SGU Episode 21

This episode is in the middle of being transcribed by iscepticman (talk) as of {{{date}}}. To help avoid duplication, please do not transcribe this episode while this message is displayed.

{LatestEpisode}}

This episode needs: transcription, time stamps, formatting, links, 'Today I Learned' list, categories, segment redirects. Please help out by contributing!

How to Contribute

SGU Episode 21
7th December 2005
(brief caption for the episode icon)
SGU 20                      SGU 22
Skeptical Rogues
S: Steven Novella
B: Bob Novella
E: Evan Bernstein
P: Perry DeAngelis
Guest
Wallace Sampson MD
Links
Download Podcast
SGU Podcast archive
Forum Discussion

Introduction

You're listening to the Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, your escape to reality.

S: Hello and welcome to The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe. This is your host, Steven Novella, President of the New England Skeptical Society.Today is December 7th, 2005. With me today as always are Bob Novella

B: Good-evening

S:Perry DeAngelis

P:I'll have to put down my copy of the Psychic Sasquatch to join you but, I shall.

S:Oh, thanks for the sacrifice, you can get back to it later. And er and again as always Evan Bernstein.

E:Hello everyone

S:Guys, thanks again for joining me tonight.

E: Thank you Steve.

News Items

Intelligent Design (01:13)

S: So today's December 7th, a day that will live in infamy right, The Pearl Harbor Day.

E:Pearl Harbor Day

B:I remember that yeah

E:I'll never forget that

S: We will remember all of the Americans who lost their lives and limbs on that infamous day in 1941.

E:Changed the world, changed the world forever.

S:The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor

E: Yeah there's, evidence to prove that.

S: So we have a, we have an excellent guest on our show tonight. Wallace Sampson,(Perry cheers in the background) who will be joining us in just a few minutes. But first there's just a couple of quick news items.

First an update on our last show. We had reported that the University of Kansas was planning a course entitled "Special topics in religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other religious mythologies". The course was to be put on by Professor Paul Mirecki, we discussed the fact that the University, trying to retain some shred of scientific, you know credibility and prestige, is trying to do anything to counteract the fact that the Kansas State School Board for a second time is voting to either limit the teaching of evolution or promote the teaching of intelligent design in Kansas public schools.

Well,unfortunately the course has now been withdrawn by the University of Kansas. The apparent reason for doing this, is the fact that Paul Mirecki, again the Professor who was going to run the course,made some indiscreet anti-religious remarks. I think actually it was in an email to students. And he was you know,slapped on the wrist by University and he had to formally apologize. He said " I made a mistake in not leading by example in this student organisation email forum, the importance of discussing different view points in a civil and respectful manner." he said.

The Chancellor Robert Hemmingway referred to his comments as repugnant and vile. Whenever you make any comment that is insensitive, the err, it always seems that the University has to condemn it in the most extreme language they can possibly muster.

P: Do we have any idea of the nature of the comments?

S: Yeah lets see. He said he was mocking Christian Fundamentalists.

P: Ok , that's pretty broad.

S:Yeah, I think he called them, referred to Religious Conservatives as "Fundies", and said "a course depicting intelligent design as mythology would be nice slap in their big fat face." That's it.

P: That's pretty horrific.( laughter)that's...

S: Obviously he shouldn't of done that, he's a Professor...

P: I agree

S: and he's teaching a controversial course to specifically ,to highlight the intellectual superiority of scientific honesty above you know, religious fundamentalism masquerading as science. And he totally muddied it with these unnecessary comments.

P: It's true...

S:It's just unfortunate. It's unfortunate.

P: He shouldn't have done it.

S: Although I have the sense that the University was happy to have an excuse to cancel it and get out of the controversy. They should have stuck to their guns. I mean, they should have made him apologized but not pull the course, I don't see why they had to do that.

E: Right, sounds like, I don't know, an excuse. Maybe they were never too hot on the course to begin with and it's just a door that opened to allow it to be gone.

S: It's unfortunate,he should have known that by doing this he was putting himself you know in the limelight as it where. He should have really been on his best behavior.

P: Cancelling the course still seems a little extreme.

S: I think so. I think it's a little excessive. So we'll keep you updated on this raging culture war. The judge has yet to make a decision in the case, you'll be sure to hear about it on the Skeptics Guide when the decision comes down, regarding the constitutionalilty of requiring teaching intelligent design in Dover Pennsylvania Public schools.

Weeping Icons (05:00)

S: Another item that came to our attention this week was, there is a new sighting of a weeping Virgin Mary icon. Now Bob you brought this item to our attention.

B: Yeah, I read a little bit about this. As reported in the Sacramento B there's a humble,as described as a humble Vietnamese Catholic Martyr's Church, there's an out door statue of Mary that has become very popular with hundreds and hundreds of visitors coming, coming by, rain, rain or shine, since late November. Apparently there is red streak running from the corner of her left eye and that has been causing quite a stir. People have been coming and praying and thinking it's a miracle.

S: They think she's crying blood?

B: Yeah, essentially, I mean red streak, I mean you've got to think, oh yeah, it must be blood, miraculous bleeding.

E: Simple, simple test, simple test could...

B:it says here that the Priest wiped the streak away on November 9th but then it re appeared on November 20th and many viewed it as tears of blood being shed of course.

S: Right

B: National media attention, many lots of crowds,

" I believe it's a miracle" said Florence Chempako.

And I was really, nicely surprised to see Joe Nickell quoted in this article. He said

S: Of course

B: He said he wrote

"looking for a miracle and the red streak as a hoax but not without possible value, such events often can draw believers and   non believers to the church".

Makes a lot of sense, you know with national media attention,they could, and hundreds of people visiting everyday for weeks and weeks, I am sure they've seen

S: Even if it turns out to be a hoax the purpose was served.

B:Right its a win win. It's a total win win situation for them. And it says here, he took issue with the,with the church. He described it as a clumsy obvious hoax and had issues with the church for not acting quickly to test the substance.

It says here that, he's quoted of saying

" If the statue is a fraud or a hoax, or even just a mistake it should be determined and that should be that" Nickell said."  If it's a fake then it should be repudiated".

And the Steve they actually had a quote from Lorrainne Warren.

S: Oh Really.They tracked her down.

E: Wow

B: Yeah,a Conneticut investigator of paranormal events for over 50 years, admitted to a believe first approach.

"Until you can disprove it, look at is a real".Warren said.

S:Yeah that's about right.

B: Not surprising but still and interesting perspective.

S: Now in the , there have been cases similar to this in the past were they did test the blood and they found it to match they type of blood and in fact DNA match to one of the people, like in the church or in the home. And the comment was " Well that just proves how miraculous it is. God can use any blood he wants to create this miracle". Again you can't falsify, you know, faith based beliefs. Which again is why these things are a win win. You know the church can never really loose because the true believers will continue to believe regardless of what ever evidence comes down the pipe later.

So that was it, that was the only, only skeptical item that peaked above the radar this week so, we want to leave plenty of time for our guest. So we'll go to him now.

Interview with "Wallace Sampson, MD" (0:8:19)

S: So joining us tonight is Dr Wallace Sampson. Dr Sampson is an out spoken critic of unscientific fringe and bizaare health claims. He is the editor and chief of the Scientific review of alternative medicine. And I, your host is an associative editor of that journal with Dr Sampson. He is also on the board of directors to the National Council against Health Fraud. The author of numerous articles and reviews dealing with a range of issues involving science and medicine. He's an Oncologist by training and is a clinical Professor Emeritus of Medicine at Stanford University.

Wallace Sampson thank you for joining us on the Skeptics guide to the Universe.

WS: My pleasure.

S: So, lets go ahead and just start talking about alternative medicine and complimentary alternative medicine. Give us your view of what this is all about, what role it;s playing in modern health care and you know, what we as skeptical concerned citizens should think about it.

WS: Well .......the historical view.........give you somewhat a surprising information. I am old enough that I have seen this thing grow, like weeds under my feet.When I first started in this, there were very few so called alternatives

References