Unleash the Kraken! Creationism, Kookiness, and Alleged Censorship

One strength of science is its process for considering even outlandish proposals, giving them a fair and skeptical hearing, and discarding those ideas which simply do not have the evidence.
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Here are some recent headlines:

"Darwin Challenged, Research Censored"
"Global Warming Study Censored by EPA"
"Darwin Censors Strike Again"

You might get the impression from such headlines that scientists are engaged in systematic suppression of dissent, ruthlessly silencing all those who fail to toe the party line on evolution and climate. One governor went so far as to compare those who reject the science of climate change to Galileo, suggesting such doubters are scientific martyrs.

While some fantasize that all scientists work together in a secretive Marxist cabal dedicated to ruining the economy with carbon caps and foisting godless materialism onto impressionable youngsters, the truth is quite different.

One place to see the tolerance and openness of the scientific community is at conferences. As it happens, I've just returned from one such meeting, the 2011 meeting of the Geological Society of America (GSA), one of the biggest get-togethers for earth scientists in the country.

GSA has a history of openness that might surprise those who imagine scientists as censors. As I detailed in an article for Earth magazine, in 2009 and 2010, the GSA allowed well-known young-earth creationists to run field trips and give presentations at GSA conferences. I have argued that because the young-earth creationists' presentations followed the guidelines for presentations, used normal techniques, and employed the standard geologic timeline, the GSA made the right decision in allowing them.

This year's conference again hosted a few more cryptic creationist posters, but these actually seemed tame compared to a few of the other presentations.

One odd GSA talk reinterpreted a fossil assemblage as the discarded meals of a giant "Triassic Kraken." In a titanic clash of science and sensationalism, this crafty cephalopod was conjectured to be the "most intelligent invertebrate ever" -- so talented, in fact, that it sculpted "the earliest known self-portrait" using the bones of its prey. Uh huh.

No word if this kraken was also able to predict the outcomes of World Cup games. One astute commentator, noting that there was "not a shred of actual evidence to back up the claims," suggested the talk should have been titled the "Squid that Ate Common Sense." Far from censoring even outlandish ideas, here the GSA here let a very wild idea see the light of day.

Not to be outdone, another GSA presentation posited "Plausible explanations for two major events in earth history." To the skeptic's ear, when the word "plausible" needs to be included, this is a warning sign that what is described may not, in fact, be so plausible. And this poster presentation did not disappoint. It described previously unrecognized impacts of "two large asteroids," which apparently caused the breakup of the ancient supercontinent Pangaea into different continents. These impact-driven land masses were hurled across the globe in "minutes rather than millennia." India, for example, slammed against Asia "with greatest initial velocity" to create the Himalayas. The evidence for all this was supposedly "readily observable via Google Maps." Uh huh.

What do these presentations tell us? For one thing, the idea that the scientific community ruthlessly enforces conformity is wrong. The claim that scientists are censors holds about as much weight as the idea that the thrashing of the tentacles of a giant squid is responsible for plate tectonics. (Hey, there's a thought for the next GSA conference...)

While purveyors of pseudoscience and deniers of well-established science alike complain bitterly about alleged exclusion and censorship of their ideas, the truth is that if they submitted their ideas for the scrutiny of the people attending a relevant scientific conference, or for the review of an appropriate scientific journal, they would likely get a fair hearing.

Consider this: Do you think arsenic is part of the DNA of Mono Lake bacteria? A paper positing this was published last year in Science -- and quickly debunked. Do you think you can create cold fusion using simple lab equipment? That claim was seriously considered -- and quickly shown to be false.

These ideas have something in common: They were not censored. Despite the accusations of scientists colluding in a conspiracy to silence dissent, the reality is very different.

One strength of science is its process for considering even outlandish proposals, giving them a fair and skeptical hearing, and discarding those ideas which simply do not have the evidence. Even after rejection, the door remains open for new evidence to change initial conclusions; perhaps a yet-undiscovered fossil will reveal a kraken in the act of composing a self-portrait.

So the next time you hear someone claiming their ideas about evolution or climate change are being censored by scientists, tell them that if they truly have evidence, they should submit it and let other scientists critique it. Science is not a spectator sport; get in the game or go home.

Go To Homepage

Popular in the Community