Wednesday, February 08, 2006

The War on Science, and Nuttiness at NASA

This site is for discussions related to the development and implementation of a new sex-education curriculum in Montgomery County, Maryland. That in itself is not really very interesting, is it? The interesting aspect, we all realize, is the place of this new curriculum at the current instant in history. A curriculum was developed and presented at an inopportune time, a week after the 2004 presidential elections, and it became the focus of an attempted takeover of the school district by reactionary elements in the county. TeachTheFacts.org was formed to oppose those elements, whose original stated goal was to recall the entire school board, but who retreated to the safer position of maligning the new curriculum, pretending it was morally offensive, and eventually going to court in a drive-by lawsuit that resulted in a temporary restraining order, which resulted in negotiations, which resulted in the school district agreeing to start over. --Which is where we are now, waiting for a new curriculum to be delivered by MCPS, so it can be evaluated, approved, and put into place.

In the meantime, the same "culture wars" swirl around us, and discussion of other battle zones have been considered relevant to our conversations here. The argument over evolution, attempts to undermine and deny evidence of global warming, and other topics have pointed to an overall retreat of the American public from a position of intellectual curiosity, openness, and rigorous skepticism, to a way of thinking that relies on authority and denies science when it conflicts with that authority. Often, the authority is religious, but in many cases it is simple authoritarianism, as when those who question decisions made by leaders of business and government are labeled "traitors" and worse. It seems to me to be a retreat from the gains of the Enlightenment, a dive back toward the womblike, blind security of the Dark Ages, and it sets America apart from the rest of the industrialized world, which is still marching forward.

Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about. The scientists who work at NASA have traditionally set a world standard. Yeah, the bureaucracy might fail sometimes, but the scientific research there is second to none. But then, you put these political appointees in charge, and they try to paint everything a color the authorities prefer.

A recent New York Times article covered the recent flap over NASA political appointees trying to get the lead climate scientist to stop talking about global warming, and went on to mention some related issues. Down in the story, we learn about a young man who, after working on the Bush campaign and inaugural committee, was given a job as writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington. Well, he's gone now, it turns out he had lied on his résumé. But in the meantime, while he was there:
... In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
...
In the months before the 2004 election, according to interviews and some documents, these appointees sought to review news releases and to approve or deny news media requests to interview NASA scientists.

Repeatedly that year, public-affairs directors at all of NASA's science centers were admonished by White House appointees at headquarters to focus all attention on Mr. Bush's January 2004 "vision" for returning to the Moon and eventually traveling to Mars.

Starting early in 2004, directives, almost always transmitted verbally through a chain of midlevel workers, went out from NASA headquarters to the agency's far-flung research centers and institutes saying that all news releases on earth science developments had to allude to goals set out in Mr. Bush's "vision statement" for the agency, according to interviews with public-affairs officials working in headquarters and at three research centers.
...
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.

In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."

It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most." NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness

See, this isn't how science works, in case you need to be told that.

One fun thing about science is that it is fundamentally a challenge to authority. It questions everything. If somebody says that things fall down, you get to ask what "down" means. And then you find it means "toward the center of mass," and then you find that objects are gravitationally attracted to one another in proportion to their mass, and then you wonder about really massive things, like stars, and little tiny things, like atoms -- but it all starts with questioning the untested wisdom. "Down" might work for common folk, but a scientist can't leave it at that.

In Montgomery County, we find science under attack. Uneducated people think that scientific findings should be accessible to them. We just had a guy in the comments section say that Darwinian evolution was easy to understand. But if you go to the literature, you will not find easy reading -- oh, it's fine when pop-novelists write science fiction, it's all exciting, but that is not where the science happens. Science succeeds in part by sealing itself off from public debate.

Bundled with this is a failure of uneducated people to understand the scientific method, the nature of theory and the impossibility of inductive proof. They think you can criticize a scientist and his research because there is no "proof." Well, there's never "proof," there's only knowledge, and it always contains some nonzero amount of uncertainty. Science has excellent methods for minimizing the uncertainty, but science is an ongoing debate, it isn't a list of facts. There is always doubt and skepticism, and that's how it's meant to be. That's why the state of knowledge keeps improving.

When there is a scandal, and it happens especially in fields where the stakes are high, where there's a lot of money, people try to slander the entire enterprise of science. Ulterior motives, even political motives, are attributed to researchers who have devoted their lives to understanding some arcane topic, when their conclusions disagree with those that would be consistent with a certain political perspective.

Now we face a discussion over sexual variation and what should be taught in the schools. Scientists who study the topic, and medical experts who deal with patients and research subjects every day, have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that being gay is not a disease. They haven't concluded that it's really really cool, or that everybody should be gay, but those who know the topic really well just don't see it as a problem in itself. They would like to understand the subject better, but in their studies they have learned that orientation not a moral choice, it's just the way some people are.

Montgomery County is a prosperous place with lots of highly educated people. We owe it to our citizens to provide state-of-the-art knowledge to their children. Let's not let religious and political authorities tell us what science has found.

34 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY Times reports that young Mr. Deutsch has left NASA. It seems he lied on his resume when he applied for his political sinecure at NASA. Dr. Hansen stands his ground:

"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. "The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."
"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html

February 8, 2006
A Young Bush Appointee Resigns His Post at NASA
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.
Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.
Officials at NASA headquarters declined to discuss the reason for the resignation.
"Under NASA policy, it is inappropriate to discuss personnel matters," said Dean Acosta, the deputy assistant administrator for public affairs and Mr. Deutsch's boss.
The resignation came as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was preparing to review its policies for communicating science to the public. The review was ordered Friday by Michael D. Griffin, the NASA administrator, after a week in which many agency scientists and midlevel public affairs officials described to The New York Times instances in which they said political pressure was applied to limit or flavor discussions of topics uncomfortable to the Bush administration, particularly global warming.
"As we have stated in the past, NASA is in the process of revising our public affairs policies across the agency to ensure our commitment to open and full communications," the statement from Mr. Acosta said.
The statement said the resignation of Mr. Deutsch was "a separate matter."
Mr. Deutsch, 24, was offered a job as a writer and editor in NASA's public affairs office in Washington last year after working on President Bush's re-election campaign and inaugural committee, according to his résumé. No one has disputed those parts of the document.
According to his résumé, Mr. Deutsch received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."
Yesterday, officials at Texas A&M said that was not the case.
"George Carlton Deutsch III did attend Texas A&M University but has not completed the requirements for a degree," said an e-mail message from Rita Presley, assistant to the registrar at the university, responding to a query from The Times.
Repeated calls and e-mail messages to Mr. Deutsch on Tuesday were not answered.
Mr. Deutsch's educational record was first challenged on Monday by Nick Anthis, who graduated from Texas A&M last year with a biochemistry degree and has been writing a Web log on science policy, scientificactivist.blogspot.com.
After Mr. Anthis read about the problems at NASA, he said in an interview: "It seemed like political figures had really overstepped the line. I was just going to write some commentary on this when somebody tipped me off that George Deutsch might not have graduated."
He posted a blog entry asserting this after he checked with the university's association of former students. He reported that the association said Mr. Deutsch received no degree.
A copy of Mr. Deutsch's résumé was provided to The Times by someone working in NASA headquarters who, along with many other NASA employees, said Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public.
Such complaints came to the fore starting in late January, when James E. Hansen, the climate scientist, and several midlevel public affairs officers told The Times that political appointees, including Mr. Deutsch, were pressing to limit Dr. Hansen's speaking and interviews on the threats posed by global warming.
Yesterday, Dr. Hansen said that the questions about Mr. Deutsch's credentials were important, but were a distraction from the broader issue of political control of scientific information.
"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."
"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

February 08, 2006 12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This post by Jim is such a detailed misconstrual of truth and rationalization of irrationality, it's hard to know where to start. Some have misused and over-emphasized tentative scientific findings to attack any religious belief that conerns a living God. A few random hits:

"A curriculum was developed and became the focus of an attempted takeover of the school district by reactionary elements in the county. The stated goal was to recall the entire school board, but they retreated to the safer position of maligning the new curriculum, pretending it was morally offensive, and eventually going to court in a drive-by lawsuit that resulted in a temporary restraining order, which resulted in negotiations, which resulted in the school district agreeing to start over."

Those anti-Fishback elements that also wanted to recall the Board weren't just using the curriculum as an excuse. It was the last straw of irresponsibility. The Board gave up the Fishback curriculum because the judge, a Clinton appointee, made clear that it was unconstitutional.

"In the meantime, the same "culture wars" swirl around us, and discussion of other battle zones have been considered relevant to our conversations here. The argument over evolution, attempts to undermine and deny evidence of global warming, and other topics have pointed to an overall retreat of the American public from a position of intellectual curiosity, openness, and rigorous skepticism, to a way of thinking that relies on authority and denies science when it conflicts with that authority."

Yes, "intellectual curiosity, openness, and rigorous skepticism" except when critcizing the theory of evolution, which must be accepted as truth. Scientists refuse to debate IT theorists and the subject is banished from classrooms even though the theory was originally conceived by a secular scientist.

Nobody denies that there has been a warming of the environment since the seventies. What's less clear is the cause but again the liberal have considered it apostasy to even question the idea that changes in climate are due to the burning of fossil fuels.

"Often, the authority is religious, but in many cases it is simple authoritarianism, as when those who question decisions made by leaders of business and government are labeled "traitors" and worse. It seems to me to be a retreat from the gains of the Enlightenment, a dive back toward the womblike, blind security of the Dark Ages, and it sets America apart from the rest of the industrialized world, which is still marching forward."

America will probably continue to march forward because its the only place where you can question the status quo. In other countries, the government tightly controls the universites and research facilities. Not so in America. We can say: does evoultion really make sense? has global warming been steadily taking place as more and more cars hit the road? is it really true that no one has any control over their feelings? the freedom to question and not accept everything at face value a la TTF, is why we'll continue to excel at innovation. Read Charles Kruthammer's column in this week's edition of Time.

"Here is an example of the kind of thing I am talking about. The scientists who work at NASA have traditionally set a world standard."

Government workers should serve their employers. If they want to just follow their own whims, they should seek funding elsewhere. They are there to execute the agenda of their employer.

"One fun thing about science is that it is fundamentally a challenge to authority. It questions everything."

That's why IT is cutting edge. It questions the stock evolution drivel we've been subject to for the last hundred years.

""Down" might work for common folk, but a scientist can't leave it at that."

Speculative and unsubstantiated evolution theory may work for half-educated scientists in the soft disciplines but true scientists know what they don't know.

"In Montgomery County, we find science under attack."

Not really. There is dissent about liberal misuse and misconstrual of science.

"Uneducated people think that scientific findings should be accessible to them. We just had a guy in the comments section say that Darwinian evolution was easy to understand."

Gee, if it can't be understood, why are high school students required to learn it. You might need expertise to conduct research but scientific theories can be explained to most intelligent people. The problem is with TTF types who lose their scepticism when they get the answer they want.

"But if you go to the literature, you will not find easy reading -- oh, it's fine when pop-novelists write science fiction, it's all exciting, but that is not where the science happens. Science succeeds in part by sealing itself off from public debate."

No it doesn't and, again, this is why America has been so extravagantly successful. Scientists flock here where they can freely criticize the status quo.

"Bundled with this is a failure of uneducated people to understand the scientific method, the nature of theory and the impossibility of inductive proof."

Well, I guess we'll just never understand how brilliant you are. Interesting that there are scientists who disagree with all these things you've brought up and the scientific establishment systematically opresses them. I guess they just couldn't grasp these arcane things either.

"They think you can criticize a scientist and his research because there is no "proof." Well, there's never "proof," there's only knowledge, and it always contains some nonzero amount of uncertainty. Science has excellent methods for minimizing the uncertainty, but science is an ongoing debate, it isn't a list of facts. There is always doubt and skepticism, and that's how it's meant to be. That's why the state of knowledge keeps improving."

That's why IT theory is a step forward from naive and malicious Darwinism.

"When there is a scandal, and it happens especially in fields where the stakes are high, where there's a lot of money, people try to slander the entire enterprise of science. Ulterior motives, even political motives, are attributed to researchers who have devoted their lives to understanding some arcane topic, when their conclusions disagree with those that would be consistent with a certain political perspective."

This is a description of what happens to those who dare to disagree with the association position on "orientation". They are hounded out of their professions by the political types.

"Now we face a discussion over sexual variation and what should be taught in the schools. Scientists who study the topic, and medical experts who deal with patients and research subjects every day, have concluded that sexual orientation is not a choice, and that being gay is not a disease."

Except when they don't conclude that, in which case they don't qualify as a scientist in TTF's circular logic.

"They haven't concluded that it's really really cool, or that everybody should be gay, but those who know the topic really well just don't see it as a problem in itself. They would like to understand the subject better, but in their studies they have learned that orientation not a moral choice, it's just the way some people are."

They've learned nothing that would indicate that and if they're claiming to speak on morality, they have no more authority than anyon else.

"Montgomery County is a prosperous place with lots of highly educated people. We owe it to our citizens to provide state-of-the-art knowledge to their children. Let's not let religious and political authorities tell us what science has found."

Or the entertainment and cultural authorities. Kids need to know that the question of orientation is unsettled, that evolution theory doesn't explain diverse speciation, that the planet hasn't been steadily warming up as fossil fuel has risen. We need to teach from facts not Hollywood spin.

February 08, 2006 1:48 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

Well Anon, I'll bet you feel better now. It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, and that it doesn't matter, you certainly won't need anything like "knowledge" or "facts" to win this easy debate.

One thing I have to comment on: your comment about teaching evolution to high school students. It is unbelievable to think that high school students are learning about evolution at the same level that biologists are thinking of it. It just shows such disrespect for learning, for knowledge, for science, and ultimately, it seems to me, for the human race and our ability to understand the world.

It's just so ... creepy.

JimK

February 08, 2006 2:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Well Anon, I'll bet you feel better now. It's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about, and that it doesn't matter, you certainly won't need anything like "knowledge" or "facts" to win this easy debate."

I haven't seen you offer any up. You seem to think the world should take your word for it on any position you hold. Readers have seen me quote studies and you retreat into your "well-it's-too-esoteric-for-a-non-scientist" routine. If no one without a degree in science can have a opinion on this stuff, what's the point of this site, other than to mislead?

"One thing I have to comment on: your comment about teaching evolution to high school students. It is unbelievable to think that high school students are learning about evolution at the same level that biologists are thinking of it. It just shows such disrespect for learning, for knowledge, for science, and ultimately, it seems to me, for the human race and our ability to understand the world."

You're the one that said that evolution is too hard for a non-scientist to understand. Now, you're saying it can only be understood to be true at a very deep level that only people like you have attained. Your degree is in psychology, isn't it? Surveys have shown the majority of high school biology teachers in America don't believe in evolution. I guess their education is not quite the equal of yours either. Where did you go to school again?

"It's just so ... creepy."

Well, try to avoid mirrors. Dracula does.

February 08, 2006 2:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The War on Science"

Even metaphorically, how is this apropriate terminology? Seems you're trying to be inflammatory.

February 08, 2006 4:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Seems you're trying to be inflammatory."

What's new? They should change the name to ITTF? "Inflamed Teaching Tales of Fairies"

February 08, 2006 5:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well anon ....it seems you are right at home with the fairies.

freebird

February 08, 2006 6:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, Free, you're just simply a fabulous wit!

February 08, 2006 6:38 PM  
Blogger JimK said...

... you're saying it can only be understood to be true at a very deep level that only people like you have attained.

Hey, Anon, show the people the part where I said I understand evolution "at a very deep level," or even where I said I understand it at all.

Love the way you make this stuff up.

I have respect for those who have devoted their lives and many years of education and research to understanding the process by which organisms adapt to their environments. I don't attempt to criticize research I don't understand, and don't pretend to know things I don't know.

JimK

February 09, 2006 12:55 AM  
Blogger JimK said...

Robert, it's always a tough call, whether to let people like Anon show their true colors or to try to clean it up. I was on an airplane all day yesterday (I'm in Utah at the moment), and when I saw this it was late and I decided to let it go.

But it's a good question. The bigots think it's funny to call names -- should I edit their ugliness out? From my view I assume that most readers see it for what it is.

I am a dictator here, yes, but a sensitive dictator, who wants to do what the people want. I think the comments at this blog are a discussion among adults, and I trust we have seen this kind of game before and know what's going on. But there is a case to be made that we don't need our guests pooping on our living-room floor.

I'm open to opinions (though I won't be at the computer most of the day).

JimK

February 09, 2006 8:50 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Robert

I know you won't believe this but I wasn't actually referring to a common slang for gays but to Jim's view of the whole homosexual phenomena, which I see as based on a "fairy tale" view rather than a factual one. The double meaning didn't occur until I read your comment. Apologies.

February 09, 2006 9:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, you're right, Theresa. The art of name-calling has been raised to a new level by Jim. The tone here is more or less the one he set. Robert's been comparatively civil though. Some of these TTFers regularly say blasphemous things about Jesus too.

The rioting Muslims are a world of hypocrisy unto themselves. You can be executed in most of the Muslim world for simply possessing a Bible and they violently rage about some cartoons. Contrast it to the Christian world where even in the most religious communities, like the Amish, the worst a word could get you is shunned- and that's if you're another professing Christian. Could you imagine Christians storming and burning an Iranian embassy? Societies with Christian roots are the world's most tolerant and then these TTF guys have the nerve to have compared Christians to Islamic fundamentalists repeatedly.

February 09, 2006 2:51 PM  
Blogger andrea said...

Theresa,
what are you talking about? Who said Muslim cartoons are not okay- except the people rioting. They feel free to say what they want about other religions but no one is to say anything about them.

I am not sure how that came into a blog on the problems of a know-nothing lying(resume said he graduated- but he didn't) political appointee who was trying to censor science- and threatening the careers of civil service scientists unless they followed his directions- and misinformation

February 09, 2006 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fundamentalists are fundamentalists regardless of their chosen faith.

"Could you imagine Christians storming and burning an Iranian embassy?"

Well, yes, but I don't have to imagine. I can study history. Have you ever heard of the Crusades, Anon?

February 09, 2006 3:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon writes:

"Some of these TTFers regularly say blasphemous things about Jesus too."

Anon,
Can you cite a single instance where anyone involved with TTF (or anyone who has participated in the discussions on these blogs) has ever said anything bad about Jesus Christ? I am not talking about suggestions that Christianity as an institution has, from time to time, had shortcomings (as have all organized religions), but, rather, your accusation that blasphemous things are "regularly" said by TTF people about Jesus. I sure can't recall any, and I think I would have noticed. Perhaps you can enlighten me with specific information.

February 09, 2006 6:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Fundamentalists are fundamentalists regardless of their chosen faith."

What you guys need to do is start a TTF chapter in Saudi Arabia and, then, if you make it back with your head still attached, we'll talk about how all religions are just the same.

February 09, 2006 9:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"it is not for either you or I to determine what..... should be subsidized."

?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

February 10, 2006 8:26 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

We'll see if Christians storm Sony Pictures backlot and burn it down. Check out who is now the spokesman for Sony Pictures:

"A Pulpit Online for Critics of 'The Da Vinci Code' Film

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN, The New York Times

(Feb. 9) -- At a time when conservative Christian groups have been particularly quick to strike back at Hollywood fare they find offensive, Sony Pictures faced a predicament with its coming film "The Da Vinci Code."

Should the studio try to mollify the critics who say the "Code" is blasphemy, with its plot describing a church conspiracy to cover up the truth that Jesus married and never rose from the dead? Or should it ignore the complainers, sit back and watch the controversy boost ticket sales?

Instead, Sony has decided to hand a big bullhorn to the detractors of "The Da Vinci Code."

The company is putting up a Web site today — well ahead of the movie's release on May 19 — that will give a platform to some of the fiercest critics of "The Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, the book that is the movie's source.

The site, thedavincichallenge.com, will post essays by about 45 Christian writers, scholars and leaders of evangelical organizations who will pick apart the book's theological and historical claims about Christianity.

Among the writers are Gordon Robertson, the son of the television evangelist Pat Robertson and co-host of their television show, "The 700 Club," who is writing about how early Christianity survived; and Richard J. Mouw, the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical school in Pasadena, Calif.

Dr. Mouw, who contributed an essay on, "Why Christians Ought to See the Movie," said: "It's going to be water cooler conversation, so Christians need to take a deep breath, buy the book and shell out the money for the movie. Then we need to educate Christians about what all this means. We need to help them answer someone who says, 'So how do you know Jesus didn't get married?' "

The idea for the site originated with Jonathan Bock at Grace Hill Media, a company that helps studios market movies to religious audiences. The site will provide links to online discussions. The writers will not be paid.

"We believe this is unique and perhaps can set a tone for others," said Jim Kennedy, a spokesman for Sony Pictures. "We've all seen how some movies can evoke great consternation in society in the past, and I think many people want to move towards a more educational and uplifting dialogue."

Among those who will write for the Web site are Hugh Hewitt, host of a conservative radio talk show; Darrell L. Bock, a professor of New Testament studies and the author of "Breaking the Da Vinci Code"; and George Barna, founder of a polling and research firm that focuses on evangelicals.

Mr. Barna said it was a "hard call" for him to agree to Sony's offer. But, as he wrote in his essay, "Heresy rightfully gets Christians upset, and responding is necessary."

Although Roman Catholics in particular have objected to the "Code" book, which refers repeatedly to "the Vatican" as the source of the conspiracy, few Catholic writers are on the Web site's lineup, though more are being asked to join. Grace Hill Media talked with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Opus Dei, the conservative Catholic group depicted in the book as a murderous force, about their participation, but as the list stands now, they are not included. Charles Colson, the convicted Watergate figure and now a leading evangelical voice, is expected to write about Catholicism.

Despite the fact that it is based on a best-seller, Sony and the movie's producers have been unusually secretive about "The Da Vinci Code," allowing no journalists on the set during filming last summer, keeping all script copies under close supervision and declining to comment about the film in detail.

Sony executives have privately expressed concern over ruffling religious sensitivities with the film, especially since the studio has simultaneously been courting the Christian niche audience with films like "Left Behind: World at War," the straight-to-video evangelical thriller it distributed last year.

Sidney Sheinberg, the former president of MCA-Universal, which released "The Last Temptation of Christ," the 1988 film by Martin Scorsese, was skeptical that a Web site would satisfy those who found "The Da Vinci Code" insulting to their religion.

"That suggests that people who have an opinion are going to put the opinion where you tell them to," he said.

John C. Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, said that the Web site is an intriguing strategy for an industry often denounced by Christians.

"In some sense it gives evangelicals and other religious people a forum and a degree of legitimacy because they've been asked to give a critique," he said. "On the other hand, you could see this as a modest amount of co-optation, like Sony is saying, 'You guys are getting your say, so leave our movie alone.' "

Sharon Waxman contributed reporting for this article from Los Angeles."

February 10, 2006 9:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Government workers should serve their employers. If they want to just follow their own whims, they should seek funding elsewhere. They are there to execute the agenda of their employer."

I agree 100%! It is the American taypayer who pays the salaries of all government workers including elected ones. That means that the "employers" all government workers should serve are WE THE PEOPLE. Not big business, not the party in power or the proud C-student occupying the White House, but WE THE PEOPLE.

February 10, 2006 2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I agree 100%! It is the American taypayer who pays the salaries of all government workers including elected ones. That means that the "employers" all government workers should serve are WE THE PEOPLE. Not big business, not the party in power or the proud C-student occupying the White House, but WE THE PEOPLE."

Uh, WE THE PEOPLE elected the elected ones. Uh, duh, um.....

February 10, 2006 2:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I actually heard some governement workers use WETHEPEOPLE computers to run liberal blogs on WETHEPEOPLE time. Maybe there should be an investigation.

February 10, 2006 2:38 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

Anon said, "This post by Jim is such a detailed misconstrual of truth and rationalization of irrationality, it's hard to know where to start. "

Those readers who seriously want to learn about the war on science being waged in the US these days might want to read about the following American scientists. If you go to google.com and search for these scientists by name, agency, and topic, you will find other articles with more information, but these will get you started:

-- Dr. Andrew Eller, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), was fired and rehired over his whistleblowing about the decline in Florida panthers' population due to USFWS approved loss of panther habitat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15056-2005Mar7.html

-- Dr. David Graham, US Food and Drug Administration, whistleblower about the heart attacks, strokes, and deaths caused by Vioxx and other similar pain killers, whose FDA supervisors attempted to discredit. Vioxx's manufacturer, Merck, took Vioxx off the market voluntarily because they knew Dr. Graham was right.
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=6453

-- Dr. Elizabeth Blackburn, who is highly regarded as the co-discoverer of telomerase, an enzyme linked to cancer cell growth, was dismissed from the President's Council on Bioethics.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/presidents-council-on-bioethics.html

-- Dr. Susan Wood resigned from her position as the director of the Office of Women's Health at the FDA over the interference of politicians with the work and recommendations of FDA scientists.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083101271.html

As I began researching the American war on science, I was fascinated to learn that US cigarette manufacturers began trying to induce doubt about scientific findings right after the US Surgeon General published a 1964 study linking cigarette smoking with cancer. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/30yrsgen.htm It's easy to see why -- if cigarettes cause cancer, how are cigarette manufacturers supposed to sell them and make any money? The EPA was not too pleased by this effort. Scroll down to "Tobacco Industry Media Campaign here: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/strsfs.html

Please note, the tobacco industry is not the only industry to benefit from inducing doubt about scientific findings. Things really got interesting in the early 1990s, not long after the K Street Project got going.
Here's an article about "scientific journalism" http://www.freepress.net/news/13581
and this one is called "Doubt is their product." http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Sciam_article_on_lobbying.htm

Christine

February 10, 2006 4:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.afaeryhunt.com/proof.htm

February 10, 2006 4:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Those readers who seriously want to learn about the war on science being waged in the US these days"

What do you mean these days? Been this way since time immortal. Did you just recently become aware of this, Silly? There will always be people with a motive to manipulate science. But big business isn't the only empowered group in our society. Just look at the Fishback curriculum attempt where gay advocacy groups attempted a takeover of the local high school health curriculum by ignoring scientific studies and focusing on the political findings of associations.

Anyway, here's a site of a group that claims to have pictures of actual fairies:

February 10, 2006 4:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://music.aol.com/feature/grammy/photos/2006_performers_presenters

February 10, 2006 5:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a place to get a picture os someone that the Recording Industry bigwigs was claiming was Sly Stone:

Yeah, right and I'm Elvis.

February 10, 2006 5:21 PM  
Blogger Christine said...

What do I mean by these days?

I mean the present time in which we have many big American businesses, from tobacco companies to energy companies to pharmaceutical companies to religious right ministries producing "junk science" reports in efforts to confuse the public and influence public policy. "These days" we also have federal government officials and appointees assisting certain businesses in these efforts.

What do you mean by "time immortal?"

Christine

February 11, 2006 8:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On February 9, I asked Anon the following question, in response to to assertion that "Some of these TTFers regularly say blasphemous things about Jesus too.":

"Anon,
Can you cite a single instance where anyone involved with TTF (or anyone who has participated in the discussions on these blogs) has ever said anything bad about Jesus Christ? I am not talking about suggestions that Christianity as an institution has, from time to time, had shortcomings (as have all organized religions), but, rather, your accusation that blasphemous things are 'regularly' said by TTF people about Jesus. I sure can't recall any, and I think I would have noticed. Perhaps you can enlighten me with specific information."

Anon's accusation was both extremely harsh and incendiary. Anon has posted several comments since Friday evening, but has not responded to my request that he back it up. Not having received a response, I think we can all safely assume that Anon "misspoke." In the interest of civility, is an apology forthcoming?

February 11, 2006 1:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon asserts:

"But big business isn't the only empowered group in our society. Just look at the Fishback curriculum attempt where gay advocacy groups attempted a takeover of the local high school health curriculum by ignoring scientific studies and focusing on the political findings of associations."

If anyone wishes to take Anon's assessment over the assessments of, for example, the American Medical Association, they are free to do so. According to Anon, it seems, the AMA is filled with anti-science, left-wing wacko types, and thus should be ignored when it comes to important issues concerning the health of our fellow citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian.

February 11, 2006 1:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If anyone wishes to take Anon's assessment over the assessments of, for example, the American Medical Association, they are free to do so. According to Anon, it seems, the AMA is filled with anti-science, left-wing wacko types, and thus should be ignored when it comes to important issues concerning the health of our fellow citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian."

I didn't ask you take my assessment. This is a typical rhetorical dodge by David. Look at my comment. I said we should rely on scientific findings not the pronouncements of political bodies like the AMA.

Here's an excerpt from the AMA's website that discusses how AMA decides on policy statements. Sounds to me more like a governmental body than a professional association. Obviously, politics plays a big part and the types who dominate are those who think that kind of thing is important or who have a lot of time on their hands. (might they even be liberals?) School curriculums should not be based on this stuff but on the actual findings of scientists:

"The Process of Creating AMA Policy

Reports and resolutions are submitted for consideration at each meeting of the AMA House. The reports and resolutions are generated by AMA delegates/delegations, the AMA Board of Trustees, AMA Councils, and AMA Sections. The actions that the House takes on the reports and resolutions establish AMA policy. The actions of the House can (1) establish AMA policy on health care issues; (2) modify the AMA Bylaws; (3) modify the AMA Constitution; and/or (4) direct the AMA Board to take specific actions.

The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs plays a special role in the development of AMA policy. Although CEJA routinely gathers input from the AMA House before issuing new Opinions, CEJA has the independent authority to establish AMA policy on ethical issues through the issuance of its Current Opinions.

The AMA Board of Trustees also plays a special role in the development of AMA policy. Between meetings of the House of Delegates, the Board has the authority to create AMA policy on an issue if no applicable policy exists. In urgent situations, the Board has the authority to take those policy actions that it deems best represent the interests of patients, physicians, and the AMA. Any such actions by the Board must be placed before the House of Delegates.

Recording and Distributing AMA Policy

After each House meeting, the speakers of the AMA House oversee the process of updating the AMA policy database to reflect the actions taken by the House and any modifications that CEJA has made in its Current Opinions.

Once the AMA policy database has been updated, the speakers oversee the process of updating the Association's PolicyFinder programs. PolicyFinder is available as a Web-based application and as a stand-alone version that can be installed on a PC.

PolicyFinder is the principal mechanism through which the AMA distributes information on its policy positions.

Promoting and Advocating AMA Policy Positions

The AMA works to promote and implement its policies in a number of ways, including the following:

Communications;
AMA representation on standard-setting and accreditation bodies;
The legislative process at the national and state levels;
Litigation;
Advocacy campaigns at the national and state levels and advocacy in the private sector; and
Advocacy to regulatory bodies."

February 11, 2006 3:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If anyone wishes to take Anon's assessment over the assessments of, for example, the American Medical Association, they are free to do so."

I don't know about the rest of you, but I always get a warm feeling when the wise and wonderful intellectual elite at TTF grants freedom of thought to we of the ignorant masses. How fortunate we are to be ruled over by such beneficent superiors.

February 11, 2006 3:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"According to Anon, it seems, the AMA is filled with anti-science, left-wing wacko types, and thus should be ignored when it comes to important issues concerning the health of our fellow citizens who happen to be gay or lesbian."

What I really think, David, is that they don't think these matters will ever have any resolution, they don't care and they feel they have nothing to lose by catering to the sqeakiest wheel.

February 11, 2006 3:56 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon's accusation was both extremely harsh and incendiary."

You think so? I'm surprised to hear it since a couple of your buddies have stated here that they, by definition, can't blaspheme because they are not believers. Given that, it's a little difficult to see how my comment was harsh. My remark was offhand but their remarks were incendiary when they occurred- and they meant them that way.

"Anon has posted several comments since Friday evening, but has not responded to my request that he back it up. Not having received a response, I think we can all safely assume that Anon "misspoke." In the interest of civility, is an apology forthcoming?"

No, there isn't. If you'll make a policy to delete these comments, however, I'll let you know when they occur. If you're taking the position that there is no such thing as blasphemy, I'm not going to respond to it. I'm already treating one of the guys that posts here frequently as persona non grata because I'm sick of listening to his constant insults to anything sacred.

February 11, 2006 4:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"What do I mean by these days?

I mean the present time in which we have many big American businesses, from tobacco companies to energy companies to pharmaceutical companies to religious right ministries producing "junk science" reports in efforts to confuse the public and influence public policy. "These days" we also have federal government officials and appointees assisting certain businesses in these efforts.

What do you mean by "time immortal?""

What I mean is that human nature will always create people who try to manipulate information to their own advantage. You always have to consider the source. It's not much different today than it ever was- and I think there are more counter-balances on oligarchy than there were in the past.

In the cases you guys have been talking, however, it always seems to involve a government worker. Governments have policies. They have a right to expect their employees to advocate those policies. If the scientists are bothered by the government policies and feel they can't support them, they should seek employment elsewhere. Jobs for government scientists are not an entitlement.

It's not just the world of science where people have conflicted interests either. Look at the journalism scandals recently.

Of course the most infamous instance of the corrupting influence business can have was when Jesus turned over the tables in the temple on Tuesday, threatening the local merchants. They went to the leaders and said this has to be stopped. Jesus was arrested on Thursday night. You know the rest.

February 11, 2006 4:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home