New Scientist pulls story on Creationist Code words

[Memekiller]

Source: National Skepticism Examiner

The New Scientist had a story by their book editor Amanda Gefter called "How to Spot a Hidden Religious Agenda". Today, it was pulled from their web site; the explanation being that they "received a complaint about the contents of the story."

Read more: http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m3d14-New-Scientist-pulls-story-on-creationist-code

---

I don't see anything that could be considered an "error". Perhaps they mean "offensive"?

[BlooInBloo]

1. They're just a subset of the more general "how to spot a scientific idiot" words.

[MrModerate]

2. That's pretty gutless of the New Scientist . . . n/t

[SkyDaddy7]

7. I know!

This is an ongoing problem within the scientific community...Most are scared they will be labeled "Angry Atheist". Regardless what is said Christians will label anyone who is rational an "Angry Atheist". There is no nice way to say SkyDaddy worship is dangerous to modern society.

[MrModerate]

18. Well, let's see . . . I'm certainly perturbed by the outsized influence . . .

of the "I believe in Fairies" crowd, and I don't, in fact, believe in Fairies.

I guess that makes me an angry atheist. On the other hand, I feel NS's pain, in that I'm surrounded by Fairy-fans (fewer where I am now than when I lived in the States, happily). And it's been my practice for decades to just.shut.up whenever people express religious feelings, because to criticize someone's religion is (considered) boorish and gets you nowhere.

But I'm not a peer-reviewed scientific publication, and I'm not being opportuned by pseudo-scientific Fairy-folk trying to slip their silly tales into my magazine. I think that politely *not* rolling my eyes when someone extols the transcendant beauty of some Fairy idol or the other -- while that may be appropriate in day-to-day life -- is *not* appropriate for science's marketplace of ideas.

Shame on you, New Scientist!

[No Elephants]

19. Galileo? Being a scientist requires a degree of guts sometimes.

[Tommy_J]

3. Too bad they pulled it

but how about some kudos for running it in the first place? NewScientist is a great magazine and website overall.

[OVERPAID01]

6. Give credit if they stand by their editor.

ONE person complains and the article is pulled, New Scientist is a gutless, pandering pile of dung.

[Tommy_J]

16. I think your way off base here.

Google up the controversy about NewScientist's story on the EMdrive and you'll see that many in the scientific community feel they are anything but gutless. In fact, they have been severely criticized for being just the opposite.

If you could name other science publications that sought to explain the right's ulterior motives then calling Newscientist dung MIGHT almost be defensible.

[MrModerate]

25. So who stole their mojo? You have to admit that "somebody complained . . ."

is a pretty weak explanation.

[Tommy_J]

27. Yes, "somebody complained" is weak

but weren't they the most daring for having published it in the first place?

[MrModerate]

30. I'd hate to think that an article on detecting pseudoscience was "daring" . . .

But in BizarroWorld America, you may be right.

[truthisfreedom]

4. I wanna see it, now. NOW. Anyone have a link?

I want the fucking list.

[Memekiller]

5. Link in the post

There's a link to a copy of the story in the Examiner post.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

38. Streisand effect, we welcome thee!

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

[ArbustoBuster]

24. There's a link in the Examiner article, but the link is broken.

The New Scientist article can be read at http://www.sott.net/articles/show/177635-How-to-spot-a-hidden-religious-agenda (The Examiner gives the link as https, instead of http, and that was what was breaking the link.)

[mainer]

8. I do think this part of her editorial is not entirely true

She calls these "code words" pointing to creationist thinking:

---Referring to natural selection as "blind", "random" or an "undirected process"--

Wouldn't "undirected process" be what an evolutionary biologist would say? In other words, that no Creator directed it? How is that a tip-off that there's a religious agenda?

[Hassin Bin Sober]

9. I'll hazard a guess...

The same way you can spot a freeper by the way they say "Democrat" party. While it may be a party of Democrats, the freepers always find a way to boil their language down to this certain basic level of stupidity.

[The Doctor.]

14. The point is the connotation.

Calling it 'blind' and 'undirected' is meant to suggest that it's not possible to arrive at humanity without design. What the morons who can't grasp the concept fail to understand is how evolution is directed by nature.

[Penance]

21. It's a creationist straw man argument

The creationists like to say that evolution is "random" and "undirected". Mutations are random but they happen at relatively predictable rates. Evolution as a process is both deterministic and quite predictable over relatively short periods of time. No one would use the word "undirected" to describe a natural process. Would anyone call gravity, evaporation, photosynthesis or supernovas "directed"? That sort of language begs the question "directed by what?" that you got trapped by. It's used to make evolution seem like intellectual hand-waving rather than solid science. A biologist would simply say "evolution happens, and here is how we know".

One could make a case that philosophically, the scientific method rejects anything but natural agency. That's an important discussion to have, but it belongs in a philosophy class. It does not belong in a basic biology textbook where students are just learning basic concepts.

[mainer]

23. Boy, the semantics seem pretty obtuse to me.

I have a science background and am a believer in evolution. I would have thought that "undirected" just means that there's no creator involved. I never would have interpreted that as being a creationist codeword.

[MrModerate]

26. It's code because . . .

If evolution is "undirected" (as you and I would probably agree) then -- according to creationists -- it couldn't possible result in US; we're too complex, wonderful, touched by god to have ever gotten here by any darn "undirected" process. Hence, evolution can't be true.

[KakistocracyHater]

22. 'too complex' is a code

'as if designed by' is another, & saying that evolution is merely a theory by which they mean hypothesis. 'Teaching the controversy', 'showing the weaknesses in Evolution'.

[JPettus]

29. Not according to the article

Mutation can be random, but natural selection never is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. What appears to be the full text, available here:

http://www.humanistwa.org.au/node/6

I note she named a few names (nothing very insulting, I'd say, though). Perhaps one of them has objected.

[rasputin1952]

11. I just checked it out...

I can see no reason to pull it other than pressure from some goomer that is in denial that Science actually answers questions w/facts, as opposed to allegory...:shrug:

[Speaker]

35. I'm betting it was an advertiser that objected. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. I wouldn't think so - you'd expect pro-science, anti-BS articles in New Scientist

so a company that had decided to advertise in it shouldn't have been surprised by this kind of thing (and it was, presumably, too late for the print edition anyway). Given Britain's strict libel laws, it's more likely to be an individual.

[HereSince1628]

12. Its published out of London ... mebee someone in the monarchy didn't like it.

Who else has could make a complaint and get an article yanked from a liberal science magazine? The editor's wife?

[nichomachus]

13. They pulled it because of "a" complaint???

That must have been one hell of a powerful complaint. I've never heard of a Web site pulling a story because of a single complaint. People complain all the time.

This really smells. I wonder who complained and what kind of threat they used.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. Could be fear of Britain's libel laws

Which I gather can be used to intimidate just about anyone.

[Kablooie]

17. Scientists are so damned biased. They only want the real truth not God's Truth.

[No Elephants]

20. Simma down, now. The site says that the story is TEMPORARILY unavailable while they investigate.

[Memekiller]

34. Due to suit...

I still think there's a question about who is suing and why. Is it a creationist trying to shut them down?

[Igel]

28. The writer overstepped.

That's all.

All As are B, so all Bs are A. It's a fallacy. You have to show the sets are identical; the writer doesn't.

Since that's opaque, I'll try explaining.

Creationists believe in some things that the writer thinks, with good reason, are non-scientific or contra-scientific. Others also believe in these things. All As (creationists) are Bs (believe non-scientific things).

Bs use words in set C. That is, all people who use these words believe in non-scientific things. This includes creationists.

However, the claim is that anybody using the words in set C is a creationist. That's false: New Agers, hardly creationists, use many of them.

We can dispute if everybody using the words has the same agenda.

Now, this doesn't entail, or even imply, that I support creationists or the insane British libel laws. Just that I rather like logic and maintaining distinctions, even if they hurt my cause, because much of science--esp. what's beyond mere observation and categorization--tends to require some logic.

[jmondine]

31. Perhaps, but...

If A is a subset of B, which is a subset of C, which is a subset of D and E, should writers F try to get publishers G to accept work H if it includes D but not E and some elements of A which are not part of C, for readers Q?

[The Night Owl]

32. I can't reach the site with the full article but my impression based on reading...

...the quoted material is that the author is pointing out code words which reveal a religious agenda, not just a Creationist agenda.

[Memekiller]

33. More on the New Scientist story

http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m3d16-More-on-the-pulled-anticreationist-story

The page now says it is in response to a legal matter.

[mainer]

37. Legal? As in a charge of plagiarism or something?

That's the only "legal" issue I can think of at the moment.

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. More likely libel

Though I suppose plagiarism would be possible.