Makes a great present

A glimpse of Evidence of Evolution
[Via NCSE]

NCSE is pleased to offer a free preview (PDF) of Evidence of Evolution (Abrams, 2009), featuring the photography of Susan Middleton and the text of Mary Ellen Hannibal.

[More]

This is an absolutely beautiful-looking book. Available from Amazon for less than 20 bucks.

Are we going to see ‘the science news sponsored by Exxon?’

by army.arch

Questioning “NPR-like” funding for newspaper science section
[Via Knight Science Journalism Tracker]

Last Thursday, the Columbia Journalism Review’s Observatory ran a cheery, and disturbingly off-center, story on the new science section in the McClatchy papers in North Carolina, including the Raleigh News & Observer and the Charlotte Observer.

In a brilliant instance of being unable to see the forest for the trees, the article breezily noted the good news (we all love science sections, don’t we?), and recapped a few recent stories. Rick Thames, the editor of the Charlotte paper, went on about how happy he was to use all the freelance writing talent available to him (he didn’t say what he was paying). The science section’s editor, Ann Allen, emphasized that she was featuring fresh and local coverage. The only hint that something more was going on came in the deck at the top of the post. Mysteriously, it referred to the science section as a “community journalism project.”

Editor Thames said it was a “head turn” that in these difficult times for print, he “was able to grow our newspaper.” (Important safety note: Never trust an editor who uses “grow” as a transitive verb.)

The piece was off-center because the news–and it was big news–came at the end. After all this making nice, Thomas K. Zellers, who wrote the CJR Observatory piece, finally got to the disturbing part: Thames, after deliberating over how he could fund a science section, came across a podcast of NPR’s Science Friday. “If NPR can find a way to support a weekly feature on science,” he remembered thinking, “why can’t a newspaper?”

Thames said he began a search for “someone in the local community” who would underwrite a science section. That helpful community resident turned out to be Duke Energy, one of the largest energy companies in the nation. What a nice story: An energy company helps support a local science section, enriching the community. Thames didn’t mention some of Duke Energy’s other contributions to science, such as doubling its spending to more than $10 million in 2008 and 2009 to fight legislation to cap emissions of carbon dioxide. That tidbit comes from the Charlotte Observer itself, Thames’s paper, in an article last October–before he started the Duke Energy science section.

[More]

Greater transparency is always important. And I recognize that many newspapers try to put up a Wall between the editorial and marketing sides. The worry comes more from self-censorship.

Is the newspaper going to publish science stories that might risk the sponsorships? If Duke Energy is spending tens of millions of dollars fighting legislation dealing with climate change, is the Charlotte paper willing to lose the support of Duke Energy to publish reports on increasing climate change occurring around the world?

The editors of the newspaper know that if they publish items that Duke does not like, Duke can remove their money. So, even if Duke is not involved in making any editorial decisions, the fact is that the editors themselves may censor their own writers, in order to maintain the money from Duke.

Similar things have happened with normal advertising. But I would expect that this sponsorship is for a heck of a lot more money, since it is supporting an entire section and not simply a few ads. Getting money from an organization that can be directly impacted by the reporting does not seem like a good long term idea.

I would love it better if they had multiple sponsors with non-overlapping missions.

A wonderful takedown of a denialist

by Pink Sherbet Photography

Ellis Washington Responds. Kind Of.
[Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars]

After a couple weeks of silence, Ellis Washington finally replied — in a manner of speaking — to my challenge to him about endogenous retroviruses and evolution. Which is to say that he ignored the challenge, admitted he doesn’t know a damn thing about evolution, and tried to change the subject — just as I predicted he would. And along the way, he makes some truly funny arguments. The subject line of his email really sets the stage perfectly for what was to follow:

I don’t know much about ERVs, but I know a lot about Reason and Veritas

[More]

Creationists, as do most denialists, continue to use logical fallacies and all sorts of lawyerly tricks to prove their point. Reason and truth are very seldom part of that point at all. Here we have an excellent, logical response.

‘Repetition does not equal refutation.’ Something to remember. I also love the ad hominem arguments uses – linking ‘true believers’ to Lenin and Communists. Scary. I’m ready to give up on evolution because I don’t want to be labeled a Communist and be labeled a traitor.

I saw very little reason in Washington’s response. Hard to really debate someone who works so hard to demonstrate his inability to carry on a functional debate.

Will they write the textbooks also?

by Brian L. Romig

Me in the Huff Po on Texas Inanity
[Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars]

I was interviewed by the Huffington Post the other day for a story about the Texas Board of Education and their attempts to revise history while writing the new social studies standards for the state. You can see the article that resulted from that interview here. One thing that I said in that interview that did not make it into the article was that I think the wingnuts may have overplayed their hand.

What do I mean by that? I mean that they may have gone too far with their revisions and demands for changes in textbooks and their actions may result in a backlash against those demands rather than compliance with them. I think the textbook companies may have a very difficult time convincing the authors of their textbooks, most of which are genuine historians, to say some of the things the Texas BOE is demanding that they say. It will be interesting to see how that battle will turn out.

[More]

It is an interesting question. Will the authors act like the reputed historians in the Soviet Union and just go along with rewriting history in order to follow the political dictates of various committees? Or will they stick to their guns? Will the textbook companies then hire writers who will provide the words required by the Texas BOE?

And, from what I can find, the actual decision on which textbooks to adopt will happen next year, with a different Board present. I would figure that the textbook producers will not forget Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence when it comes to revolutions. They will just add in Calvin”s influence.