Comments on: ‘Truth in Science’ and the Salem Hypothesis

By: Andrew

Andrew — Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:13:19 +0000

The weak arguments against evolution are so easily dismissed in the face of the overwhelming evidence (and indeed have been dismissed in greater works than this) that it hardly seems worth going over the same ground again for the purposes of this article. I think the main issue here is the way the arguments are presented and the motivation for presenting them in this way – hence the focus of the article. If the article were just another rehash of why the argument of “half an eye is no use” is utter nonsense, I probably wouldn’t have bothered reading it. As it is, I can now add the term “Salem hypothesis” to my vocabulary – I hadn’t come across it before. Now to drop it casually into conversation…

By: Dishonest debate | FreeInfidel

Dishonest debate | FreeInfidel — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:36:29 +0000

[...] guts to say so. (The British Humanist Association, at its Humanist Life blog, has an interesting breakdown of Truth in Science’s board members.) Instead, it flatters itself that it has a mission to educate, when in fact its mission is to lie [...]

By: Stuart Elton

Stuart Elton — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 15:37:14 +0000

Acceptance of evolution does not mean the denial of a god. I would have far more respect for their position if they simply stated that evolution is the method god uses. The god of the gaps became vanishingly small many years ago. Back on topic – I agree with Philip Nathan that the book’s arguments need to be dealt with directly.

By: Margaret Nelson

Margaret Nelson — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 22:14:51 +0000

We might be careful about how we criticise the creationists because “their scientific credentials are almost entirely in engineering”. I’ve heard the same criticism levelled at Dr Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change by climate change denial people because “he’s only a railway engineer”.

By: HumanistLife

HumanistLife — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:36:53 +0000

Hi Philip – The conformity to the Salem Hypothesis is more of a curiosity. The professions of the directors etc have no direct bearing on the arguments made in the book, agreed, however it is a valid criticism of an *organisation* if it purports to be representing genuine scientific debate when most of its experts are unqualified in the relevant domain.

By: Gareth Price-Jones

Gareth Price-Jones — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:28:28 +0000

I will make sure that friends in the teaching profession are made aware of these charlatans and their very nice looking book. I’ll see if I can get a copy of it for my son so we can go through it together and work out the factual and logical errors for ourselves. This leads to the bigger point – I think the real solution here is to emphasize the teaching of critical thinking skills in schools, so that children (and indeed teachers) are equipped themselves to spot the propaganda. This is of course bigger than issues of faith or a lack of it – with the media bias towards a good story over anything approaching facts, and the ever-booming business of chain emails and spurious claims it should be a specific curricula item.

By: Philip Nathan

Philip Nathan — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 20:26:38 +0000

I’m not sure if this is the correct angle to be putting, in dealing with this undoubtedly loaded publication. The arguments in the book need to be dealt with and commented on – it is relevant to mention background and lack of relevant qualification especially if these people/authors can be shown to be creationists/intelligent design supporters espousing an unsupported theory and hiding their real agenda. However this is a serious and substantial matter which cannot be dealt with by highlighting the obtuse matter of ‘engineering’ backgrounds. The arguments of this book need to be dealt, hopefully with a response to the schools and libraries receiving this publication.