as-dammit to the truth as can be determined by mortal man.
That’s a slightly higher standard than one normally attaches to the average car salesman, I think.
I believe the punctuation on the above is incorrect. There is no question that idiocy sells.
What continually annoys me about these kinds of issues is that there is the goofy idea that every story has 2 sides. NO, almost all stories have much more than 2 sides and they are quite often nowhere near equal. Through crappy journalism, BS indoctrination, propaganda, and other crap the public ridiculously sees 2 sides to the “evolution/creation debate”. There is no such debate, there are plenty of debates within the science of evolutionary biology but the are NOT about whether or not the theory is correct.
Let’s see them talk about the creationist “side” where they range from full-out the world is 6,000 year old wackaloons to we understand evolution and it works but we think it was part of god’s plan (not science but at least it doesn’t strive to make people more ignorant). Then there about another 10+ levels of wackaloonery between those views. They don’t have a “side”, there is no “theory” of intelligent design because the wackaloon tent can’t reconcile the myriad of positions held by each cult, err, I mean, denomination.
This crap about putting everything on an equal footing because he have to be “fair and balanced” is making people ignorant.
One fucking damnation, coming right up!
Now, where did I put that damned dildo?
Since when did anyone claim that the entirety of all professional ethics comes from the Constitution or Bill of Rights? That’s stupid. The Society of Professional Journalists endorses a code of journalistic ethics that reads, in part: …public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist’s credibility.
Are you saying that ethical standards have no power unless they have the force of law? Because otherwise it seems very clear to me that journalists do have an obligation to their profession and thier readers.
I called the Tulsa Beacon (from Columbus, OH, no less, based on an article at rd.net) yesterday to complain about an editorial that they ran. I told the editor that people all over the world are reading the article and laughing at the dumb asses in OK; his only response was that they like to be read.
The article is called ‘Evolution indoctrination at OU’ and can be found at http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=1358
Coyne is on a roll lately, leaving a path of destruction in his wake. First Miller and the religious evolutionists, and now these guys. I’ve definitely got to read his book, it’s now on the top of my Amazon wish list.
#29
1. Have you ever seen a house that wasn’t designed? Y/N
2. Have you ever seen a car that wasn’t designed? Y/N
adding
3. Have you ever seen a house or car having sex and producing offspring Y/N
Do mathematicians at Forbes also use three for the value of pi? If their math is as fuzzy as their science, that may explain why economist are so prone to error.
I’m not certain if it was Forbes, but a decade or so ago I saw a chart in an American business magazine that directly compared the areas of two different shaded sections under a curve…PLOTTED ON A LOG SCALE.
Fred, you should have told the editor that after people get done laughing at him for being stupid, they will quit reading the paper and the advertisers will also quit advertising, because they don’t want to be poisoned by the idiocy of the paper.
I wonder if he thinks that ORU has a biology department.
“Uh oh, the Forbes editorial staff is probably taking notes.”
Indeed. After all, according to them, the current economic meltdown is merely “A Failure of MORALITY, not a Failure of CAPITALISM”, don’tcha know?
It reminds me of the great channel4 comedy show ‘Absolutely’ which had a character ‘little girl’ (Morwena Banks) who was 6 and knew everything. “It is! It’s twoo!” find examples on youtube.
OTOH I recall one of the regulars here promising to write a Poe Generator in style of Pomo Generator. They may have truly excelled.
Yes. This could have been about the last thread but it pretty much fits the forbes mag too.
No, because all those things were design by people.
How would a questionnaire challenging creationism go?
1. Have you ever seen a house that was designed by a magic ghost?
2. Have you ever seen a car that was designed by a magic ghost?
I believe Steve Forbes (who has some influence on the magazine, as it is his empire) is a creationist, certainly he espoused such views when he ran two cycles ago for the republican presidential nomination, called Evolution ‘a lie’ and espoused creationism in schools, so this may come from the very top.
How is a flat tax crazy? Set a minimum deduction for living that everyone gets, and tax the rest at a flat rate. Base the deduction on, say, the poverty line, or some published, calculable mark… That is necessary or it would be relatively hard on the poorest people, but with a well set deduction level, a flat tax becomes a highly progressive method of taxation that is also very simple to implement.
The money that could be saved by the reduction in tax office staff alone would pay for a small war somewhere.
So if the basic exemption is $25000 and the flat rate is 15%:
You make $24000 you pay $0.
You make $125000 you pay $15000.
How is that crazy? Would having a simplified tax system with no loopholes really be a bad thing?
NFL #51,
It looks like Oral Roberts has a biology department to me, at least for undergrads. http://portal3.oru.edu/dynmgr.dynportal.page?siteid=48&pageid=634
I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it sucked, of course. But they do seem to purport to teach undergraduate biology.
@ (No) Free Lunch #51:
The thing that really bothers me is that he was so polite on the phone; someone at rd.net sent him an email, and all the arsehole did was point out grammatical mistakes, as well as suggesting that email should be e-mail. I partly wish that I had been rude(r?), but on the whole I feel that gentle reminders of their stupidity are best.
PZ:
“Also, Coyne did not hold back in criticizing the magazine, either — and Forbes published it all without edits. That’s to their credit, but I can’t help but feel that there’s a callous calculation here, that even arguments against the quality of their publication are seen as a way to boost circulation.”
Ummm… Does “Intellectually Bankrupt Media” produce a diminished-minor cord in anybody else’s head?
Evolving Squid
You are close to professing socialism, there. A flat tax is fine – so long as everyone pays exactly the same (according to the Forbsean philosophy).
You want to set a tax free ALLOWANCE? There would be FREELOADERS?
COMMUNIST!
[/sarcasm]
In truth – this appears to be a ‘flat tax’ approach that would be fair – for individuals. But how do you define ‘income’? Do you tax wealth? Growth of wealth? What about businesses? Is R&D ‘exempt’? What about losses from ‘down’ investments? Can they be offset?
just my 2c
If we allow theists to infiltrate, what will happen to the women and children?
Um, can’t speak for the children around here, but the theists in general can take their deity-approved patriarchy, insert it vertically where it’ll do them a world of good, and light it. We’ve already seen far too much of what happens when theists get to say what happens to women, unfortunately.
As for the onslaught of theist commenters, well, the XX(X)* Atheist Brigade can probably hold its own…
________________
* Some of us are more X rated than others. I’m R-rated, myself. Have a nice day.
Interrobang:
I’m NC17 myself.
Did anyone notice that Chris at #1 didn’t post after his initial question. If you want to save your sanity, don’t use the clickback on his nym.
So have I just missed all of Coyne’s previous creationism skewerings or has he really upped the output since publishing his book on evolution?
@S2 (#49)
“3. Have you ever seen a house or car having sex and producing offspring Y/N”
Of course not! God did not give them power to have sex and create. Because that would be evil and bad.
E.V.,
You were right. I definitely shouldn’t have looked at Chris’ blog.
The guy’s a real zealot. Kind of scary.
And flat tax is still regressive. 15% of 35K above your painfully low bar) hurts a lot more than 15% of 200K.
It just doesn’t work. You’d have to raise the bar so high to be fair to average Americans that only the upper middle class and rich would pay this tax, and they won’t stand for that.
Sorry–I’ll let it go. Suffice it to say that Forbes is the kind of person that if he says A, you know not A is more likely the truth. The only useful purpose he serves is as an example of what stupid is.
Chris of First Post has submitted the same message on the current Jesus & Mo comment page. He’s just another dishonest Liar for God who pretends to be interested in hearing other opinions only to promote his own.
Is anyone surprised?
I don’t get it. They fill their blogs with
ramblingsposts about Truth and Love and Trust, and try to convince others and spread their ideas by systematically lying. I’m getting more and more convinced that theism not only doesn’t improve anyone’s morality, it actually attracts liars very reliably.Adding to my last post, maybe theism is not the attractor but more often the producer.
You’re complaining about something a flat tax has no relevance to. Tax code complexity, and whether the tax is levied progressively or at a flat rate, are orthogonal issues.
Most of the complexity in the tax code is involved in determining what exactly is income. Having a flat tax doesn’t change this. Once your income is determined, doing the calculation for tax owing isn’t a significant problem.
Although the regulatory burden of determining what is income cannot be reduced at all, some deductions could be simplified or done away with. This can be done with progressive tax rates as well.
This is hardly the only anti-science in Forbes. See:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0903/021.html
in which Steve Forbes relies on George Gilder’s medical-student daughter and Michael Crichton to invalidate climate science:
http://sitewave.net/news/MaryEllenGilder.htm
@29, no, but I sure as hell haven’t seen them mating, either! Even the farmer-next-door who opined that horses were cheaper than bicycles for his children knew that horses multiply and bicycles don’t. That’s why horses evolve and bicycles don’t, except in a metaphoric, who-can-attract-the-money way.
This Jerry Coyne fellow is dangerously close to knocking off Wayne to claim the title of Best Coyne Ever.
John Mashey referred to George Gilder’s daughter. This girl’s idiot father is one of the DI founders AFAIK.
Oh, and well said Jerry Coyne.
A while back Rich Karlgaard, one of the top guys at Forbes, wrote a piece in his “Friday Heroes” series about the brave work of Bruce Chapman, founder of the Discovery Institute:
http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2008/04/hero-friday–br.html
Mind you, Mr. Karlgaard also wrote that no recession was coming and that Sarah Palin’s nomination would be a game-changer. Well, I guess he was right on the last one.