Is That The Question? And If So... If So...

I received a response to the email I sent regarding the "Is Darwin Right" leaflet in my previous post. Here's my response to that.

---

Dear Mr Vanderput,


Thank you for your reply. I would like to respond to a few of your points, if I may. I would like to say up front that I will be posting this letter and my response to my blog at: http://baldyslap.blogspot.com/ You are cordially invited to respond; I would be delighted to have your thoughts on there.

Firstly, I do not agree it is ‘totally impossible’ to respond to the question as requested. Many people respond to Creation magazine (produced quarterly by CMI ) in this way.

Secondly, ‘…in a meaningful way…’. Meaningful is subjective. We were not asking for a PhD thesis on the subject of evolution, but whether you thought Darwin is right. Someone wrote: “I think Darwin is right. All life is the result of the laws of nature acting over time – naturalism”. (19 words) This person said something very meaningful. He believes that at least one aspect of Darwinism/evolution (naturalism) is meaningful. Unfortunately “naturalism” is itself flawed.

Since your question was posed to me as the reader and not other people, I fail to see why their replies should affect my opinion that it is impossible to respond meaningfully in 50 words (a single idea, not two, by the way).

There are a number of observations that I would make.

I'm not able to view this question as being an objective request; it is an attempt to evangelise, dressed up as honest inquiry. The question reminds me of the Scientologists, a deeply disreputable bunch, I am sure we can both agree. Have you ever been stopped by them and done one of their questionnaires? I have. They ask a series of questions along the lines of “Do you think the world is a nice place?” It doesn’t matter how you respond; yes, no or somewhere in between; all results in the astonishing revelation that you require their intervention. Still, although I can entirely blame you for pushing junk mail through my door, I can hardly be churlish if you respond to an email I sent knowing full well the consequences of doing so.

More specifically, however, I would observe the following (you will, I trust, note that it takes more than 50 words to do so):

The theory of evolution does not, of course, depend on Darwin. Indeed, as I would hope you know, his contemporary Wallace had stumbled on it independently, causing Darwin to rush to publish having procrastinated over whether to do so for nearly 20 years. Had Wallace not discovered it, someone else would have done. While we should acknowledge Darwin for being the one to discover it, we should not be concerned about attempting to inextricably link the theory to the man. There is a despicable tendency among creationists to attempt to besmirch the theory of evolution by impugning Darwin’s character. That is another reason that I am wary of the way your question was presented.


Let us be very clear that Darwin could be the most unpleasant man to ever have lived without it affecting whether evolution is true one iota. He could be a mass-rapist and child murderer and evolution would not be any the less true or false than if he spent his time ministering to the poor and needy and worshiping God in his every thought and action. Equally, the theory of gravity is not affected one jot by the fact that Newton was a convinced alchemist, even though alchemy is utter bunk. My point is that the theory of evolution is, to the best of our ability to determine based on the evidence, true while that the version originally put forward by Darwin is unquestionably not right in certain respects.

Thirdly, the Harvard geneticist (and atheist) Dr Richard Lewontin is one who has examined the ‘evidence’ such as is displayed on the CMI website. He wrote that, no matter what the evidence is (for creation/a creator), he will not consider any alternative to materialistic atheism. His reason for this is, (quote) “…we cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (unquote) – emphasis mine.

You are either ignorant or disingenuous about what Lewontin actually means. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but this quote is pasted all over creationist websites without anyone ever apparently bothering to read it in context or understand what is being said, so you will have to excuse my tetchiness. Lewontin’s quote is taken from a review of Carl Sagan’s “The Demon Haunted World”. You can find it here and it’s well worth reading in full: http://www.drjbloom.com/Public%20files/Lewontin_Review.htm

Note that Lewontin is not talking about evidence for creation/ a creator as you claim above, nor does he say anything about “materialistic atheism”.

In context what he clearly expresses is the epistemological view of methodological naturalism, namely that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events. This does not preclude that supernatural explanations may exist, merely that they cannot be accounted for by methodological naturalism.

To illustrate this, imagine we are attempting to understand the process by which Haiti was recently devastated. If we introduce a supernatural aspect to this process (for example, “God was punishing the Haitians because they made a pact with the devil to overthrow the French” which is Pat Robertson’s delightful claim, if you didn’t know), since it cannot be measured nor accounted for (how would one go about empirically proving that God were responsible?), we must reject it as useless. If we were to accept that Haiti’s earthquake was because “supernatural agent X did Y”, the rest of our scientific explanation is of no value since we cannot rule out any other equally non-testable component. It is this that Lewontin is referring to.

So, the evidence for Creation is there but he will not accept it!

Since we’ve already established – by reading what Lewontin actually wrote rather than what creationist websites claim he wrote – that isn’t what he was discussing, there’s no need to respond to any claims about Lewontin’s position on the evidence for creation.

He has the right to reject it, but does he have the right to ‘push’ false notions or theories of evolution on others?

Yet I observe that you seem to think you have a right to push your evangelical materials through my door! Your no doubt sincerely held belief that you are correct doesn’t make you any more right than Lewontin’s beliefs do. That’s why we look to credible and testable evidence to determine what is right and wrong, not the conviction of one’s own correctness.

Fourthly, more and more evolutionists realise that while Darwin was right on many points – Natural Selection, for example - life did not begin millions or billions of years ago.

The evidence that life began millions of years ago is overwhelming. Heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection are all seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent, supporting the scientific view that evolution took billions of years. Radiometric dating of independent isotopes all confirms that the Earth is sufficiently old for this process to have occurred.

Would you care to offer something other than mere assertion that it is not so? Additionally, I would be interested to see support and numbers for the claim that more and more ‘evolutionists’ (whatever they are) doubt life began billions of years ago. I am unaware of any credible claims that this is true, and mere assertion to the contrary isn’t worth the time spent typing it.

Many/all attempts and claims that say ‘the missing link’ in the Tree of Life has been discovered have failed and, sadly, some have even been falsified in an attempt to ‘prove’ evolution.

While you may wrongly believe that evolution depends on so-called “missing links”, scientists who accept evolution do not ascribe such importance to them. If you are going to make any real headway in convincing people that your point of view is right, you need to learn to deal with what the theory and the evidence actually says, rather than what you’d like it to say.

While you’re right to say that some forgeries have been perpetrated and other errors have occurred, I would point out that it was scientists that accept evolution who debunked them or discovered the errors, not creationists.

Neither fakes nor mistakes have the importance you seem to wish to attribute to them. The fossil evidence is but a tiny part of the evidence that proves evolution is true and far from the best. We do not expect every missing link to exist. It would be contrary to the process by which they are formed.

Incidentally, you might like to read your own website, where you will find the claim "there are no transitional fossils" is listed on the page entitled “Arguments we think creationists should not use”. Transitional fossils are to all intents and purposes (certainly yours) “missing links”.

Well, Mr [Slaphead], I would still be happy to send you a dvd – there is no charge – if you will tell us where to deliver it.

I hope it’s “The Voyage That Shook The World” – it sounds almost as good as “Expelled”! It can go on my special shelf with my Ray Comfort books.

My address is: [Redacted]

I promise you will not be inundated with unsolicited literature on this subject.

Neither inundated nor a trickle and not on any other subject either, I trust? To do so would be a breach of the Data Protection Act. I’m happy to continue to discuss matters via email though.

Yours sincerely,


BaldySlaphead

I Can't Answer, I Can't Answer That

Look what plopped through letter boxes in my town this morning:

I intend to respond along the lines of:

It is totally impossible to respond to this question in anything approaching a meaningful way in 50 words or less, but having checked out the embarrassing lack of understanding of evolution demonstrated on your website, I doubt it would make much difference however many I used.

You Lie So Much You Believe Yourself

My mother-in-law is a card. We were over there for Sunday lunch and she hands me this glossy leaflet with a picture of Charles Darwin on the front of it, produced by Pastor Cotton of the Ebenezer Reformed Baptist Church, in Sleaford, Lincolnshire. Then she stood well back and waited for me to explode, which, being entirely predictable where such things are concerned, I did.

Let me take you through the leaflet and my response to its author…

---

Dear Pastor Cotton,

I recently obtained a copy of your pamphlet Open Letter to a Pagan Nation. Notwithstanding the fact that you appear to have confused the very different atheists and pagans (pagans do actually believe in deities, for a start), I found your leaflet profoundly troubling.

Why is a follower of Jesus Christ – a pastor no less – repeatedly breaking one of the Ten Commandments by telling what can only be described as out-and-out lies about the theory of evolution? Perhaps you are unaware that you are writing lies but they are nevertheless lies. This pamphlet is a travesty of decent research, relying on extensively debunked claims from creationists and assertations without evidence.

I understand that for some people with religious beliefs that the theory of evolution seems troubling. I sincerely do. I get that you feel a well-established scientific theory undermines your faith, and I understand you’re scared. I totally understand why you feel it is necessary to try and convince other people that you’re correct about evolution being wrong. I get all of that.

What I cannot understand is why it is apparently acceptable to tell lies about the basic facts in order to attempt to discredit it, and I would most sincerely welcome an explanation. I would love to be able to have a civilised debate about the issue, but your naked dishonesty makes it difficult.

For your reference, I am publishing my open reply to your open letter upon my blog. Any response you send to me, I will repost, exactly 'as is' there. I am very happy to receive any comments you may wish to make.

Open Letter to a Pagan Nation

November 2009 marks the 150th anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin

But is it really a cause for celebration?

Dear Reader,

On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin was first published on November 24th 1859. This year is therefore the 150th anniversary of a book which in many ways has changed the world. In fact, belief in human evolution shapes the thinking of countless millions of people the world over.

I have to wonder why human evolution has been particularly singled out? A key point about evolution is that human evolution is not especially remarkable and relies on the same processes that caused the evolution of every other living thing.

In present day Britain it provides the worldview in which every area of life, from biology to the arts, from medicine to morality is to be interpreted.

It really doesn’t, you know. How does a description of a natural process tell someone what is moral? How does evolution tell you anything about the arts? It describes a natural process; that is all. It is not prescriptive.

It is the belief which attempts to dethrone God and allow men to do that which is right in their own eyes.

Many people who accept evolution are atheists. This is unquestionably true. It’s probably also true to say that most atheists accept evolution. But the vast majority of people who accept it also have a religious faith of some description; most Christians accept it, for instance.

Again, I have to ask you whether you would be prepared to justify the fact that you think the theory of evolution - a description of a natural process - can possibly have a motive. Would you, for example, similarly ascribe motives (of whatever nature) to the theory of gravity?

But is it true? Is it science?
If evolution is true we ought to be able to see the evidence. Science has to do with observation, experimentation and repeatable testing. But the fact is that no-one has ever seen evolution take place.

This is quite simply untrue. Evolution has been seen numerous times. I would advise that you might wish to acquaint yourself with Richard Lenski’s recent e-coli/ citrate experiments. An overview can be found here.

Speciation – where one organism changes to such an extent that it forms a distinct new organism – has been directly observed on a number of occasions.

However, you later go on to define evolution in a way that is used only by anti-evolutionists, so I appreciate that the above explanation is unlikely to satisfy you, even though it is correct, and you are egregiously wrong.

Belief in evolution is strictly a matter of incredulity. It may be objected that we are wrong. Did not Darwin observe changes in living species? To which we reply that he did. However, we must go a step further and ask what kind of changes did he see? Indeed, what kind of changes do we see today? Are they onwards and upwards leading to greater and greater organised complexity culminating in man?

I’m afraid you expose your scientific ignorance in making this statement. Evolution is not aimed at “greater and greater complexity culminating in man”. Humans are no more the apex of evolution than a bacterium or a rat or a crab or a geranium or any other living organism is. The claim that evolution works as though it had some ultimate goal or aim in mind is something nobody with even just a basic understanding of the subject would ever make.

Asking this question exposes the fact that you simply doesn’t understand what you criticise. It is perfectly legitimate to criticise a scientific theory; it is, after all, how science progresses. To do so, however, requires that you understand the claims of the scientific theory.

I could extensively criticise Christianity for its dishonesty in hooking new believers with its provably false promise that believers will be rewarded with financial security and good health, but it wouldn’t make it a true claim about your religion or do anything other than make me look ignorant and foolish. That is the equivalent of how you make yourself look to me.

No, they most definitely are not. The changes that we see in living species are either horizontal changes, i.e., at the same level of organised complexity, for example, different types of cat, various tribes of people, or different colours of roses, or downward changes, e.g., mutations and extinctions.

Mutations can be one of three things:

1) Deleterious – this is analogous to your term “downwards”, and means where the mutation makes the organism less fit for its environment, or negative.
2) Neutral – the mutation is neither beneficial nor deleterious to the organism.
3) Beneficial – the mutation makes the organism more fit for its environment, or positive.

The majority of mutations are neutral, deleterious are the next most common, and beneficial the least common. However, when one considers that organisations that suffer from deleterious mutations are less likely to survive, it should be obvious that beneficial mutations are more likely to be passed on to future generations and thus are preserved. It should be noted that whether a mutation is beneficial or deleterious may often depend on environment – what is beneficial in one environment may be decidedly unhelpful elsewhere.

Mutation is a key component for evolution.

This means that the necessary kind of changes that evolutionists require to prove human evolution from amoeba to man have simply NEVER been observed.

The error you make is to assume that direct observation is the only way in which evolution could be proven. For example, we have the nested hierarchy of life, independently supported by morphological, genetic and biochemical evidence, all of which agree on the same nested hierarchy. It is further supported by the fossil evidence.

Heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection are all seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

Moreover, we would not expect to be able to observe amoeba to human evolution. Such a thing would invalidate the theory as it currently stands.

The theory is not scientific. It is a belief. It is a religion.

It is scientific and not a religious belief, and it is decidedly odd that a pastor would think he was going to damage evolution by seeking to equate it with the very same thing which motivates him to write and publish a leaflet such as this – that is it a religious belief!

When evolutionists speak dogmatically of the fact of evolution they are engaging in a massive act of propaganda. Some may call it indoctrination.

This is wishful thinking on your part. Evolution is based upon evidence that is available for anyone to look at. If your objection is that evolution is spoken of as fact, then one must presume you feel equally strongly about the similarly 'dogmatically'-promoted germ theory.

That Darwin’s book has had a profound affect upon our nation cannot be denied. But a lie widely believed is still a lie and the truth disbelieved is no less the truth.

I think you mean ‘effect’ not ‘affect’. Unfortunately, you have not even begun to support your case that On The Origin Of Species is a lie. You’ve made a lot of assertations that it is not true, but have failed to prove it, and moreover have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of the theory. Nevertheless, let us go on…

Moreover, as a bad well brings forth dirty water, so a wicked worldview brings forth destruction. Our Lord said “ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16).

Since you are clearly willing to promote easily disproved lies (you give every impression of either lacking the capacity or being merely ignorant of why what you write is incorrect, and I accept they may not be deliberate lies on your part) in order to support your religious agenda, what sort of water would you imagine might be perceived as coming from your own well?

Therefore, let us now consider the fruits of evolution...

Yes, lets.

The Corrupt Fruits of Evolution
When a house has weak foundations it is not fit to be a dwelling. A dwelling ought to be a place of comfort and safety. For that a house needs firm foundations. The same is true for families and nations. If we build our society on a wrong foundation then we can expect that society to crack, crumble and collapse.

The term “broken Britain” is one which is often banded about today. Broken families, sexual immorality, pornography, abortion etc. are evils prevalent among us. Even our ability to be able to place trust and respect in others and our leaders is on the wain. Let it be remembered also that the twentieth century was quite possibly the most bloody in history. Millions upon millions were slaughtered as one ideology fought for dominance over another. Now, of course all of these evils and many more have always existed since sin came into the world (Genesis 3). These things are nothing new. Thus we do not say that the evolutionary theory is the fundamental cause of all these evils. It isn’t. Nevertheless, it has become their justification.

I’m interested to see the evidence that evolution is the justification for ideological and bloody wars (I think technological progress and greater population might be significant factors in why more have died in the 20th century), lack of trust in our leaders (I thought it was because they keep getting caught out telling lies to us about WMD, being caught with their snouts in the trough and generally behaving in a manner that doesn’t engender trust) etc etc. But perhaps you’re right that evolution is to blame. I look forward to seeing this idea backed up with credible evidence. Let’s read on.

Take the issue of abortion. A terrible holocaust is taking place in Britain. Since the Abortion Act was passed in 1967 literally millions of little ones have been sacrificed on the altar of sexual promiscuity. But what is the justification? Has it not been that the embryo goes through different stages of development which mirrors our evolution.

Ignoring the unhelpful emotive language, that embryo development mirrors evolution is certainly a claim that has been made – based on the work of Ernst Haeckel. It was pretty much totally discredited by the start of the 20th century.

Therefore, aborting a baby is no worse than killing a fish.

However, this in no way proceeds from the previous statement. I am unaware of anyone who has made such a justification for abortion, but you may have the advantage over me here. It is not a subject I would claim to be well up on. I would be interested to see a source for this claim.

I have searched extensively, and cannot find a single example of this claim outside of creationist literature and those within do not provide any credible sources for the claims they then go on to rubbish, which is a little surprising. You’d think they’d want to support their claims with evidence that anyone could go and check.

This theory, has now been soundly debunked. Dr Sabine Schwabenthan states, “We now know, ... that man in his prenatal stages, does not go through the complete evolution of life - from a primitive single cell to a fish-like water creature to man. Today it is known that every step in the foetal development process is specifically human” (emphasis mine).

It has indeed been debunked; by scientists who accept evolution, as it happens (and as mentioned above, a long time prior to the 1967 Abortion Act, though it is also true to say that the notion persisted outside of the sciences for a longer). These scientists looked at the claim and then examined the evidence, and found the claim wanting. The truth isn’t quite as removed from the original claim as all that though. Human embryos do not have gill slits. They do, however, have what are called pharyngeal pouches. Now, where the confusion may have occurred is that in fish, these pharyngeal pouches do develop into gills, but in reptiles, mammals, and birds they develop into other structures and never gills, not even rudimentary ones. The fact that the pouches appear in all vertebrates is evidence to support the theory of evolution, by the way.

This quote is taken from an article by Sabine Schwabenthan entitled Life Before Birth, Parents (October 1979), and it is not describing a contemporary overturning of a prevailing scientific view. Of course, I imagine you knew that, having carefully researched your article. Did you read it in its original German or from the only place I can locate it online in English, in a creationist screed?

Or take the history of the Second World War. What was Hitler’s justification for the wholesale slaughter of men, women, and children? It was evolution.

If evolution led to the Nazi holocaust, as you claim, why is it nowhere cited by Hitler or leading Nazis, given that they do expound at great length on the (psuedo-scientific) justifications for their atrocity, and even Sparta was praised by Hitler for its policy of weeding out the weak, and given that appeals to justifications citing Christianity abound?

Why was On the Origin of Species on a list of books banned by the Nazis (Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel), Die Bücherei, 1935, 279)? Moreover, you may also be interested to know of another class of books found on another Nazi prohibited publications list: “c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk." From Fighting League for German Culture: Guidelines.

In fact, Hitler was far more influenced by the views of his acquaintance Houston Stewart Chamberlin, whose book Die Grundlagen des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts or The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century underpinned the racial blathering of Hitler. Chamberlin explicitly rejected Darwinism, evolution and social Darwinism, saying 'Darwinism' was "the most abominable and misguided doctrine of the day". He preferred a concept known as ‘gestalt’, which derived from Goethe. Chamberlin also wrote "one of the most fatal errors of our time is that which impels us to give too great weight to the so-called 'results' of science" both of which quotes I am sure you can immediately see are damaging to any claim that Nazism used the theory of evolution to underpin the holocaust.

Sir Arthur Keith in his book Evolution and Ethics writes, “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.

Would that Sir Arthur were still alive to put to him the points raised in my previous paragraphs. Sadly, this is not a possibility.

These examples will suffice to make the point that evolution has given an intellectual justification for so much wickedness in this world. Why then do we continue to promote it, accept it and even celebrate it? Why do we reject God for this naturalistic worldview?

Let us pretend for one moment that it actually turned out to be true that evolution were used as a justification for abortion and the holocaust.

Now ask yourself this: given that evolution is a description of a natural process that happens, how would this description invalidated by acts it inspired?

To further illustrate this point, are you aware, for example, that Richard Dawkins, one of the most vigorous champions of evolution has stated comments along the following lines many, many times: “I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. ... If you wish to extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish”?

The point is that evolution is true in the same way that other scientific theories are true. We have the evidence to support them and more importantly, we do not currently know of any credible way in which these theories can be disproved. It doesn’t really matter whether you or I despise that situation, are delighted by it or are indifferent. I don’t like the fact that germs will be responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths of children this year, but my dislike doesn’t make germ theory any the less true, nor does it mandate any behaviour on my part. I do not feel compelled to claim that it is acceptable to murder hundreds of thousands of children, merely because of a description of how germs behave. Do you..?

The remainder of your document is a religious diatribe which is both tedious and lacking any sort of credibility, and I have no interest in discussing it beyond saying that you would need to prove to me that the Bible is true before I could possible accept any arguments that proceed from what it says. As it is, you merely expect me to believe that it is true on the basis of no evidence, and you have already proved that your claims need to be tested against credible evidence. “What can be asserted without evidence,” as Christopher Hitchens wisely observed, “Can be dismissed without evidence.” I therefore dismiss it.

Throughout your document you have – whether through ignorance, laziness or wilful dishonesty – misrepresented the theory of evolution in a way that is very simply checked. I think you’re foolish to dismiss evolution, even if I totally understand why you feel so threatened by it, but that is not the point of my reply either. I do not expect to convince you of your errors. That you could write such a load of egregious lies and yet present yourself as a follower of Christ and God’s commandments without the apparent remotest awareness of what a gross hypocrite you are strongly suggests you are incapable of changing your mind, though I hope otherwise. I do hope to draw attention to your behaviour, however, and will be publicising this response on my blog. It’s at http://baldyslap.blogspot.com/ and you are very welcome to respond.

I am well aware my response is intemperate. Perhaps you might try and understand why my fuses blew?

Yours sincerely,

Etc

And Then You Look Behind You

Somewhat frighteningly, I discover I haven't posted anything to the Blog since July. I know I've written things that could have gone on here.

Haven't I?

I must have.

Surely I have?

I don't validate my life by whether it makes it onto a blog - which is a bloody good thing, given how few posts I make - but it does tend to emphasis the passing of time.

I've got something I know I'll be putting up very soon, possibly even today, but it's amazing how quickly it gets away from you. I have another couple of blogs too - deliberately not linked to this one because I'd like to attempt to keep some anonymity (whilst still indulging the obviously egotistical urge to post my thoughts on to the Interweb to general indifference (does that make me masochistic..? Or is that just the desire to be tied up and whipped..? Who can say?)) - and I haven't updated them in ages either.

Maybe there's just too much information now. I realise this is hardly a new complaint. Even Duran Duran were writing songs called "Too Much Information" back in 1993. Fuck you, Simon le Bon - you didn't have to cope with Twitter and Facebook and Blogs and Forums and Wikis...

"And then you look behind you..." and all that, Mr Floyd.

Beware the Spinal Trap

I wrote a piece below about how the respected science writer Simon Singh was being targetted for daring to publish an article in which he called a number of claims about chiropractic "bogus". This is a bowdlerised copy of the article Simon Singh wrote that got him sued for libel by the BCA. It's been cleaned up to ensure that the BCA can't target the many bloggers who are posting this article on their sites today in support of Simon, but the uncensored version can be viewed on ORAC's blog Respectful Insolence. I'm sorry not to put up the uncensored version - blame cowardice. Nevertheless, I hope to do my little bit to promote Simon's situation.

Check out the Sense About Science campaign to change the libel laws. Please take a look at the Facebook group and consider signing the petition to get the disgraceful UK libel laws changed.

---

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results – and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying – even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.”

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.

Keep the Libel Laws out of Science

I don't have much time to write about this at the moment, but I've meant to put something up here about Simon Singh's libel case for a couple of weeks now.

Singh wrote a piece for the Guardian in 2008, in which he stated the following;

The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.

The British Chiropractic Association objected to this passage (and this passage alone) .They were offered a right of reply in the Guardian and various other non-legal courses of action, but declined the opportunity to present evidence that would have shown their remedies to be efficacious . Rather than present the evidence to the contrary, the BCA sued Singh for libel.

This is most worrying. Under British libel laws, Singh must now prove that what he said is correct. Even worse, in a preliminary hearing, Justice Eady determined that when Singh wrote that "[the BCA] happily promotes bogus treatments." he meant that the BCA knew that the treatments were bogus.

Singh disputes this interpretation. He is quite prepared to believe that the BCA honestly believes their treatments work. His point is very specifically that the treatments have not been shown to work. He should know. He's the co-author of Trick or Treatment?: Alternative Medicine on Trial, a book that sceptically examines alternative medicine claims. Edzard Ernst, with whom he wrote the book, examined 70 trials that looks at the effects of chiropractic on non back-related conditions and found no evidence to suggest it worked. Despite not accepting Justice Eady's interpretation of his intent, Singh will be forced to defend that meaning in court, a ludicrous situation.

Fighting a libel claim in the UK is 140 times more expensive than the European average. It frequently has the effect of protecting those who deserve to be exposed, simply by dint of the fact that most people do not have the money to fight it.

The bottom line is this: it should be acceptable for legitimate concerns about issues affecting the health and welbeing of the public to be examined by informed writers. If they get it wrong, simply showing the evidence should be sufficient. Running to the libel courts suggests something else entirely.

Simon Singh, as a successful author, has decided to fight the BCA. His initial plan is to appeal Justice Eady's ruling on Singh's intentions when writing the piece. He says he's fortunate enough to be in a position where he can afford to fight, but he has asked people support the Sense About Science campaign to change the libel laws. Please take a look at the Facebook group and consider signing the petition to get the disgraceful UK libel laws changed.

Music Time

Every Friday, my daughters go to 'Music Time' at the local baptist church. Since I have wangled it so I get every other Friday off, one week in two, I take the girls and give K___ a bit of time off.

My mother-in-law often makes cracks about me going to something being put on by a church. I do point out to her that I'm an atheist not a Satanist and consequently not actually all that concerned about a fictional entity. I'm not entirely sure that she doesn't think I'll melt as soon as I step over the threshold.

Music Time is run by a few women from the church and there are a few mentions of God and Jesus. Mostly it's just Humpty, Incy Wincy and counting songs about monkeys jumping on beds. 95% of it is entirely secular.

There are one or two things that do make me wince a bit. They do a song about God's flood killing all the sinners which concludes with a verse proclaiming how this demonstrates God's love for humanity. Disregarding the fact that the Biblical flood never happened, what struck me about the song was the disconnect between the verses about God killing all the sinners and then this lovely-dovey coda. There was no attempt at a rationale as to how God killing all these people equated to love and it just made my brain stutter and go, 'eh?' Only a child could sing such things and accept there was a no problem there.

They also do a song that includes the lyrics, "This is the nose God chose for me, thank you Lord!" and in my head, I always substitute the word 'genetics' for 'God'. I'm aware this is wanky, and I don't attempt to stop my daughter singing their version, but it is nonsense. Would someone who was facially-disfigured also be expected to praise God for gifting them a schnoz that they couldn't breathe through, for example?

The song I do enjoy is the old one about the wise man building his house upon the rock:

The Wise Man Built His House

The wise man built his house upon the rock (*3)
And the rain came tumbling down...

Oh, the rain came down, And the floods came up (*3)
And the wise man's house stood firm.

The foolish man built his house upon the sand (*3)
And the rain came tumbling down

Oh, the rain came down, And the floods came up (*3)
And the house on the sand fell down!

The only reason I like that one ('like' being a relative term pertaining to children's songs you hear waaay too often rather than music one might listen to through choice) is that I amuse my small brain by pretending the rock is analogous to reason, science and scepticism, and the sand is analogous to religious faith, thus cleverly satirising the intended point of the song. I am aware this may also reveal something quite pathetic about me...

Anyway, after the singing is done, they put out a few snacks and we all natter about how awful little Tarquin and Jemima are. Friday just gone, a man wandered into the hall and started chatting to me. I recognised him as the minister of the church from photo on a board in the entrance hall, though I couldn't have told you his name. He asked me about what I do for a living and probed me as to whether I'd always intended to do what I do as a profession. I said that I hadn't, and explained how I'd had to get a post-graduate degree in order to allow me to take up my current discipline.

"And what about you?" I asked. "Did you always intend to go into the church?"
"No, I was a scientist," he revealed. "In fact, I was in the middle of a PHD in biology when I became a Christian."

A biologist who became a baptist minister? Could my ears be hearing correctly? Thing is, I've always steered clear of getting involved in any religious discussions at Music Time. It's not like the subject came up a lot, but obviously, with the people organising the thing being in the church, naturally it was mentioned in passing a few times. However, no one ever asked a direct question, so I never felt the need to say anything about my own beliefs (or lack thereof), but this was too good to let go.

"May I ask you a somewhat loaded question?" I asked.
He cocked an eyebrow but said that I could. "If you were a biologist, where do you stand on the issue of evolution versus Creationism?"
He considered this and then answered. It hadn't occurred to me at the time, but of course, he might have thought I was a Creationist, so was weighing what he said from that perspective. He told me that when he'd first become a Christian, he had felt it was important to believe the Bible literally, but, having considered his position further, he concluded that it wasn't important to believe in a six day creation, and that it was, in his opinion, metaphor designed for the bronze age target audience. What was important, he said, was that God was behind it.
I told him that although I wasn't a believer, his position seemed to me to be the logical position to take if one were one (which is not to say there aren't still issues with cognitive dissonance, but at least you're not constantly organising tag team cage fights between reality, logic and evidence in the blue corner versus faith, wishful thinking and putting your hands over your ears and going 'la la la' in the red in your own bloody head).

We ended up having a good chat about what his biological discipline had been (regrettably, it was a very narrow field of interest and I wasn't familiar with the area, so I've forgotten it) and discussed the Simon Singh libel case among other things science-related. It was something of a relief to know that whatever differences we may have - and I'm 100% sure we do - they're not Creationists.

Since first becoming interested in the evolution\Creationism battle a few years back, I've spent quite a lot of time and effort in attempting to do my bit to hold back the encroaching tide of stupidity, and a good number of the people I've had discussions with, particularly online, have been so egregiously idiotic that it's difficult to not fall into a lazy default characterisation of everyone with a religious belief. Once you've been told the most blatant lies by someone, you start to tar everyone with the same brush. It's not something I'd do with the sort of C of E type of Christians, but anyone "with a personal relationship with God", I'll admit I have a tendency to prejudge. It's good to have such things brought to your attention.

It was still genetics that gave 'em that snout though.