Continue reading » No related posts.]]>

On my desk there is a slightly messy and seemingly bottomless pile of paper.  The individual sheets are not pure white and blank, devoid of content.  Rather, the pile consists of recent science findings in the form of select news releases spit from my printer.  A few years back the title to one began with these words: Darwin Was Right.  That article was generally about evolution acting at the group level, specifically about the discovered molecular mechanism that maintains social harmony in ants by controlling their sexual development.[i]

Of course, it would be crazy to believe that Charles Darwin was right about everything.  He wasn’t.  Darwin was neither omniscient nor infallible.  His knowledge was incomplete; he may have made a few missteps among his many stellar advances.  Yet those failures do not detract from the fact that the core element to his thinking—the evolution of species via variation and natural selection—was spot on.  Every week I find confirmation of it in my pile of articles: of gaps being filled, of yet more hard data added to an already massive mountain of evidence, of the novel insights into the quirks and shortcomings of biological life that point not to the plan of a great creator, but to a process that generates what is from what was.  From the ongoing work of contemporary scientists I learn of new pieces to the full picture of evolution. Which makes it even more curious to me that a belief in creationism remains strong.  As readers of this magazine are aware, if creationism had a textbook of findings specifically befitting their theory (cough-cough), most of those pages would be blank.

In a mildly ironic development, the very day I read about molecular mechanisms within non-reproducing ants, announced with the words, Darwin Was Right, I ran across a poll on the AOL news website that asked this question:

Which explanation about the origins of life on Earth do you believe in?

The results of over 200,000 respondents, when I weighed in with my minority viewpoint (that sadly remains a minority position to this day):
Creationism                             47%
Evolution                                35%
Intelligent design                    12%
None of the above                    6%[ii]

My first thought: My, we’ve got some slow learners out there.  But in fairness, the problem is not likely an innate handicap of the intellectual variety.  It instead probably stems from the who, what, and why of those doing the teaching, as well as the motivation of the students.  Due largely to religion, many folk apparently prize the meaning of a solution over the validity of it.  The result is an acquired learning disability.

THE PROBLEM

Skeptics work to counteract creationism.  This is not because we are hostile to any and all religion, but because it is our nature to question and combat claims that strike us as bogus.  Many a skeptic will get equally passionate arguing against evidence for alien spacecraft, even though he or she would be absolutely thrilled by a real occurrence of it.

So how do we combat the counterfeit claims of creationism?  How do we repel the push to inject it into our public school curricula?  For one, we applaud and support people and organizations like Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education and Michael Shermer of the Skeptics Society.  Yet when encountering creationist thinking in our daily lives, what can we do?  Opposing the many fraudulent anti-evolution arguments seems a Sisyphean task.  Flaws in old arguments are repeatedly pointed out, the goal-posts moved back to where they belong . . . etc.

Sometimes I wonder whether in some circumstances a different approach could yield better results.  Rather than refuting creationist assaults on evolution ad nauseam, a more productive tactic may be to turn the proverbial tables.  One smart, specific question asked of a creationist, followed by their silence and/or floundering response, can make a strong impression. This is a tactic that polished creationists frequently employ.  “Well, if evolution is true, why don’t you explain this to me, smart guy!”

Instead of focusing on the defense of evolution, why not put some energy into the asking of disabling particulars of the creationist stance?  After all, if creationism deserves serious consideration as a science, or an educational alternative to it, it should provide some intelligent answers; it should offer knowledge.  Of course, this ploy won’t outright win an argument, but that is rarely a realistic possibility.  Perhaps the best we can do in such situations is to sow seeds of doubt in the creationist confronting us, or, more likely, in those on the periphery listening in.

In my recent few years of reading science articles and blogging about them, I have shared numerous evolutionary findings.[iii]  In reviewing them, I have gleaned three themes with the potential to diminish the confidence of individuals leaning toward the creationist camp. In a series of three articles, I will share them. They are: 1. The Emperor is All Gaps, 2. A Mountain of Evidence versus a Divot of Questions, and 3. The Imperfect Fabric of Life.  In the paragraphs that follow I hope you find a few good seeds to sow in your own encounters with individuals who have thus far failed to arrive at the best solution to the puzzle of biological life.

 Part I – The Emperor is All Gaps

Creationists of yore—and those today behind the curve of cutting-edge creationism(!)— were and are fond of pointing out that such things as the eye is so incredible complex that no single, random mutation could give rise to it.  Because part of an eye is of no use, evolution can’t account for it.  But wait a minute.  For many years this gap has been filled.  Sadly, in a move reminiscent of one of Zeno’s paradoxes, the creationist is likely to respond, “Sure, you have explained x, but you are still only halfway there!”

Not only is half an eye not worthless, but neither is a fraction of an eye.  One sheet of desktop reading informed me,

“Larvae of marine invertebrates—worms, sponges, jellyfish—have the simplest eyes that exist. They consist of no more than two cells: a photoreceptor cell and a pigment cell. These minimal eyes, called eyespots, resemble the ‘proto-eyes’ suggested by Charles Darwin as the first eyes to appear in animal evolution. They cannot form images but allow the animal to sense the direction of light. This ability is crucial for phototaxis – the swimming towards light exhibited by many zooplankton larvae. Myriads of planktonic animals travel guided by light every day. Their movements drive the biggest transport of biomass on earth.”[iv]

In an act so incongruous that it strikes me as humorous, creationists habitually highlight gaps in the body of evolutionary knowledge, real or imagined.  In fairness to our side, I would like to point out that we of the pro-evolution persuasion do lack something—a body of knowledge, or even a set of testable hypotheses, on their part to evaluate, analyze, critique and question.  What to do?

One might summarize the creationist position as nothing more than a single, massive gap filled with a solitary agent. A creator.[v]  An all-too-common mistake, as I see it, is to resort to rebutting the existence of that creator.  An alternative and potentially more fruitful course might be to instead “flesh out” the gaps in their position. Politely ask them to explain a biological finding that naturally fits into the evolutionary body of knowledge.  By doing this you will highlight the impoverished state of their supposed knowing

Sure, many a creationist will pull out the tired, old, shrug-of-the-shoulders response: the answer is “God”—who works in mysterious ways.  The proper reaction to this is to point out that the explanation they just gave is a non-explanation.  It would score a zero on any minimally stringent test of knowledge.

A WHALE OF A TALE

Consider, for example, the whale.  The whale in isolation is a curious creature.  A warm-blooded mammal, it generally spends its life in deep, frigid oceans, yet breaths air and has thick layers of blubber to help maintain body temperature.  Two new sets of whale fossils were discovered in 2000 and 2004.  There are no living specimens of these whales anywhere in the world. From the layout and analysis of the bones, the fossils of one set were of a male, a female, and a fetus within the female.[vi]

Challenge for creationists: The species, Maiacetus had four legs, shaped much like flippers, as in the case of other archaeocetes.  Judging by the skeleton, these whales were able to support their weight on land, but could not travel far.  Please explain the location of the animal remains: the mountains of Pakistan.

The fetus within the female was positioned for head-first delivery, like land mammals but unlike modern whales.  Please explain.

If any lame answer is given, ask this very appropriate follow-up question: And how do you know this?  Please be specific.

Speaking of archaeocetes, a paper published in 2009 analyzed the “massive data set of the morphology, behavior, and genetics of living and fossil relatives” to today’s half mammal, half-fish, the cetaceans.[vii]  Included in this group are dolphins and whales,

Using evidence including DNA analysis, the study confirmed that of all the other species, cetaceans are most closely related to the hippopotamus.  As has been asserted for some time.  Please explain.

One extinct cetacean ancestor, Ambulocetus natans, its fossil determined to be 48 million years old, might be described as a “whippo,” or maybe an “orcapotamus.”  This creature’s form might seem strange to us, even fanciful, because none exist today to become accustomed to, as we have with such other peculiar creatures as the platypus, the narwhal, the giraffe, etc.  (Don’t get me started on the scores of insects that, if projected onto a big screen would make one suspect some artists at Pixar had dropped acid prior to drawing them up.)  But back to Ambulocetus natans.  From skeletons preserved in rock we have learned it had a shape and size reminiscent of a crocodile, but swam with not a side-to-side motion, but rather up-and-down.[viii]  Like the otter and the whale.  Please explain.

THE MISSING SUPER

With its programmable 8-way power seats, its remote-controlled power windows, its blazing acceleration, its vision-blurring top speed, its “Electronic brakeforce distribution” and tire-pressure monitoring systems, etc., a 2012 Mercedes-Benz might seem an altogether different kind of vehicle than a 1908 Model T Ford.  Yet the Benz is still an automobile.  Dismantle both vehicles and you will be left with a pile of distinct components: mechanical, electrical, chemical.  And that’s all.

Likewise, we human beings consider our own kind to be so impressively advanced as to deserve a class of our own.  But as with the Benz, we are built from 100% natural stuff.  When disassembled we find no soul, no floating point of light, no void where a supernatural element must be.  For many a creationist, this fact is distasteful to the utmost.  It may actually be the deal-breaker for accepting evolution.

Unfortunately for those wishing otherwise, insights into the inglorious nature of our kind continue to accumulate.  Such as the unearthing of new fossil “kinds” like man, yet also like animal.  How is a creationist to maintain his or her cherished dualism?  Sadly for them, rather than skeletons in their closet, creationists have fearful fossils beneath their feet.  In 2004, to give one example, a new hominid species was discovered in Spain.[ix]

Challenge to creationists: Anoiapithecus brevirostris—discovered in a fossil-rich area (making more discoveries likely) and dated at 12 million years—is notable primarily because many of its facial characteristics are uniquely shared with our kind.  Please explain.  Kindly also explain what kind of predictions your system of thought makes about future fossil finds.

When contemplating human characteristics in light of our close animal relatives, the notion of the soul becomes superfluous.  Sure, our ability to communicate appears light-years ahead, but this is akin to using a dashboard GPS unit relative to the old-school paper map.  Only those myopically anthropocentric will see our kind as absolutely separate and unequal, possessing one or a number of traits whole-clothe unique.  This is not the case.  Ask a primatologist.

In terms of our biological nuts-and-bolts, it begins with DNA.  I give a thumbs-up to one bit of research about genes that control the development of the human fifth digit.  In a news release titled, “Yale Researchers Find ‘Junk DNA’ May Have Triggered Key Evolutionary Changes In Human Thumb And Foot,” I found:

“Results from a comparative analysis of the human, chimpanzee, rhesus macaque and other genomes reported in the journal Science suggest our evolution may have been driven not only by sequence changes in genes, but by changes in areas of the genome once thought of as ‘junk DNA.’”[x]

The gene in question is HACNS1, and experiments discovered that when activated in mice, the human version caused changes in the development of the ankle, foot, thumb and wrist.  The chimpanzee and rhesus versions of HACNS1 did not.  Creationists, please explain this real feature of creation.

Elsewhere on the human DNA chain we find the FOXP2 gene.  A 2009 study published in Nature shared some interesting findings about it. Chief among these being that mutations of the human form of the FOXP2 gene in humans cause disruptions in speech and language.  The chimpanzee has a different form of the gene.  They also have different vocal abilities.[xi]  Creationists, please explain.

With each passing year, scientists are discovering yet more whats and hows of the genomes of wildly diverse species.  They are fleshing out the thousands of regulatory elements that act as genetic switches, turning genes on or off.  Meanwhile, in the creationist camp . . . crickets.

NO HOWS, NO WAYS

Scientists tend to shy away from why questions, not necessarily because these questions are too big to handle and don’t readily lend themselves to reductionist methods, but because they aren’t scientific. Case in point would be this philosophical biggie: Why does the universe exist? When worded with a why, the question begs a response relative to social and emotional concerns. If the answer resides outside these, the use of the word why curbs the endeavor to understand.

To think more scientifically an individual must change their why questions to how.  While why implies intention and purpose, how directs our attention to the verifiable workings of the world.  A strategy of creationists is to frame questions in why language.  Resist the urge to go there.  Remain scientific—keep the focus on the how.[xii]

As the saying goes, science is limited relative to religion.  Scientists can’t just “make stuff up” and get away with it.  This brings to mind the classic Sidney Harris cartoon that depicts two scientists at a blackboard contemplating a complex equation.  There is a gap in the middle of a string of mathematical symbols.  The gap has been filled with the words, “And then a miracle happens.”  One scientist says to the other, “I think you should be more explicit here in step two.”  Yes, a better understanding demands we be more explicit.  Likewise, we should ask creationists to be explicit, to fill in the ways and hows of creation.  If this can’t be provided, no claim to having knowledge can be reasonably made.

Nature isn’t an empty spot on a blackboard.  There are many, many things we already know.  There are many other things we are in the process of learning.  On such thing is manifest by the extravagant tail of the peacock.  In news of research into “showy male traits” from 2008, I found this sentence:

“A team of Wisconsin scientists has turned from the question of why such male traits exist to precisely how they evolved.”[xiii]

Turning from why to how is indeed good science.  As for the how, the answer resides in the evolution and regulation of what else but gene sequences.

In fruit flies the males’ abdomens sport “tail ends” that are colorful and obviously ornamental. The females do not.  Why?  How does this happen?  How did this come to be?  The females of the species have the same genetic circuit, but it is activated differently; the trait is then “repressed.”

Challenge to creationists: Females of many species have genes capable of making them more colorful, more beautiful, and yet these genes are inactive.  Please explain.

Not only does the very ground creationists walk upon contain fossil evidence they must deny or rationalize away, but the rapidly advancing field of genetics is uncovering a trail of clues leading back to not a magic creator, but to more primitive ancestral forms.

Almost as shocking as links going back in deep time are the links of relatively recent origin.  Consider the findings of this run-of-the-mill science news release titled, “Evolutionary Event Underlying Origin Of Dachshunds, Dogs With Short Legs, Discovered.”[xiv]

In brief, the research found that a single, distinct evolutionary event nicely accounts for the characteristically short, curved legs of contemporary dachshunds and other breeds with stunted legs.  After examining over 40,000 DNA segments in dogs, a string of code was discovered that is present only in short-legged dogs—corgis, basset hounds, dachshunds and more than a dozen other breeds.

As for the explicitly scientific how–

“Specifically, the researchers found that in contrast to other dog breeds, all short-legged dog breeds have an extra copy of the gene that codes for a growth-promoting protein called fibroblast growth factor 4 (FGF4). Although functional, the extra gene lacks certain parts of the DNA code, called introns, found in normal genes. These characteristics led researchers to conclude that the extra gene is a so-called retrogene that was inserted into the dog genome some time after the ancestor of modern dog breeds diverged from wolves.”

If you have dogs in your house, you are living in a natural history museum of a near-term variety.

Creationists, the appearance of the dachshund was a recent event.  Certainly, none of these animals could have been passengers of Noah’s 40-day cruise.  Please explain how this distinct form came to be.  Be specific.

A WAR UNSOUGHT

The science findings supporting evolution keep coming.  Yet the most important consequence of these is not that they promote a pro-Darwin, anti-creator stance.  The ultimate purpose of scientific research is to advance our knowledge of the universe as well as to improve our control over it.  Pure and simple, that is the aim of science.  If there is a war between science and religion, it is a war scientists rather not fight. They have better things to do.

In part two of this three part series I will be sharing with you more bits to the accumulating body of evidence for evolution.  Up next: “A Mountain of Evidence versus a Divot of Questions.”

No related posts.

Continue reading » No related posts.]]>

Is this Muhammad?

In two days, May 20th, it was supposed to be “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.” Will it be? I don’t know.

In my opinion, if the event is to go on, it should be re-branded, “Everybody Draw a Peaceful Muhammad Day.”

My reasons:

1.) To put the emphasis squarely on free speech, rather than the freedom to offend (they are actually one and the same, but that point conflates and inflames the issue from the get-go — better to keep it simple).

2.) To highlight the fact that most non-believers and secularists of all sorts have no problem with the peaceful practice of religion out of the public square. What believers do in their homes and houses of worship is their business. Provided they aren’t hurting anyone. And here we get back to free speech. When you restrict free speech, and allow people to threaten violence to accomplish it, that hurts the world community, present and future. How so? It pushes minorities into hiding, or, in the least, second-class status. It also restricts the flow of information, etc.

Tolerance of religion is one thing. Tolerance of religious intolerance is another. The second I don’t tolerate. And hopefully I have to the guts to stand up for this essential civil right and democratic value.

—

[This post simultaneously published at my own site, 360 Degree Skeptic]

No related posts.

Continue reading » No related posts.]]>

For Immediate Release
Tuesday, March 9, 2010

ST PETERSBURG, Fla.—Governor Charlie Crist has been accused of assaulting a man for identifying himself as an atheist during a campaign event held in St. Petersburg. On Friday, March 5th, University of South Florida graduate student Michael Middlebrooks approached the Governor downtown and was greeted with a smile and a handshake until he mentioned he does not believe in a god. Crist reportedly became irate, ripping a campaign sticker off the man’s shirt that was placed there by a staffer moments earlier, and then shouting over his shoulder (as he turned his back), “I feel sorry for you!”

Atheists of Florida President John Kieffer sent a letter to Governor Charlie Crist on Monday asking that he issue an apology to the man targeted for this mistreatment.

“Imagine instead if you had ripped a campaign sticker off some other religious minority,” Kieffer wrote, “say a Jew or a Muslim, shouting, as you did here, that you felt sorry for them. The outrage in such a case would create newspaper headlines around the world.” He continued by referring to the event as an attack on a minority worldview which is an affront, an outrage, and possibly even qualifies as a hate crime “because [Governor Crist] committed this battery while denigrating [the victim's] personal religious worldview.”

Kieffer’s letter is available for public view at the Atheists of Florida web site (http://www.AtheistsofFlorida.org), along with a discussion area where others may read or contribute their own comments.

Rob Curry is a native of St. Petersburg and serves as Executive Director for Atheists of Florida. He added, “Crist should be ashamed of such boorish behavior. His actions and words this past Friday deeply dishonor the town we both call home by making it the setting for a grotesque mockery of his constitutional duty to treat all Florida citizens with equal respect under the law.”

Atheists of Florida members have been actively seeking to end official government prayers at Tampa City Council meetings since January, and more recently at Lakeland City Commission meetings. Their stance is that government should be neutral with respect to religion, neither advocating nor discouraging religious beliefs and rituals.

About Atheists of Florida
Atheists of Florida, founded in 1992, is a nonprofit, educational corporation created to heighten public awareness about atheism and to monitor state/church separation issues throughout the state. The organization is a founding member society of the Atheist Alliance International.

Atheists of Florida serves the needs of a growing nonreligious community of reason whose members disagree with supernatural doctrines while valuing personal liberty as a precious heritage for everyone. Recent national surveys show that 16% of the American population is nonreligious, an increase from 14% two years prior.

Objectives include: (a) advocating state/church separation, (b) defending the civil rights of atheists and others with minority views on religion, (c) educating the public to dispel common misconceptions about atheism, (d) offering social support for atheists, (e) encouraging an inclusive sense of community, inspiration, mutual understanding and respect, and (f) promoting freedom, honesty and integrity

Contact:

John Kieffer
President
(813) 919-9161

Rob Curry
Executive Director
(727) 851-6452

No related posts.

Continue reading » Related posts:

1. Hitchens-D’Souza Debate at UF

Continue reading » No related posts.]]>

Lately I’ve been listening to the archived episodes of the Skepticality podcast. A few weeks back I heard a good quip, one that I’ve been thinking a lot about in the meantime. Unfortunately I’ve managed to forget not only the exact quote, but also the guest who quoted it as well.

Leaning hard on my poor old memory, I’ve narrowed it down to either Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptic’s Society, or Phil Plait, president of the James Randi Educational Foundation and good astronomer. Maybe.

Still, it went a bit like this… It’s okay to preach to the choir, but every once and a while you’ve got to get out there and SING!

Many of us freethinkers (and I’m not exempting myself from this by any means) spend an awful lot of time getting together in meetups, blogs, or forums and talking about how we feel. We’re fed up. We want change. We’re disappointed, frustrated, and even angry. We have a bit of a reputation, deserved or no, of being grumpy, and of always talking about how damned grumpy we are. Of course, the atheists and freethinkers I know are not particularly grumpy or angry, at least not more or less than anyone else. Some of us are pretty friendly and sometimes even, I hate to admit it…downright perky. But when religion begins to step on civil rights or muck about in politics or insinuate itself into our educational curriculum, well, then we do get angry. And, since these things happen pretty frequently, we get grumpy pretty frequently, and we have a whole lot to say about it.

But at some point we have got to get beyond just talking – or grousing – and get out there and DO something!

Are you worried about creationism sneaking into the school science curriculum? Donate some science materials to your school, volunteer as an aid, offer to come in to show-and-tell with your telescope, give a lecture on the scientific method, or, if you can, run for your local school board.

Are you tired of being misrepresented in the news or in TV programs which are entirely one-sided in favor of a religious point of view? Write letters to the editor or producer, get your local meetup group to send a mass of letters, write opinion pieces for local papers or newsletters, or make story suggestions to local news personalities.

Do you have a skill or talent that might help? Write a blog, a song, a book , or an article; create a podcast, a short movie, or an online video; craft an atheist comedy routine and go to open mic night; become a motivational speaker and quest speak on a podcast or news program, if that’s how you roll!

If you don’t have the time to begin a project on your own, see how you can help someone else; offer your talents or at least your assistance to a local atheist or skeptic organization. And of course, never, ever cease writing to your local government representatives – remind them that you exist and that you vote.

There are unlimited ways that you and I can get involved. Even if you don’t have a lot of time, the occasional letter or donation can go a long way. To find out more, or for many, many other great ideas, visit some of our favorite secular and skeptical sources of information like those listed on the main page of this site; find out where you might best be able to help. And, of course, also take a peek at the inspiration for this piece, Daniel Loxton’s “What Do I Do Next?”.

It’s fine to keep on preaching to the choir – we love to hear from you, and we all need to vent from time to time – but, now what are you going to do about it?

No related posts.

Continue reading » No related posts.]]>

From the newest scientific discovery to the oldest email investment scam, we are pummeled every day with more information – make it bigger, now it’s better, get it faster, but wait, there’s more! With all of the garbage flying around, how do we figure out what’s real? How do we decide when our kids are really in danger, or if the new diet pill works, or if that talking head is really a doctor – and if she is a doctor, a doctor of what? Every day it becomes more important to be aware of in what and whom we invest our time, trust, and money.

The following is the first in a series of articles to help yourself or the ones you love learn how to think critically about everyday issues from email hoaxes to diet commercials.

Virtual Reality Check

Have you checked your junk mail folder lately? There are pills for what ails you, dating sites, and investment opportunities from dubious “princelings”. A quick search in Google shows a variety of estimates of the waste of fake email, from wasted electricity and bandwidth to actual cash loss of $10 billion or more, and estimates that junk email makes up anywhere from 60 to 95% of all email. Sure, we’ve mostly learned to avoid these internet annoyances and a good spam filter means we rarely have to see another ad for a Viagra knockoff, but what about our nearest and dearest – the best friend or dear sibling who sends those hilarious pictures and heart-warming tales? Are they secretly plotting to spam us too?

Well, probably not. Our loved ones have the best of intentions. They want to warn us of danger, help find a missing child, or let us know about the latest virus, whether electronic or biological. But all too often – and completely unintentionally – they are simply forwarding more junk mail. And for those few alerts that might have ever been real, most are out of date and have been circling around and around the internet for years.

How can you tell if an email is likely to be a hoax or a scam? Here are a few clues to watch out for, thanks to hoax-slayer.com and about.com:

1.    It asks you to forward the email to everyone you know.
2.    It doesn’t provide any sources or places to confirm the content.
3.    It is excessively emotional, littered with all caps, bold print and color; or, alternatively, uses very dense, technical language.
4.    It claims to reveal urgent or important information that you haven’t heard mentioned through any legitimate source of news.

Still, sometimes these messages just seem to ring true and it’s hard to tell if we should buy into the scare. Fortunately, there are a few places to check that specialize in researching internet and email hoaxes. They do the research so we don’t have to. (How do we know if we can trust these sources? Well, more on that a bit later, but the sites listed here are well-known and frequently recommended sources of information – that is, frequently recommended by legitimate news sources.) Here are a couple of my favorite hoax-busting websites:

• Snopes at www.snopes.com
• Hoaxbusters at www.hoaxbusters.org
• About.com at www.urbanlegends.about.com

These sites are easy to use and it only takes a few minutes to check out a suspicious email. Here’s an example of one that I did myself a couple of years ago. I had received an email from a concerned relative about a serial killer who was luring women to open their door late at night by playing the recording of a crying baby. The email urgently warned me to NEVER OPEN MY DOOR if I heard a CRYING BABY – NO MATTER WHAT!! It also encouraged me to send the email to every woman that I know. It had several of the hallmarks listed above such as the dramatic language, the use of all caps, and only vague information about the source. The email didn’t, for instance, even mention the geographical area that this supposed serial killer was operating in, as if the killer could strike one day in Texas and then appear at my own door in Florida on the next.

So, what do you do with an email like this? You want to be safe, but something just sounds fishy, or you want more information. Pick your favorite hoax checking website – at the time I went to Snopes.com. You’ll generally find a list of popular or recent hoaxes and urban legends on one side and a series of categories you can search in the middle of the page. There is also a large search box at the very top of the page. Take a key word or name from the email – in my case I entered “crying baby” and “murder” – then click the search button. A list of hits will come up on the next page. Mine was the first one on the list, an urban legend about a Baton Rogue serial killer who lured women into opening their doors by use of a baby’s cry on tape. It turns out that the tale was a couple of years old, from around 2003, had supposedly been related to the case of a real serial killer, but that no information about a crying baby had ever been brought up by the police or the media. Snopes listed the story as “false” and provided some background information on how they figured out that it wasn’t true, plus some information on old urban legends that were similar to this one.

So, before you hit that button to forward another Important Warning to your friends list, take a minute for a reality check and make sure that the information is real. Stop the spread of useless spam and save an electronic tree!

For more information on how to spot email fakes and other internet hoaxes, also check out www.hoax-slayer.com.

Article for next time: As Seen on TV!

No related posts.