Logo

American Institute for Technology  

& Science Education Newsletter



August, 2012 

Like us on FacebookFollow me on Twitter DonatetoAITSE View my profile on LinkedInView our videos on YouTube
Greetings!

Crocker Summer is nearly over--here's hoping you've been able to spend some time at the beach. Now, with the advent of September, many of us are headed back to work or school. Need to get your brain back in gear? How about spending some time checking out the new, improved AITSE website? It'll be well worth your time.

Let me take you through it one section at a time--you might want to print out this newsletter to make it easier. First, note that our site now features our latest articles in a prominent position on the home page. Check the site regularly for updates. Each article has "share" buttons to make it easier for you to help us educate to promote integrity in science.

Then, on the left of the home page, we have a variety of options to enable you to be the most scientifically-informed person at your place of work or school. At the top on the left, we have a search button. Ever wonder whether AITSE has addressed a particular topic? Now you can find out at the click of a button! Just below the search button, there are links to more information. Like us on Facebook, sign up for our tweets or connect with me on Linkedin in order to receive daily updates on good bunk-free science.

Below these icons, note that it is possible to browse for our articles arranged by topic or by month. Into nutrition, but don't really care about evolution? Go right to it. Want to see what we've published on climate change? There's a link for that!

Even further down on the left, you won't want to miss taking the AITSE bunk-detecting quiz. Find out how good you are at distinguishing between real science and scams and have fun in the process! Keep your eye on this place because more quizzes will be added as our hard-working consortium provides us with them.

Now go to the bottom of the home page to the scrolling bar. Here you can access the AITSE store, where you can purchase AITSE cups, shirts, baby clothes, bags, teddy bears and even iPhone covers. Other buttons link to AITSE audio/video presentations, a form where you can book me to give a presentation, a website where you can read excerpts from, and purchase, Free to Think, and a contest for teens.

Yes, you read that right. AITSE, in its endeavor to educate and promote integrity in science, is now sponsoring a bunk-detecting essay contest where young people can enter to win $500. Since the essay only needs to be 600 words, that is nearly $1.00/word. A bargain! Spread the news to your children, grandchildren, your local science teachers, home schoolers, youth groups, etc. You may find that your favorite young person's work gains a place of honor on the home page of our website.

Finally, at the very bottom of the website, you can find our mailing address, phone number, and other contact information. In addition, in the middle it is possible to sign up to receive an email every time AITSE posts a new article. No more waiting in anxious anticipation for the email newsletter to arrive. And finally, ever wish you had a pithy quote that you could reel off at a party? Check out our quote of the month at the bottom right of the website.

AITSE: meeting ALL your needs for science information--and of course gifts.  

ASA Logo
That's the Way, ASA!

 Report on the 2012 American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) Annual Meeting 

 

About a year ago AITSE and Uncommon Descent featured an article that, between it and the follow-on posts, attracted 3773 hits and 182 comments. Why this high level of interest? Simply because the article pointed out that some of what happened at the ASA 2011 annual meeting near Chicago was not consistent with the values that the ASA posts on their website.

 

There the ASA state that "We are committed to providing an open forum where [scientific] controversies can be discussed without fear of unjust condemnation..." But, a times the atmosphere communicated from the podium was one of thinly-veiled hostility against those who question aspects of consensus science. Details can be found in the original article. 

However, just as "he whose ear heeds wholesome admonition will abide among the wise," so perhaps the mark of a good organization is in how they respond to constructive criticism.

 

And the ASA has. The steps they have taken towards rectifying the situation last year have been remarkable. First, early in the 2012 conference a moderator stated that the purpose of ASA is for Christians to be able to discuss diverging opinions on science without fear of censure. The conference participants were encouraged to be gentle, kind, humble and generally helpful to one another. The tone was set. And the conference continued as it began.  

 

The topic of this conference was "Science, Faith, and the Media," thus many of the plenary session topics did not directly pertain to science. Nonetheless, on the whole, the talks were helpful to those engaged in educating the public on matters of scientific importance. But the one presentation that specifically addressed a scientific topic was truly inspirational. Dr. John E. Johnson from the Scripps Research Institute gave a lecture on bacteriophage, viruses that infect bacteria. He called them elegantly programed nanomachines. May not sound like a riveting topic, but it was. Personally, I could have listened to him all day. Watch the videos and be amazed.

 

With regard to demonstrating a friendly, open atmosphere, the parallel sessions were equally impressive. They reflected the range of scientific opinions, and at least in my hearing, there were no comments about scientists with viewpoints differing from the speakers being "scientifically or theologically illiterate." In fact, I was told that scientists from a range of viewpoints regarding evolution were specifically invited to attend and give presentations. They did and those interactions I witnessed were warm and friendly.        

 

So, does the ASA have a way to go? Of course. First, the book table could have reflected a broader scientific point of view than it did. But, assurances were given that this was noted and will be corrected in future years. Next, one might suggest that an ID-friendly person be recruited to be an administrator on their Facebook page. After all, the Facebook posts pertaining to evolution are decidedly one-sided in nature with few if any links to organizations other than BioLogos and Faraday Institute. The same could be said for the movie night--the movie was distinctly one-sided. Perhaps in the future we could be exposed to movies from other points of view. Finally, in the future one may wish to see scientists with a greater variety of viewpoints on the ASA council. But then, that requires the cooperation of the scientists in question. Regardless, one would hope that this effort on the part of ASA to increase mutual respect despite diverging opinions will not go unnoticed.     

 

Overall AITSE salutes ASA. They responded to criticism and made great strides towards doing what they say they do. The atmosphere made it possible for everyone to safely explore, ask questions, and learn from others--after all, which of us claims to know everything? The resultant open discussion between scientists can only advance science and science education. For this reason, AITSE now has confidence to send those specifically interested in faith and science to ASA in the future--and to work with them in the present.

 Like us on Facebook 

Is Sugar Toxic?

by Martin Sturman, MD, FACP
sugar

  

Should Sugar be Treated as a Controlled Substance?

The latest claim that sugar is toxic and should be taxed and regulated like alcohol is described by Dr. David Katz, Director, Yale Prevention Research Center as "humbug." He points out that the notion of "one nutrient at a time" is a pernicious fallacy, i.e. a single nutrient (fats, carbohydrate, or protein) or substance singled out for special attention. Never mind that we almost never eat sugar, salt, let alone cholesterol and trans fats, etc. even nutrients per se in pure form, but only combined in food. Then we demonize or praise that single substance as "bad" or "good" for your health, as if their ingestion was isolated from the food containing them. To make sense this sounds like Low Carbs all over again.

The toxic sugar story turned metastatic with an opinion piece by a pediatric endocrinologist and obesity specialist, Dr. Robert Lustig, in an issue of the prestigious journal Nature. The author, an outstanding researcher many of whose unsupported theories remain controversial, has linked sugar, (consisting of glucose and fructose, the latter found naturally in fruits) to metabolic syndrome, (obesity, high cholesterol, diabetes, heart attacks), dementia, and even cancer. Check the search term "sugar toxicity" on Google for over four million URL's, including a blizzard of alarmist major network shows featured on CBS's "60 minutes," CNN, Fox, and other networks. "60 minutes" was broadcast twice this year, fittingly on April Fools Day and again on August 5, featuring a respected CNN health journalist. The New York Times published a convoluted but supportive article by a busy writer, famous for championing the low carb and other diets.

The Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) observed that "It is simplistic and unhelpful to blame sugar alone for rising rates of obesity and other related health problems across the world. Labeling sugar as 'toxic' and 'addictive' and placing it in the same boat as alcohol is incorrect and misleading." See also Kathy Goodwin's excellent critique of the demonstrably false theory that "...only carbohydrate in the diet will stimulate insulin production. The truth is that all ingested foods stimulate insulin production." This boils down to the ridiculous concept that sugar is "bad", since it produces insulin, and insulin stops people from losing weight.

If sugar is toxic, then so are candy bars, ice cream, cakes, pies, and cookies. (How often have you seen someone eat spoonfuls directly from a sugar bowl?) We have now come full circle and are back, as noted, to Dr. Atkins. Consider the astonishingly persistent belief in his low carbohydrate weight loss diet.

Atkins, Low Carbs and other Diets

In a previous blog, I pointed out that the low carbohydrate diet, basically a high fat diet which has been around since the 1860's enjoyed an astounding re-awakening one-hundred years later thanks to Dr. Robert Coleman Atkins who lifted his theories from "research" of Dr. Alfred W. Pennington, who recommended removing all starch and sugar from meals. An article supporting Atkins explored Pennington's work in the JAMA, "A New Concept in the Treatment of Obesity". In 1965 Atkins appeared on "The Tonight Show" hosted by Johnny Carson, to promote his weight loss plan. This resulted in further hypertrophy of the weight loss industry. The Atkins Diet industry remains alive and well with its 6 million URL's on Google, nine years after Atkins' death at 72.

If one looks further at the history of weight loss diets, other magic methods based on relative composition of carbohydrates, fat and protein continue to capture the public imagination. So we have low fat, high protein, low protein, high carb, low carb, high fat and other "miraculous" diets. Rarely mentioned is the low calorie diet. Moreover, every week brings an avalanche of new and usually outrageous fad diets: the South Beach Diet, the Cheater's Diet, the Ornish Diet, the Dr. Phil diet, the Shangri-La diet, the Banana diet, the Raw Foods diet, the Cabbage Diet, etc. (The Weight Watcher's Diet is one of the very few I recommend.)

Atkins and his Diet had been convincingly debunked by numerous studies published in peer-reviewed journals, long before and after his death in 2003. One of the most exhaustive critiques was performed by the Danish investigator, Professor Astrup who analyzed the Atkins diet and assorted claims that low carbohydrate diets are effective for weight loss. In Astrup's article, published in The Lancet, he and his colleagues examined 2,609 articles on low carbohydrate diets, and found only 107 articles which could be reviewed. "Only five studies evaluated participants for more than 90 days, but were not randomized and had no control group. There was insufficient evidence to make recommendations for or against these types of diets."

Is the Atkins diet safe? According to Astrup, "...restricted intake of whole grain bread and cereals, fruits and vegetables does not equal a healthy diet, and absence of these food groups may increase the risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease." Moreover, the low carbohydrate content of the diet is "below the minimum needed to supply the brain and muscles with sugar." Atkins dieters more often report muscle cramps, diarrhea, halitosis general weakness, and rashes than those on a recommended low fat or low calorie diets.

Final Recall

When it comes to food phobias and fad diets, American suffer as a society from well-organized, repressive group-think. Far too many of us are inhaling the mists of repellent dietary theologies issuing from the spray can of Junk Science. Magisterial nonsense delivered to us via the media and Internet blitzes has made us potential victims of the food police and the nanny state. As sure as summer follows spring, we are regularly spritzed with new diets and food phobias, ever more unpalatable and alarmist. Sugar and carbs can never be as toxic as the media that propagate these messages.
et, etc.

Reprinted with permission of EasyDiagnosis.com.
 

 Like us on Facebook 

Bunk-free Come and Hear! 
AITSE Presentations 

  

James Crocker, MTheol, MST, Oxford DPhil student will be giving a presentation on "Is Evolutionary Science a Problem for Biblical Christianity?" on Sept 7 at 7:00 pm at St James Church, Newport Beach, CA. (Yes, he is related to Dr. Crocker!) Although religion is not a topic normally covered by AITSE, it is a fact that many members of the American pubic perceive faith and science to be in conflict. Since this may cause them to either reject science or reject their faith, the topic is relevant to our goals of promoting good science.

Dr. Caroline Crocker will be giving a presentation on the AITSE Bunk-Detecting Principles at Logos Building, Costa Mesa, CA at 7 pm on October 6. If you are in the area, come-- and hone your bunk-detecting skills.

Then, if you are looking for even more fun, take the AITSE challenge listed on our new improved website. See how good you are at differentiating between real science and scientific scams!
        
Follow us on Twitter 

Simple Steps to Environmental  Care  by Mary Korte, PhD   

    

With today's emphasis on preserving natural resources Dr. Korteand caring for the earth, almost every child in America has been taught the "three R's" of environmentalism: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle. Unfortunately, we don't always faithfully follow them. Most Americans know they can reduce their consumption of natural resources by simple practices such as carpooling or taking public transportation, turning off lights or appliances when not in use, taking short showers or brushing their teeth without the faucet running, composting organic waste, and running the washing machine or dishwasher only with a full load. The kitchen is a place where reducing wastes can make a big difference. Use a sponge or dish cloth rather than paper towels to clean non-toxic spills, cloth instead of paper napkins, china instead of paper plates, and silverware instead of plastic utensils. We can also help reduce waste by choosing products with minimal packaging. When we buy fresh, locally grown food, we not only reduce packaging but we also conserve fuel needed to transport food long distances from where it was produced to our state or neighborhood. Strategies that target waste reduction should always be our first choice because reducing consumption uses less energy, taps fewer natural resources, costs less money, and generates less waste with less need for landfills or incineration! 

Many items that people routinely throw away can be reused in ways that differ from the product's original purpose.   Instead of using disposable plastic bags to store leftovers or pack lunches, invest in reusable containers. Even better, a lot of food purchased in grocery stores comes in containers that can be washed out and then reused.   Use a refillable water bottle instead of buying bottled water. Take a ceramic mug to work so paper or Styrofoam cups become unnecessary.  We'll not only save money but will also be caring for Earth. Often, people throw items away without considering the possibility of repairing the item and then reusing it. Some items are intentionally designed to be reused. For example,  using cloth bags rather than paper or plastic bags for shopping is both a reduction and a reuse strategy. Gently used, outgrown clothing as well as toys, furniture, books, jewelry, or knickknacks can be donated to charities, sold at a garage sale, or consigned to a resale shop. Even used cars can be donated to certain charities, and the donation is often tax-deductible!

Recycling is another way to preserve natural resources and avoid wastRecycleefulness. The difference between reuse and recycling sometimes causes confusion. The difference is that when an item is reused, it is used repeatedly either for its original purpose or even for a completely different purpose while retaining its original form. However, when an item is recycled, the original item is broken down into its raw material, and a new product is manufactured in a different form. Thus, refilling a water bottle is an example of reusing the same item whereas sorting glass, paper, metal, or plastic items and taking them to a recycling center technically involves reprocessing the material to make new products and different things.   Many products carry the universal recycling symbol so look for it when we shop and we will be conserving natural resources and caring for our beautiful world! Donate to AITSE 

Quote of the Month   DNA
W. P. Cheshire, Jr., MD
, MA, FAAN 

  

"Somewhere within the narrowing gap between brain and mind is what
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA's double helix, has called his "astonishing hypothesis," which is "that 'You,' your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

Crick is correct, up to a point. If he had claimed that mental states "are
represented by," or "correspond to," nerves and molecules, then his statement would have been germane to his field of molecular biology. With the words, "are in fact no more than," he has stepped outside the jurisdiction of science and proffered a philosophical assertion which argues that all that is true and can be known about human consciousness is ultimately reducible to matter and its quantifiable interactions."

In his article published in Ethics and Medicine 24(3):139-142, Dr. Cheshire makes a good point. It is important to distinguish between interpretation of science, extrapolation from science and sheer speculation. Dr. Crick stepped over the line. AITSE's purpose is to help the public detect unscientific claims made in the name of science, thereby benefiting from good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence. 
              
Visit our blog 
Expelled Review of a Review  
of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

With the release of Obama's America, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is again attracting media attention. Both movies are conservative documentaries--Obama's America has now displaced Expelled as the top conservative documentary. The difference between the two? You can see Expelled for free by clicking on the link above; you have to pay for Obama's America. The similarity? Both movies elicit strong reactions--either people love them or they hate them.

Politics is outside the purview of AITSE's mission, except in so far as it infringes on integrity in science, so one may ask why a review of a film is being addressed in our newsletter. Simply because, the main premise of Expelled is that scientists are being penalized for having scientific questions about the theory of evolution--and addressing politically, financially, or ideologically-motivated censoring of science is definitely of concern to AITSE.

For this reason, AITSE decided to review a 2008 review of Expelled by Jeffrey P. Schloss, PhD (ecology/evolution). This essay is hailed by many as being reasonable, and indeed it makes some good points: for example, the complaint that intelligent design theory was not adequately explained in the movie is a valid one. Having said this, Expelled, the movie was just that--a movie--and, as such, needed to appeal to the general public and make money, something that might not be achieved by extended explanations of science.

So, the movie did not do all it may have done. But, did the essay accomplish what Dr. Schloss meant it to accomplish? As Dr. Schloss writes, "What I want to do in this review essay is carefully assess the claims of the film, plus those made in the recent firestorm of criticisms and defenses," and "The need here, as always, is to 'examine everything carefully and hold on to the good' (I Thes 5:21)."

And the essay contains much of a thoughtful nature. Dr. Schloss appears to agree with the AITSE bunk-detecting principles in that he points out that in assessing claims, it is vital to carefully consider what is being said--rational argument trumps ad hominem attacks. It was indeed illogical for Expelled to first criticize Richard Dawkins for being philosophically incompetent and then take his word for the philosophical implications of Darwinism. Schloss also rightly asserts that, whereas atheism does require Darwinism, all aspects of evolutionary theory do not necessarily rule out the existence of a god. The conversation between science and faith does need continuation.

Unfortunately, in the next section of his essay, where Dr. Schloss evaluates the evidence the film presents for the expulsion of those who have scientific questions about aspects of consensus science from the academy, he falls into the trap of doing exactly what he instructs his students not to do. He parrots what he has read elsewhere instead of carefully assessing and examining the evidence for himself.

With regard to AITSE president Dr. Caroline Crocker, at no time did Dr. Schloss contact her, even though he quotes, "He who gives an answer without first hearing of the matter, it is his folly and shame." For example, according to Schloss' review, Dr. Crocker did not just mention ID, but lectured on and advocated views that advanced ID. Actually, the truth is that ID was referenced in 2 or 3 slides of a 25 slide presentation that was in turn part of a 25 lecture course. That makes it <0.5% of the course material. Since students wrote letters attesting that they did not know what Dr. Crocker personally believed, she could hardly have been advocating anything! The full evidence is presented in Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters; the student letters can be accessed from the AITSE website.

Dr. Schloss goes on to point out that Evolution? Dr. Crocker was guilty of starting the lecture with a cartoon--to wit of a monkey with an arrow pointing to a man and a question mark over the arrow. One wonders at the outrage expressed over this slide. Could it be that just hinting at questioning this particular science is highly offensive to some? And, if so, why? But that is a topic for others to address. Regardless, those of us who are seasoned educators will realize that the use of humor is a standard technique for gaining students' attention. Interestingly, in on-line interviews Dr. Crocker says that she did not even give the offending lecture during the semester before she was dismissed--the student letters confirm this fact.

Dr. Schloss ends the paragraph by commenting on alleged student complaints against Dr. Crocker. Again, he would have benefited from speaking to her directly or perhaps even requesting her to provide him with copies of the university's own documents about her performance. With regard to the "rate my professor" comments he references, a little careful research will reveal that many of these were posted after the case became public. Students who were disgruntled after failing a class had been given another reason to attack. Indeed, when an educator insists that students are on time, do their own work, and actually master the material there are always going to be some who are angry and post negative comments about the teacher. Otherwise, the students loved her class, as can be seen in the on-line comments copied in Free to Think. A full explanation can also be found in Free to Think, and would have been available from Dr. Crocker herself even before the book was published.

Interestingly, after Free to Think was published, a former student contacted Dr. Crocker and told her that the student who complained about her (resulting in Crocker's job loss) did not put it in writing because she was the same one who was described on p. 80 of the book. At the time of the oral complaint about Dr. Crocker she was no longer a student at the university--she had been kicked out of the university for cheating and subsequently stalking and threatening another student. To be fair, however, Dr. Schloss was not to know about this particular incident because Dr. Crocker herself did not know the details until after her book came out.

In the next paragraph Dr. Schloss points out that Stein misspoke (and he did): Dr. Crocker was not fired. But, what Dr. Schloss does not mention (because he didn't ask) is that Crocker's three year contract was changed to a one year and that one ended. The details and the evidence is in the book, with some of the supporting documents available on-line. That GMU knew they had done something wrong is shown by the fact that they more or less bought off the legal firm representing Dr. Crocker. After this, she taught at NVCC for a semester and gave two lectures on criticisms of evolution there. In one of these talks Dr. Crocker included what Schloss calls "standard creationist criticisms of the fossil record," some of which she is on record as saying she would not use again. However, further research would have revealed that many of the quotes and arguments that Dr. Crocker used for these criticisms were from evolutionists! Note as well that calling something 'creationist' does not address whether it is valid scientifically: see the bunk-detecting principles.

Dr. Schloss ends the section on Dr. Crocker by saying that "nobody who uses the biology classroom to advance views that reject evolutionary common descent, is going to be in the classroom for long at a major university." But, if he had contacted her and read what her students actually said in their letters, he would see that she did not do this. Rather, she just pointed out scientific problems with the interpretation of some of the evidence presented in the book. Actually, Crocker also presented evidence in favor of common descent (mitochondrial structure, DNA commonalities, etc.). She did what educators should do: try to give students access to the scientific facts and encourage them to think about whether the evidence merits the conclusions being drawn, rather than just memorize and regurgitate the text.

A quick skim through the paragraphs on Sternberg and Gonzalez show that perhaps Schloss researched them a little further, but there are still mistakes, presumably caused by drawing conclusions without actually speaking to the people involved. Further details about these stories can be found at Discovery Institute's in depth analysis, NCSE Exposed.

AITSE will not be commenting on Schloss' next section on the possible connection between Darwinism and the Holocaust, leaving that to the historians and philosophers.

In the final section of his review Dr. Schloss suggests Expelled's statement that "Our movie is about freedom - the freedom to discuss alternative views of how life began on our planet, the freedom to ask reasonable questions about the adequacy of Darwin's theory, and the freedom to challenge an entrenched establishment," may be unreasonable because some walls protect freedom. He suggests that those who question aspects of common descent and evolution may be something like illegal aliens in biology departments--similar to geocentrists in an astronomy department.

Of course, Dr. Schloss has a point. One needs to distinguish between those who would promote bunk science and those who are raising genuine scientifically-based questions. But, since science advances both by building on accepted knowledge and by challenging that knowledge or the interpretation thereof, to cut short the careers of  scientists who challenge the consensus seems very short-sighted. Such an action would, and does, stifle innovation and may cause us as a nation to fall behind in our technological and scientific advances. These do involve thinking outside the box. For a complete treatment of this question, see the answer to Q6 in the interview linked here.

Dr. Schloss ends with a discussion of the idea that Expelled did the science/faith discussion a disservice by increasing the polarization in views so that discussions are cut short. Again a reasonable point. But what also tends to stifle conversation is parroting inaccuracies put out by those with a definite prior agenda (NCSE).

AITSE has the goal of promoting good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence, not mere consensus. To advance this mission, it features articles from scientists on both sides of various issues. But, to do this we need your help. If you are a scientist or physician with expertise in a current scientific topic or debate, contact us. We need and value your input.   
   
Like us on Facebook 
In closing, as always, thank you for your past gifts and support. It is a fact that AITSE cannot function in its efforts to educate to increase scientific understanding and integrity without contributions. Please consider helping us with a special donation or a commitment to give on a monthly basis. Please make checks payable to AITSE and send them to PO Box 15938, Newport Beach, CA 92659. Alternatively, you can donate on line through PayPal or credit card.

Sincerely, DonatetoAITSE
Signature
Caroline Crocker
American Institute for Technology and Science Education