And THESE are the people who want us to listen to them about human origins?

Further updated!! Shawn Carlson, a MacArthur Fellow who is the Founder and Executive Director of the Society for Amateur Scientists, and the Creator of LABRats, has weighed in on Dr. Death Plush*, aka Dr. Doom, noting that he seems obsessed with death. He has composed his own obituary, despite the minor glitch that he isn't dead.

How could such an eminent ecologist, as Eric R. Pianka clearly is, be so solidly on the side of absurdity and death? His on online "obituary" is an independent indication of his fascination with death.

This document which is actually a brief autobiography, provides some important clues.

Professor Pianka describes himself as both a "hermit" and a "desert rat" who has spent years living in total isolation in various deserts while devoted to his studies of lizard ecology.

Maybe the lizards will understand. I don't. And I bet aggrieved rent-a-mobs out there who already hate the United States for all sorts of reasons, some real and some imagined, won't understand either. Actually, most people do not want to be dead, even if it would be a change of venue and scenery.

* He apparently has a plush toy of the ebola virus that he hopes will kill 90 percent of humans, a hope Carlson dismisses as naive. See below for more on the death plush.

Updated ! Forrest Mims, a friend and fellow science journalist, has put up a story at the Citizen Scientist that how Dr. Eric Pianka laid out for the Texas Academy of Science a plan that calls for 90 percent of people to die a slow and painful death from the ebola virus (at a meeting at Lamar University in Beaumont, March 3-5).

(We're "no better than bacteria" in his view, and there are too many of us, and he "displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls, one of which had red lights flashing from its eye sockets." Oh cool, you are just so cool, prof ...) Mims recalls,

... I watched in amazement as a few hundred members of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population by airborne ebola.

He says the crowd loved it, and get this - this guy is 2006's Distinguished Texas Scientist.

Can it be true? First, this is not an April Fool’s hoax. I had wanted to post this story last night in order to prevent any such suggestion, but March 31 is my birthday and social stuff ruled. Second, Mims is a reliable informant in my experience.

Apparently, the Academy tried to cover up what was happening:

An official of the Academy approached a video camera operator at the front of the auditorium and engaged him in animated conversation. The camera operator did not look pleased as he pointed the lens of the big camera to the ceiling and slowly walked away.

Forrest, however, took notes.

Update April 2, 2006: The local paper has picked it up, and the Pearcey Report has posted several relevant links.

Update Note April 24 2006: I was told that the reason the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise recently pulled the stories about Dr. Pianka's idea that 90 percent of the world could, should, or would die from ebola virus was that the server was
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1020. Apparently, it's back up now, but you have to search. Here is what I could find from the last month. (Print it out if you need it.):

April 2, 2006 Doomsday: UT prof says death is imminent

April 4, 2006 Whirlwind of controversy surrounds UT prof

April 5, 2006: Academy of science responds to critics

From that story we learn that the students love the Dr. Death stuff:

Most of Pianka’s former students are bursting with praise. Their in-class evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like "the most incredible class I ever had" and "Pianka is a GOD
(This was on line at April 23, 2006.)"

Yunf? Well, sure, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, yeah, but ... Pianka?

One blogged,

I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.

Regarding her gush, reporter Mobley notes,

Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she's decided Ebola isn't the answer, she’s still considering other deadly viruses that might take its place in the equation.

Was anyone else out there at that meeting? Post a Comment.

[Note from Denyse: Original Web links to student gushes have apparently begun to disappear, but the estimable Jamie Mobley stands by her story.]

Surely the Texas Academy of Science will back away from this bilge instead of just trying to cover it up. It shouldn't just fall down a memory hole. Most people who would get ebola and die a horrible death (from liquefying organs, apparently) are Africans.

Meanwhile, I love the irony that Dr. Death Plush could start solving the problem right away by jumping off the dock, but notice that people like him never do. You and I may be "bacteria," but him - his precious little self? Don't bacilli.

(You see, the intelligent designer programs fail-safe engineering into population bomb cranks, such that their looney opinions never contact any circuits in their brains that control important stuff. That's why they are always making plans to get rid of others, who might object, but not to get rid of themselves, a project that would be much easier to carry out.)

Update April 2, 2006: Thankfully, according to Mims, the Texas Academy of Sciences is mostly supported by the dues of its members, so Texas taxpayers don’t have to pay for people to hear this stuff. Presumably, Dr. Death Plush (Eric Pianka) is protected by academic freedom on his own turf at UTEX; too bad fellow Texas academic Francis Beckwith doesn’t seem to be covered by the same policy at Baylor.

I’ve been told this story has hit the wire services now, so more trees may fall, (update), it's been slow because many media feared it was a hoax. Yeah, I wish.

Updated: On the facts, Dr. Death Plush couldn't be more wrong; our current major problem is a steep demographic collapse, based on one of the fundamental facts about human beings. When times are good, we don’t tend to have kids. I will shortly blog on a very interesting book that makes that point, against neo-Darwinism as applied to humans.

More re the death plush: Mims told me that Pianka has an "Ebola plush toy" and that there was a picture of it in the print edition of the Sequin Gazette. I thought I'd heard everything, but apparently you can "buy them.

Bill Dembski, blogging over at Uncommon Descent (see the blogroll top right) makes the point that the Dr. Doom point of view would be incomprehensible apart from Darwinism.

Further update:

Here are some student evaluations of Pianka from Biology 304 in 1998. Clearly, he was teaching this stuff back then. Many evaluations are dangerously laudatory (I mean, he's obviously a good teacher and communicator but, apart from the madness of his position, no one should like their prof THAT much):

I can think of no way Pianka could improve this course. He is an endless fountain in response to an unquenchable search for knowledge. His life experiences complement our studies in ecology, and bring to life, and give real examples of, his teachings and the words of our readings. Truly memorable course! Leaves a lasting impression!

Dr. Pianka shows a passion for his work that rubs off on those he's teaching. I really enjoyed his class and it's had influence in my decision to pursue a career in ecology.

I don't root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet.

A minority view seemed to be:

Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent too much time focusing on his specific research and personal views.

[Note from Denyse: I am told this stuff may get pulled from the Web, so print it out if you are interested.]

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

Vindication for ID guy: Forrest Mims one of "50 best brains in science"

My friend Forrest Mims, survivor of Darwinist thug attacks, has recently been named one of the "50 best brains in science" by Discover Magazine (December 2008, page 43). The cover story informs us, "there may be no amateur scientists more prolific than Forrest Mims." It is not on line yet.

The Discover article classes Mims as an Outsider and reads, in part, "There may be no amateur scientist more prolific than Forrest M. Mims III, 64, of south central Texas. He has published in major scientific journals such as Nature as well as countless general-interest publications. Mims began teaching himself science and electronics at age 11 and says he never received any formal training apart from a few introductory college courses in biology and chemistry." I am told the list includes some other relative unknowns, as well as Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking (on the cover), Michael Griffin (head of NASA), James Hansen (global warming guru), E. O. Wilson (sociobiologist and evolutionist), Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google founders), Neil deGrasse Tyson (PBS Nova), Harold Varmus (NIH), and J. Craig Ventner (human genome).

The selection panel has good reason for its view of Forrest. For a man with little formal science training, Mims has done an astonishing amount of research that has been published in a variety of journals. He has written many popular articles, as well as books. He is probably best known for the books and lab kits on electronics projects that he had developed for Radio Shack over the years. He even has a claim to minor historical fame as a co-founder of MITS, Inc., which introduced the Altair 8800, the first microcomputer, in 1975.

Encouraged by her family, his daughter Sarah Mims had a journal publication while still a high school student.

However, Forrest told me yesterday that when he was first told by a Discover editor to expect his name to come up, he worried that it was a vulgar hit piece, retailing the "Scientific American" affair or the "Eric Pianka" episode.

In 1989, Scientific American abruptly withdrew from a promising relationship with Forrest when he refused to subscribe to Darwin's theory of evolution:

Mims had offered to write the column “Amateur Scientist” for SciAm.
His offer was gladly accepted in principle, pending an interview to discuss the details with editor Jonathan Piel. Mims canceled his current assignments and boarded a plane.

It should have been a great meeting. And it was, at first. Piel liked Mims’s proposed topics. The deal was pretty well sewn up—until Mims happened to mention, in a list of publications for which he had written, some Christian magazines, where he wrote about how to take kids on long distance bicycle trips.

Piel asked bluntly: “Do you believe in the Darwinian theory of evolution?”

Mims said no.

Suddenly, the temperature plunged below freezing.

[ ... ]

In the months that followed, SciAm editors pestered Mims about his religious beliefs, and even about his opinion on abortion. The magazine grudgingly assigned him a trial column. Editors liked it. More assignments were ordered. Maybe things would work out after all, Mims thought. Maybe he had finally passed all of the Darwinists’ tests.

However, during one phone call, Piel again raised the subject of Mims’s Christian beliefs. He professed worry that, if word got out that Mims was a Christian, a “public relations nightmare” might ensue.

By then Mims had realized the sad truth: SciAm was not simply going to assign him a column ... (By Design or by Chance?, pp. 187-88)

He moved on, of course, and told me later (2003) that not getting the column was probably the best thing for his science career: “It changed me from a mere science writer to a citizen scientist with many peer-reviewed papers.” Here is his own account of the affair.

Then there was the 2006 Eric Pianka affair, when a Texas Academy of Science spokesman told the videographer not to record the address given by award-winning environmental doomsayer Pianka. Spotting this, Mims took notes and was able to record some of the address via the audio on his camera. He could not record all of it, however, because the camera audio did not work when he was using the video to film the visuals Pianka provided.

The inflammatory statements he published, based on his notes and recording, were later disputed by the Academy, causing him much personal anguish. It was readily apparent that the Academy, embarrassed by Dr. Pianka's "anti-human race" views, had steamed into in full denial mode. Its efforts to discredit Mims appear to have failed.

Here is a link to a partial transcript of the Pianka episode.

In 2005, I wrote about Forrest and Sarah here:

With her parents' encouragement, Sarah started to study the atmosphere in Texas in 2001. She discovered that some of the airborne dust had blown all the way from the Sahara Desert in Africa. But in 2002, she discovered something even more remarkable: Dust from nearby regions was full of soot, and the soot carried bacteria and fungus. These life forms, she found, had escaped from faraway fires. In other words, contrary to what many think, fire did not kill them, it actually spread them. Sarah confirmed her findings in 2003, and they were published in Atmospheric Environment in 2004. If other studies confirm them, the use of burning as a method of clearing fields may need to be rethought.

[ ... ]

... while doing research at the Mauna Loa Observatory (Hawaii) after the Scientific American debacle, Mims was confronted by a tourist who asked him, "Are you a scientist? A real scientist?" The tourist only wanted someone to show him how the instruments worked, but for Forrest, the question meant far more. He realized that the doors that shut us out are not wood and steel but ideas and philosophies, including our own. If he did science, he was a real scientist, and that was enough.

[ ... ]

Incidentally, things have changed at Scientific American. The magazine has since published a column based on an instrument that Mims designed, as well as a news feature about his study of airborne bacteria in Brazil. Perhaps up-and-coming Christian scientists like Sarah will find the scientific world more open to different perspectives. (Today's Christian, January/February 2005, Vol. 43, No. 1, 46)

Congratulations to Forrest Mims, a voice for real science in the midst of a mass of taxpayer-funded propaganda for unbelievable beliefs that happen to be held by scientists.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

FURTHER UPDATED!: The latest on the Dr. Pianka ebola story:

I just learned from a source that Inside Higher Ed is doing a story on Pianka (Dr. Doom, according to in Forrest Mims). And believe it or not, the reporter wanted to know why the ID guys (Forrest Mims is associated with ID) would care whether the prof thinks 90 percent of humans should die. Hmmmmm. Does it help if you think that other people are just as human as you are, and should not be talked about as if they were a lab culture that was no longer needed? (Update 2)


Bill Dembski over at Uncommon Descent is offering US$1000 for an “undoctored and unabridged” copy of what Pianka actually said, confidentiality guaranteed:

In discussing with my wife Eric Pianka’s Texas Academy of Sciences speech in which he had audience members switch off cameras and tape recorders because the unwashed masses aren’t ready to hear what he has to say, she remarked that this would have been the time she would have turned on her recorder. I therefore expect a recording of his talk does exist. I’m therefore offering $1000 to the first person who sends me a reasonable quality digital version of Pianka’s speech before the TAS (.wmv or .mp3) that is undoctored and unabridged.

He also notes that "In today’s American Statesman ..., one reads: "Fellow professor David Hillis said most people were sympathetic of the nationally renowned professor’s plight. "There’s a strong anti-science sentiment in the country right now,’ Hillis said. Pianka ‘has such a passion for life and diversity. How anyone could paint him as pro-death is unbelievable.'"

Dembski has challenged Hillis to a wager that

... sympathy not just nationally but at UTAustin for Pianka will take a nose dive once his TAS speech goes public. Of course, we need to set the terms of this wager more precisely. But it’s a wager easily settled — Pianka needs merely to make his speech before the TAS public (the actual speech — not a bowdlerized version of it).

Meanwhile, Canada’s CBC has weighed in with a story that portrays Pianka as a mountain man with odd ideas who overcame a physical handicap and became a respected scientist:

Pianka approves of Chinese theories on birth control. But he goes one step further and advocates the use of the Ebola virus to kill off the world's surplus people.

"If we don't control our population, microbes will," he said. "Why do we have these lethal microbes that kill us in the first place? The answer is, there's too many of us."

Starvation and war will inevitably decimate the world's population, he says. But diseases, such as the Ebola virus, offers the most efficient and fastest way to "kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved."

Pianka's unique view of the world extends to his own personality. His website shows an elderly man standing in the scrub of central Texas with a tangled grey beard, ragged clothing and a four-foot long monitor lizard.

Thank goodness they don't even mention Forrest Mims, so the canard that he might have been fibbing has been laid to rest. I understand that there are several chances of transcripts in the offing, so Dembski might have to pay out. WIll stay posted.

- end of current update (1) -

CNN has weighed in, following AP, which finally decided the story was not an April Fool’s hoax:

The Gazette-Enterprise quoted Pianka as saying disease "will control the scourge of humanity. We're looking forward to a huge collapse."

It said he weighed the killing power of various diseases such as bird flu and HIV but decided neither would yield the needed results.

"HIV is too slow. It's no good," he said.

Pianka said that doesn't mean he wants most humans to die.

However, Forrest Mims, an amateur scientist, author and chairman of the Texas Academy of Science's environmental science section, told The Associated Press there was no mistaking Pianka's disdain for humans and desire for their elimination in the speech he heard.

For previous posts, go here and here

I am told that a transcript is in the works, and I will link to it. I won't be surprised if it doesn't settle things, because phrases like "looking forward to" are ambiguous, and I still remember Bill Clinton on "what the meaning of 'is' is."

I'll post my own thoughts later. Just for now, though, there is a fundamental inconsistency between the view that people are no better than animals or bacteria and the view that we should try to do something about the course of nature which, according to Pianka, is doomed on our account. If we are capable of trying to do something, we are not like all the rest, and we might as well get used to it.

Either whatever happens happens, OR we are different. People like Pianka confuse the issue by wanting to have it both ways.

That said, I have heard prophecies of doom for thirty-five years now, and I still think the Book of Revelation beats 'em all cold, for literary style. For track record, they're all the same; haven't happened yet. Meanwhile, I'll see how that transcript is coming ....

Pianka says he has been receiving death threats, but presumably the bullet will only get nine-tenths of the way ....


Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

What Dr. Pianka said at the Awards nite: The "Dr. Doom" partial transcript

At last, some transcript!

A partial transcript, available at The Pearcey Report, of Eric Pianka's recent acceptance speech* at the Texas Academy of Sciences. As Rick Pearcey notes,

[*Go here if you don't know what I am talking about, and read the top box.]

That such an audio-based document exists at all may be an intriguing part of this story since, according to published reports, an effort apparently was made to ensure that Dr. Pianka's speech was not recorded by video or audio.

Now that I have read some selections, I can certainly understand why the house wanted the video and sound off. On the whole, I've heard better raving in a barroom, ten minutes to the ouster. Get a load of these (relatively sensible) transcribed quotes:

PIANKA ... But I asked a reproductive physiologist years ago about this. I said, "Could you design a molecule that you could administer once that would bind to the DNA to turn off reproduction and make people sterile?" And he said, yeah, theoretically. And I said, well, if you did that could you design an antidote that would unmask it just briefly for as few seconds? And he said, yeah, probably. So this is what we need. We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth [laughter] and make the antidote freely available to anybody who’s willing to work for it.

Immediately you'd get responsible parenthood. No more juvenile delinquents, unwanted kids. You have a kid, you had to work, and you had only a few seconds to do it in. [Extended laughter]

Look, why believe me? I gave you the link. Read it all for yourself. This is Texas's most distinguished scientist for 2006? Aw, can't be. They must be hiding the real one somewhere. But why? This guy isn't making them look good. We need to send science missionaries from Ontario (Canada) to Texas, if this is their idea of science. Disconnected rants and trouble-making about other people's families?

By the way, if anyone wants to know the real state of human demographics worldwide, and not the fever-swamp nonsense from Pianka and his overheated disciples, check out Phillip Longman. You will be surprised, but much better informed.

A steep worldwide crash in birth rates creates a serious imbalance in the numbers of people in a given generation. Will a working age adult willingly support three seniors and still have children? But this real-world question has nothing to do with Dr. Doom's gloom. It's just the usual stuff I have covered all my life. Who lives, who dies, who cares, who pays, who suffers, who triumphs, all that stuff ...

Meanwhile, Forrest Mims, the science journalist who originally insisted on making this story public despite insults, insinuations, and ridicule, informs me that his editor at the Citizen Scientist, which courageously covered the Texas-style doom, received a death threat today. So does that make him as big a victim as Pianka, who was widely covered by US media as receiving death threats?

No way, not merely because the US dead tree media wouldn't care but because - infinitely more important! - editor Carlson would surely despise victimhood, as any decent person would. Carlson's clear-sighted editorials patiently explain why no virus takes out 90% of the population, as Pianka fantasizes. (Even the bubonic plague (1349) only took out a third of Europe, which had no idea how to fight it.)

The entire transcript of a later speech Pianka gave at St. Edward's University, March 31, is available from the excellent Seguin Gazette-Enterprise:

And, I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left.

It would give wildlife a chance to recover — we won't need conservation biologists anymore. Things are gonna get better.

[Note: This transcript is apparently not at the site at present, and I have written to ask about it. - d.]

This is a slightly more coherent doomsday rant than the acceptance speech, but hey. I have covered so many doomsdays: Nuclear holocaust. The population bomb. Nuclear winter. Global warming. Y2K. I still think that the book of Revelation in the Bible beats 'em all cold for style, and that's all I can go on. With any apocalypse, I always say, wake me up when it happens.

Still worried? Here's a word of advice from a friendly hack: If you die tonight, the world will end for you. It doesn't matter whether it ends for those who love you or those who hate you, or people you've never heard of, or those who have asked you to pray for them, or cockroaches under the sink. For you, it's over.

By all means, do your best to make this planet a better place - but don't get sucked into doomsdays, because there are only seven days in a given week and not one of them is called Doomsday. Anyway, always take time to look away yonder. There's more to life than you may think.

I was told that the reason the Seguin Gazette-Enterprise pulled the stories about Dr. Pianka's idea that 90 percent of the world could, should, or would die from ebola virus was that the server was
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1020. Apparently, it's back up now, but you have to search. Here is what I could find from the last month:

April 2, 2006 Doomsday: UT prof says death is imminent

April 4, 2006 Whirlwind of controversy surrounds UT prof

April 5, 2006: Academy of science responds to critics

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Why humans are, and need to be, special

Historian of the Nazi era Richard Weikart explains:

Viktor Frankl, a Holocaust survivor who endured the horrors of Auschwitz, astutely commented on the way that modern European thought had helped prepare the way for Nazi atrocities (and his own misery). He stated, "If we present a man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present man as an automaton of reflexes, as a mind-machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drives and reactions, as a mere product of instinct, heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted," Frankl continued, "with the last stage of that corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazi liked to say, of 'Blood and Soil.' I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some Ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in the lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers."

[ ... ]

A few modern thinkers specifically criticized the "anthropocentric" view that humans are special, made in the image of God. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the famous German Darwinist Ernst Haeckel, for example, blasted Christianity for advancing an "anthropocentric" and dualistic view of humanity. Today the famous bioethicist Peter Singer, along with the atheistic Darwinian biologist Richard Dawkins, argue that based on the Darwinian understanding of human origins, we need to desanctify human life, divesting ourselves of any notion that humans are created in the image of God and thus uniquely valuable. An evolutionary ecologist at the University of Texas, Eric Pianka, fights overtly against anthropocentrism, even expressing the wish that 90% of the human population will be extinguished, perhaps by a pandemic.

But remember, the Texas Academy of Science distanced itself from Pianka's ravings (oops, views). So then it's all right, apparently.

Oops, no, wait. The "we're just animals" view is obviously raving wrong. For one thing, once we believe that, mass murder ensues. Otherwise not. So there must be something wrong with the story.

Chill out moment: Intelligent design really coming to Canada?

First, here's the Eric Pianka (ebola will claim 90 percent of us) story, and also go here and here. That's all I have blogged so far, but it is a fair whack. I will post the transcript of Dr. Pianka's remarks as soon as I have it.

Now I want to talk about something else for a minute:

Brian Alters, director of of McGill University’s Evolution Education Research Centre, is disgruntled because he was denied $40 000 in Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Funds on account of allegedly assuming “evolution to be scientific fact.”

He is "shocked," according to the Ottawa Citizen, and wants the public to believe that his misfortune means that intelligent design is gaining a foothold in Canada..

I am sure that all the appropriate people will be equally shocked or pseudo-shocked, or realize that they must act shocked.

First, let me say that - as a longtime starving hack - I am sympathetic to anyone whose application for funds has been turned down. I would buy Alters a beer in a heartbeat. Or three. And never miss the change.

BUT, here’s the problem: I have been covering the intelligent design controversy for years. It's currently my major regular beat. I correctly predicted in 2002 that it would be big news by 2005, hence my book, By Design or by Chance?. I know my own country, Canada, pretty well, and have written three chapters for a textbook of Canadian history (covering 1945-1969). So my approach to the situation is somewhat different from that of the Ottawa Citizen reporter.

Here was the reason given for turning down the grant:

The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers. Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results. In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. In view of its reservations the committee recommended that no award be made.

I recall that Brian Alters made a rather silly presentation at the 4th World Science Journalists' Conference in Montreal in October 2004, wasting our time by ridiculing creationism museums.

At the time, I was somewhat amused by it. I had driven in from Toronto to present a poster session on the REAL intelligent design controversy - which does not involve creationist museums - but rather the fact that science has never really confirmed the no-design/no-meaning/no-purpose view of the world abundantly promoted in science classes under the rubric of Darwinism, and all the evidence is against it.

I have no interest in creationism as such, and would not have been concerned about Darwinism if I had not learned for myself all the nonsense talked in support of it - which is why I wrote By Design or by Chance?. I had my nose rubbed in Darwinism then and since. So have a lot of other people. That is the real intelligent design controversy.

If SSRC changes its collective mind and decides to shovel $40 000 to Brian Alters to pretend that the controversy is a big deal in Canada, well, I can think of WAY bigger government boondoggles, some going through the courts at present, so don't confuse me with someone who much cares. I just want to set the record straight.

Now here is the decision again, with my interpolations:

The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers.

[Well, that was the main problem, really, wasn't it? Alters did not demonstrate his thesis. Probably because he has no evidence that there IS any detrimental effect in Canada.]

Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct.

[It probably never occurred to Alters that SSHRC would want evidence instead of assertions. Look, it's taxpayers' money. They DO have rules.]

It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results.

[Translation: ID is not a big cultural issue in Canada right now, so another paper bashing it - whose only merit is that a McGill guy wrote it - is a waste of SSHRC funds. Quite apart from the fact that Alter is anything but an objective witness, it's not even clear what he is a witness to. ]

In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. In view of its reservations the committee recommended that no award be made."

[One problem may be that (see above) ID is not a big cultural issue in Canada, and maybe never will be. To understand why not, it helps to know a little bit about Canada.]

Lots of media people have phoned me up to ask about whether ID is controversial in Canada, and I usually tell them:

1. Here in Canada we do not hear huge public noise about separation of church and state. Our constitution allows tax-supported Catholic schools, and some provinces have limited funding of other religious schools, but it's not much of an issue.

2. We have no equivalent of the ACLU or Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

3. There also isn't a Religious Right of any significance.

4. Local school boards don't tend to engage in Dover-style antics.

So what's to study? If Alters knows where something big is happening in Canada that concerns the public in general, I sure hope he'll tip me off. He would have been wise to start by tipping SSHRC off at least.

Look, Canada is the kind of place where gays can marry each other and Catholics can start each day with the Hail Mary in tax supported schools if they want to. That's just how things are here. Everyone here finds something to hate. Not everyone expects to be paid for it.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.

My post at MercatorNet: Wild animals are not people

From my post on animal minds:

Spurred by a horrific recent case, it focuses on their unpredictability, as far as humans are concerned: Herold wants the world to know that she is not a
"horrible" person and that Travis is not a "horrible" chimp. According to her, it is a "freak" thing.

Looking at the story from a traditional Christian perspective, I would pass on the question of whether Herold is a horrible person. I agree that Travis is not a horrible chimp. The very idea is an irrelevance; he is a chimp, period, and therefore not responsible for his actions.

But this incident was not a freak event. A wild animal kept in an urban environment may suddenly and unexpectedly rampage (which is why questions have been raised about pet ownership laws in the wake of this incident). All too typically, the stories sound like this ...

A companion piece by John Young addresses technical issues of animal mind, focusing on Alex the Parrot:

The New York Times obituary of Alex noted the judgment of some scientists that although the parrot learned to communicate in basic expressions, "it did not show the sort of logic and ability to generalize that children acquire at an early age." That is a key point. Sense knowledge, including the power to imagine and remember, fully explains Alex’s achievements. Constant repetition over many years of training conditioned him to associate objects with sounds and to imitate what his trainers did. In one exercise Dr Pepperberg employed a trainer to compete with Alex for a reward, such as a grape. The parrot saw what the trainer did to get the grape, and imitated him.

So far as I know, Alex genuinely had the skills he was credited with. But - just a caution - many accounts of animal intelligence achievements ("why, they're just like us, so we are just like them!") are overblown. (I'm not so sure about Alex's "last words," for example ... )

There is plenty of scope for observer bias in a field where only the discovery of intelligence will be rewarded and feted, but not the discovery of its absence. That doesn't mean that researchers are dishonest; only that observer bias is not likely to be addressed very often or very honestly.

The really intriguing part is that if a researcher tries to document animal behaviour that would tend to elevate animals without denigrating humans, he becomes a pop science target rather than a darling. Paging Eric Pianka ...

Why does it matter if humans are not just the "third chimpanzee"?

"Human exceptionalism" means thinking that humans are not simply big-brained animals. Here bioethicist Wesley J. Smith explains why that is important for human rights:

There is a war being waged against unique human worth on many fronts, from personhood theory and the animal liberation movement to radical environmentalism and philosophical materialism. Very powerful forces have dedicated themselves to convincing us that we really aren't all that important. Smith explains these attacks and shows why human exceptionalism must be defended for the sake of human rights everywhere.

Shades of Eric "ebola" Pianka, perhaps?

On a more serious note, many people don't realize that the late hotel queen Leona "only poor people pay taxes" Helmsley left her fortune to animal rights:

In fact, the clear motivation underlying Leona Helmsley’s will—her desire to pass her wealth on to dogs—is more common than might be expected. Pet-lovers (many of whom now prefer the term “animal companion”) have engineered a quiet revolution in the law to allow, in effect, nonhumans to inherit and spend money. It is becoming routine for dogs to receive cash and real estate in the form of trusts, and there is already at least one major foundation devoted to helping dogs. A network of lawyers and animal activists has orchestrated these changes, largely without opposition, in order to whittle down the legal distinctions between human beings and animals. They are already making plans for the Helmsleys’ billions.

- Jeffrey Tobin, "Rich Bitch: The legal battle over trust funds for pets" (New Yorker, September 29, 2008)

In my view, "animal rights" will not benefit animals but will denigrate humans. Animals cannot use civil rights, for example, but humans cannot have a rational relationship with government without them. And I don't consider it an accident that "animal rights" is advanced at the same time that we are locked in a struggle against the destroyers of civil liberties in Canada (the "human rights" commissions).

Even if human intellectual endowments were an accident, which I do not believe, they would be an accident with unavoidable consequences - including the struggle for the restoration of civil rights.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy: