Using the Media

HELEN

Using the Media
Suggesting the above as a thread.

In the interests of that are several articles. I will start with one.
Michael Shermer is a 'professional skeptic.' Actually, he is basically
anti-Christian and seems to focus more on that than anything else.
Nevertheless, he has a regular "Sceptical" column in Scientific American.
Recently he took on 'creationism' again in such a blatently contradictory
way that the reviewer of the article in his own article in Christianity
Today ended up closing his review with the following:

Did Shermer read what he had written before it went into print? Did
anyone at Scientific American read it? I know the magazine has been going
downhill, but this is embarrassing stuff. Remember that a moment ago Shermer
was saying that creationists "misread the theory of evolution as a challenge
to their deeply held religious convictions." But now, disabusing people of
their Christianity and theism is the end product of the "illumination"
offered by science; how to go about it is just a matter of tactics.

One final note: How does a professional skeptic, of all people, come by such
a faith in "the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the
advance of science"? Skeptic, heal thyself.

John Wilson

http://ChristianityToday.com/ct/2002/104/11.0.html

 

PATRICK PARSON

The folks who hope to undermine Christianity by using science are simply the
mirror image of the ID folks who hope to undermine science using
Christianity. They are unfortunate ideologues who find reality incomptible
with the world they demand to be for them.
I haven't read Schermer's article, and don't know if the quotes are really a
fair presentation of his ideas, but you can find antiChristian stuff almost
everywhere. It's unfortunate that Christianity has the same sort trying to
rearrange God's creation to suit themselves.

The proper place to work out problems in science is in the literature.
Yes, even creationist journals. If they produce useful science, they will
be read by serious scientists. If creation scientists begin to produce
important new discoveries, they will influence scientists and become
accepted in their own right. Or so The Barbarian figures.

But media battles, attempts to use the political process, and the like will
mostly convince scientists that they have nothing to offer.

Ditto for those who want to use science to "disabuse" us of our religious
beliefs. Enough.

 

RADIOCHEMIST

The following paragraph is from Shermer's Scientific American article.
I think it is noteworthy because of the idea of convergence of
evidence. Note the remarkably broad and independent lines of
evidence that support evolution. Helen has her finger in the
dyke but the tide has already flooded her world.

"Although such findings are disturbing, truth in science is not
determined democratically. It does not matter what percentage of
the public believes a theory. It must stand or fall on the evidence,
and there are few theories in science that are more robust than the
theory of evolution. The preponderance of evidence from numerous
converging lines of inquiry (geology, paleontology, zoology, botany,
comparative anatomy, genetics, biogeography, and so on) points to the
same conclusion--evolution is real. The 19th-century philosopher of
science William Whewell called this process of independent lines of
inquiry converging together to a conclusion a "consilience of
inductions." I call it a "convergence of evidence."
Whatever you call it, it is how historical events are proved."
--

 

HELEN

The fact that Shermer claims, as do many evolutionist apologists, that
there is a giant amount of evidence for evolution in a multitude of
areas is nothing more than a claim. One of the things creationists have
done is show field by field that the evidences are presumptions yielding
interpretations on minimal data.
Take for instance this one: Shrimp have a gene which, when altered,
causes them to not develop two legs! This is interesting, but it only
yields deformed shrimp! Nevertheless, look at the hype they got in the
media!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Reprinted from ScienceDaily Magazine ...
Source: University Of California - San Diego
Date Posted: Thursday, February 07, 2002
Web Address: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020207075601.htm

First Genetic Evidence Uncovered Of How Major Changes In Body Shapes
Occurred During Early Animal Evolution
Biologists at the University of California, San Diego have uncovered the
first genetic evidence that explains how large-scale alterations to body
plans were accomplished during the early evolution of animals.
In an advance online publication February 6 by Nature of a paper
scheduled to appear in Nature, the scientists show how mutations in
regulatory genes that guide the embryonic development of crustaceans and
fruit flies allowed aquatic crustacean-like arthropods, with limbs on
every segment of their bodies, to evolve 400 million years ago into a
radically different body plan: the terrestrial six-legged insects.
The achievement is a landmark in evolutionary biology, not only because
it shows how new animal body plans could arise from a simple genetic
mutation, but because it effectively answers a major criticism
creationists had long leveled against evolution-the absence of a genetic
mechanism that could permit animals to introduce radical new body
designs.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

and so the hype goes. You can read the rest for yourself.

Here is the response to that hype from Discovery Institute:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> DISCOVERY INSTITUTE
Wednesday, February 6, 2002
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


U.C. San Diego Researchers Exaggerate Findings to Promote Evolutionary
Theory


A mutant shrimp is being claimed as "a landmark in evolutionary biology"

that proves Darwin¹s critics wrong. But it¹s nothing of the sort, says
biologist Jonathan Wells.

A research team headed by William McGinnis at the University of
California
at San Diego has reported discovering a DNA mutation that produces
shrimp
without hind legs. Their report is being published in the February 6
issue
of Nature.

Since shrimp normally have lots of legs, and insects have only six, the
U.
C. San Diego researchers claim they have discovered the genetic
mechanism
that enabled terrestrial insects to evolve from aquatic ancestors
hundreds
of millions of years ago. The researchers also claim that this
discovery
undercuts a primary argument against the theory of evolution, because it

shows that major mutations do not result in dead animals.

Not so, says Dr. Jonathan Wells, who has a Ph.D. in molecular biology
from
the University of California at Berkeley and is currently a senior
fellow at
Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA. Wells calls the U. C. San Diego
claim
"greatly exaggerated," and describes the mutant shrimp as "an
evolutionary
dead end that tells us little or nothing about how insects originated."

Wells points out that the mutation reported by McGinnis and his
colleagues
occurs midway through development, after the embryo is already a shrimp.

"The mutation does not transform the embryo into anything like an
insect,
but only into a deformed shrimp that¹s missing its hind legs. Whatever
produced the first insect would have had to transform the entire embryo
from
the very beginning."

Wells adds that critics of Darwinism do not claim that major mutations
result in dead animals, but only in animals that are less fit.
Evolution
depends on increases in fitness, since animals that are less fit tend to
be
eliminated by natural selection. Major developmental mutations,
however,
always decrease fitness.

Wells says he is not surprised that the researchers are making so much
of
their discovery. "There is no evidence that genetic mutations can
produce
the major changes required by evolution, so people who believe strongly
in
the theory often exaggerate the evidence to make it look better than it
really is."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

RUFUSATTICUS

Jonathan Wells should have read the papers before he panned them.:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> NCSE asks Discovery Institute: Where's the Shrimp?
by Alan Gishlick

In a Discovery Institute press release dated Feb. 6, Jonathan Wells accuses
three developmental biologists of making "exaggerated claims" in a recent
paper in Nature (advance online publication, Feb. 6, 2002). But it is
Wells, in his zeal to criticize any research supporting evolution, whose
claims are "exaggerated."

One wonders whether he actually read the paper. For example, the press
release states: "William McGinnis at the University of California at San
Diego just reported discovering a DNA mutation that produces shrimp without
hind legs." He did? If Wells has indeed read the paper, currently published
at http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/dynapage.taf?file=/nature/journal/vaop/ncurren
t/index.html, then he should know that no shrimp were mutated in the
production of the research. Further, no mutant shrimp were mentioned in a
UCSD press release announcing the Nature paper, which is what Wells
apparently relied upon for his critique. Wells appears obsessed by illusory
shrimp when he asserts: "The mutation does not transform the embryo into
anything like an insect, but only into a disabled shrimp."

As plainly explained in the Nature paper, the research involved inserting
the crustacean Ubx gene into a fruit fly, and observing that it did not
function as a limb inhibitor (as the fruit fly Ubx gene does). Further, the
researchers experimented on the crustacean Ubx gene and specifically
isolated the mutations that cause the Ubx gene to become a limb inhibitor.
This is exciting research because crustaceans have many pairs of limbs,
while insects have just three pairs, and it is the Ubx gene that controls
limb development in both. The authors conclude that this shows that specific
micromutations can cause large-scale phenotypic effects, thus helping us
better to understand the processes that may have been involved in the
evolution of the insect body plan and by extension those of other animals as
well. Wells's hostility toward the biological fact that genes govern the
evolution of new body plans seems to have blinded him to the obvious: There
were no mutant shrimp.

Wells wastes a press release on thinly disguised creationist pontifications
about research that he apparently could not be bothered to read. Intelligent
Design proponents in general have been repeatedly told that if they want to
be taken seriously, they must produce scientific research of their own
rather than uninformed and irresponsible criticism of the work of real
scientists. They claim that Intelligent Design is not just antievolutionism,
but Wells's press release is no more than that. We keep waiting for real
scientific research to emanate from proponents of Intelligent Design but if
Wells's latest effort is any indication, then -- to paraphrase a Russian
proverb -- we may be waiting until shrimp begin to whistle.

Contact: Alan D. Gishlick, Post-Doctoral Scholar

February 7, 2002<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

source: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2002/ZZ/693_ncse_asks_discovery_instit
ute_2_7_2002.asp

 

THINKPLEASE

Helen: Take for instance this one: Shrimp have a gene which, when altered,
causes them to not develop two legs! This is interesting, but it only
yields deformed shrimp! Nevertheless, look at the hype they got in the
media!

I reply:

There has been a flotilla of discussion of this on many different forums.
The problem is that everyone is reading the press releases, and no one is
reading the paper itself. I took the time to do so, and spent a few hours
on a crash course to understand the concept of the paper. I sum it up as
such:

In the genetic code, there is a series of genes in each set of chromosomes
called HOX genes that control exterior development. These particular sets
of genes appear only in vertebrates and create proteins that tell the body
to create or suppress appendages, tell which end to become a head or foot,
and everything. In particular, there is a HOX gene called the Ubx/AbdA,
which suppresses abdominal appendages in fruit flies. What they did was
took this gene (which is different in each species) in fruit flies and the
gene in the particular species of shrimp, and told it to activate itself
in the thorax region in each species (where is where the appendages are).
They compared the effects of the activated genes in both species and found
that the gene that is in the shrimp doesn't suppress leg function as well
as the gene that is in fruit flies. They then created a series of
HOX/AbdA genes that were various blends of each species, and used the
effects of these blends to note the number of legs created by each
particular blend. They used this to locate the molecular sequence of each
gene that causes appendage suppression. They created blends of each
sequence to make sure that each sequence alternately suppressed or
enhanced appendage creation.

From this, they propose that that particular molecular sequence was
activated in the past in the thorax shrimp/insect ancestry, which caused
the species to diverge into insects, arthropods and arachnids. That this
happens in the genetic code has been hypothesized for some time, but this
is the first time that someone has actually manipulated a small bit of the
genetic code to make such large scale changes to the extrior structure of
an organism. Certainly scientists have genetically altered fruit flies
to create different species of fly that cannot reproduce with each
other, but as creationists constantly remind us (as Wells does here) no
one has ever created a 4 legged fly, or a 6 legged spider, or a spider
with wings. As they say at the end:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"On the basis of these results, we propose that Ubx proteins in
some crustacean/insect ancestors uncovered a limb-repression
function by the mutation of C-terminal Ser/Thr phosphorylation
sites. Together with the restriction of Ubx expression to the
posterior trunk and expansion of a QA-rich domain, the loss of
these sites would have contributed to the evolution of the hexapod
body plan. The putative phosphorylation-mediated regulation of
transcriptional repression function in arthropod Ubx proteins may
occur by a similar mechanism to that recently described for the
Drosophila Even-skipped protein. In both cases, such a mechanism
would provide for the mediation by signal transduction of the
control of transcriptional activation and repression functions of
homeobox genes."

"To our knowledge, this is the first experimental evidence that
links naturally selected alterations of a specific protein sequence to a
major morphological transition in evolution. There are at least two
major reasons why the mutation of mutiple Ser/Thr residues that
inhibit a repression function might be advantageous from an
evolutionary aspect. First, mutating the residues would give
dominant phenotypes, eliminating the need to fix two recessive
mutations in a morphologically evolving lineage. Second, the
successive removal of Ser/Thr residues might quantitatively
influence repression function and morphology, allowing viable
microevolutionary steps toward "hopeful monsters" with macro-evolutionary
alterations in body shape." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From reading the paper and the press release from each side, it is
apparent that Wells (and Helen) never actually read the paper, because he
addresses claims that the scientists never actually make. They never
claimed to have created shrimp that actually lived and reproduced.

Secondly, it is becoming apparent to me that Wells might be in for a shock
sometime in the next decade or two when someone actually does successfully
mutate an organism with significantly different exterior structures than its
progenitor. As far as I'm concerned, it's only a matter of time.

 

HELEN

A few responses:
To Pat Parson: you wrote, … the ID folks who hope to undermine
science using
Christianity. They are unfortunate ideologues who find reality
incomptible with the world they demand to be for them.

I see. So when the same testing methods are used in archaeology, they
are science. When they are used in forensics, they are science. But if
they are used to determine the possibility of intelligent design in
nature, they are UNDERMINING SCIENCE??? That seems to me where your
bias is producing some rather strange inconsistencies.

To all: this thread is about the way the media is used by science.
There is an excellent book on this type of abuse of the media and the
betrayal of trust by the media called “Selling Science” by Dorothy
Nelkin who is, by the way, very evolutionist. Another book recently
published is “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg, who also talks about news
presentations, although he does not deal with science. The shrimp news
article – regardless of what the actual article in Nature actually says
– is a prime example of this kind of sloppy and deceptive reporting. It
could be blamed on the media itself if the sloppiness extended to cover
different viewpoints where science is concerned, but it doesn’t. The
reporting is consistently exaggerating the claims of the left and the
claims of evolutionists. At the very least, this would indicate a
collusion.

It was said that I never read the paper. No, that is right, I did not.
It was not available for me to read yet! But the press release was, and
it seemed to have really misrepresented the more modest claims made by
the paper itself.

In the meantime, I asked around a bit about Jonathan’s response put out
by Discovery Institute. One reply I have so far received back is
interesting. It is from Dr. Dave DeWitt, professor of biology at
Liberty University and reads,
In defense of Wells, I suspect that he, like myself, was provided
with a copy of the paper to review on February 5. This is standard
procedure.
Reporters are provided with papers in advance, show them to experts for
comment and wait until they are allowed to print their story. The paper
is "embargoed" until it is lifted and the journal/author says it is OK
to print. The embargo for this paper was lifted at 2pm on February 6.
Until that time, Wells and I were not permitted to discuss the paper
with the public. After that time, it's fair game.

NCSE would know that since Wells was quoted in that ABC article, he
would have been able to review the paper early. But this doesn't keep
them from the smear.

Their other point is semantics. They insist, "We don't say that man
came from apes, we say that man and apes share a common ancestor." The
implication from the article is that a crustacean (shrimp) ancestor was
mutated and thus had fewer than "normal" legs. This cripple gave rise
to 6 legged creatures.

It's all about spin.

David A. DeWitt

 

PATRICK PARSON

I see. So when the same testing methods are used in archaeology, they
are science.

No. In fact, I've never seen anything like ID applied to archaeology.
There are methods for knowing, for example, whether a broken stone is just a
broken stone or a primitive tool. But ID has nothing to do with it. The
usual methods of gathering data and analyzing the evidence are used. You
might want to read "Making the Silent Stones Speak" to learn how they
do this. It's fascinating, and ID speculations are never used.


When they are used in forensics, they are science.

No. I have a good friend who is the forensics specialist for a large
police department. We talk about the things he has to do in his work. ID
is never a part of it. He has been to many FBI training courses. They
don't use anything by the usual scientific method.


But if they are used to determine the possibility of intelligent design in
nature, they are UNDERMINING SCIENCE???

So far, I've seen a number of requests on various boards, to actually
demonstrate that ability in blind tests. So far, no ID advocate is willing
to do it. Would you?

 

HELEN

First, to Pat:
Your response that neither archaeology nor forensics uses ID methods
(or, to be more precise, that ID does not use theirs) is not even
rational. When an archaeologist picks up a shard or funny-shaped rock,
the very FIRST question in his or her mind runs along the lines of “Is
this the result of a deliberate work or is this an accident of nature?”
The idea of ‘deliberate’ vs. ‘accident’ is exactly what ID is all
about. In forensics, when a possible crime scene is first
investigated, the FIRST question which must be answered is, “Is this an
accident or is this the result of criminal intent?” Again, the
separation of the concept of accident from intent is primary.
And that is what ID is about – applying these same testing procedures to
nature itself.

Enough of that. And I have no idea what on earth you are referring to
by some kind of blind test for ID. ID is itself a method of testing
which is taken from fields such as forensics and archaeology. So if you
want to test these tests for accuracy, I suggest to take your blind
tests into the fields where they are used much more extensively rather
than a field which is still being worked out.

=============

Now, regarding Jonathan Wells’ article, he will have the following
posted on the Discovery website tomorrow but has given me permission to
post it here today:

[Administrator: This is being edited at the request of Helen. Wells has slightly changed what is being posted on the Discovery webpage]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> MUTANT SHRIMP?
A Correction

In a press release issued by Discovery Institute on February 6, I stated that researchers at the University of California at San Diego (UCSD) had produced a mutant shrimp and exaggerated its significance to evolutionary biology.

I was mistaken. No mutant shrimp were produced. Alan Gishlick of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) was quick to point this out, calling my statements “thinly disguised creationist pontifications.”

In fact, I made the mistake because I gave the UCSD researchers more credit than they deserved. Their actual results provide even less evidence for evolution than I was initially led to believe.

On February 5, a reporter from ABC.com called and asked me to comment on a UCSD press release that claimed: “Using laboratory fruit flies and a crustacean known as Artemia, or brine shrimp, the scientists showed how modifications in the Hox gene Ubx – which suppresses 100 percent of the limb development in the thoracic region of fruit flies, but only 15 percent in Artemia – would have allowed the crustacean-like ancestors of Artemia, with limbs on every segment, to lose their hind legs and diverge 400 million years ago into the six-legged insects.”

William McGinnis, who led the UCSD research team, was quoted as saying that “during the early evolution of insects, this gene [i.e., Ubx] and the protein it encoded changed so that they now turned off those genes required to make legs, essentially removing those legs from what would be the abdomen in insects.”

Based on the wording of the press release and McGinnis’s matter-of-fact statement, I assumed that the UCSD scientists had produced a mutant shrimp without hind legs. I then argued that this would not justify the researchers’ claim to have discovered a “general mechanism for producing major leaps in evolutionary change,” since it takes a lot more to turn a shrimp into a fruit fly than eliminating a few legs.

Once I read the Nature paper (which was not made available until the day after the press release), I realized that the UCSD researchers had actually put a shrimp protein into a fruit fly embryo. A comparable protein from the fruit fly’s abdomen would have suppressed limb development in the embryo’s thorax (chest) region, but the shrimp protein permitted embryonic limb rudiments to form.

So the UCSD researchers did not produce a mutant shrimp. Apparently, they didn’t even produce a mutant fruit fly – they merely showed that a shrimp protein enabled a fruit fly embryo to form leg rudiments where they would have formed normally. The results are interesting, but they fall far short of demonstrating how an aquatic crustacean might have evolved into a terrestrial insect.

Gishlick and other defenders of Darwinian evolution should take no comfort from my mistake. In light of the UCSD researchers’ actual results, their claim to have discovered a “general mechanism for producing major leaps in evolutionary change” is even more exaggerated than I originally thought.


"Shrimp is the fruit of the sea. You kin barbecue it, boil it, broil it, bake it, sauté it, - but you cain't turn it into a fruit fly."
- with apologies to Bubba in "Forrest Gump"


Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
Discovery Institute, Seattle <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of which goes to show what I was trying to demonstrate in the first
place – the media is used to promote various ideas and ‘conclusions’ to
an unsuspecting public where science is concerned. The dishonesty
involved is pervasive and rampant.

[ February 11, 2002: Message edited by: Administrator ]

 

KEVIN KLEIN

Helen wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>All of which goes to show what I was trying to demonstrate in the first place the media is used to promote various ideas and ‘conclusions’ to an unsuspecting public where science is concerned. The dishonesty involved is pervasive and rampant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the fact that Wells was so quick to write his critique of the UCSD news release without even reading the original paper speaks for itself.

On the other hand, since you claim that dishonesty is so "pervasive and rampant", maybe you could show us where exactly the UCSD press release and/or Nature paper are being dishonest. About the only problem I see is that the press release is less tentative about the interpretation of the results than it probably should be. Is this due to dishonesty or is it due to space or editorial constraints?

 

HELEN

I think Dr. Wells answered your questions in his response. They did not see the papers but were asked to comment on the articles about the papers. When they realized the difference between the articles and what the papers actually said, there was a change in their responses. And this is simply one example of many regarding the way the press is used by the researches and such to exaggerate claims for them and impress people. This way, when the papers are actually published, the conclusions, rightly or wrongly, have already been impressed on the public mind.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> This book has suggested that many of the characteristics of science and technology reporting reflect the nature of the relationship between journalists and their sources. Concerned about their legitimacy in the political arena and anxious to receive support for thier work, scientists are sensitive to their image in the press. Hoping to shape that image, they are becoming adept at packaging information for journalists. Like advocates in any field, they are prone to overestimate the benefit of their work and minimize its risks.

For their part, journalists, especially those with limited experience in science reporting, are vulnerable to manipulation by their sources of information. They are concerned about balance and objectivity and accept the ideoology of science as a neutral authority; an objective judge of truth. ience writers are in awe of scientists; others are intimidated. But most are bewildered by the complexity of technical issues. The difficulty of evaluating a complex and uncertain subject converges with the day-to-day constraints of the journalistic profession to reinforce the tendency to rely uncritically on scientific expertise. While political writers often go well beyond press briefings to probe the stories behind the news, science reporters tend to rely on authoritative researchers, press conferences, and professional journals. The result? Many journalists have adopted the mindeset or "frame" of scientists, interpreting science in terms defined by their sources, even when those sources clearly display a special bias.

...Unagressive in their reporting and reliant on official sources, science journalists present a narrow range of coverage. Many journalists are, in effect, retailing science and technology rather than investigating them, identifying with their sources rather than challenging them. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

from pages 163-164 in Dorothy Nelkin's Selling Science, (1995, W.H. Freeman and Co., New York).