Revenge on the Nerds II: Why Conservos Hate Smartiepants Liberals

In his book, Anti-Intellectualism in American Life,  Richard Hofstadter delves into the reasons that intellectuals – mainly on the Left – are detested with such verve by the American Right. The reasons often aren’t pretty, or even comprehensible,  and in fact are often downright puerile and smack of envy, i.e. that the Right simply lacks the brainpower of the nation’s liberals.

 One of the best insights into hatred of the Left intellectual is provided in Hofstadter 's account of how Adlai Stevenson was relentlessly skewered ca. the 1952  presidential campaign. (pp. 221-22). This included barbarous and savage verbal assaults in the media(p. 225).  As Hofstadter notes (ibid.) Stevenson's wit was detested even more than his intellect. Of course, wit often functions in the service of intellect, to amplify intellect's intent and render its goals more efficacious. Or to smooth the delivery of information related to weighty issues.

 For this Adlai was repeatedly slandered and referred to as a "comedian" or "clown" and portrayed in cartoons with a jester's cap and bells. The New York Daily News (cf. p. 227) once referred to him as "Adelaide" and charged that he "trilled his speeches in a fruity voice."  Fruity voice? Hmmmm…so the implication was that Adlai was also a “fruit” – eh? And hence the generalization might be inferred by the knuckle-draggers that all intellectuals were “fruits”.

 Thereby rendering an additional slur - one that directly ties intellectual display or wit with homosexuality. This was reinforced by the description of Stevenson’s followers as "typical Harvard lace-cuff liberals." At lower levels of society today, this pernicious virus can still be seen - in our public high schools. There, day in and day out "geeks", "dweebs" and "dorks" are relentlessly assaulted by feeble-minded "jocks" for openly displaying any intellect. Many are also accused of being "gay" simply because they prefer the life of the mind and books- to football, mailbox 'baseball' or cow-tipping.

No wonder little has changed.

 We now fast forward to the 21^st century  (“Revenge II”) and the latest screeds against smart people on the Left as embodied in a despicable article in the recent National Review story by Charles C. W. Cooke entitled “Smarter Than Thou”. Therein, Cooke whined about “the extraordinarily puffed-up ‘nerd’ culture that has of late started to bloom across the United States.”

 “Started of late”? You effing moron! It was always there, but only recently has occupied more public prominence because more of these Left intellectual voices are afforded platforms they weren’t before. We now have an intellectual president, after all, who really did earn his place at Harvard and wasn’t allowed in as  a “legacy” – as Bush Jr. A fact that continually eats at the Right’s innards.

Then there is the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman, whose voice has consistently skewered the assorted shibboleths of the economic Right.  Finally, we beheld the charismatic and articulate Neil deGrasse Tyson who most recently provided perspective and voice to the remake of the Cosmos series. Tyson frequently interjected examples of scientific discoveries that infuriate the Right, especially to do with global warming, and evolution. (Presenting nearly one whole episode on each, with enough detailed, documented evidence to even educate a high school science flunk out).

But these presentations particularly enraged the Righties to distraction. A month ago, for example, it was none other than Fox host Greg Gutfield who, during one panel exchange, burped out:

I hate this guy! I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir’s fantasies and they would dance in the streets.”

This, spoken by a confirmed moron who isn’t fit to lick the soles of Tyson’s shoes.

Which brings us to Cooke’s polemic against Tyson in the National Review.  We pretty well know what’s coming as we eye an illustration of Tyson on the cover, drawn to look like a self-satisfied Elite who looks down his nose at any and all crackers.  This despite the fact Neil deGrasse Tyson hardly gives off that vibe in real life. He's an affable gentleman who's accepting of all and that trait carried over into his Cosmos appearances.

The actual article (it’s more like recovered anti-intellectual dreck from the 1950s)  more than lives up to the cover art’s promise of the “green-eyed monster”, as Cooke expands his attack beyond one of the country’s pre-eminent scientists to include policy-oriented journalists, economists, other scientists, and “anybody who conforms to the Left’s social and moral precepts while wearing glasses and babbling about statistics.”

 Oh, wearing glasses? So you don't know about the link between poor eyesight (myopia from young) and I.Q.? Babbling about statistics? Well perhaps because your I.Q. is too low to grasp even the most basic statistics, say like simple correlation and linear regression. So obviously you wouldn’t be able to handle Poisson statistics!

 Cooke, realizing that he’s fired a broadside against anyone who dares to actually do things like examine evidence or consider the logic of an argument, hastens to add:

 “The pose is, of course, little more than a ruse — most of our professional ‘nerds’ being, like Mrs. Doubtfire, stereotypical facsimiles of the real thing.”

Which is not only incomprehensible but misplaced. For one thing, if those like Tyson were mere “facsimiles” I am sure Cooke wouldn’t have been allotted so much prime magazine space to go after him and his cohort.  I mean why joust at a windmill facsimile of a “monster”? You’d have to be mad or crazies, as the well attuned former IRS official Ms. Lerner described the Right in a recent email to a friend. I mean, you have to be crazy to assert anyone (“nerd” or other) is a “facsimile” especially given you don’t know enough about their work to make that determination!

 But this is what Cooke – who’s probably never even taken a high school physics course-  argues!  That it’s all a big pose and all these people are just dummies pretending to be smart because they are “popular kids indulging in a fad.”

Hmmmm…..looks to me more like a pathetic excuse for a hack practicing a massive exercise in sour grapes, because he knows in his heart he will never be as gifted as those he mocks.  So he projects his obtuseness on his targets and hopes enough people will bite. Well, maybe the readers of the National Review and a bunch of FOX-ites but few people with any sense.

 How else explain calling Tyson a poseur, a stretch that even his extraordinarily gullible audience isn’t likely to buy. Oh, Cooke grudgingly admits that Tyson “has formal scientific training,”  you know the type that prepares one to do any kind of serious research?   But he refuses to go so far as to allow that the Director of the Hayden Planetarium is actually a scientist-  as opposed to some hipster in a lab coat costume.

 But the poseur scorn isn’t reserved only for Tyson.. This cornpone twit Cooke also drags in economist Paul Krugman and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, neither of whom he considers the real deal. Instead, he argues that the emphasis by liberals, on things like evidence, rationality, and empiricism is purely insincere,  adding it’s “nothing more than a way to signal that you are better than southern, politically conservative, culturally traditional” types.

 WhAAAAT?   Well, if those “southern, political conservative, culturally traditional” types aren’t well versed in science then we are superior – at least in science! (I do grant them other superior advantages in: picking out the best pickups, hunting ducks,  collecting guns, and finding chapters and verses for Bible quotes…..oh and cooking up great pulled pork!)

 But to do like Cooke does, and declare a whole swatch of Left intellectuals “insincere” because he’s too dumb to grasp what the hell they’re doing, is well……pathetic to the point of sickening.

 Sadly, this  whining BWAAHAA! behavior is hardly an anomaly. “You think you’re so cool” actually became the basis for an entire book by the formerly named Fox News dunce, Greg Gutfeld (the same goober who declared white nerds love to be “defecated on” by black elites like Tyson.)  Gutfield wrote an entire book called Not Cool: The Hipster Elite and Their War on You.

 It’s main talking point is that it gives the delirious, brainless Right base a bunch of pointy-headed Left intellectuals on the coasts to hate – while the banksters and corporate tycoons like the Kochs (who really fucked them) get to walk free without any complaints. It’s called adjusting the target and generally works for the lowest quintile of intellects. The key is to head off hatred of the genuine elite targets at the pass, convince the base not to listen to the critics’ arguments in the first place. Hence, they can’t actually hear the evidence for global warming if they’re too busy slagging on the messenger for thinking he’s so smart with his PhDs and his facts.

 Which 'Romper Room' is exactly where conservative leadership wants their audiences to be, and where most of them (who can’t think for themselves and lack adequate education) are. So much also for the conservative claim that individuals who work hard toward the top should be rewarded for their contributions to society. Not if you’re a successful liberal scientist, writer, or even just an actor. Oh no!  You are now one of the “termites of life” – who presumably should be extinguished, if not physically then by prohibiting your words,  ideas from gaining a major forum. (You can, of course, blog to your heart's content for a few dozen people.)

There's no sign this hostility of the American Right to the intellect will change any time soon, so very likely we will soon have 'Revenge on the Nerds III'.

'God and Astronomy' - What Bob Berman Gets Wrong

ASTRONOMY Magazine Contributing editor Bob Berman,  in an article in the latest issue (August, p. 11, God and Astronomy) , literally steps into a cultural quagmire almost as treacherous as lax pundits have done in the political minefield of the JFK assassination. That is, he interjected the issue of God in trying to literally tone down empirical and observational science and its claims for confident knowledge,  while seeking some kind of putative accommodation with America's vast population of God believers. (And creationist know-nothings.)

Let me say ahead of time this is about like trying to square a circle, especially given that this nation's believers along with their religiosity, are outliers in terms of their peers in other industrial nations. The graphic below shows this:

Showing successful societies in relation to degree of religious beliefs (from Free Inquiry, Vol. 29, No. 1 Jan. 2009). Basically, for  18 out of 19 of the most prosperous democracies,  the share of population reporting absolute belief in a god or gods ranges from between as little as a few percent to at most one-half. In some of these nations, mainly in western Europe, two-thirds proclaim to be either atheists or agnostics. Compare this to the outlier U.S. (U) where 83 percent express solid belief- and this is for the patriarchal, personal version of a hyper-engaged deity.

Hence the stage is set already for strife and much debate, argument.  He starts out by describing how the very first COSMOS episode, with the animated segment on Giordano Bruno, irritated hordes of believers (mostly devout Christians) when Bruno - while being tortured - turned his head away from a crucifix in disgust. Well, uh duh!  You are getting some delicate parts roasted and broasted with assorted fiery implements and what do you expect him to do? Smile and shout, 'Thank ye, Jeezus!" Come on!

He then notes that "it's not lost on them that the original COSMOS was hosted by a proclaimed agnostic, Carl Sagan".  Which of course, is a common misperception - since Sagan was as much an atheist as I am. He just didn't want to disclose it for a very sensible reason: he knew by the time he'd become a famous popularizer that he had a very successful enterprise going with all his books. He didn't want to foul it up by spooking too many of his countrymen by saying the A-word. So he played it coy, much like Einstein before him (with his "God of Spinoza") and didn't let on - though if you parse his words it's clear he's an implicit or agnostic atheist.

At other times, and in assorted other interviews, it seems Sagan himself isn't clear what he is. For example, on one occasion he stated:

"My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it. An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."

Also:

"An atheist has to know more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God."

Which suggests Sagan wasn't really au fait with either atheism or agnosticism. In fact, an agnostic atheist is exactly someone who withholds belief until there is evidence for a claim. A pure agnostic is one who asserts there is an impossibility of ever knowing enough to confer belief.  He subscribes to the tenet that our brains are simply not up to the capacity to ever be in such an ultimately knowing position.

Moreover, Sagan is wrong that an "atheist is someone who knows there is no God." This is the cartoon version of atheism.   What we atheists actually say is that the whole idea of God is redundant – logically unnecessary – because it doesn’t help us to model any physical systems or make verifiable, empirical predictions. (The closest to what Sagan identified as atheism relates to the explicit atheist who maintains there can never be any evidence for a God because the natural sciences can have nothing to do with the supernatural.)

The gist of it is that the atheist maintains the probability is very high that there is no ultimate force out there, and we are on our own. Which is precisely the point Carl Sagan makes in the last segment shown of the final new COSMOS episode ('Unafraid of the Dark'), with the focus on the 'pale blue dot' of Earth.

 Anyway, Berman also misfires on a number of other levels. He writes, for example,  that the new COSMOS’ series  “continues the series’ conviction that a belief in God is a superstition anathema to science”. But as I noted in my own ASTRONOMY magazine article:  ‘The God Factor’ (Astronomy Forum, March, 1990), science selectively excludes problems for which no practical method of inquiry exists. The supernatural, which is neither measurable or verifiable, falls into this category and that includes ‘God’. More to the point, we tend to regard such entities held by virtue of belief alone – as opposed to evidence - as evocative of superstition.  The latter encompasses such beliefs, especially when the supernatural realm is populated by invisible beings which can supposedly affect and interact with our world. To the empirical scientist this is the very epitome of superstition.

This is reinforced by the fact that astronomy, like most physical sciences, still operates on the principle of materialist reductionism. Thus, our job and duty is to remorselessly cull all dross or irrelevant issues that clutter as opposed to expose, what our objects of inquiry are about. This means all invisible, unapproachable entities must go into the dumpster.

 Another cartoonish error Berman makes is when he claims that  “atheism cannot prove God’s nonexistence”  (i.e.. cannot disprove God’s existence) but as anyone who’s studied logic knows, you cannot prove a negative anyway.  Once again, atheism doesn't claim to prove God's nonexistence, only point out that the concept is superfluous to the advance of empirical science - which like it or not is inherently materialistic. This is the very emphasis that Neil deGrasse Tyson made in repeated episodes of COSMOS.

Berman is more or less aghast at this, as when he remarks: "The advocacy segments in shows like COSMOS may be well intentioned but I fear they may merely harden those who think science is a 'position' or 'view' of the world rather than an impartial portal to truth." 

But Berman doesn't seem to grasp here that science DOES take a position or view (naturalistic or materialistic) which undergirds its naturalistic approach to inquiry - in order to take an impartial approach to the natural world. If it allowed subjective beliefs to hold sway, or adopt any openness to supernaturalism, the impartial search for natural truth would be destroyed.

 What Berman reveals here is a tacit fear that science will alienate the American yahoo masses if it too explicitly declares its naturalistic basis in the approach to scientific inquiry. But know what? Tough shit! That is the way science works, like it or leave it - and go back to statues, crosses, and King James bibles. Moreover, I fail to understand why Berman is trying so desperately to appease and appeal to the American believer masses, when most educated Europeans have long past moved into a post-Christian era. (See above).

This unfortunate strain of timidity and unwillingness to upset the little godly believers also explains Berman's recalcitrance in acknowledging science' advance even when the probability is overwhelming that such advance is real. He states we need to more often respond "I don't know" to a lot of areas of inquiry like dark energy, etc. Which is true, but you can't be saying that ALL the time, or even most of the time, just because you're intent on projecting false humility to not scare away the religious masses!

This is also why he declares that the Big Bang is not the birth of the universe - as many cosmologists have described it - but "the birth of the observable universe" - which seems like extreme hair splitting to me. If one uses the cosmic microwave radiation to trace back the thermodynamic conditions in time, as Steven Weinberg shows in 'The First Three Minutes' - one definitely comes to a super dense, hot state with the cosmos the rough size of an atom.(If this isn't a 'birth' I don't know what is!)

Berman also seems not to grasp that the invocation of God in any domain is laden with peril because even if we did agree some ultimate power started at all (as I pointed out in my 1990 Astronomy article) there’d still be no agreement on the entity’s attributes, nature or powers. Even Berman acknowledges this observing that some see a ‘creator’ that stands apart from the universe, while others see an underlying intelligence in nature.( Sagan, for his part, equated 'God' to the physical principles and laws that govern the universe, which let's be clear, is more a physical God.)  The point here is that it makes more sense not to interject the issue of 'God' at all, because no two people can even agree on what the noun means.

Berman makes the further statement that:  “some astrophysicists are agnostics or atheists”  (implying the numbers are too small for believers to worry over) but this misses the larger point: that while 83 percent of Americans believe in God, only 33 percent of physical scientists do (according to a 2006  NY Times study). This bifurcation of belief is what we ought to be most concerned about. It sets the stage for an ongoing tension between scientists and the bulk of the American populace (which let us also recall, as I showed above, is an outlier compared to the rest of the advanced industrial world in terms of God belief and religiosity)

As for Bob Berman's claim that “the majority of the world regards the universe as suffused with intelligence” let’s bear in mind that popularity alone has never led to objective truth. At one time, the majority of the world also believed that the world was flat and that the Earth was actually the center of the universe. I am not saying here that the cosmos is not imbued with intelligence, it well might be (as I indicate in my book, 'Beyond Atheism, Beyond God'). What I am saying is that you cannot arrive at objective truth by means of assessing a poll or a vote then saying a "majority" decided it. This also means the IAU Pluto vote - to dethrone that small orb from proper planethood - was off base and wrong-headed.

 Science, including astronomy, proceeds by a certain methodology and is inherently naturalistic. The problem will always be that this delimitation will never satisfy those who espouse a supernatural domain or alternate supernatural  “universe”.

The sooner Bob Berman and other popularizers understand that, the quicker we can allow scientific inquiry to proceed without fretting over public alienation or loss of funding because a certain segment of the populace will go ballistic if their magic realms are marginalized.  Look at it this way: an advancing nation on the road of progress embraces the REAL. A backward, declining nation - one heading toward oblivion and collapse-   embraces the UNREAL.

That's the choice we have, and it ought to be easy,  though after the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, I am not sure it can be. Those five Justices have clearly shown not even they can discern the real from the unreal. And if they can't,  how many millions of others (many clapping and cheering the decision) are in the same unreal boat?

Gavin McInnes : Another FOX- Turd To Flush After Attacking Neil deGrasse Tyson

Let me say that one of the signs of a nation in distress and meltdown mode insanity is the inability to appreciate irony.  This is especially so in the media, and need I emphasize before launching into my jeremiad that FOX - the Murdoch channel- has been the beneficiary of airing COSMOS with Neil deGrasse Tyson mainly thanks to the effort of Seth MacFarlane. Murdoch and the FOXites ought to be celebrating the proud accomplishment of having someone like Tyson featured on a premier show that has gained much acclaim - while adding megabytes of badly needed insight and knowledge to the overly parochial American cranium.

So why on Earth would the same network feature a congenital asshole for a guest, who dumps all over Cosmos and its host?  I am referring to Gavin McInnes  who on Tuesday night, spewed a hateful rant about  Neil deGrasse Tyson. McInnes, btw has a sordid history of racist, homophobic and misogynistic comments. So his knuckle-dragging preceded him right into a FOX News segment in which he tried to pick apart an interview of Tyson done by  MSNBC 'ALL IN' host Chris Hayes.

 In the interview, which I have seen and remains on my DVR list,  Tyson joked about his “greatest fear” being that intelligent life would steer clear of making contact with Earth because of the signals we unwittingly put out into space — including past TV and radio programs. Interestingly, this could pass for the corollary of  a point I made more than 36 years ago in an article ('We Are Not Alone' ) published in the Barbados NATION, e.g.


 Therein I suggested that if humans had any residual smarts at all they would take care to conceal their radio presence rather than announce it, because "too many of our species are still too stupid, too regressed."

Anyway, after playing a clip of the interview, FOX host Greg Gutfeld started the Tyson bashing. Again, let's bear in mind that 'COSMOS' airs on the FOX network.
.
“I don’t know what’s worse: him ragging on some classic American television, or Christopher Hayes laughing, giggling, chortling over really bad jokes,”


Which, if anyone actually watches the Hayes' interview, will see that Gutfield's take is largely based on an over active imagination - because I didn't see any "giggling, laughing or chortling". I did see a brief chuckle, but any sentient person watching with more than two neurons would have reacted the same way.

 And then, as we've seen before, there is the qualifications and credentials mocking. Note here that the Fox homer Gutfeld likely couldn't even pass a basic college physics course (not even the calculus variety) and yet he has the chutzpah to question Tyson as an astrophysicist, chirping:

"Astrophysicist — yeah right!”


This dismissal directed at a man who has degrees from Harvard (B.A. Physics), the University of Texas (M.A. Astrophysics) and Columbia (Ph.D. Astrophysics) and currently runs the Hayden Planetarium.

Gutfeld then turned to McInnes, a member of the panel, for his opinion. What burped out of his mouth was less opinion and more flatus:

“I hate this guy!I remember hearing Chris Hardwick on a podcast talk about Neil deGrasse Tyson and he was just salivating. White liberal nerds love this guy so much, he could defecate on them like Martin Bashir’s fantasies and they would dance in the streets.”

Huh?!  As your supremo example of a "white, liberal nerd" let me correct this imbecile by noting that I have had my major differences with Tyson and have expressed them from time to time on this blog, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/neil-degrasse-tyson-has-too-much-time.html

And I also criticized him for giving way too much slack to creationists in one interview, noting (March 23):

"This (creationist equal time) kerfuffle seemingly has even driven Neil deGrasse Tyson into making capitulatory statements which Carl Sagan never would have volunteered in a million years. On WNYC’s Brian Lehrer show, Tyson said that there are "plenty of scientists who pray to a god, and are fully functioning” because they "don’t use religious text as scientific evidence."

 This marks a valiant effort to placate the fundies, but alas is disingenuous. There are not "plenty of scientists who pray to any god". Pew Religious Forum surveys conducted since 2000 have in fact shown that the majority (60-70 percent) of physical scientists are atheistic or at least agnostic. They acknowledge no personal deity. And hence, Tyson didn't have to offer this palliative at all.   Yes, I have known a few who are religious, and it is true they don't invoke their religion to advance their science. But on the other hand, I am aware of those who have, because it's allowed them to get gigs they otherwise  couldn't  - because of too much competition in the mainstream.  Hence, they instead carved out a creationist 'niche' and were accepted by one creationist (or ID) outfit or another, whether Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, The Creation Science Institute or whatever.

Tyson also went on to state:

"The issue there is not religion versus non-religion, or religion versus science. The issue is ideas that are different versus dogma."

This is a noble effort to be diplomatic but it simply doesn't work, doesn't compute. Science - based on naturalism and Materialism - is counterpoised to ANY system based on supernaturalism. It's like trying to mix oil and water. It is a fool's errand."

In other words, I certainly don't agree with everything Tyson says or argues for. I warrant most real nerds are the same, and value critical thinking more than hero worship.

But let's understand that McInnes'  scatological dismissal of white nerds  is really only a deflection, a diversion. The real target is Tyson himself who McInnes (and Gutfield) obviously regard as "uppity" for daring to ascend to prime time network TV and lecture knuckle draggers about the constitution of reality and how science methodically investigates it.

At root, then,  McInnes is a racist slime ball no different from Cliven Bundy and his misbegotten beliefs that blacks would be better off if they were still enslaved and whipped five times a day while their wives are abused by the "Massah".

The irony is that these two turkeys - Gutfield and McInnes - are mounting their semi-cloaked,  racist diatribe and putdowns of Neil deGrasse Tyson from the network that has received applause for featuring COSMOS on its Sunday night, prime time lineup.

Abysmally unaware of the ironic nature of their stunt, neither of these half-educated meat heads is fit to lick the soles of Neil de Grasse Tyson's shoes.

Today Is World Astronomy Day - A Day To Celebrate

Saturday, May 10th this year is 'World Astronomy Day' - designated as providing an opportunity for astronomy enthusiasts around the world to mix and mingle with the general public and also provide opportunities for education. Generally, the date is scheduled within a day or so of the first quarter Moon, which means minimal light pollution from that source - so many other celestial objects (including planets, such as Mars) can be observed in any available telescopes.

A particular cause for celebration this year is the news that the Harry Bayley Observatory is up and running again, and will be open to the public that day - including showing off a new 80mm dedicated solar telescope, a high resolution CCD and a 16 inch Celestron for general viewing.   The Observatory has been the fortunate beneficiary of new funding  that has also allowed a fully motorized dome to be imported from Australia as well as and will now aspire to be what it always has had the potential to be: the best astronomical Observatory in the Caribbean.

The Observatory, according to President Ricky Small, will be open in the afternoon with the public welcome for interaction and social gathering with Astronomical Society members, after which the Dome will be open to observing - if the weather cooperates. Members plan to show off the Sun through the new solar telescope and also - later in the evening - the planet Mars, nebulae and other sights.

This is especially encouraging given the Observatory had been closed the past three years owing to a senseless act of vandalism, see e.g.

http://www.nationnews.com/articles/view/observatorys-new-target/

But now, the Observatory is wholly refurbished:





















Both Janice and myself,  who spent many years giving courses at the Observatory, are hoping that the World Astronomy Day in Barbados is a huge success.

Across the world, other meet and greets will be planned and we hope that education forms a substantial part of them all, in addition to socializing.

Sadly, astronomy remains a stepchild discipline despite efforts to more widely publicize it - as in the new TV series, 'COSMOS'.  There are useful media to present the subject, such as ASTRONOMY magazine, but the indications are its circulation primarily dominates among the existing enthusiasts of the subject and amateur astronomers. 

Astronomy texts and books, meanwhile, remain so-so sellers, as most people gravitate to easy fiction not learning about the Right ascension or declination of stars and the occultations of stars by planets.

Today , then, is an occasion to pump up public interest again and the best way to do this - based on my own experience - is through the use of short, to the point lectures on interesting topics, followed by a question and answer period, and then extended observing through the available telescopes. All in all it should be an occasion for much enrichment and extending the public's acquaintance with the oldest science beyond the 'Ooh and ah' phase.

Who Are the Creationists Kidding On Abiogenesis?

The matter of the ultimate origin of life, the theory of Abiogenesis (which is often erroneously conflated with the theory of evolution) has been problematical for years. What is sought is a basic explanation for how fundamentally non-living matter could acquire the properties and attributes of life, including being able to reproduce. In principle this isn't that remarkable a stretch, since we already know there exist living entities at the "margins" - the viruses- which display no attributes of life until they become attached to a host. Once in a host, they can appropriate its cell machinery to churn out billions of copies of themselves.

 

All of this, of course, can be done without supernatural agency.

 

Alas, creationist Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis (AiG) is  unable to swallow this and moreover is still upset that Neil deGrasse Tyson dared suggest life on earth started without the help of God. Tyson,  in one COSMOS episode,  honestly stated that the very origins of life “are not yet understood”. Because abiogenesis has yet to turn up any verifiable results—not that they have claimed any are verifiable—AiG is calling that evidence of a clear flaw. But what’s clear is that Tyson isn’t just a threat to creationists. Their big target is the reputation of science.

 

AiG , for example, continues in an attempt to discredit the science, saying:

“Abiogenesis has never been observed in experimental biology and violates the most fundamental law in biology, the law of biogenesis. Nevertheless, the authors of the review are confident there was a naturalistic chemical origin for life.” [Biogenesis is the natural law that life comes from reproduction by living things].

 

However,  in a remarkable find published in The New Scientist (Vol. 209, No. 2794, p. 11), two investigators: Kunikho Kaneko and Atsushi Kamimura, have made a remarkable breakthrough in devising a testable model that is able to replicate the Abiogenesis process. The two basically solved the problem of how a lipid-coated proto-cell can divide into two (displaying reproduction) when the genetic material replicates. Recall in an earlier blog where I showed the hypothetical proto-cell reaction wherein a self-sustaining coacervate droplet can use one or two basic reactions involving adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and adenosine diphosphate:

L*M + R + ADP + P -> R + L + M + ATP

ATP + X + Y + X*Y -> ADP + X*Y + X*Y + P

In the above, L*M is some large, indeterminate, energy-rich compound that could serve as ‘food’. Whatever the specific form, it’s conceived here to have two major parts capable of being broken to liberate energy. Compound R is perhaps a protenoid or lipid-coated proto-cell, but in any case able to act on L*M to decompose it. The problem with this earlier hypothesis was that such lipid-coated proto-cells lack the machinery to allow for easy division.

Kaneko and Kamimura solved this by taking their inspiration (for their model) from living things in which DNA and RNA code for proteins and the proteins catalyse replication of the genetic material. This goes back to biochemist Jacque Monod's concept that the organism is a self-constructing machine. Its macroscopic structure is not imposed upon it by outside forces, instead it shapes itself autonomously by dint of constructive internal (chemical) interactions. Thus in the Kaneko- Kamimura model one has a self-perpetuating system in which a cluster of two types of molecules catalyse replication for one another while also demonstrating rudimentary cell division.

In the Kaneko - Kamimura  (K-K) model, as with DNA, the genetic material replicates much more slowly than the other cluster molecules but also takes longer to degrade, so it enables lots of the other molecule to accumulate. Following replication of the heredity carrier the copies drift apart while the molecules between them break down automatically creating two separate entities (see image).

This is an exciting breakthrough but some further investigations are needed, specifically ways to circumvent the problem that (in real life) membrane lipids around an RNA molecule don't typically catalyse RNA replication. However, this isn't insurmountable, because all one need do (theoretically) is replace the lipids with hydrophobic peptides.

 

Basically what the K-K experiments show is that while abiogenesis hasn’t been directly observed it does provide  a materialist model that can account for it in a peripheral way. Since such a materialist model exists, it means that all supernatural explanations become redundant. If one therefore continues to use them, he commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius.

 

Thus to claim abiogenesis “has not been observed” (directly) – which is partially true, and then to say this proves the creation story is something that would raise the eyebrows of a kindergartner . Indeed it not only commits the fallacy of ignotum per ignotius, but also the fallacy of circular reasoning – since AiG and Ham are claiming that which they must set out to prove independently. Even if nothing existed for abiogenesis, they would be obliged to prove supernatural creation – they can’t use a naturalistic failure (in their mind) as positive “evidence” for their extraordinary claim.

 

More importantly the AiG claim that abiogenesis  “breaks the law of biogenesis”  is simply dishonest. The law of biogenesis (attributed to Louis Pasteur)  states that life cannot come from non-life, but Pasteur did not demonstrate that any such impossibility- only that it does not happen in everyday life. As shown in the K-K model it is at least possible that such can take place.

 

Now, add to that the Miller-Urey experiment. The Miller and Urey experiment basically applied an electrical discharge to a chemical brew resembling the Earth’s primitive reducing atmosphere. This brew included ammonia and methane, as well as hydrogen and water vapor. The effect of the discharge transformed the mix into a diverse yield of organic compounds. These included amino acids, as well as substances such as formic acid and urea that normally occur in living organisms.

The very fact so many organic compounds could arise is remarkable in itself, given the vast number of possible compounds that might have emerged. And while it is true that the discharge didn’t produce actual living cells, there is no reason – given enough time,- that a primitive pre-biotic cell in the distant past could not have emerged given the building blocks left behind

 

None of this was mentioned by Tyson, but it could have been and would likely have made the creationist crowd's heads explode even more. Also, they have had to work much harder to come up with any kind of  coherent response.

But what is most galling about AiG and Ham is the tacit assumption that their audience lacks basic scientific understanding which gives AiG permission to be “fact-free.”  Hence, they can peddle any balderdash that violates logic or science with impunity.  Meanwhile,  Neil deGrasse Tyson gives viewers a naturalist’s explanation for the world, and when he says science does not yet know something, this is not a sign of the failures of science, but instead a powerful example of the necessary honesty in which science thrives. The very fact that AiG sees the words “I don’t know” as a weakness shows the lengths of intellectual dishonesty they are willing to go to pull the wool over their followers’ eyes. (Though again, Tyson also could have shown more support for abiogenesis – such as by invoking  the Miller-Urey experiment- to make this less likely. Hence, one may also argue that AiG exploited COSMOS’ “loose” presentation in playing to a popular audience.)

Never mind, the hysterical  reaction from AiG  and Ham after nearly every COSMOS episode shows a position of pure panic. Neil deGrasse Tyson has become their biggest public enemy because he get primo air time every Sunday  on one of their (conservatives’)  favorite channels. Up to now, these clods haven’t come up with any series with similar gravitas that even FOX will accept – to compete with COSMOS – and this drives them batshit crazy..

 Ham (who not long ago got his head handed to him by Bill Nye in a web debate) just can’t accept that what he has is palpable bull crap while Tyson offers actual science. In addition,  Tyson make science accessible to all people with an open mind, and  he is likeable and non-controversial to boot.

 True, Tyson does not identify himself as an atheist (for obvious reasons), but it’s clear to a blind man he is one. Also, it doesn’t put our (atheist) noses out of joint because it  means he can reach across both sides of the aisle to a much  greater degree  than the late Chris Hitchens, or Richard Dawkins.

We atheists will take what we can get and if a naturalist universe can be delivered easily,  in bite- sized pieces by an affable showman like Neil Tyson, so much the better!

New 'COSMOS' Series Is Well Worth A Look!

For years I have been patiently waiting for an update of Carl Sagan's 'COSMOS' series, given the many discoveries in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology that have transpired since 1980. Now that has arrived with a timely and streamlined re-do narrated by Neil deGrasse Tyson, and broadcast on FOX (which I usually never watch) and The National Geographic channel (which re-broadcasts the FOX episodes on Monday night).

The update – at least from the first episode- is well worth watching. Neil deGrasse Tyson is an engaging host who's more than able to fill the shoes left by the original host, Carl Sagan. Having watched the original, the first thing that strikes the viewer in the new series is the vivid use of graphics, including computer SGI visuals (such as in one scene with Tyson near the sea, discussing abiogenesis,  as a fishlike creature ambles out on land).

 

Some reviewers, e.g. Joanne Ostrow (Denver Post, Mar. 8) have bemoaned the attention to “so much astrophysics” noting:

                                                                                      

“Marvel at the stunning visuals, be stirred by the grand concepts, but don’t expect to really comprehend astrophysics. The producers assure us it’s enough to come away feeling a respect for science.”

 

My quarrel with that view is that first, it's way too myopic. It dumbs down the Americans who would be attracted to watching the series, and second, it is hard to ‘come away with respect for science’ unless one at least has a workable, basic understanding of what the science is about!  This is why, for example, I did extensive past work on  introducing basic and intermediate astronomy concepts to blog readers, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/07/tackling-simple-astronmoyh-problems.html

 

Also I did a series introducing readers to astrophysics earlier, in 2010, followed up by more advanced astrophysics: e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/06/introducing-some-advanced-astrophysics-1.html

 

But ‘Cosmos’ surely won’t veer anywhere near this level of detail, hence the astronomy and astrophysics ought to be understandable to most viewers who've at least had some high school science under their belts, and exposure to a bit of algebra and geometry.

Two aspects in this first episode were particularly useful and captivating: nailing down our own planet’s cosmic ‘address’, i.e. Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo cluster, universe, and the way a ‘cosmic calendar’ is presented to grasp (or try to) the vast stretches of cosmic time. Thus, the Big Bang occurs the first instant of ‘January 1^st’,  while humans don’t appear until Dec. 31^st and recorded history only occupies the last 14 seconds of ‘December 31^st’. Nearly the entire cosmic ‘year’ has elapsed before humans have appeared.

 

Ostrow is correct that ‘Cosmos’ “is not a documentary so much as a cinematic journey” and this was also appreciated by Sagan in his original series. There simply aren’t the details to qualify as a genuine documentary which should mean even a greater viewership than say, Brian Greene’s PBS series ‘The Elegant Universe’ (in which the equations for cosmic string theory are also featured)

 

One of my favorites segments, as a confirmed atheist and free thought advocate, featured the graphic animations depicting Giordano Bruno’s vicious treatment at the hands of the Inquisition. Merely because Bruno visualized an infinite cosmos and that the stars were other suns (likely with populated planets too), he was hounded for his views. After continuing to express them and refusing to recant, we see the Inquisitors – depicted as demonic looking perverts - interrogating and torturing Bruno,  then burning him at the stake.   To me, the segment graphically exposed how science and religion differ and why the two can never, ever be 'bedfellows' - but rather eternally at each other's throats.  Thus, the recent memes spewed out that attempt to show how religion helped "advance" science are so much hooey and balderdash. Science helped itself primarily by breaking away from the constraints of thought and inquiry peculiar to religion!

Ostrow warns, also commenting on this:

"Expect pushback from conservative religious quarters- this series unapologetically takes a stand for science versus blind faith"

 

But why pushback against the TRUTH? My take is there won’t be any such ‘pushback’ because these close-minded dolts won’t bother to watch it in the first place!  They are too sure of their blind faith based on nothing but superstition and old wives tales elaborated by primitive, semi-literate nomads in an ancient book.

I only had a couple of quibbles with this first episode: first the banishing of Pluto to a sub-planet sized,  'asteroid type' rock, which Tyson himself was partly responsible for, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/03/neil-degrasse-tyson-is-wrong-about.html

 

 and second,  depicting the big bang as an explosion when it actually wasn’t.  It is more an unfolding in space and time.  The standard analogy, i.e. to a terrestrial explosion - while attention grabbing is inaccurate.  A good article ('Cosmology's 5 Big Things You Need to Know')    will be of help in grasping this, found in the May, 2007 issue of ASTRONOMY magazine. As noted therein, p. 31:

 

"The universe's beginning wasn't an explosion. It was closer to an unfolding or creation of matter, energy, time and space itself. "

 

The last is especially important as it is consonant with the expansion of space with time. The lead astronomer of the Wilkinson Microwave Array Project quoted in the piece also adds:

 

"The Big Bang is not an accurate name for the theory. What this theory describes is the expansion and cooling of the universe. It doesn't describe an explosion at all."

 

Thus, a better analogy would be depicting a hot, very dense gas inside a confined container or bag, then letting it all out. The dense gas escapes, expands into the larger volume  available and cools as it does so. Of course, this is no where as entertaining or riveting as an explosion!

 

 

Never mind, this series re-do is welcome and at least ought to get again get people’s minds expanding outwards beyond their limited terrestrial lives and everyday concerns.