Losing faith in The Age

This morning I wake to find one of the leading stories on www.theage.com.au is that ‘God is still tops’  with Australians. A Neilsen survey has apparently revealed that 68% of us believe in God or an omniscient spirit being, and also gives stats on things like belief in psychics, astrology, UFOs and witches.

While I suspect the poll is pretty bogus (show me a newpaper poll that isn’t), I guess Jacqueline Maley does deserve some snaps for pointing out that the high percentage of believers is ‘surprising’, given Australia’s reputation as a secular and generally atheistic nation. This sentence as well, is particularly good, given the subject matter and time of year

Some beliefs seem contradictory. While 56 per cent of people believe in heaven, only 38 per cent believe in hell, and belief in God is more popular than faith in the Devil, with only 37 per cent believing in Satan.

Contradictory you say? Well, duh.

I love this part too

And although 91 per cent believed he (Jesus) was the son of God, only 72 per cent think the mother of Jesus Christ was a virgin.

ONLY 72%! Reminded me of this picture PZ Myers posted the other day. It’s actually a poster put up by a church, but that’s a whole other story.

The article ends with a quote from Philip Hughes, from the Christian Research Association and I would not be surprised if this group commissioned the study and selected the 1000 person people sample group. I don’t know why newspapers insist on reporting findings of surveys like this, they probably don’t even realise the methodolgies are inevitably flawed and the outcomes decided before the poll is even counted. That’s why the special interest groups rely on the newspaper to publish their results. This kind of shit would not even be granted acknowledgement of receipt in a peer-reviewed publication.

Hey Fairfax, when the next census comes around, go for your lives. Now there’s a poll you can really sink your teeth into.

Advertisements

The Greatest Show on Earth Wrap Up

Ok, so I know I said that I would finish reading TGSoE in mid-November so I am little bit late, and for that I apologise. On the upside, in the meantime I read Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science which was great, and should be compulsory reading for everyone. I was also pleased to discover that Goldacre is the nephew of Robyn Williams, host of The Science Show on ABC Radio National.

But I digress, back to the topic at hand.

It’s not exactly an original criticism of Dawkins to say that he sometimes has a tendency towards arrogance (can you really blame him, the amount of utter dribble he must encounter on a daily basis?) but there are certain parts of TGSoE that reek of superiority and superciliousness and really put me off. For example:

The scientists patiently looked at every one of the 34 million trees and compared each one with the other 33,999,999 trees. No, of course they didn’t! It would take too much computer time.

FFS Richard, God forbid that your audience may not be as numerate or computer literate as you. What is the point of leading the reader in a certain direction only to make them feel like an idiot 3 seconds later! There are far better ways to educate your audience in statistical techniques than humiliation. Ask Ben Goldacre if you need a hand.

I showed this section to Professor Hodgkin, and he showed me the most recent data…The slope of the line for what I am now calling (without permission) Hodgkin’s Law.

Now come on, you can not expect me to believe that you didn’t inform your ex-student Hodgkin that you were including this ‘Hodgkin’s Law’ in the book. But if what you say is true, and you didn’t let him know, why include the statement in parentheses? Oh Richard, you’re such a great guy naming this law after Hodgkin behind his back. Don’t you just wish you could be there to hear the little fella squeal in delight when he gets a mention in your incredibly popular and influential book?

As much as these two examples (and a few others) really got my goat, the book was not all bad. Far from it. Parts of the book I loved include the Lenski experiment (p117-133), the ‘improbability pump’ (p416), and RNA world (p419). And the way he wrapped up the book by expanding on each part of the ending to Origin of Species, I found elegant and engaging.

I do feel the need to reiterate what I felt when I was only halfway through, and that is that I really don’t know what audience Dawkins wrote this book for. It is my opinion that even a curious or sceptical or borderline creationist would be put off by the tone, and it doesn’t offer a whole lot of new information (if any) to science-minded people who are already atheists/rationalists/humanists.

My review? 7 out of 10 missing links.


Nerd Fashions

No self-respecting science nerd’s wardrobe is complete without a periodic table t-shirt. Case in point – myself and Other Half modelling our matchy-matchy nerd wear.

What I am about to show you however, is almost too nerdy for words. Blogger This and That knitted the following jumper for her husband.

Not only is the Periodic Table knitted across the front AND back, the left and right sleeves are species of bacteria and fungi, respectively. Wow.

I am a proud nerd girl through and through but I would never have the balls to wear that. 1 million points to the man who dons this jumper!