Didier Raoult: a closet Creationist or just a questionably honest scientist?

Still under the shock following the recent triumph of Creationists in Korea (see "The Republic of Korea is under attack. From within."*), I smelled something very very fishy as soon as I saw this title for a Viewpoint in today's Korea JoongAng Daily: "Life after Darwin".

Indeed, this piece seems very much to have been written if not by a closet Creationist, at least by a more than questionably honest scientist.

Either way, Didier Raoult is gathering audience. The Director of the Research Unit in Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases (URMITE) at the University of the Mediterranee in Marseille is a mass producer of articles criticizing Darwin and more or less directly fueling Creationist propaganda.

Ever since the Intelligent Design imposture collapsed (following the publication of the "Wedge Strategy", a document where their 'inventors', the Discovery Institute, detailed their methods and actual political agenda), creationists and fellow fundamentalists have been trying to find more subtle ways of undermining science and democracy.

This "Life after Darwin" was published by The Project Syndicate, and also appears in The Cambodia Herald. Interestingly enough, today, the "Particle of God" was to make the headlines following yesterday's press conference at the CERN. Not a good day for science revisionists, who needed to be cheered up with some classic Darwin bashing. 

Bring'em on! Higgs Bosons will fly.

PS: I just submitted this to Korea JoongAng Daily:


When a scientist insults intelligence


Didier Raoult’s “Life after Darwin” (Korea JoongAng Daily - July 5, 2012) cannot remain unanswered, particularly at a time when scientific revisionism is gaining ground in Korea: Nature recently published an article exposing an alteration of the Ministry of Education’s guidelines for school textbooks following intense lobbying from Creationists. Such a bold attack on democracy would have instantly made the headlines in the US or in Europe, but it didn’t seem to cause much emotion in Korea beyond scientific circles. Here, the message is much more subtle.


To say the least, Mr. Raoult is a controversial figure. If he’s always careful to officially keep his distances with Creationism and its offsprings (including the Intelligent Design imposture), he nonetheless uses the same deceitful techniques, and his critiques of their nemesis, Darwin, basically recycle arguments from the past with a modern twist. As a result, Mr. Raoult never manages to convincingly challenge evolution itself, but he constantly contributes to the verbose smokescreen at the core of the Intelligent Design's "Wedge strategy". No wonder his writings are widely circulated among Creationist circles.


Mr. Raoult criticizes Darwin and Darwinism very much the way I could criticize Hippocrates and Scientism. For instance, he singles out Darwin’s simplistic representation of the tree of life, but without taking into account the scientific progresses made ever since (believe it or not, there’s evolution in science itself as well, and evolution as a science is already experiencing “life after Darwin”!), and the way he mocks at Darwinists as members of a cult mirrors the critics waged against Scientism centuries ago. Fundamentally, he’s not tackling the key issue, and he never succeeds in proving evolution wrong.


Of course, recent discoveries in his field, and the complexity of ecosystems within every living organism are clearly adding to the scientific challenge, but unfortunately for Mr. Raoult, they are only making evolution even more interesting and stimulating to study.


Scientists must always challenge existing theories, and honest scientists are delighted to study new ones when they respect a rigorous scientific approach. Mr. Raoult may be good in his field, he certainly doesn’t respect our intelligence with this very ambiguous piece.

Stephane MOT

blogules 2012 - initially published in SeoulVillage ("Scientific revisionism, continued?")
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!


* "State-condoned creationism in Korea? A cold-blooded murder against King Sejong" on SeoulVillage

The Republic of Korea is under attack. From within.

After the shameful termination of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Korea, and after the flabbergasting removal of history from school curriculum, yet another outrageous victory for revisionists in Korea: the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology gave in to a Creationist lobby, and made possible the publication of high school texbooks where examples of evolution have been removed.
This incredible story, "South Korea surrenders to creationist demands", was published earlier this month in Nature:

A special purpose vehicle of the Korea Association for Creation Research* (kacr.or.kr), the revisionist lobby which pulled the strings didn't try to masquerade behind an Intelligent-Design-like smokescreen: it's even named the Society for Textbook Revise! Note how STR's website (str.or.kr) apes its US creationist counterparts:

Letting Creationism, the very negation of science and education and one of the worst enemies of democracy, dictate the contents of textbooks is undoubtedly the most profound disgrace imaginable for any Ministry of Education.

But here in Korea, that's the ultimate abomination.

This is Korea, the country of King Sejong, a wise statesmen who advocated education and science.

This is Korea, a country victim of revisionist texbooks in Japan, where the extreme right, though very small in members, has considerable power over national politics and manages to keep the whole population in the dark regarding the country's troubled past.

Once again**, it seems that Korea is under attack from its worst enemies, the ones from within. A minority of extremists who dream of copying the Japanese "model" and to rule over the past and the future of the country.

And once again, these impostors are not nationalists: they want the destruction of Korea as a republic and as a democracy, and they are the best allies of the impostors who, in Japan or in China, multiply the same kind of provocations to fuel mutual hatred and extremism across the region.

Across the aisle, true Korean nationalists, true partisans of democracy and of the republic must defend the nation against the impostors who try to destroy it: expose and condemn their impostures, prevent revisionist textbooks from being published, and restore the values that make Korea a great country.

Wake up Korea!

blogules 2012 (initially published on SeoulVillage: "State-condoned creationism in Korea? A cold-blooded murder against King Sejong")
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! Seoul Village 2012
NEW : follow Seoul Village on Facebook and Twitter

* Of course, "creation" and "research" are antinomic, but precisely, the whole concept of creationism is an insult to science and education. If believing in a creator is perfectly respectable, "Creationism" is pure forgery, an imposture that has nothing to do with science, and even nothing to do with religion: the agenda is political and ultimately, it's about replacing democracy with theocracy, and about replacing religion with fundamentalism.
** They seem to grow bolder by the day, and the multiplication of such provocations (see recently MBC's xenophobic video - "Still no apology from MBC, and more provocations on the Chinese front") is probably not a coincidence in this election year.

Department Of Climate Defense - 2007, ground zero of environment - Red blogule to Philip Cooney - White blogule to the IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 4th Assessment Report* today in Paris. Yet another set of scenarios, and certainly not the worst case we've heard of so far. But considering the compromizes needed to produce it, this new finger pointing in our direction looks definitely frightening.

Philip Cooney resigned today. The White House Council on Environmental Quality's chief of staff had been on a hot seat for a couple of days and yes, global warming had something to do with it and yes again, human behavior too.The New York Times revealed how this former oil lobbyist edited many reports confirming both global warming and the impact of man. We can now measure the impact of one man, George W. Bush.

2007 is the ground zero of environment, where everybody gapes at the horror and starts to react. We certainly don't want the same leaders to take the same kind of decisions.
I'm sure the former next president of the United States would have done a better job. By joining the Kyoto community and putting more pressure on developping countries, Al Gore would have led the world to a slightly better trend at a decisive moment.

Gore wouldn't have prevented global warming, which is bound to rule for the next millenium at least. Besides, at the geological level, both Philip Cooney and the IPCC are insignificant. But we are enjoying global warming right now and what we are doing now is significant. At the personal, collective, national and international levels.

The IPCC does have a WMO / UNEP / UNO label, but the United Nations Environment Programme itself has no power. China and Russia are not likely to empower it that soon. Ditto at the WTO, even if Davos exposed interesting concerns across the entrepreneurial elite.

At the national level, I'd like the US to stand a little bit more sanely on this ground zero. Because this is also a matter of national security and defense. We are at war, we are defending our land, and the intervention of military is already often required. I'm not talking about financing federal environmental policies with the budget of defense : I mean defense should have its own environmental agenda, money to build natural fences, to fight the very causes of climate change. The budget of defense already contributes to R&D with civil applications, why not devote one fifth of it to the war on climate change ? For a change.


* download it at ipcc.ch

VOTE FOR AMERICA - VOTE AGAINST BUSH IF YOU ARE A TRUE REPUBLICAN

If you are a true Republican and if you are a true Conservative, you MUST vote against your party.

Back in 2004, you missed the opportunity to kick George W. Bush out of the White House and restore the values that built America. If you don't realize by now how far you have been betrayed by this President, here are a few wake up calls :

- the Bush Administration doesn't fight terror but feeds it. You've heard about it, you may even understand some of it, but that's not the worst piece of news : all this is done on purpose

- this president turned America into a outlaw and a pariah, insulting the very values he pretends to represent : how can you be proud of your country and how can it remain a model democracy overseas when its leader refuses any kind of accountability before the international community as well as before its own Congress, when it legalizes torture and abductions, when it denies its own citizens basic human and legal rights ? Do you believe this "compassionate republican" ? Do you think this president does what is best for his country or what is best for his own hidden agenda ?

- it is time for you to understand Bush's agenda is neither conservative nor even neo-conservative : the aim of the game is to make fundamentalism mainstream across the world and in the US. And fundamentalism cannot survive in a peaceful environment - fundamentalism feeds from fear, anger, war, frustration, injustice, unfairness, the absence of debate... the very way this Administration is running and ruining the country. Don't expect these guys to lead Amerika nor the World to peace.

- this has nothing to do about genuine faith or religion : this is about changing politics, science, society, about raping the very idea of democracy to please a bunch of madhatters

- if you don't consider US fundamentalists as mad as Islamist fundamentalists, consider this : from the very start, your leaders wanted Iraq to collapse and be parted, Iran to become the superevil it is now and Israel to infuriate its neighbors. All this because the craziest among them believe the final battle between Israel and Evil must happen as soon as possible in order to provoque the return of the Messiah during their lifetime... How is that for an "intelligent design" ?

You may like your Republican representative or your senator but do you really think America can afford two more years of impunity for the Bush Administration ? Do you really want to see what these people (from the White House, not from Capitol Hill) will do to make sure they remain in power after Dubya's second term ?

What will you tell your children and grandchildren ?

Vote for America, vote against Bush.

Red blogule to demokracy - professor Bush's vision

There were eventually quite a few changes between the final version of Dubya's State of the Union speech and the complete and uncut version I published last week. But as for surprises, I didn't get a lot.
I don't need to learn from such a lousy teacher "terrorists have chosen the weapon of fear". I don't need the President of the United States to quote an unknown soldier (Dan Clay) to paint a thin emotional layer of justification on his strategic mistakes. I don't need W to speak directly to the people of Iran the same way he did with the people of Irak right before invading their country.
Democracy definitely is on its way and here are the results : fundamentalists won in Iran and made their highest scores ever in Saudi Arabia or Egypt in 2005, and fundamentalists won in Palestine in 2006 because fundamentalists won in the US in 2004.
When George W Bush is talking about "a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people", is he talking about Iran of the Amerika that harrassed and fired all the good law people within its own administration who confessed some doubts regarding the use of torture ? The Amerika that reserved the best positions for the promoters of Intelligent Design and crucified the ones who refused to mix religion and science ?
And yet, this man is asking for more support : "tonight I ask for yours. Together, let us protect our country, support the men and women who defend us, and lead this world toward freedom". The freedom of being either with him or against him, the freedom of facing the consequences, the freedom of either being a good Amerikan citizen/churchgoer or abandoning all rights and dignity, the freedom of contributing to the economic domination of the Liberator or undergoing boycott and pressure.
And what is his ultimate goal, the final point of his brilliant speech ? "By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment … move beyond a petroleum-based economy … and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past." What an inspiring vision... I suggest another wording for this back-to-square-one agony : "Help me outta there ! I've been stuck to that damn Texan pit ever since I started digging for my life but I've never been able to collect anything but mud, debts and shame."

Red blogule to "Intelligent Design" - Fundamentals and fundamentalism - Creationism and cretinism

"Pro-Life", "Intelligent Design"... these guys do have a knack for positive wording (don't even think about positive thinking). I gather they call torture in Abu Ghraib "Truth Quest" and the negation of all independant safeguards or watchdogs (the UN, the Geneva Convention, the International Criminal Tribunal...) something like "Active Freedom".
Bush's position on evolution resembles that of Revisionists on gas chambers : since there are alternative theories, students should be taught both angles*. This image may strike you as indecent and it is, but it clearly exposes the loopholes in the argumentation.
I'm not making any sick parallel between the existence of gas chambers and the existence of God, nor between proven facts and beliefs : I'm comparing people who knowingly manipulate opinions through biased rethorics.
I'm not even defending the theory of evolution, which is the best to date but won't explain everything. I just think the fundamentals of human society should be protected from religious fundamentalism.
Creationism** puts faith at the same level as science and that is the very negation of science. You can believe in ID if you want but you cannot call this science (and of course you have no right to believe in the non-existence of gas chambers).
Just the same, you cannot call "democracy" any approach of politics based on nor even mixed with religious beliefs. That is one of the reasons why, once again, Bush thinks and acts as an enemy to democracy, justice or science.

* or as the Washington Post relates it : "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about". You want to "teach" about Creation, Dubya ? If there were a place for it in school, it would be the History of Religions (with a "S" so that, this time, all angles could be presented). And you want "debate" now ? That's what I call "evolution" : you've been avoiding the debate on every other issue and the one you picked doesn't rely on any facts. Can you believe it ? No one can contest your belief !
** I realize that up to now my blogules on this issue have been spilled in French (see "National Geographic - Points de vue et images du monde" or "Creationism & Cretinism"). And I guess "creationism" should be rebranded into something more suitable : I suggest a generic term like "Religion-Based Beliefs" for all the likes of Creationism.