No Wonder
These people piss me off.
Lenore Durkee, a retired biology professor, was volunteering as a docent at the Museum of the Earth here when she was confronted by a group of seven or eight people, creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution. They peppered Dr. Durkee with questions about everything from techniques for dating fossils to the second law of thermodynamics, their queries coming so thick and fast that she found it hard to reply.
That’s not a group of people seeking understanding or enlightenment or further education or information or an interesting discussion – that’s a group of aggressive over-confident truculent aggrieved fools who think they have a special pipeline to certainty and a right to challenge people who both know more than they do and eschew certainty. That’s a pack of hostile theocrats out to dismantle every secular institution and branch of education in existence. Nothing will make them shut up, nothing will make them understand that their pipeline to certainty is a short rusty tube leading nowhere. Nothing will even make them perceive the irony of the fact that it is science, which actually revises its findings on the basis of evidence, that disavows certainty, while it is know-nothing zealots like them who do not, ever, revise their obstinate beliefs excuse me ‘faith’ who claim to ‘know’ that someone made the universe and who the someone is.
They piss me off.
…science museums and other institutions struggle to contend with challenges to the theory of evolution that they say are growing common and sometimes aggressive. One company, called B.C. Tours “because we are biblically correct,” even offers escorted visits to the Denver Museum of Science and Nature. Participants hear creationists’ explanations for the exhibitions.
Biblically correct. And people in museums have to waste their time answering hostile questions from imbeciles like that. It pisses me off.
Instead, he told the volunteers that when they encounter religious fundamentalists they should emphasize that science museums live by the rules of science. They seek answers in nature to questions about nature, they look for explanations that can be tested by experiment and observation in the material world, and they understand that all scientific knowledge is provisional – capable of being overturned when better answers are discovered.
Unlike religion – which does not overturn its ‘knowledge’ when better answers are discovered. Ever, ever! No, instead it just causes people to keep insisting more and more loudly, more and more stupidly, more and more self-righteously, on the inarguable certain truth of the fairy tales they grew up on!
It pisses me off.
There is more than one type of creationist, he said: “thinking creationists who want to know answers, and they are willing to listen, even if they go away unconvinced” and “people who for whatever reason are here to bother you, to trap you, to bludgeon you.” Those were the type of people who confronted Dr. Durkee, a former biology professor at Grinnell College in Iowa. The encounter left her discouraged. “It is no wonder that many biologists will simply refuse to debate creationists or I.D.ers,” she said, using the abbreviation for intelligent design, a cousin of creationism. “It is as if they aren’t listening.”
No wonder indeed.
They’re called hecklers. On the internet, they’re called trolls.
In the last couple of years I’ve seen some discussions about the debates between skilled creationist debaters and knowledgeable biologists – many of the latter have difficulty getting their points across despite their often formidable scientific knowledge because they aren’t experienced debaters, with the result that an uninformed spectator might see the creationists as “winning” the debate based on rhetorical skills alone. In the move from the formal debate with scientists to badgering individual docents I think the latter are in a much more difficult position.
What do they get out of it, I wonder? They can’t seriously expect to convince an expert that evolution is wrong, just by talking at her all at once. Is it some sort of bonding exercise? Or proving their courage and their faith by bearding the lion in his den? It does seem rather trollish; there are even creationist dinosaur museums they could go to instead for a fun-filled and fact-free day out, where they wouldn’t have to put up with evilutionist propaganda.
“What do they get out of it, I wonder?”
They get to harass and possibly intimidate evolutionists in public. They get to impress a few ignorant bystanders. They get to feel righteous about battling evil secular humanism. They get to practice for the big day when they’ll do more than heckle the heathen.
G is right. If you check the infamous ‘wedge’ statement which forms part of the ID strategy it’s all about getting the masses to doubt evolution first and from there to undermine the whole scientific project and thus bring about a return to a culture(?) based solely on Biblical dogma.
Absolutely indistinguishable from the aims of al Qaeda, except for the title of the book…
Yes, sure, I’m not unfamiliar with creationism, ID and the wedge document. I have no doubt as to the aims of creationists in general. I was wondering more about what these particular creationists hoped to achieve by badgering a museum guide – surely they didn’t think they’d gain a convert, and even if they did, it’s a lot of trouble to go to just for one soul saved. That why I suggested some sort of sociological function to the harrassment – testifying to their faith, or something. Karl’s reply was apposite.
“In the last couple of years I’ve seen some discussions about the debates between skilled creationist debaters and knowledgeable biologists – many of the latter have difficulty getting their points across despite their often formidable scientific knowledge because they aren’t experienced debaters, with the result that an uninformed spectator might see the creationists as “winning” the debate based on rhetorical skills alone.”
I disagree. Mostly the creationists seem to be winning because they have no regard for consistency, intellectual honesty or the facts. A scientist cannot or will not play fast and loose with the truth like that.
Unfortunately, for most lay people with no deeper understanding of the issues, a few unsubstantiated assertions, non sequiters, ad hominem attacks, and shifting the burden of proof will be enough to impress them.
If someone says ‘X cannot have evolved’ it takes a lot longer to explain how it could have, and by then the creationist can move the argument on to some other point.
‘John G. West, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, whose researchers endorse intelligent design, said he was not aware of organized efforts to challenge museum exhibitions on evolution. He added, “It is not unheard of for museum exhibits to be wrong scientifically.”‘
John G. West just redefined chutzpah.
I think the combination of the personal desire to be special (non-chimp) and the few scientists who support ID (regardless of the merits of their arguments) is enough for most ID’ers and creationists. They can trot out just about any argument and it wont make a difference. I found this in the Economist, I think it’s quite amusing.
“When the Discovery Institute, a promoter of intelligent design, came up with a list of 370 people with science degrees who backed their ideas, the National Centre for Science Education responded with almost 600 scientists called Steve or Stephanie who rejected them.”
I don’t doubt that the 370 are infinitely more eminent and objective in their analysis.
Here’s the link http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4232431
It’s pretty good.
The mistake scientists make is taking these people seriously. The Jon Stewart approach is far superior: “Basically, Intelligent Design is the idea that life on earth is too complex to have evolved without a guiding hand. We’re not saying it’s God, just someone with the basic skill set to create an entire universe.”
But I do sympathise with the museum guides. I recall a conversation with a very fierce Christian who responded to a remark about evolution by glaring at me and saying: “Listen, I’m no kin to the monkey.” I changed the subject. Perhaps the best thing would be to invite them to explain how they test their theories. Has anyone ever tried building an ark with the technology available to Noah?
The problem with that is that they’re constantly waiting for the drawbridge to be let down. Suppose you indulge them and say “build an ark with the technology available to Noah.” I know, it’s a silly premise, because how are you even going to get that far without placing Noah somewhere historically and then determining what technology would have been available to him without depending on religion’s enemy, science? But just suppose a protocol is agreed upon and they build an ark. Big deal. It won’t change anything for you and me, but they’ll be crowing that they’ve disproved our non-belief and then it looks like it’s up to you to start explaining it doesn’t prove anything, which looks like backtracking.
You can’t afford to get onto their territory to meet them there. Before we go in that direction, it’s up to them to bring evidence to back up why anything they assert should even be on the table.
Please let’s not forget how much more difficult it is to defend than attack. The drawbridge/barbarians at the gate analogy is really very appropriate here, because the undermining and destruction of the knowledge we have is more important to them than the sturdiness of the beliefs with which they are determined to replace them.
“replace it.” Oops
…how are you even going to get that far without placing Noah somewhere historically and then determining what technology would have been available to him without depending on religion’s enemy, science?
Since they claim to be doing science I see no harm in letting them use those parts of it which they accept. Hell, I’m not a scientist myself, so all I ask of them is that they give me what paleontoligists already give me: an account of the past which stands up to scrutiny. Part of that challenge is that they address the methodological issues. If they want to assume Noah had bronze-age technology I won’t deride them for that. Even given that generous concession, can they build a seaworthy ship 500 cubits in length (if memory serves) capable of carrying two of every species?
To be honest, I just want to encourage them to go ahead and do some research, even at a childish level. Of course they can’t expect to be allowed to teach it in schools until they get somewhere. But if I were a museum guide I would be very tempted to let them take on the task of convincing me, rather than accepting the burden of proof all the time; precisely because it is more difficult to defend than attack. Probably it’s just as well I’m not a museum guide.
Just popping in to say tell it, sister.
They piss me off, too.
I think an additional answer to Brett’s question, what do they get out of it, is they get to apply pressure. That’s clearly something they’re very intent on doing, via letter-writing campaigns and the like. Appeals for ‘balance’ and ‘teaching the controversy’ and ‘fairness’ and ‘not showing elitist contempt for people of faith’ and the like. Staging shouting matches in museums is part of that larger campaign, is my guess. They represent The Will of the People, Democracry, Public Opinion, Anti-elitism, People of Faith – all that. The docent represents wicked anti-democratic elitist materialist scientistic reductionist rationalist anti-faith badness.
Pressure. Intimidation. That’s what they get out of it.
In other words by harrassing a docent they apply pressure to the whole institution. It’s not as if she’s not going to tell anyone about it!
It’s like demonstrations, I suppose. They don’t actually go through the Oval Office or Number 10, but they do get reported there.
A large segment of people attending science museums are school groups (remember field trips?) so the motivation is largely the same as the one to change school textbooks.
My wife works at a science museum (I forwarded her this article, in fact. She reports that Denver has this problem especially badly; I guess that’s because Colorado is a headquarters of right-wing Christianity). Museums are extremely important ambassadors of science. Also, the great majority of them are dependent on public funds and/or ticket sales and therefore are very sensitive to public pressure. The famous New York museums may be relatively immune, but they’re the exception in the U.S.
Exactly – museums are very sensitive to public pressure. Which is a good thing, in a way – they should be public institutions, educational, etc. But when the pressure is to mis-educate, then…that’s a problem.
Interesting about Denver.
Yes, let the record show that Raleigh, North Carolina is less wing-nutty than Denver, at least by this one measure.
I am commenting here on OB’s comments in the Freud discussion about time wasting, as it seems more relevant here.
I became sensitive about the time wasting argument when one of the environmentalists opposed to Bjorn Lomborg said BJ’s book should not have been published because it forced busy people to spend time answering it. Whatever you think of Lomborg, that argument seems to me to be as dangerous as hell (if there was such a place).
Good points of view or scientific beliefs (eg evolution) are always worth arguing and defending. It is dangerous for us to take them as gospel (huh?) and refuse to supprt them.
Who knows? One of those arguing with the docents and guides might be convinced. I suspect the reason BC Tours wants to shepherd believers around museums is to keep them away from guides.
Nevertheless, they piss me off, too. And, often, they amuse me.
Good points of view or scientific beliefs (eg evolution) are always worth arguing and defending. It is dangerous for us to take them as gospel
I fail to see why, as another commenter has already said, established scientific principles should have to be ‘defended’ constantly against a non-stop propaganda blitz by people who have no interest whatsoever in the truth and who only want to engage in demagoguery and intimidation. Another thing, too: This ‘science as gospel’ is part of the propaganda ploy used by creationists to confuse the issue. Adhering to a well-established theory against a superstition that lacks logical coherence and any evidence whatsoever to back it up – this simply is proper scientific procedure, not preaching a gospel.
You say we should be happy to ‘debate’ creationists anywhere, anytime. How would you like to have to answer trolls and hecklers all day, every day. It gets old very, very fast.
Established scientific principles are only established until they are changed or refined. That’s why they need to be debated and defended. Many have not survived. Of the Big Three (Marxism, Freudianism and Darwinism) only the latter is still with us. And evolution is being refined (I think improved) with the work on evolutionary psychology.
Yes, I realize this does not go to the heart of evolution, which is still intact but it is not impossible to imagine it being replaced by a better explanation. Not that creationism and ID are candidates.
As for trolls and other provocations, I don’t see any hear. If there is a weakness with B&W, it is that we are all in violent agreement on most things. But then, it is your home OB and we are guests.
Hey, how did I get on that side of the argument?
My reference to gospel would have been a Freudian slip, if I believed in Freud.
Scientific theories are “changed or refined” when confronted with overwhelming evidence and, most important of all, coherent testable alternative theories that do a better job of explaining the evidence than the previous theories and generate more accurate predictions. They are not “changed or refined” by ignorant crackpot hecklers engaging in, as Brian rightly calls it, a “propaganda blitz”.
“As for trolls and other provocations, I don’t see any hear [sic].”
You mean aside from yourself? Seriously, I don’t think Brian was calling you a troll. He was comparing docents and scientists having to constantly “defend” evolution to bloggers having to constantly answer trolls.
IMHO, this is the same thing as soccer thugs beating the sh!t out of policemen.
It is a group identity thing, a savage reward system of self-righteousness where people bid each other up to demonstrate their committment; after accepting the dare they hide out round the corner guffawing at how clever they were. “Did you see her face when I quoted Genesis 1:34? Man I nearly cracked up!”
I don’t see much difference between this behaviour and brownshirt harassment tactics.
That’s the sad thing about all this: that docents etc. are now being prepared for these onslaughts, when none of the people perpetrating them actually have any interest in the answers they might get. No, I’m not advocating a burst of machine-gun fire at them, but just look at us, trying to behaved in a civilised manner, as if that had the faintest hope of getting us anywhere with that mob.
If it was my last comment that brought that on, I was referring to the “creationists eager to challenge the museum exhibitions on evolution…, their queries coming so thick and fast that [Dr. Durkee] found it hard to reply.” As OB’s first comment on this said, in different words, they had no interest in the answers to the questions with which they were bombarding the docent. One way to describe what they did was an attempt to knock the poor woman off balance and they attempted to mask this uncivilised aim by doing it through the seemingly civilised means of asking her questions.
What I was getting at earlier is that there are concessions one could make in order to answer the questions of people who are asking genuinely (such as children) that one should avoid making for adults who have decided that they believe something other than what the evidence shows and whose questions are a sham, intended to make it look as if they’re also playing on a somehow scientific playing field.
Yeah. The problem is not people asking real questions and listening to the answers (and then asking further questions, and listening and discussing the answers, and so on). The problem is what is obviously an intimidation tactic rather than a discussion – throwing questions at someone so fast that she can’t answer them. The problem is not disagreement, but behavior and action.
Yes, OB, there is no doubt it is extremely bad manners. But not really a hanging offence, it seems to me.
By the way, is the term “docent” used outside the US? Seems strange in a country with little Latin and less Greek.
In Oz, I think “volunteer” is used in museums. But then no-one here learns Latin these days either. Another thing that is destroying civilation as we used to know it.
Ah, but is it unimaginable that, if there were no restrictions on their power, our “heresy” might become a hanging offence? Like it was not too long ago and still is in the Muslim world. I know some people like to think Christianity has grown up and out of the infantile and unreasoning violent phase in which they perceive Islam to be, but I think there are plenty of signs that some parts of Christendom can also “grow down” if given half a chance.
Yes, in Australian museums, “volunteer” is used. Except on those rare occasions when such people aren’t volunteers but are actually paid – I was one of the lucky ones, and gloried in the title of “explainer” (I still have the badge proclaiming me as such :)
PS I learnt (at least, was taught) Latin in school. Can’t really say that it was time well spent.
Well, ken, no one said it was a hanging offence, so what’s the point of saying that? You seem to want to argue that certain things shouldn’t be criticized or argued with – but you also seem to be trying to make that argument by the use of hyperbole (equating criticism with calling something a hanging offence) along with whatever the opposite of hyperbole is, as in saying what the museum shouters are doing is extremely bad manners. I’m arguing the opposite – that what the museum intimidators are doing is worse than bad manners, and that saying so is not the equivalent of saying it is a hanging offence.
The people who do the harrassing want fairy tales taught as science in secular public institutions. They’re not harmless. Saying that is not equivalent to demanding that they be hanged.
I am sorry, OB, my reference to “hanging offence” was not meant to be taken literally. I realize no-one is suggesting that the intimidation we are talking about sholud be an hanging offence.
I think our disagreement is about how serious it is. I say it is “just” extremely bad manners. About on a par with demonstrating at international conferences. Both such behaviors are driven by sincere and, in my view, erroneous beliefs. (In the latter case that globalism harms poor countries). I would make neither behavior illegal. I think some of your contributors here are suggesting that the museum behavior sholud be. If they are not, I apologise.
I think we are arguing about how serious the museum behavior is (we agree it is wrong) and how tolerant of it we should be.
If the same people or their friends want to stop teaching of evolution in schools they should be opposed. That does harm people. That is even worse than teaching pomo literary studies to defenceless children.
Truce?
As one of those who may have sounded harsh, I can say that I don’t think it should be made illegal (I don’t think it can be – “right, you’re not armed; now let’s see the contents of your brains”). I view it as an annoying and unpreventable symptom of something far worse that needs to be dealt with at the root and it can’t be done by legal means – other than not letting religion take over where it has no business. Ken writes “If the same people or their friends want to stop teaching of evolution in schools…” – excuse me, is that really a question of “if?” I know the two are completely separate issues, but let’s not forget that the harrassment of the docent took place because no stronger option is yet legally open to them (and let’s hope it never is).
Afterthought: I suppose the equivalent of what they can’t be prevented from doing would be to send groups of activists into churches on Sundays to heckle during sermons. I wonder if they’d resign themselves to having to live with it…
ken, sure, truce. Only, I don’t think anyone did say anything that implied that the cops should be called. This is the fallacy I was talking about a week or two ago, in the Galileo post – the equation of criticism with advocating making the thing criticised illegal. I think that’s an odd leap to make – and people make it all the time. It’s worrying, I think, because it seems to be a way of telling people to shut up. (I’m not accusing you of that, but I’m explaining why I think the whole line of argument is…unfortunate.) It equates opinion and discussion with force.
along with whatever the opposite of hyperbole is
– OB
I believe that opposite of hyperbole is litotes. (Yes, I had a little Latin in school, and even less Greek.)
the equation of criticism with advocating making the thing criticised illegal. I think that’s an odd leap to make – and people make it all the time.
– OB
let’s not forget that the harrassment of the docent took place because no stronger option is yet legally open to them (and let’s hope it never is).
– Stewart
I’ll say. When I argued with people about Mel Gibson’s creepy christ movie, many times I was told that I was advocating censorship and oppressing religion just by saying that the movie was crap and Gibson was crazy. I was even told several times that I was un-American and should leave this country if I didn’t like Gibson’s stupid movie. I was also assured by many of these Gibsonites that when right-minded Christians like them finally gain control of our sinful nation, ‘scum’ like me would be ‘dealt with’ properly.
“many times I was told that I was advocating censorship and oppressing religion just by saying that the movie was crap and Gibson was crazy.”
Exactly. I’ve had that too – many many times. This is a real and very prevalent fallacy – we need a name for it!
Maybe Julian has one.
Is the “you’re-stupid-and/or-evil-if-you-don’t-think-the-way-I-do” fallacy too long?
Possibly. But more to the point, it doesn’t get to the exact nature of this fallacy. Merlijn in the Galileo thread asked if it wasn’t just a branch of consequentialism, but that’s not the part I’m getting at either. I want a name specifically for the equation of criticism with censorship.
I guess for now it could just be the equation-of-criticism-with-censorship fallacy – but that’s not very catchy.
Yes, it would be a useful expression. If some of us do over-react in that direction, it could be caused by scar tissue from past battles over free speach and other freedoms.
There is another “fallacy” – tho I don’t think that is the right term for either – to the effect that if most or nearly all of us agree that something is wrong, it should be prohibited. That is found on the right and the left and most places in between.
I remember many years ago when homosexual law reform was first discussed in the UK, a debate in the New Statesman (of all places) about whether if something disgusts us all, it should be prohibited. This was, as I remember it, from people who were looking for a source of morality and law that did not depend on religion.
It seems bizarre now, but one day I will search the archives. Sadly I threw out my old copies of NS.
An example today might be the argument over senior executive’s salaries. Like most, I believe these are ridiculous and wrong. But I don’t believe they should be prohibited or penalized in the tax law. We can argue about that if anyone is interested. Right now, I am trying to illustrate a principle, not pick a fight.
I came across a nice term recently to describe such situations.”There is no work for politicians here”.
Ha – that ‘if something disgusts us all thing’ is just Leon Kass. The Yuk-factor. (You’re right, it does seem surprising that it was in the NS. At least in the US it’s much more of a religious-conservative line than a left one.)
The Taboo game on the front page is all about the Yuk factor. Not so much about legislation though, as about simply thinking ‘X is wrong’ – or not.
Well, OB, it was nearly 50 years ago and the left was in the ascendancy in the UK then. It is probably a law of human nature that when a group gets to represent over about 50 percent of public opinion it tries to make its beliefs the law or the prevailing morality. When smoking falls below about 40 percent of the population, you get anti-smoking laws (which is fine by me).
And calling it the Yuk Factor is a good way of drawing attention to the shallowness of most of these opinions – left and right.
What’s wrong with calling it the criticism-is-censorship fallacy? Clear and to the point.
What was really weird about this hands-off attitude to the Christ snuff-movie was that people who wouldn’t ordinarily buy into it bought into it. I was particularly puzzled when lots of Howard Stern fans (not a notably pious group) got very defensive about Mel’s S&M torture flick. Mel’s celebrity probably had a lot to do with it. (If it had been some low-budget, grade-D movie by some crazy nobody, I doubt the Sternos would have defended it so, er, passionately.) Also, Mel’s people got some mileage out of portraying the movie’s critics as a bunch of Politically Correct blue-nosed prudes–you know, the same kind of people who are always trying to get Howard pulled off the air for lewdness. One thing’s for sure: Mel is a PR genius.
Linguistic note:
Yuk = laugh, funny.
Yuck = disgust or revulsion.
Just thought you should know.
I think we might have a difference of usage internationally here. The Australian Concise Oxford allows “yuk” as an alternative to “yuck” – an expression for distaste. it does not mention the other meaning.
The Macquarie Australian Slang Dictionary gives “yucko!” as an exclamatory dervative. It is the opposite of “yummo!”
re: the fallacy. Though neither of these would work, we have elements of premptiveness and hands-off at work here, i.e. criticism that is not intended as censorship is reacted to as if it were, often with far greater force, the desired result being a backlash against a strawman that could function as censorship of the side that didn’t want to censor but appears to have wanted to solely on the strength of the backlash reaction. None of the obvious keywords from that description do the whole thing justice. “Overreaction” is part of it, but maybe the effect can be likened to tapping someone annoying on the shoulder and in response being floored by a blow. The easily intimidated will be easily intimidated by this (believing maybe that if they were floored they must have done something to deserve it), giving, in those cases, a reduction of criticism, or even the desired effect of “hands-off.” Tate fallacy, anyone?
Just a warm-up for a comment on the newest thread…
This is another aspect of the opposition=oppression fallacy; for example, being antimuslim, antichristian, antijewish – not believing what they profess to believe and saying so – is taken to mean denying their rights to have and express their beliefs. There is always the great risk in all this of being misunderstood.
Yes, opposition=oppression fallacy is the right category. That’s useful.
I like the Tate fallacy! Let’s see…there’s the Birmingham Rep fallacy: surrendering to violence and threats, and the Tate fallacy: surrendering to imagined ‘offense’ before anyone has even expressed any. (Mind you, that’s unfair to the Birmingham Rep; I’m not at all sure they were wrong to close Behzti, given the risk to the audience. But we need the B. Rep fallacy to point up how much sillier the Tate one is.)
Yeah, Karl, I think Yuk must also be used for Yuck, because The Yuk Factor is what Kass himself called it. (And don’t comic book characters say that? Making faces of disgust? I think so. I think that’s sound demotic usage.)
Kass is wrong. Comic book characters say Yecchhh! Maybe Aussie usage differs, but then…consider the source ;)
Hey, how about the Gibson fallacy? (“Criticize my shitty crackpot anti-Semitic movie and you are personally kicking Christ Himself in the nuts!”)
“Criticize my shitty crackpot anti-Semitic movie and you are personally kicking Christ Himself in the nuts!”
That’s a fallacy? I thought it was a marketing slogan…
The Gibson fallacy, v. good. And it comes with a tiny pickled onion.
The problem would be that readers will not be sure which particular Gibson fallacy you are refering to.
“The problem would be that readers will not be sure which particular Gibson fallacy you are refering to.”
True. We’ll have to number them. There’s Gibson Fallacy No. One: “I can’t possibly be gay, because I bash gays”. Then there’s Gibson Fallacy No. Two: “If I make sure I am tortured in at least one scene in each of my movies, all the badness that Daddy put in my bottom will go away and no one will ever suspect that I have serious psycho-sexual issues.” Then there’s Gibson Fallacy No. Three: “Just because I waffle and evade when asked about the Holocaust, that doesn’t make me an anti-Semite.” But I was talking about Gibson Fallacy No. Four: “My snuff flick was made by God; only Satan would criticize it.”
We seem to have left the origins of this thread rather far behind us, but with Day Two of the Pennsylvania trial over, here’s a relevant link to an informative summary of the attempts made in previous trials, the arguments and the rebuttals.
http://www.livescience.com/othernews/050927_ID_cases.html
Thanks for that, Stewart, I put it in News.