Maajid Nawaz on the Big Think: “No idea is above scrutiny; no people are beneath dignity”

March 3, 2016 • 10:00 am

Here’s Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz on The Big Think discussing “How the PC regressive left can manifest bigotry and prejudice.” What he calls the “zero-sum” game of Authoritarian Leftists is the fact that people like him can’t win, for their criticism of Islam is automatically construed as criticism of Muslims, aka people of color, and that’s racism.

Nawaz’s bona fides to criticize Islam are impeccable, as are Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s. The former spent five years in an Egyptian jail as an Islamist before deciding that he needed to change and become a moderate reformer; Ali was subjugated, mutilated, and hounded by death threats. And both are “brown” people. Yet both are called Islamophobes. It’s a severe indictment of both atheism and humanism that people like these are demonized rather than admired for their courage and commitment.

If there’s one flaw in this talk, it’s that Nawaz seems a bit defensive, overly touting his credentials. But I suppose that’s critical for him to establish credibility in a world of identity politics.

h/t: Cindy

PLos ONE publishes paper giving credit to God for designing the human hand

March 3, 2016 • 9:00 am

Most of you have heard of this incident by now, at least if you’re following science blogs, but I wanted to wait for a response to my own email before posting it. Here’s the story: three Chinese authors published a paper in PLoS ONE about the biomechanics of the human hand (reference and free link below). The authors found, to nobody’s surprise, that the internal architecture of the hand is admirably adapted to grasping.

But to everyone’s surprise, the authors included in their paper not one, but THREE paeans to God. Here they are, from different parts of the paper:

Screen shot 2016-03-03 at 6.49.38 AM

Screen shot 2016-03-03 at 6.50.09 AM Screen shot 2016-03-03 at 6.50.40 AM

I don’t know who spotted this mishigass, but it’s insupportable: pure creationism, a throwback to the “natural theology” of pre-Darwin days when the usefulness of adaptations was taken as evidence for a creator.

PLoS ONE has an unusual policy for a journal: it doesn’t gauge the importance of a paper before accepting it. Rather, the reviewers determine whether the paper’s methods support its results, and if they do, it’s published. That leads to some papers that, like this one, seem pretty trivial, but the journal has also published some excellent work. But there are too many editors, and not enough editorial oversight—as was clear in this case. I don’t know how many reviewers the paper had, but the editor who bears ultimate responsibility for this travesty is Renzhi Han of the Ohio State University Medical Center. How is it possible that nobody caught those statements? Did Han even read the paper?

Anyway, when several readers called this to my attention, I wrote an email to the media inquires section of PLoS ONE:

To: onepress@plos.org (PLos media inquiries)

Hello,

I’m a professor emeritus of evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago, and have just noticed that a new paper in PLoS ONE refers to the “creator” (i.e., God) several times. The paper (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0146193) is by Min-Jin Liu et al, and says this about the biomechanics of human hand grasping:
“The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.”
“Thus, hand coordination affords humans the ability to flexibly and comfortably control the complex structure to perform numerous tasks. Hand coordination should indicate the mystery of the Creator’s invention.”
and
” In conclusion, our study can improve the understanding of the human hand and confirm that the mechanical architecture is the proper design by the Creator for dexterous performance of numerous functions following the evolutionary remodeling of the ancestral hand for millions of years.”
Are you aware that your authors are putting not only religion, but creationism, into a scientific paper? This should be a tremendous embarrassment to the Public Library of Science journals.
I have posted this query on my website, which has nearly 40,000 subscribers, and I would appreciate it if you could tell me a. if this policy of allowing God and creationism in science papers is normal for your journal, and b. if not, what will you do to stop it?
Of course you are aware that this paper will be touted by creationists as evidence for God, and as “proof” that Intelligent Design is a scientific concept. We evolutionary biologists can’t help being misquoted, of course, but the three quotes above are by scientists, and are not distorted.
Sincerely,
Jerry Coyne
A few hours later, I got this response, which I gather is a form reply:

Dear Dr. Coyne,

Thank you for your message and for contacting us about this published article. I want to assure you that PLOS has been made aware of this issue and we are looking into it in depth. Our internal editors are reviewing the manuscript and will decide what course of action to take. PLOS’ publishing team is also assessing its processes. A comment has been posted to that effect at [this link].

Let us know if there is anything further we can do.

Kind Regards,
Chloe Medosch

PLOS | OPEN FOR DISCOVERY
Chloe Medosch | Publications Manager, PLOS ONE

Here’s the comment that PLoS posted subsequently:
A number of readers have concerns about sentences in the article that make references to a ‘Creator’. The PLOS ONE editors apologize that this language was not addressed internally or by the Academic Editor during the evaluation of the manuscript. We are looking into the concerns raised about the article with priority and will take steps to correct the published record.
Yes, the “creator” business was missed by the corrsponding editor, Dr. Han, and by at least two reviewers. Again, how did that happen? Inquiring minds want to know.
Retraction Watch (RW) reviews some of the strong reactions of scientists to the god interpolations, and also quotes editor Han as saying, “I am sorry for this has happened. I am contacting PLoS one to see whether we can fix the issue.” And in the comments to the RW article, someone points out that never mind the god bit (some people actually defended it)— the science itself was lame. Here’s one:
lartibartfast March 2, 2016 at 2:03 pm

Never mind the ‘Creator’ bit – that may have been an error of translation [JAC: it’s apparently not], and let the neo-Whorfians have a field day with this.

What I can’t understand is how this paper got accepted for publication in the first place, given its banality – here’s a representative quote:

“The neurological functions are controlled by the central nervous system (CNS) [8]. The CNS receives sensory information, such as smells, tastes, sounds, sights and tactile information, and responds to the information with an action …” (Not that it gets any better after that.)

This is K12-level stuff, if that.

We can expect that, if the goddy stuff is removed from the paper, as it undoubtedly will be, the Discovery Institute will scream bloody murder at the “censorship” of intelligent-design “evidence.” They may even give PLoS next year’s “Censor of the Year” award (I’m still plumping to get another one.) But let them scream, for we already have a more parsimonious and non-supernatural explanation for the remarkable adaptiveness of the human hand.

UPDATE: The readers’ comment on the PLoS paper, including some editors’ threats to resign if the “god” bit isn’t removed, are here. The authors claim that their word “creator” was misunderstood” and plead for the paper to stay. Even if they aren’t fibbing, it’s still unclear how the paper got published after review. The author’s statement:

We are sorry for drawing the debates about creationism. Our study has no relationship with creationism. English is not our native language. Our understanding of the word Creator was not actually as a native English speaker expected. Now we realized that we had misunderstood the word Creator. What we would like to express is that the biomechanical characteristic of tendious connective architecture between muscles and articulations is a proper design by the NATURE (result of evolution) to perform a multitude of daily grasping tasks. We will change the Creator to nature in the revised manuscript. We apologize for any troubles may have caused by this misunderstanding.

We have spent seven months doing the experiments, analysis, and write up. I hope this paper will not be discriminated only because of this misunderstanding of the word. Please could you read the paper before making a decision.

_______________
M.-J. Liu et al. 2016. Biomechanical characteristics of hand coordination in grasping activities of daily living. PLoS ONE, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146193

Readers’ wildlife photos

March 3, 2016 • 8:00 am

As my collection wildlife photos are on the other computer, which I’m taking back to work, I’ll put up today two photos fortuitously sent by Stephen Barnard, whose largesse from Idaho is endless. His notes are indented, and he furnished some information from Wikipedia:

A male Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus):

RT9A4202
A drake Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) in full breeding colors.

RT9A4221

Mallards are probably the most common duck, here and worldwide, and are the ancestor of most breeds of domestic ducks. Their ubiquity tends to obscure their beauty. Here’s an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry:

“The mallard is a rare example of both Allen’s Rule and Bergmann’s Rule in birds. Bergmann’s Rule, which states that polar forms tend to be larger thanrelated ones from warmer climates, has numerous examples in birds. Allen’s Rule says that appendages like ears tend to be smaller in polar forms to minimize heat loss, and larger in tropical and desert equivalents to facilitate heat diffusion, and that the polar taxa are stockier overall. Examples of this rule in birds are rare, as they lack
external ears. However, the bill of ducks is very well supplied with blood vessels and is vulnerable to cold.[citation needed]

“Due to the malleability of the mallard’s genetic code, which gives it its vast interbreeding capability [JAC: that last sentence is dead wrong: the duck’s ability to hybridize with other species almost certainly has nothing to do with “the malleability of its genetic code” whatever that means!], mutations in the genes that decide plumage colour are very common and have resulted in a wide variety of hybrids such as Brewer’s duck (mallard × gadwall, Anas strepera).”

Thursday: Hili dialogue

March 3, 2016 • 6:30 am
I have landed in Chicago, and soon will be back to work—in today’s case, talking about evolution with students at the nearby Lab School. (As part of their biology class, they’ve read WEIT_. It’s very overcast, freezing drizzle and snow are predicted for the next two days, and I’m again suffering from insomnia, so posting may be light due to sleeplessness. Pardon the kvetching. On this day in history, March 3, Alexander I freed the serfs in Russia (1861), Bizet’s “Carmen” premiered in Paris (1875), a secular Turkey began when the last Caliphate ended and Atatürk took power (1924), and oil was discovered in Saudi Arabia (1938), thereby enabling us to ignore its later human rights violations. Births on this day include Georg Cantor (1845), Alexander Graham Bell (1847), Jean Harlow (1911), Doc Watson (1923), and Brian Cox (1968). Those who died on this day include Lou Costello (1959), Danny Kaye (1987), and the geneticist Sewall Wright (1988), who died at 99. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Andrzej, while trying to figure out where to sit, are using a metaphor of a popular Palestianian “solution” to the Middle East problem.
A: What would you say about a two-seat solution?
Hili: Sure, both will be for me, and in the meantime my resistance is legal.
P1030904
In Polish:
Ja: Co byś powiedziała na temat rozwiązania w postaci dwóch foteli?
Hili: Oczywiście, obydwa dla mnie, a chwilowo mój opór jest legalny.

And, over in Winnipeg, Gus has decided to put a rear window in his Ikea box:

Montreal: Poutine!

March 2, 2016 • 1:30 pm

Poutine is a Candian dish that originated in the French-speaking areas of the country; when and where it came to be are mysteries. The dish consists, au minimum, of french fries (frites), gravy, and cheese curds. But it’s often supplemented with other things; in fact, you can add almost anything to a poutine. I was first introduced to it by my friend Barb in Ottawa about ten years ago, and then had my next poutine in 2012 when biochemist Larry Moran (of Sandwalk fame) took a group of us over the border into Quebec for the dish.

I’ve had it twice on this visit, the first time at the Elgin Street Diner in Ottawa. But there is no substitute for going to a place that should be called Le Roi de Poutine, otherwise known as La Banquise in Montréal, which claims it has the best poutine in Quebec. Well, I haven’t tried them all, which would be a herculean task, but it certainly was the best poutine I’ve had to date.

Here’s the place, open 24 hours, with my friends Claude and Anne-Marie posing in front. They kindly took a day off to show me around Montreal (more photos later), as well as serving me a fantastic meal in their home the night before.

P1090731

The poutine menu is extensive (English version below). I had the Elvis, with ground beef, green peppers, and mushrooms as extras, while Claude had “The three meats,” with added ground beef, pepperoni, and bacon. That one must be locally known as “heart attack on a plate.”

Anne-Marie can’t digest the stuff, and so had a club sandwich. Note “La Fred Caillou,” which is the local traslation of “Fred Flintstone” (“caillou” means “pebble” in French). It has four kinds of meat.

P1090734

Here’s my poutine, which is the SMALL SIZE. It was delicious. Claude photographed me taking the photo below; you can see that portions are not small at all!

P1090736

DSC04093

And Claude’s “three meats” poutine:

P1090737

La Banquise was nearly empty when we entered at about 11:15. By noon it was full of happy Québécois chowing down plates of poutine. Many got the large size, and I don’t know how they could finish it. I surreptitiously took photos of people nomming poutine:

P1090733


 P1090735

This large-ish guy had both a poutine and a hamburger!
P1090738

P1090742

Fresh orders of poutine, ready for delivery to expectant customers. Note the Mexican-style poutine with guacamole and sour cream.

P1090745

Warning: if you don’t like this stuff, we needn’t hear about it in the comments below. And, as usual, you’re fobidden to act as Food Police, pointing out the unhealthiness of the dish or its inimical effects on my arteries. Bon appetit!

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Pork

March 2, 2016 • 12:30 pm

There’s a double-feature Jesus and Mo strip. First, the regular one, called “hide“, in which Mo decides to change his gender—but only to a limited extent:

2016-03-02

And the J&M author notes some flattering imitation at The Atheist Pig: a strip called “Pig in a Blanket” (if you’re not American, you may not know the comestible called “pigs in blankets“).

pig-in-a-blanket-768x702

Catholic hospital—in U.S.—risks woman’s life by refusing to terminate her pregnancy

March 2, 2016 • 11:15 am

Most of you probably remember the tragic and preventable death of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year old dentist who died in Ireland in 2012, killed by the policies of the Catholic Church.

The story is well known: Halappanavar contracted a serious infection at 17 weeks of pregnancy, one that would kill both her and the fetus if it were not removed. Grania’s post gives more details:

Her husband recounts that repeated requests for termination (in reality, an evacuation of the uterus) were refused because the fetal heartbeat was still present, and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”. She was left with a dilated cervix for three days until the fetal heartbeat ceased. Four days later [Halappanavar] died.

It wasn’t until a year later that it became legal in Ireland to abort a fetus to save the mother’s life!

Here’s her photo to remind us that Catholic dogma has horrible effects on the lives of many:

SavitaHalappanavar_LG

This almost happened in 2010 in the U.S., to a Michigan resident named Tamisha Means, who now tells her story in The Guardian. Means was 18 weeks pregnant and started to miscarry, but was refused admittance to Mercy Health Muskegon, a Catholic hospital.  Bleeding copiously and in terrible pain, Means went back to Mercy (an inappropriate name!) the next day, and was once again refused admission.

The next day she returned to the hospital for the third time, and only then, when she started going into labor on the spot, was she admitted.  The baby died, but, no thanks to Mercy, Ms. Means survived.  Apparently, doctors could have told her that her child had no chance of survival and terminated her pregnancy, but they didn’t. They withheld crucial information. As Means writes in her article:

Mercy Health Muskegon is a Catholic hospital required to follow policies drafted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. As the Guardian recently reported, they have religious directives that guide their medical treatment and decision-making, which includes prohibiting healthcare workers from administering any treatment or information that could result in pregnancy termination. That includes decisions where the woman’s life is at risk, as mine was, and the baby could not yet live outside of the womb, as mine couldn’t.

I was not seeking to end my pregnancy. I was seeking proper medical care. I didn’t have control over my miscarriage, but the hospital had control over the care I would receive at that devastating time. Instead of acting in my best interest, religious beliefs were used to deny me the right type of medical care.

This is insupportable. As the Guardian reports at the link above, five different women had their lives endangered in a year and a half by Mercy’s refusal to terminate their pregnancies. In all five cases, the babies died. The religious directives governing such cases are ambiguous, and it looks as if Catholic health workers simply make judgment calls.

Means says she’s filed suit against the Catholic bishops with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. A lower court dismissed her case, but she and the ACLU have appealed. Until the government forces all hospital to treat women appropriately, and not according to religious dictates, this will keep happening. (The proportion of hospital beds under control of the Catholic Church is growing in the U.S.) And Means says she’ll keep fighting:

Since filing the case I’ve learned about the bigger issue at stake: US hospitals are becoming increasingly affiliated with religious organizations. Ten of the 25 largest hospital systems in the country are Catholic-sponsored, and nearly one in nine hospital beds is in a Catholic facility. And in all these facilities, medical professionals should act in the best interests of their patients, not based on religious rules.

I hope that my case will help ensure that when we enter into the medical system to seek care that we are truly receiving it, unbiased and with respect. No woman should have to fear for her own life as she tries to create a new one.