Don't play with those wolves too long, Johnny, or you'll catch cancer!

I just found out that there is a form of cancer known as a "canine transmissible venereal tumor" or "Stickler's sarcoma." It spreads like a normal virus. (Among tasmanian devils and wolves, thankfully, not humans.)

After reading this article about recent CTVT research, I'm convinced of two things:
a) the bugs get scarier and scarier every year.
b) People are getting really worked up about this whole evolution/creation thing. I read Ars Technica because it's a good place to find out about the kinds of cool toys I'll be able to put in my Audio/Video editing rig when I have the money; I also read the openforum to ask questions about fixing the toys I added to that computer last year. That said, when I see the "science" articles on the front page, I can't help but read them, even though I always regret it. I know just enough about astronomy and biology and chemistry to follow most of the articles, but every time I get to the end the conclusion is the same: "and that's why science is good and creationists/IDiots are stupid poopy-heads." It doesn't matter what the article is about, it will eventually get dragged into a "evolution is the foundational dogma of science education" rant. (Actually, the agricultural science articles can be good. Still political, but less biased.)

When I think about it, though, this is the internet. I grew up around these sorts of fanboi flame wars. I used to read pages and pages of ranting about how one type of graphics card is better than another, or why Bose stereo systems are junk, or why you should make your own speaker wire out of braided cat5 network cable instead of the $25/ft "monster" cable.
So when you read stuff written by "scientists" about evolution, remember the impact of the medium on the message. Likewise, when you read pro-creationist articles, take a deep breath and think about whose glory the author is really interested in.

No comments: