Outdated? Unreliable? I Don't See a Problem

My ghostwriting employer is angry with me. Beneath the surface, there's always been some tension. He believes, rightly, that at heart I am an agnostic and evolutionist. I am also a skeptic and iconoclast, so this project should work out.

My author friend wondered why I had not been using the quotes from his 1994 book (which uses material compiled in the late 1980s). So, I sent him a table listing all the quotes he wished to use. What the table showed was that all the quotes were either very old, unreliable, taken out of context or off-point. I figured he would see the table and say "You're right. If I use these quotes I may impress some people who don't have access to the Internet, but most people will either yawn from having seen these so often before or lambaste me for using stuff that is incorrect and/or deceptive." That's what I figured, anyway. Here is what I got (pretty much as it was written to me - I omitted the salutation at the very beginning):

this is absurd and shows a real divergence between us on this book.

in essence, you accept evolution. i question it. but it is my book.

you are overly deferential to science when you don't need to be. dawkins' weasel experiment? have you read any of dawkins many, many critics. why do you take what he says at face value?

as far as the quotes are concerned, what's wrong with the dates? darwin is from 1859. so should dawkins not quote him?

as far as adaptation being refuted, it was replaced by genetic mutation. you know that. so i don't understand your comment at all. it was neo-lamarckian.

as far as mutations being almost entirely lethal and harmful, read dawkins. he says the same thing.

if you don't want to use older quotes, and i see nothing wrong with it, then find newer ones on the same subject. but you have crossed a line and are now writing YOUR book instead of mine.

how can you say that mutation depends on environment? noone questions that 99% of mutations are harmful. you have become more a believer in it that dawkins or anyone else.

you are not doing the research we alwayd discussed. we talked about updating, not dissecting.

your comments here have really unnerved me. we need to meet asap. in the meantime, you must please follow the mandate of what we talked about.

wehther or not mayr knew of the most recent DNA data has nothing to do with how detrimental mutations are. i find your comments incredulous.

I will admit to being unpleasantly surprised at the passion of the response, but this guy is a real dick!

Let's respond to each point.

"this is absurd and shows a real divergence between us on this book." - We can't disagree on the fucking evidence we bring in to educate our readers? Puh-leeze. The abusurdity is the hissy-fit being thrown in my direction when what we should be having is a discussion between mature individuals.

"in essence, you accept evolution. i question it. but it is my book." - Yes, I accept evolution, but I also question it. That much should be very clear in Chapter 2. In my opinion, we make the best claim against evolution - that it's so full of itself and its message that it will not accept questioning from outside its fundamental assumptions. This is a powerful argument that essentially makes evolution one story among many, not a privileged path to truth.

"you are overly deferential to science when you don't need to be. dawkins' weasel experiment? have you read any of dawkins many, many critics. why do you take what he says at face value?" - We're not scientists! We have no knowledge or experience to use in refuting most any evidence/conclusion brought forth by the scientific community. I've certainly read the responses to Dawkins' weasel experiment. In my opinion, they are not compelling - they ascribe implications to the experiment that Dawkins never claims.

"as far as the quotes are concerned, what's wrong with the dates? darwin is from 1859. so should dawkins not quote him?" - Aargh. My point was that the science was outdated. Most quotes of Darwin are for explanation on historical grounds.

"as far as adaptation being refuted, it was replaced by genetic mutation. you know that. so i don't understand your comment at all. it was neo-lamarckian." - As I told him, so what? Darwin was shown to be wrong about something. That's science!

"as far as mutations being almost entirely lethal and harmful, read dawkins. he says the same thing." - Where, where, oh where does he say this? I've looked at the books!!

"if you don't want to use older quotes, and i see nothing wrong with it, then find newer ones on the same subject. but you have crossed a line and are now writing YOUR book instead of mine." - I've crossed a line? He should be thanking me for trying to watch his back. I was only trying to keep him from looking like an idiot.

"how can you say that mutation depends on environment? no one questions that 99% of mutations are harmful. you have become more a believer in it that dawkins or anyone else." - This is simply untrue and insulting. A beneficial mutation in one environment may not be so much in another. He says "no one questions" it, provides a phantom quote and some outdated ones and expects me to buy it. I'm a "believer," huh? Sorry but I read, I evaluated and I concluded. End of story. This was a real low-life comment.

"you are not doing the research we alwayd discussed. we talked about updating, not dissecting." - Sorry, I'll turn off my brain now. Yeees, masssterrrr!

"your comments here have really unnerved me. we need to meet asap. in the meantime, you must please follow the mandate of what we talked about." - You've debated Dawkins, Atkins and Hitchens. You've hung out with famous, successful people. I've unnerved you? Grow the fuck up, man! We're talking about making something with intellectual merit. Nothing personal.

"wehther or not mayr knew of the most recent DNA data has nothing to do with how detrimental mutations are. i find your comments incredulous." - It means Mayr did not have all the data at his disposal, that's all.

I sent a mea culpa. I want to go on with this. But I am losing love for this guy.

from Pharyngula - Hitchens to Luskin is as Lion to Mouse

Pharyngula: Hitchens : Luskin :: Lion : Mouse

Posted using ShareThis

More Xian Love

I rarely post twice in a single day, but this web page was too good not to keep:

THE SCANDAL OF CHRISTIAN GHOSTWRITING

by Texe Marrs

“…Readers pay exorbitant prices for the books of Christian superstars, never knowing that the volumes are actually written by no-name "ghosts." Among the big names pulling this stunt: Hal Lindsey, Chuck Colson, Jim Bakker, Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, Benny Hinn, John Ankerberg, Hank Hanegraaff, David Jeremiah and Jerry Falwell.”

Are some of the most cherished books in your personal Christian library written by ghostwriters, some of whom may be homosexuals, atheists, and New Agers? Before you answer "no", please read this article very carefully. A tragic and disreputable hoax is being perpetrated on unsuspecting Christians. And you might be one of the chief victims. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth. that shall he also reap.” (Galatians 6:7)

The Reverend Mel White is a homosexual activist who lives with his male lover, Gary Nixon, in Dallas, Texas. "I am gay, I am proud, and God loves me without reservation," White recently told David Calker, a Los Angeles Times reporter. White, who "pastors" a militantly gay church, is also a writer of many Christian books. But though he's the author, his name doesn't appear on the front covers. Instead, a Christian celebrity's name appears on each of Mel White's books. White is what the book industry fondly calls a "ghostwriter."

Ghostwriting Rampant in "Christian" Publishing

The scandalous practice of an unnamed and concealed person ghostwriting a book for a celebrity is rampant in Christian publishing. Virtually all the larger book publishing firms do it. The question is, is this practice immoral, dishonest, and deceitful?

After all, the buyer of these books thinks he or she is getting inspired information direct from the hearts and pens of men like Billy Graham and Pat Robertson, each of whom has used ghostwriters. The reader pays good money for a beautifully packaged book with the hero celebrity's picture and name on the jacket. Never would the buyer suspect that the book is actually written by a homosexual, an atheist, or a New Ager. Thinking that he or she is taking in digestible spiritual food, the book buyer has no idea the ghostwritten
book may contain poisonous and insidious views hostile to Christianity imbedded in its text.

Big Name Personalities Use Ghostwriters

Homosexual activist Mel White has been an influential, behind-the-scenes ghostwriter for many big name personalities. He's written speeches for Lt. Col. Oliver North. White has also authored at least two of evangelist Jerry Falwell's books, including, unbelievable as it may seem, Falwell's autobiography, Strength for the Journey. Falwell could well afford White's fee to ghostwrite his books. The Moral Majority preacher was given a one million dollar advance by the publisher! The Reverend Mr. White has also been the secret force behind some of Billy Graham's best known books, including Graham's prophetic bestseller, The Approaching Hoofbeats. Indeed, White once even closeted himself in a luxurious condo for weeks with the famed evangelist down in Acapulco, Mexico, writing a book.

However, you'll search in vain to find author Mel White's name on either the cover or the title page of the books he wrote for Billy Graham. Nor is Mel White's name openly connected with Jerry Falwell's books. "It was important," White now reveals, "that Jerry Falwell not be scandalized because his biographer was a queer."

Ghostwriter White also wrote Pat Robertson's book, America's Dates With Destiny but the gay reverend is not the only "ghost" whom the veteran host of TV's The 700 Club has used for his chart topping books. Reportedly, Robertson's recent #l Christian bestseller, The New World Order, was also ghostwritten by a CBN staffer.

In The New World Order, "Pat Robertson" correctly warns readers that Freemasonry is an evil, Luciferian conspiracy. Yet, incredibly, Robertson's Christian Coalition subsequently held a "Road to Victory '93" conference in Washington, D.C., at which high-level Freemasons gave the keynote addresses! Pat Robertson's guest speakers at the conference included Senator Bob Dole, 33rd Scottish Rite Mason, and Senator Jesse Helms, yet another 33rd Mason.

Pat Robertson's book, The New World Order, also fingered the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as a Satan led, conspiratorial project. But at his "Road to Victory '93" gala, Robertson's keynote speaker was none other than Congressman Newt Gingrich. One worlder Gingrich just happens to be a loyal member of the same group which Pat's book exposes as a devilish front the CFR! The title of Gingrich's speech for the Christian Coalition conference was "Renewing American Civilization."

We are thus faced with these two alternatives: (l) either Pat Robertson did not even bother to read the best-selling book, The New World Order, that sports his celebrity name as author on its glossy cover; or (2) he allowed his name to be placed on a book, the contents of which he does not even believe in.

Can We Trust Christian Publishers?

My investigation of the Christian book world has uncovered the disgusting fact that the majority of books supposedly authored by famous Christian personalities are, in fact, the product of ghostwriters. Both novels and non-fiction books are involved. Sometimes, the real writer is recognized in the acknowledgments section or elsewhere in the book; but most often, he or she is not. Some celebrities, such as Chuck Colson, write their books "with" an unknown collaborator. In such cases, the ghostwriter's name is occasionally shown on the front cover in small, unassuming type. But shouldn't the cover jacket of these books have a warning label or notice revealing what percentage of the book is written by Colson and what percentage is the product of his lesser-known co-writer? Who really writes Colson's books - him or his collaborator? Whose ideas do his books reflect? The book buyer also deserves to be told some facts about the ghostwriter or co-writer, so that Mel White-type incidents are minimized. For example, a woman named Ellen Santilli Vaughn is listed as the co-writer of many of Chuck Colson's best-selling books, including his ecumenical-oriented book, The Body. But just who is "Ellen Santilli Vaughn?" What is her background? Is she a Christian...a Catholic...a Protestant...a New Ager? How much of the contents and philosophy of Chuck Colson's books is Ms. Vaughn responsible for?

Another prime example is prophecy teacher Hal Lindsey. Very few people know that Lindsey's mammoth bestseller, “The Late, Great Planet Earth,” was actually written by a woman, Carla Carlson. To his credit, Lindsey has publicly admitted this. The question remains, however: Who is Carla Carlson? Why was she involved in writing Lindsey's book? Why is her name not highlighted on the cover, in bold letters equally as large as those of Hal Lindsey? And finally: Are all of Hal Lindsey's books similarly written by unknown ghostwriters?

It is shameful that such vital and basic information is withheld from the book buyer. Shouldn't truth-in-packaging rules apply to publishing the way they do to other consumer product industries? Anything less would be a scam on my readers.

How to Make a Bundle from Ghostwritten Books

Now please understand: I do realize that in a few cases, it is perfectly acceptable for a talented professional writer to work with an expert or authority on a technical subject. An engineer, a medical doctor, a dietitian or a scientist researcher may find it expedient to work with a writer. But in such cases, it is the expert who has the original concept for the book. He dictates most of the text, and the book is based solely on his knowledge, ideas, work, and research.

This is rarely the case with celebrity Christian authors. Publishers are continually searching for "hot," new topics for books that can make them a lot of money. Usually, they, not the celebrity, choose a title for the book and only then contact and recruit the chosen celebrity. Publishers have been known to hire entire teams of writers and researchers to produce books.

Often, the greedy celebrity author merely gives the finished product a cursory look-over and adds his verbal blessing to the project. The celebrity is pleased because he knows he will make a bundle, with only minimal effort on his part. His name goes on the cover, and millions of Christian buyers are deceived into believing the celebrity, inspired by God, personally wrote every word in the book.

The Profit Motive is Paramount

It thus becomes crystal clear why publishers and celebrity authors conspire to produce ghostwritten books. The reason is simple: money, money, money! A best-selling, hardcover book with the glittery name of a Graham, Robertson, Colson, or Lindsey on the cover can bring in five to ten million dollars or more in income.

The celebrity "author" also profits - he can rake in as much as two million dollars per book. No wonder the rush is on by publishers to constantly create new, mostly fluff titles and to line up their ghostwriters with name celebrities known to be guaranteed money-makers in the Christian marketplace.

Truth Telling is in Order

So what's to be done about the lucrative, yet unethical and dishonest, practice of the ghostwriting of Christian books? I believe it is time for some truth telling. Thomas Nelson, Word, and all the other wealthy conglomerates who disguise themselves as "Christian" publishers should step up to the plate and give us a list of which books have been written by "ghosts" and which were really penned by the authors listed on their covers. That's the least they should do to come clean. Better yet, these greedy publishing houses and their celebrity stable mates should quit trying to fatten their coffers and make bucks off gullible Christian readers. They should cease their publishing of ghostwritten books entirely.

PZ's Great Desecration

One of the great discoveries I've been fortunate to make as a result of the science and religion project is the science blog Pharyngula by a biologist in Minnesota named PZ Myers. I find Myers to be bright, funny and exceedingly fair-minded.

Well, he got himself into a mess of trouble. It started with his reaction to what I thought was an amusing news story.

The outcry stemming from Myers's comments was amazing. The Catholic League - a very disagreeable sort - called for Myers to be fired. Others emailed/posted with everything from death threats to unsolicited prayer requests, and from whiny pleas in the "can't we all just get along?" vein to anti-Semitic name-calling.

After some buildup, Myers concluded the matter in a most appropriate way. The Catholic League could only muster a sad, little press release:

MYERS DESECRATES THE EUCHARIST

July 24, 2008

University of Minnesota professor Paul Z. Myers made good on his pledge to desecrate the Eucharist today. According to his statement on the subject, “I pierced it [the Host] with a rusty nail (I hope Jesus’s tetanus shots are up to date). And then I simply threw it in the trash.”

Saying he did not want to “single out just the cracker,” Myers also tore pages from the Koran along with a few pages from Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion and nailed them to the Host. He then said, “They are just paper. Nothing must be held sacred. (His emphasis.) Question everything. God is not great, Jesus is not your lord, you are not disciples of any charismatic prophet.”

Catholic League president Bill Donohue responded as follows:

“A formal complaint against Myers has already been made. What he did—in both word and deed—constitutes a bias incident, as defined by the University of Minnesota. The policy says that ‘Expressions of disrespectful bias, hate, harassment or hostility against an individual, group or their property because of the individual or group’s actual or perceived race, color, creed, religion…can be forms of discrimination. Expressions vary, and can be in the form of language, words, signs, symbols, threats, or actions that could potentially cause alarm, anger, fear, or resentment in others…even when presented as a joke.’

“The University must now take action and apply the appropriate sanction. We are contacting the president, Board of Regents and the Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Office at the school, as well as Minnesota’s governor and both houses of the state legislature; the Catholic community in Minnesota is also being contacted. Moreover, we are also contacting Muslim groups nationwide.

“It is important for Catholics to know that the University of Minnesota will not tolerate the deliberate destruction of the Eucharist by one of its faculty. Just as African Americans would not tolerate the burning of a cross, and Jews would not tolerate the display of swastikas, Catholics will not tolerate the desecration of the Eucharist.”

Contact Myers at myersp@morris.umn.edu
Contact President Robert Bruininks at bruin001@umn.edu

I say, "Bravo, Myers."

It's All Supernatural

For the past several weeks, I have been working very hard at not only my primary job – which has been going well, by the way – but also my sideline gig as a ghostwriter. The ghostwriting is very challenging, but I do like it. The wife said recently she could see I was in my element, which I guess means I am a natural scholar. It certainly can’t mean I’m smart or anything, but it might imply that I gravitate to the work of reading, researching, adding my own stuff. I certainly would do it all day if I could.

What I am ghostwriting is a book on science and religion. The idea is to survey the current state of the religion and science debates, critique the science of religion and carve out a legitimate space for modern religious belief. I’m researching a whole bunch on the science and religion sides, and I’m charged with throwing in as much as I can of my employer’s existing writings on the subject.

I face a few critical challenges because (1) I don’t always find my employer to be rigorous in his argumentation and (2) I am, as I have only recently accepted, an incorrigible agnostic. My employer resembles most of the pro-religion crowd in using a fairly small battery of arguments and lines of evidence. Part of what I want to do is push the boundaries of these arguments and create something really fresh, interesting, provocative and maybe even true. The science-side arguments are really wonderful, and if I am successful, then it will actually be because of them.

Last night, I believe I came to a bit of a breakthrough, and I am very excited about it. Up until now, I have been exploring. I’ve been looking to make that argument which is truly unique and challenging, something that will make the science side pause and have to deal with it. Last night I think I finally touched on the claim and the argument that need to be made. Essentially, I am arguing that the scientific dichotomy between natural and supernatural is false. This in itself is not so radical. I have seen other articles in this vein, but they are short and not well supported. I think I can make a sustained case, and I think I can frame the supernatural as a testable hypothesis. This last bit may be too ambitious. Perhaps the best I can hope for is to propose a new dichotomy: natural and supernatural versus neither-natural-nor-supernatural.

I arrived at this line of thinking when I was trying to introduce the argument from design. I was critiquing the design argument as formulated by atheist mathematician John Allen Paulos, who is really sharp and a great writing mind. I didn’t like the way he presented the major premise of the argument from design: “Something – the diversity of life-forms, the beauty of the outdoors, the stars, the fine structure constants – is much too complex (or too perfect) to have come about randomly or by sheer accident.” My opinion was that complexity wasn’t the main criterion by which the possibility of supernatural guidance could be reasonably deduced. My logical problem then became explaining how to infer a qualitative difference between natural and supernatural. My conclusion was that either one could not make the distinction at all or that the difference was one of productivity: the supernatural creates something new while the natural does not. Basically, I’m trying to re-define something that’s been in front of us the whole time as something more than what we thought.

There’s more to say on this, and I don’t know that I will legitimately be able to make the argument stick. I would love to get some feedback from people outside my employer – people who will really challenge me to sharpen the reasoning or chuck it altogether. Yet I do know that if I can make this claim well and connect it throughout the chapters of the book, then the book itself stands a good chance of being very noteworthy, marketable and influential. Real scientists would be called upon to critique the argument. Religious people would be called in to voice their support.

So far, the book does a good job of undermining the rhetorical pretensions of the scientific and materialist models. At the beginning of the book, I thought I was trying to get science and religion to walk away from each other. Now I’m trying to put them on the same team.

Strange how life can work.